UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Our future trading arrangements with our largest trading partner - and indeed the possibility of the UK being flooded by tariff free goods from around the world as WTO countries claim their right to the same "no tariffs" we offer the UK, is hardly a "spanner in the works".

British jobs are at risk.

The 'spanner in the works' is the attempt made by those stubborn remainers to thwart Brexit.

I don't buy your doom-laden views about a no-deal Brexit, which would free us from the sticky web of the EU. As has been pointed out before, there is the rest of the world to trade with. Many of these countries have more rapidly-growing GDPs than the EU.

We do not have to be flooded with tariff-free goods. We could apply quotas if supply exceeded demand.

Anyhow, it is pretty obvious to me that if we cannot secure a deal, we simply agree with the EU to set out how far we've got in our thinking about a trade deal and apply Article 24 of GATT. Given the EU's public declarations that they want a deal, I see no reason why that would be refused. It takes away the time pressure and we can forget the withdrawal agreement completely and just go straight into discussions about a trade agreement. Backstop issues disappear overnight.

---------- Post added at 20:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Only has to be “ in the form” of that example, not a replica of it.

Nice try, but I don't think those tactics would stand up in a court of law, particularly with the astounding judgements they seem to be coming to these days about all things Brexit.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Woooo, hoooo. ( lifts up imaginary skirt)

I’ll take no direction from a person that gets their legal advice from twitter thank you.

<snigger>

The twitter poster is a qualified barrister - the method of information is irrelevant, it’s the information that’s important.

The Supreme Court has a Twitter account - I suppose that invalidates its recent ruling on Prorogation?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The 'spanner in the works' is the attempt made by those stubborn remainers to thwart Brexit.

This is your claim - however it doesn't stand up. Labour, for instance, are committed to negotiating a deal to leave the EU.

I don't buy your doom-laden views about a no-deal Brexit, which would free us from the sticky web of the EU. As has been pointed out before, there is the rest of the world to trade with. Many of these countries have more rapidly-growing GDPs than the EU.

We do not have to be flooded with tariff-free goods. We could apply quotas if supply exceeded demand.

Anyhow, it is pretty obvious to me that if we cannot secure a deal, we simply agree with the EU to set out how far we've got in our thinking about a trade deal and apply Article 24 of GATT. Given the EU's public declarations that they want a deal, I see no reason why that would be refused. It takes away the time pressure and we can forget the withdrawal agreement completely and just go straight into discussions about a trade agreement. Backstop issues disappear overnight.

Nor do I buy your absolutely baseless claims about how good Brexit will be. Article 24 of GATT doesn't work - that's been disproven time and again. WTO terms mean we need to offer the rest of the world trade terms we offer the EU until we reach an agreement. That's at the absolute core of the WTO that trading terms cannot be discriminatory.

As soon as something is 'obvious to you' in this space it's immediately discredited to be honest.

The rest of the world may have more rapidly growing GDP but there's absolutely no guarantee that means anything positive for us, it's not clear what we have to offer these countries at all? A 20% drop in the value of the pound hasn't improved our exports - what tariffs will be removed that improves trade? With who? In what sector?

All unknown.

Originally Posted by Hugh

<snigger>

The twitter poster is a qualified barrister - the method of information is irrelevant, it’s the information that’s important.

The Supreme Court has a Twitter account - I suppose that invalidates its recent ruling on Ororogation?

On the contrary, the mode of any communication is an integral component of that communication and it is entirely fair to take it into account. A great many otherwise serious and thoughtful people have communicated frivolous, libellous, hate-filled or just plain boneheaded nonsense when presented with 280 characters, a send button and the prospect of instant adulation from thousands of “followers”.

Barristers have opinions; only those presented in court are tested, and then 50% of them are proven wrong.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

This is your claim - however it doesn't stand up. Labour, for instance, are committed to negotiating a deal to leave the EU.

That's what they say. But who believes them?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That's what they say. But who believes them?

Well we know for a fact Boris is lying.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

On the contrary, the mode of any communication is an integral component of that communication and it is entirely fair to take it into account. A great many otherwise serious and thoughtful people have communicated frivolous, libellous, hate-filled or just plain boneheaded nonsense when presented with 280 characters, a send button and the prospect of instant adulation from thousands of “followers”.

Barristers have opinions; only those presented in court are tested, and then 50% of them are proven wrong.

What a load of twaddle. He has an informed opinion and seem perfectly able to express it succinctly via social media.

I suspect it more a case of you not liking the opinion rather than the medium over which he expresses it.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

Well we know for a fact Boris is lying.

