Still relevant.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
Scoobes said:

I'm still not seeing how anything you suggested would put the ball back in the EU's court.

They would simply refuse until the UK came up with a suitable insurance policy or a genuine solution to the border issue that didn't break the GFA and international law (which is basically what the EU have been saying all along). The onus would be back on the UK as the party that decided to leave, and international law would be on the EU's side. What realistic alternative amendment to the backstop do you suggest the UK sends?

@ your last point (italics)

You don't see how Britain saying what they will accept and putting it in the EU's hands changes things?  This kinda shows how public perception can be warped.  It's basically the result of months in a row of the kind of rhetoric that we've been seeing in this thread which is because the ball has been in the UK's court this whole time.  The EU can "simply refuse" but the UK "can't say what they'll say yes to".  The EU "

Basically, you've all given a complete pass to the EU's intransigence.  May's accepted it and has corrupted the national dialogue by first signing the agreement that she knew couldn't pass, and then spending months as the de facto ambassador from the EU.

But, in the end, who is the one making a demand?  It's the EU!  They are demanding something from the UK that no country should ever relinquish.  Incidentally, they're also including a provision that makes the UK's bargaining position in the next round untenable ("agree to our terms or we'll impose the backstop").

Sorry, but from my view, it's the EU that has overextended itself.  It's the EU that is pushing them closer to a no deal solution where everyone loses.  All they have really won is in defining the terms in public perception.  That's not good enough for me.  May should never have told the country "It's my deal or no deal" and hardened the notion that it was the best deal they could get.  It's really her greatest failure of all.

It's not just the EU that holds all the cards. This is supposed to be the easy part with our nearest neighbors. How do you think we're going to get deals with other large nations when we've squandered trade with our nearest and largest allies?

Other nations aren't going to want to do trade with one of the largest economies in the world?  Why?

You didn't answer the question. What realistic alternative/amendment would you send back to them?

The UK (May) picked the UK's red lines knowing full well they weren't compatible with the UK's lawful commitments to the GFA. It's not EU intransigence to ensure international law and agreements are upheld. And as I said before, the backstop was the UK's idea, not the EU's. 

I agree with you on Theresa May though. Where we differ is whilst you blame the EU's intransigence, I put 95% of the blame squarely at May and the incompetence of our government. This whole process has been botched up since May got into power. I actually think she genuinely believed the the agreement would pass through parliament. She is just plain deluded. 

@final point

It's not that they won't want trade, it's that they'll hold far more power over us during negotiations as they'll be in trading blocks whilst we're a single Country. The EU negotiations have been proving this for the past 3 years let alone Liam Fox's sham of a department. They'll also still have all their own trade agreements already in place whilst the UK will have erected trade barriers with our closest partners at best and have close to 0 deals at worst. How desperate will the UK look at that point? How much actual sovereignty are you willing to give up for new trade deals?



NightlyPoe said:
JRPGfan said:


There needs to be regulation since the UK will have differnt rules & regluations than the EU.
As long as Ireland is part of the EU, there will need to be a boarder because of this.

No one is debating that's the issue.  Not sure what point you're even making.

Why do you think the Irish border has been an issue for brexit?



As far as I understand it the dispute about May's deal lies within how long the backstop scenario would last. The UK wants that the backstop has a fix time limit, the EU however says the backstop will be as long in place as long no acceptable solution, for both parties, for the Irish border is reached.
The reason why the EU has this demand is simple, Ireland. the irish government has a veto, every possible deal made between the UK and the EU has to be accepted by the irish government.
So what are the Irish so concerned about? In case the Backstop would end without a new deal in place, Ireland would have two options
a) a hard border between Ireland and the UK wich would be a direct violation of the good friday agreement. The don't want that.
Or b) no hard border between the UK and Ireland wich would lead to massive smuggling wich would than force the other EU members to control every good that comes from Ireland, this would factually put Ireland out of the single market. The Irish don't want that either because the single market is the biggest benefit of being a EU member.

So with what realistic solution other than May's deal could the UK come up to please the Irish?



