Brexit - the next steps

[Jack Knave]

The rest of the world are going to trade with the UK on the UK's terms?

And the EU magically can't trade with them!

And that's ignoring that in terns of free movement of goods, the above is a non sequitur.

This is about the EU, Brussels' commission, setting the terms not the 27 members or not what they need especially the weaker members. We would agree the terms not the EU for us. Individual members can't do trade deals with the rest of the world, they are lumped with a compromise from Brussels that suits Germany and France and may be some other stronger members.

[Jack Knave]

But then because our goods are harmonized with their"s the regulations will continue to apply for those exports. Therefore in business terns, we will continue to apply them here because it keeps the harmonization.

Well done!!! And your point is, besides backing my argument?

[Nearly Sane]

This is about the EU, Brussels' commission, setting the terms not the 27 members or not what they need especially the weaker members. We would agree the terms not the EU for us. Individual members can't do trade deals with the rest of the world, they are lumped with a compromise from Brussels that suits Germany and France and may be some other stronger members.

Indeed but your post paints a false picture in presenting the deals as if they would be in UK terms not a compromise, ignores that the EU as a bigger trading bloc will be have more clout, and implied that it wouldn't be in any sense on EU terms. Note given other posts on freedom of movement and harmonization, it may be difficult for the UK to have deals that are not heavily influenced by the EU deals  with no input.

[Nearly Sane]

Well done!!! And your point is, besides backing my argument?

that the idea that we won't be bound by EU regulation that has been touted would be incorrect here. The regulations will continue to change and in order to maintain the access we will follow the regulation with no input.

[Jack Knave]

Indeed but your post paints a false picture in presenting the deals as if they would be in UK terms not a compromise, ignores that the EU as a bigger trading bloc will be have more clout, and implied that it wouldn't be in any sense on EU terms. Note given other posts on freedom of movement and harmonization, it may be difficult for the UK to have deals that are not heavily influenced by the EU deals  with no input.

As I said the UK would ratify the deals with other countries around the world for the UK, and not the EU as is at present. Yes, the EU has a lot of clout but that is to Germany's and France's advantage not to the weaker members of the EU therefore for them that clout is near to pointless and can be harmful.

Not sure what your last sentence means.

[Jack Knave]

that the idea that we won't be bound by EU regulation that has been touted would be incorrect here. The regulations will continue to change and in order to maintain the access we will follow the regulation with no input.

But that is true across the globe. They would have to adhere to our rules (and have no input) and we have to adhere to the US rules (and have no input) and so on. What is your point?

[Nearly Sane]

As I said the UK would ratify the deals with other countries around the world for the UK, and not the EU as is at present. Yes, the EU has a lot of clout but that is to Germany's and France's advantage not to the weaker members of the EU therefore for them that clout is near to pointless and can be harmful.

Not sure what your last sentence means.

No, you said that the deals would be in UK terms as if it wouldn't be a compromise.

The last sentence us that in maintaining the free movement of goods we will be subject to the regulations that are created and influenced by the EU trade deals with no input to them, which means that the trade deals we would make will be influenced by those decisions with no input from us.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is true across the globe. They would have to adhere to our rules (and have no input) and we have to adhere to the US rules (and have no input) and so on. What is your point?

This isn't comparing like against like. We don't have freedom if goods movement with the US. You have already stated that we will maintain the EU regs and, that we will have to follow new ones. This means we won't be able to introduce our regs because they will have to stay in line with the EU's as you have agreed.

[Jack Knave]

No, you said that the deals would be in UK terms as if it wouldn't be a compromise.

OK, but I thought what I said or meant was implicit in what I said due to the previous exchanges.

The last sentence us that in maintaining the free movement of goods we will be subject to the regulations that are created and influenced by the EU trade deals with no input to them, which means that the trade deals we would make will be influenced by those decisions with no input from us.

Still not totally clear here. We can go and buy elsewhere if need be if things get too costly. Or, the whole point of trade deals is to create bespoke deals that avoid the stricter stuff. It's a two way street you know.

[Jack Knave]

This isn't comparing like against like. We don't have freedom if goods movement with the US. You have already stated that we will maintain the EU regs and, that we will have to follow new ones. This means we won't be able to introduce our regs because they will have to stay in line with the EU's as you have agreed.

There's no present tense "we don't have...", this is theory or what could be arranged at a later date - what is possible. Our regs would govern the imports into the UK which the EU would have to abide by if they wanted to trade with us. It's a two way street!!!!

[Nearly Sane]

There's no present tense "we don't have...", this is theory or what could be arranged at a later date - what is possible. Our regs would govern the imports into the UK which the EU would have to abide by if they wanted to trade with us. It's a two way street!!!!

