Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Strokes

Getting brexit done!

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Hang on a minute, we are now being reminded the Supreme Court had already told us that Parliament is Sovereign in the matter of domestic law. We have Gina Miller to thank for that. No wonder that Gove is so bullish. 

 

You couldn't make this stuff up :crylaugh:

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that this is not a get out for breaching international law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that this is not a get out for breaching international law

I'm no expert either and really not clever enough to understand this. Looks like the lawyers will again be the winners if the EU go down the legal route. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think, if the EU had just met their obligations on agreeing a free trade deal and respecting British Sovereignty  like they agreed to in the WA, we wouldn't be in this mess.  Our media is so flippin anti Brexit we get endless ciriticism of our position, and sod all insight into the EU position.  Both sides are as bad as each other.

 

Edit.  I can see I might need to be a little less facetious here.  Both sides are stalling on movement on the fundamental points - which is classic EU tactics.  No doubt they don't like us not moving either - but the media covering it like all the games are on our side is really galling.  The key point is that the Withdrawal agreement is only really valid if we agree a free trade deal - no sense in paying the EU shed loads of cash if they expect us to accept worse terms than they have given to other countries.  We really aren't asking for the world here.

Edited by Jon the Hat
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Just think, if the EU had just met their obligations on agreeing a free trade deal and respecting British Sovereignty  like they agreed to in the WA, we wouldn't be in this mess.  Our media is so flippin anti Brexit we get endless ciriticism of our position, and sod all insight into the EU position.  Both sides are as bad as each other.

I'm sorry, how many of the leading print outlets in the country are anti Brexit? Three? Four?

 

And how many, most with larger readership, are certainly pro Brexit? Again, three or four?

 

There are a great many reasons this situation has come about: media scrutiny of the various positions (or lack thereof) isn't one of them IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, how many of the leading print outlets in the country are anti Brexit? Three? Four?

 

And how many, most with larger readership, are certainly pro Brexit? Again, three or four?

 

There are a great many reasons this situation has come about: media scrutiny of the various positions (or lack thereof) isn't one of them IMO.

Print?  Really?  What about the television and online news media where most people actually get their news?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Print?  Really?  What about the television and online news media where most people actually get their news?

True enough, good to ask.

 

Off the top of my head I'd say TV news has at least a slight anti Brexit slant based on popular sources and viewership of those sources, and the most viewed online sources are very much a mixed bag (Daily Mail being up there with Huffington Post, for instance). So, again, I don't see media scrutiny being a pertinent issue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK has struck its first major post-Brexit trade deal after signing an agreement in principle with Japan which aims to boost trade by about £15bn.

International Trade Secretary Liz Truss said it was an "historic moment".

She said it would bring "new wins" for British businesses in manufacturing, food and drink, and tech industries.

Critics said while the deal may be of symbolic importance it would boost UK GDP by only 0.07%, a fraction of the trade that could be lost with the EU.

Friday's deal still needs approval by Japan's parliament. Trade representatives there forecast the agreement should get clearance by January.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54116606

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Fair! Who said anything about fair? What about the food supply issue to NI which the EU negotiators are still using as leverage?

 

Both sides are using various things as leverage (tariff/non-tariff barriers, fishing access, state aid rules etc.). That's the nature of negotiations - both sides use strengths & weaknesses to get the best possible deal for their side.

 

The broad system specific to NI was signed into law in the Withdrawal Agreement, though detailed rules/procedures are still to be confirmed. But the WA settled that those rules/procedures would be finalised by a joint EU-UK committee.

Maybe the EU are using those outstanding rules/procedures as leverage, I don't know. But, if so, the UK is going a step further and seeking to break international law by ignoring the agreed committee system & making unilateral changes (e.g. unilaterally deciding which GB->NI trade is at risk of ending up in the RoI).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

The UK has struck its first major post-Brexit trade deal after signing an agreement in principle with Japan which aims to boost trade by about £15bn.

International Trade Secretary Liz Truss said it was an "historic moment".

She said it would bring "new wins" for British businesses in manufacturing, food and drink, and tech industries.

Critics said while the deal may be of symbolic importance it would boost UK GDP by only 0.07%, a fraction of the trade that could be lost with the EU.

Friday's deal still needs approval by Japan's parliament. Trade representatives there forecast the agreement should get clearance by January.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54116606

 

Good news to an extent, but reports suggest that - at the very best - this deal will only replicate the EU-Japan trade deal we're leaving, and it might not even do that.

 

It seems there's a particular issue over tariff-rate quotas for agricultural exports, according to the FT: https://www.ft.com/content/1cb01980-ee86-4283-b25a-528c5b3b1807 .

 

"One of the biggest sticking points was so-called tariff rate quotas in agriculture, which let European farmers export a limited amount of sensitive foodstuffs to Japan at a lower tariff. Tokyo argued that it was up to London to argue with Brussels for a share of the existing quota and it could not offer more. The deal on agriculture may not become clear until a legal text is agreed and published, which is likely to take several weeks".

 

The really important trade deals, though, would be with the EU and the USA, neither of which are looking promising - and our threat to rewrite parts of the WA could completely torpedo any chance of a UK-US deal, it seems, due to the Irish-American vote and potential blocking in Congress. I suppose we could somehow do a deal with China.....but that looks even less promising, given diplomatic relations over Hong Kong. :whistle:

 

We have done a few other trade deals, but none of truly major importance......Switzerland, S. Korea and Israel were the biggest that I can recall.....and all of those were just replicating the terms of EU trade deals, not improving them, I think.