That is no doubt about that but he does have previous history as one knows...

Let's keep it civil please and discuss and debate.

Originally Posted by ianch99

What a load of twaddle. He has an informed opinion and seem perfectly able to express it succinctly via social media.

I suspect it more a case of you not liking the opinion rather than the medium over which he expresses it.

Of course I don’t like it ... but then you don’t like the contrary, do you.

Liking or not liking is besides the point anyway. The danger lies in uncritical acceptance of opinions we happen to agree with, regardless of how well informed they appear to be. Twitter as a medium is the ultimate echo chamber for the reinforcement of comforting points of view. The ability to instantly retweet, coupled with the prohibition on any significant critical engagement inherent in the character limit, ensures that it has little more intellectual credence than an internet meme, regardless of who is doing the tweeting.

There are legal opinions on both sides of any legal debate. At the end of the day one opinion is accepted and the other is rejected, or perhaps aspects of both are upheld. “Informed opinion” is not congruent with “correct”. There are informed opinions on both sides, both informed by a trained ability to assess relevant information, yet they are never both fully validated in the final judgment.

As things stand, the “secret barrister” has nothing more than a contested legal opinion, that cannot be properly evaluated until it is tested in court against contrary legal opinions. Everybody with multiple brain cells should dislike the tendency to assume (s)he is correct just because (s)he is a barrister.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Well we know for a fact Boris is lying.

About what?

[1andrew1]

interesting thought piece. I would have thought Boris's position is safe in the Party but an extension could play into the hands of Farage who could claim he's the only one who can carry out Brexit.

A Brexit extension could be just what Boris Johnson wants

An extension would destroy any remaining excuse for Mr Corbyn and the opposition parties not to acquiesce to an election (though there might still be some resistance). After that, Number 10 strategists think they will finally be able to go to the country, argue that they were made to extend, that the cost of not doing so would have been a Corbyn government and that if Mr Johnson is given the majority he so craves there will be no more extensions and the EU will have to deal with him without one hand tied behind his back.

He knows he can afford to do this in party terms because, unlike for Theresa May, there is no Brexiter king over the water to challenge his position. He is safe internally. But with the country, it is a riskier proposition. The force he continues to employ could generate an enormous backlash. Most people don't pay attention to daily events in politics but they do notice big moments, especially when they involve a politician's personal integrity or when a politician has pinned all to a certain issue or principle only to resile from it later: John Major never recovered from Britain falling out of the ERM, Tony Blair from WMD, Gordon Brown from the election that never was, Nick Clegg from tuition fees, and Theresa May from the first Brexit extension. It is possible that a second extension would similarly damn Mr Johnson: a million split-screen moments in which he said one thing but did another which shatter his reputation.

https://news.sky.com/story/a-brexit-...wants-11827675

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

About what?

Not asking for an extension. While simultaneously telling the court that he will. Both can’t be true.

Plus many others.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

Not asking for an extension. While simultaneously telling the court that he will. Both can’t be true.

Plus many others.

For those still clinging bravely on to a belief that Boris can do both, this snippet from the article I posted may be of interest:

In response, Downing Street hinted that it might withhold royal assent from the bill, precluding it from becoming law: it didn't. It hinted that Mr Johnson might disobey the law, before saying that he wouldn't. Then they said there were ways around it, loopholes to exploit and, if necessary, they would take it to the courts.

Reader, let me let you into a little secret: there isn't and they probably won't. The truth is that for all Downing Street's bluster, it has already, in the brief period since Mr Johnson entered Number 10, amassed quite the history of flirtation with constitutional cataclysm, only to never quite follow through.

https://news.sky.com/story/a-brexit-...wants-11827675

Originally Posted by Chris

On the contrary, the mode of any communication is an integral component of that communication and it is entirely fair to take it into account. A great many otherwise serious and thoughtful people have communicated frivolous, libellous, hate-filled or just plain boneheaded nonsense when presented with 280 characters, a send button and the prospect of instant adulation from thousands of “followers”.

Barristers have opinions; only those presented in court are tested, and then 50% of them are proven wrong.

Or...

It’s an attempt to provide evaluations based on information from an award winning legal blogger and Sunday Times best selling author who has decades of legal experience, rather than from a couple of randos with little, if any, practical formal knowledge of the law, on a forum (or an "unnamed senior source in No. 10 who has been found repeatedly to be wrong in legal matters around this subject before, as opposed to the barrister quoted).

You say "potato", I say "Marshall McLuhan"