MrWayne said:

As far as I understand it the dispute about May's deal lies within how long the backstop scenario would last. The UK wants that the backstop has a fix time limit, the EU however says the backstop will be as long in place as long no acceptable solution, for both parties, for the Irish border is reached.
The reason why the EU has this demand is simple, Ireland. the irish government has a veto, every possible deal made between the UK and the EU has to be accepted by the irish government.
So what are the Irish so concerned about? In case the Backstop would end without a new deal in place, Ireland would have two options
a) a hard border between Ireland and the UK wich would be a direct violation of the good friday agreement. The don't want that.
Or b) no hard border between the UK and Ireland wich would lead to massive smuggling wich would than force the other EU members to control every good that comes from Ireland, this would factually put Ireland out of the single market. The Irish don't want that either because the single market is the biggest benefit of being a EU member.

So with what realistic solution other than May's deal could the UK come up to please the Irish?

An Irish reunification vote... but that's very understandable why the UK doesn't want to hold one, as they would loose NI then - and could give the Scottish ideas. But it would solve the issue at hand, as there would be no need for a backstop anymore.



Around the Network
Scoobes said:

You didn't answer the question. What realistic alternative/amendment would you send back to them?

The UK (May) picked the UK's red lines knowing full well they weren't compatible with the UK's lawful commitments to the GFA. It's not EU intransigence to ensure international law and agreements are upheld. And as I said before, the backstop was the UK's idea, not the EU's. 

Can you provide a link for why you believe not having a backstop violates international law.  Because I'm not following the logic.

I think I've answered the question several times.  Remove the parts that are incompatible with UK sovereignty and vote on that.

It's not that they won't want trade, it's that they'll hold far more power over us during negotiations as they'll be in trading blocks whilst we're a single Country. The EU negotiations have been proving this for the past 3 years let alone Liam Fox's sham of a department. They'll also still have all their own trade agreements already in place whilst the UK will have erected trade barriers with our closest partners at best and have close to 0 deals at worst. How desperate will the UK look at that point?

Let's be honest, the snafus with the EU are almost entirely political.  If it were simply a matter of trade, the issues are manageable.  Yeah, there's a crap ton to negotiate, but nothing that can't be ironed out.  So that's a bad example.

The process would probably be different depending on which country.  As long as Trump's in office, we know a favorable deal with America is available at the very least.

How much actual sovereignty are you willing to give up for new trade deals?

Huh?



NightlyPoe said:
Scoobes said:

You didn't answer the question. What realistic alternative/amendment would you send back to them?

The UK (May) picked the UK's red lines knowing full well they weren't compatible with the UK's lawful commitments to the GFA. It's not EU intransigence to ensure international law and agreements are upheld. And as I said before, the backstop was the UK's idea, not the EU's. 

Can you provide a link for why you believe not having a backstop violates international law.  Because I'm not following the logic.

I think I've answered the question several times.  Remove the parts that are incompatible with UK sovereignty and vote on that.

It's not that they won't want trade, it's that they'll hold far more power over us during negotiations as they'll be in trading blocks whilst we're a single Country. The EU negotiations have been proving this for the past 3 years let alone Liam Fox's sham of a department. They'll also still have all their own trade agreements already in place whilst the UK will have erected trade barriers with our closest partners at best and have close to 0 deals at worst. How desperate will the UK look at that point?

Let's be honest, the snafus with the EU are almost entirely political.  If it were simply a matter of trade, the issues are manageable.  Yeah, there's a crap ton to negotiate, but nothing that can't be ironed out.  So that's a bad example.

The process would probably be different depending on which country.  As long as Trump's in office, we know a favorable deal with America is available at the very least.

How much actual sovereignty are you willing to give up for new trade deals?

Huh?

The backstop is meant to avoid a hard border in Ireland. Without the backstop there will be a hard border incoming, which would go against the Good Friday Agreement. Hence why Ireland is so adamant about it.

The backstop is a red line on both sides: It has to be in the deal for the EU, but can't be for the hardcore Brexiteers, as it has no time limit.

Here, the EU could actually make the UK a (poisoned) gift: Give the Backstop a time limit of several years. The catch? Northern Ireland voted to remain, and the remainers just grew larger and louder there. So it would be quite possible that NI would then call for a reunification poll within the Backstop time limit just to ensure staying in the EU. And if the mood is anywhere similar to what it is now, then they would win that vote, too.

@italic: Oh yeah, the deal will be favorable... but only for the US! Trump already said what the UK needs to do: Allow chlorinated chicken to be imported and privatize the NHS. Also, they could veto any other trade agreement, with China for example. Does that look like a fair deal to you? And what did you expect with America first?