Then that's not harmonized and isn't the freedom of goods movement you were supporting earlier.

[Nearly Sane]

OK, but I thought what I said or meant was implicit in what I said due to the previous exchanges.

Still not totally clear here. We can go and buy elsewhere if need be if things get too costly. Or, the whole point of trade deals is to create bespoke deals that avoid the stricter stuff. It's a two way street you know.

Except to maintain the harmonization which you accepted gained us access to the free movement of goods, we will continue to follow those regs. Now yes, we could set up alternative production but given economies of scale, that us unlikely to be feasible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Simple formula for Brexit fairness.

Should Brexit fail Brexit voting areas get a cut in public funding.

Should Brexit bring untold riches or even break even (FAT CHANCE) then Brexit voting areas would receive more public funding than remain areas.

This should have been on the ballot paper IMHO.

Rich Brexiteers, say the southern self made, being honourable and charitable people would then support Brexit areas for instance sending money up north.....
everybody will burst into song and know the lyrics.......and pigs will fly happily in a cloudless sky.

[wigginhall]

I suspect that May will do a big smoke and mirrors job.   To satisfy the headbangers, there will be much talk of making our own rules, etc., but in trade terms,  EU trade regs will be accepted, so that trade is 'frictionless', and various sectors can send goods to the EU without paper documentation, avoiding long queues at borders.   Whether or not this will work, who knows.   The headbangers may become restive, and demand greater separation, and some EU politicians will see it as caving in.   

[wigginhall]

Plenty of talk of threats on security in the letter.  Basically, unless UK gets a good deal, we don't tell the French that IS are planning a big attack in Paris.  Pally, eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I notice that May had a dig at the scots by calling them the Scottish Nationalist Party.

Perhaps a fitting response might be to refer to ''The Conservatits''.

Where will it end? Watch out for May referring to the ''Scotch''.

[Nearly Sane]

My timeline elsewhere is filled with people bremoaning or in brextasy, I am reminded I haven't read A Tale of Two Cities in a while.

[wigginhall]

It looks as if the government is shifting from the hard Brexit position.   There is now talk of 'regulatory alignment', passporting for financial firms, and high immigration.   I suppose at first, May was protecting her back against the headbangers, who are talking of Empire 2.0, but now reality is setting in.     

The irony is, that it's probably not our choice, whether soft or hard Brexit.   I don't see how the EU can say, OK, you can still have all these benefits of the club, while leaving it.   No club can survive like that.   Still, Dacre and Murdoch can then blame the EU for their 'intransigence'.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Plenty of talk of threats on security in the letter.  Basically, unless UK gets a good deal, we don't tell the French that IS are planning a big attack in Paris.  Pally, eh?

Well at the risk of repeating myself, that Corbyn bloke only needs to sit on his hands and watch the Tory party implode, how long will it be before the Tory party starts to alienate all those wonderful Brexiters.

It will only take one terrorist attack here or on mainland Europe and one prick to say, Interpol knew or MI5 knew and the shit will really hit the fan.

Intelligence should never have been mentioned, May really is a silly Moo!!

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

that the idea that we won't be bound by EU regulation that has been touted would be incorrect here. The regulations will continue to change and in order to maintain the access we will follow the regulation with no input.

Nor that 'red tape' would decrease.

The reality is that the levels of red tape will either stay the same or increase. It will stay the same if we simply adopt all of the EU regulations into our own UK regulations. It will increase if we apply different rule to the EU, on the basis that companies will have to abide by EU rules when exporting to the EU and a further set of different rules for the UK market.

[Nearly Sane]

The newsthump on the 'letter'


http://newsthump.com/2017/03/30/nice-continent-you-have-there-shame-if-anything-were-to-happen-to-it-britain-tells-eu/


And a view from Germany


http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-1141119.html

[Jack Knave]

Then that's not harmonized and isn't the freedom of goods movement you were supporting earlier.

Depends how one reads harmonized.

[Jack Knave]

Except to maintain the harmonization which you accepted gained us access to the free movement of goods, we will continue to follow those regs. Now yes, we could set up alternative production but given economies of scale, that us unlikely to be feasible.

Companies do that all the time. We do trade with other parts of the world you know!

[Jack Knave]

Plenty of talk of threats on security in the letter.  Basically, unless UK gets a good deal, we don't tell the French that IS are planning a big attack in Paris.  Pally, eh?

What? The EU lot are nice people? Come on, all you have to do is look at Greece and the tariffs that have kept Africa etc. out of trading with the EU. They are a load of self centred prats.

[Nearly Sane]

Depends how one reads harmonized.

Following the regulations was what was specifically agreed by your posts  earlier,  do you have a new meaning?