Overall, it seems we're heading for Brexit on WTO terms.....and trading terms that are the same as before with some countries, worse with a few - and definitely worse with the EU (the destination for almost half our exports).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Both sides are using various things as leverage (tariff/non-tariff barriers, fishing access, state aid rules etc.). That's the nature of negotiations - both sides use strengths & weaknesses to get the best possible deal for their side.

 

The broad system specific to NI was signed into law in the Withdrawal Agreement, though detailed rules/procedures are still to be confirmed. But the WA settled that those rules/procedures would be finalised by a joint EU-UK committee.

Maybe the EU are using those outstanding rules/procedures as leverage, I don't know. But, if so, the UK is going a step further and seeking to break international law by ignoring the agreed committee system & making unilateral changes (e.g. unilaterally deciding which GB->NI trade is at risk of ending up in the RoI).

International Law is governed by consent, isn't it? Unless the UN get involved. What can the EU do other than exert diplomatic pressure or impose sanctions (unless they want a fight). 

 

Reputational damage seems to be the worst effect but its never bothered other countries, especially the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spudulike said:

International Law is governed by consent, isn't it? Unless the UN get involved. What can the EU do other than exert diplomatic pressure or impose sanctions (unless they want a fight). 

 

Reputational damage seems to be the worst effect but its never bothered other countries, especially the US. 

 

I'm not knowledgeable about international law, so don't understand what the legal implications might be.

 

But, just for starters, influential US politicians like Pelosi have made clear there'll be no UK-US trade detail if we persist in trying to unilaterally rewrite parts of the treaty we signed.

And the EU is more powerful economically and politically than the UK alone.

 

Reputational damage matters less when you're a superpower like the US. We're not a superpower. 

We're at a stage where we're looking to sign new international agreements......other nations will surely be less likely to sign agreement with us if we're known as a nation that doesn't abide by agreements?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

International Law is governed by consent, isn't it? Unless the UN get involved. What can the EU do other than exert diplomatic pressure or impose sanctions (unless they want a fight). 

 

Reputational damage seems to be the worst effect but its never bothered other countries, especially the US. 

This is the point I made earlier downstream (though Kopf did make a point that none of the big players look to flout international law as egregiously as the UK are attempting to here).

 

The international community doesn't actually have much in the way of teeth to really enforce laws on bigger players (and the UK is still one of those comparatively) and until that changes, nation states will continue to only follow such laws when it suits them. 

 

That's not as good a thing for the future as some people might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not knowledgeable about international law, so don't understand what the legal implications might be.

 

But, just for starters, influential US politicians like Pelosi have made clear there'll be no UK-US trade detail if we persist in trying to unilaterally rewrite parts of the treaty we signed.

And the EU is more powerful economically and politically than the UK alone.

 

Reputational damage matters less when you're a superpower like the US. We're not a superpower. 

We're at a stage where we're looking to sign new international agreements......other nations will surely be less likely to sign agreement with us if we're known as a nation that doesn't abide by agreements?

Japan don't seem too bothered. Remains to be seen what others think. 

 

Pelosi  :D She seems to think the UK are tearing up the 1997 Good Friday Agreement. For her to stand there accusing the UK of breaking International Law given the US history is staggering. Someone needs to have a word with her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Japan don't seem too bothered. Remains to be seen what others think. 

 

Pelosi  :D She seems to think the UK are tearing up the 1997 Good Friday Agreement. For her to stand there accusing the UK of breaking International Law given the US history is staggering. Someone needs to have a word with her. 

 

The Japan deal had been under negotiation for months, is more beneficial to Japan than to the UK (we have a trade deficit with Japan) and basically mirrors the Japan-EU deal (possibly slightly worse - to be confirmed).

 

You're entitled to your view of the US track record and of Pelosi, but the US is our main hope for a deal apart from the EU - and she's the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives, which has the power to block any trade deal.

Even some Republicans oppose UK unilateral action on the WA - not least as the Irish-American vote is massive (about 50m Americans have Irish ancestors, I think, from memory).

Of course, the Democrats might lose control of the House of Representatives in the forthcoming elections.....but it's not looking likely just now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The Japan deal had been under negotiation for months, is more beneficial to Japan than to the UK (we have a trade deficit with Japan) and basically mirrors the Japan-EU deal (possibly slightly worse - to be confirmed).

 

You're entitled to your view of the US track record and of Pelosi, but the US is our main hope for a deal apart from the EU - and she's the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives, which has the power to block any trade deal.

Even some Republicans oppose UK unilateral action on the WA - not least as the Irish-American vote is massive (about 50m Americans have Irish ancestors, I think, from memory).

Of course, the Democrats might lose control of the House of Representatives in the forthcoming elections.....but it's not looking likely just now.

And if this does happen (yeah, it's really unlikely btw) then any deal with a Trump run Repub administration is going to be incredibly lopsided in their favour (America First, after all), so the UK negotiators would have their work cut out there too. Difficult either way, it seems right now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The Japan deal had been under negotiation for months, is more beneficial to Japan than to the UK (we have a trade deficit with Japan) and basically mirrors the Japan-EU deal (possibly slightly worse - to be confirmed).

Why does the UK having a trade deficit with Japan make the deal more beneficial for Japan? There's two problems with that. It assumes that a trade deal automatically favours the side that already exports more than it imports and it assumes that a trade deficit isn't beneficial in itself. 

 

Also I'd add that it shows a lot about mentality that it's assumed it can only be worse than the Japan-EU deal. You've only quoted chat about agriculture from the FT, but seemingly both that and you have failed to consider there could be upsides elsewhere. 

Edited by Kopfkino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...