Bofferbrauer2 said:

The UK lowering their trade barriers would:

a) kill the UK economy (that's the ugly truth; it would just be cheaper to import everything that produce anything in the UK anymore) and millions of jobs that way

The UK economy is already 80% services: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN02786

Most of those can't be imported, even in principle. You can't import a train journey, a meal at a restaurant, a monthly internet connection, or a cinema visit.

Obviously cheaper imports does cause damage in some industries. But you're ignoring the fact that it benefits us in other places. If you have more money left over from your food shopping or clothes shopping, you have more money to spend on other things. Which means other parts of the economy grow instead.

There are also quite a lot of businesses in the UK who'll use those cheaper products for their own business, which allows their own business to profit. This was a big deal with the tariffs Trump has pushed for in the US. Quite a few businesses (like Harley Davidson) started to suffer because the cheap foreign imports of steel was necessary to their own profits.



the_dark_lewd said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The UK lowering their trade barriers would:

a) kill the UK economy (that's the ugly truth; it would just be cheaper to import everything that produce anything in the UK anymore) and millions of jobs that way

The UK economy is already 80% services: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN02786

Most of those can't be imported, even in principle. You can't import a train journey, a meal at a restaurant, a monthly internet connection, or a cinema visit.

Obviously cheaper imports does cause damage in some industries. But you're ignoring the fact that it benefits us in other places. If you have more money left over from your food shopping or clothes shopping, you have more money to spend on other things. Which means other parts of the economy grow instead.

There are also quite a lot of businesses in the UK who'll use those cheaper products for their own business, which allows their own business to profit. This was a big deal with the tariffs Trump has pushed for in the US. Quite a few businesses (like Harley Davidson) started to suffer because the cheap foreign imports of steel was necessary to their own profits.

That doesn't matter What matters is what needs to be imported - which is practically everything people need in the UK: Food, consumer goods, et cetera. Also, keep in mind that those 80% services doesn't mean 80% of the employed people work in services. But more on that further down. 

As for your examples: You can't import a train journey, but the parts to repair the train if it breaks down. You can't import a restaurant meal, but the foods to prepare that meal are mostly imported already. You can't import an internet connection, but you need to import all the cables, transmitters, and so on to even have internet in the first place, and while you can't import a cinema visit, most movies are imported anyway. Producing mostly services doesn't mean that the UK doesn't need imports, quite the contrary in fact.

I agree that cheaper goods would allow for more money in the pockets (if the retailers drop the prices and don't pocket the earnings, but that's another discussion). However, if UK industries get forced out by cheaper competition, how many will loose their jobs? There could be millions of jobs at stake, directly or indirectly (without income no more spending on services, either). So both effects taken together would still result into a net loss for the UK economy and for it's inhabitants. Labor and LibDem will never allow a 0% WTO import rate in the UK due to this.

I know about the Trump tariffs, but there are none such in place in the EU as the tariffs in the EU are meant to protect local finished goods and foods production, not to punish importers of parts and intermediate goods producers.

By the way, you can check all the tariffs of the EU with other countries here: http://madb.europa.eu/madb/euTariffs.htm

It's a bit tedious to use (10 digit product codes), but you can see all the tariffs for products there. I tried a bit around with some agrarian and mineral products and found that minerals are mostly duty free for instance. Potatoes have a 3% tariff until they hit the quota of the country/region, at which point it rises to 9.60%. Beef (including Bison meat) is rather protected (12.60% + 177€/100kg), but Horsemeat is only 5%. Tropical fruits and their by-products are all duty free.

So yeah, May already said they will copy the schedules of the EU, so all the same tariffs and quotas would apply. These will naturally need to be adapted to UK needs



Bofferbrauer2 said:

The backstop is meant to avoid a hard border in Ireland. Without the backstop there will be a hard border incoming, which would go against the Good Friday Agreement. Hence why Ireland is so adamant about it.

That doesn't make the backstop legally mandated.  You've only reiterated the issue again.  I'm asking for a source that actually says that it's legally mandated for the backstop to be a part of this agreement.

Oh yeah, the deal will be favorable... but only for the US! Trump already said what the UK needs to do: Allow chlorinated chicken to be imported and privatize the NHS. Also, they could veto any other trade agreement, with China for example. Does that look like a fair deal to you? And what did you expect with America first?

That's certainly sensationalized.

In any case, I don't want to get into American politics, but Trump sees Brexit and his election as somewhat linked.  America first sometimes takes a backseat to Trump's interests first and Trump has an interest in portraying himself as assisting.