UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jouso**

Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
[
The answer not just "trade", it's how much of my trade vs how much of yours, and whose rules will it follow.

Just looking at the Canada trade agreement, for example EU companies can tender for public contracts in Canada, but not the other way around.

Those are merely the terms of the trade. The EU doesn't expect Canada to cede control of its borders, its police force, redesign its flag, or whatever. The point being that there is no extra 'give' beyond the trade itself. If the EU agrees to a free trade agreement with us, it is expected that we will agree to certain shared provisions and limitations. It is not expected that they will demand we get rid of the Queen, cede the Isle of Man, or pay the President of the EU a large cash sum every year.

The 'give' is the trade, the terms under which it will occur may be negotiable, but expecting us to 'give' other things as well is misunderstanding the basis upon which a free trade agreement is drawn up. As we already have unified standards in most regards, there's actually very little in the way of additional legislation, safeguards, and so forth required.

Then it's no true free trade.

No services, no free flow of capital, no passporting rights for financial companies, nationality requirements on bidding contracts, exemptions, exceptions or quotas on certain items....

**Ketara**

jouso wrote:
Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
[
The answer not just "trade", it's how much of my trade vs how much of yours, and whose rules will it follow.

Just looking at the Canada trade agreement, for example EU companies can tender for public contracts in Canada, but not the other way around.

Those are merely the terms of the trade. The EU doesn't expect Canada to cede control of its borders, its police force, redesign its flag, or whatever. The point being that there is no extra 'give' beyond the trade itself. If the EU agrees to a free trade agreement with us, it is expected that we will agree to certain shared provisions and limitations. It is not expected that they will demand we get rid of the Queen, cede the Isle of Man, or pay the President of the EU a large cash sum every year.

The 'give' is the trade, the terms under which it will occur may be negotiable, but expecting us to 'give' other things as well is misunderstanding the basis upon which a free trade agreement is drawn up. As we already have unified standards in most regards, there's actually very little in the way of additional legislation, safeguards, and so forth required.

Then it's no true free trade.

No services, no free flow of capital, no passporting rights for financial companies, nationality requirements on bidding contracts, exemptions, exceptions or quotas on certain items....

Alright. Let's flip it on its head. Where's the EU's give? Since according to this perspective the trade itself and the negotiations under which it will be held aren't part of the 'give', what is the EU offering us? Where is their 'give'? We should demand the return of Normandy, the subordination of the EoJ to Parliament, and exclusive fishing rights off the Spanish coast!

It doesn't work just one way y'know.

**jouso**

Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
[
The answer not just "trade", it's how much of my trade vs how much of yours, and whose rules will it follow.

Just looking at the Canada trade agreement, for example EU companies can tender for public contracts in Canada, but not the other way around.

Those are merely the terms of the trade. The EU doesn't expect Canada to cede control of its borders, its police force, redesign its flag, or whatever. The point being that there is no extra 'give' beyond the trade itself. If the EU agrees to a free trade agreement with us, it is expected that we will agree to certain shared provisions and limitations. It is not expected that they will demand we get rid of the Queen, cede the Isle of Man, or pay the President of the EU a large cash sum every year.

The 'give' is the trade, the terms under which it will occur may be negotiable, but expecting us to 'give' other things as well is misunderstanding the basis upon which a free trade agreement is drawn up. As we already have unified standards in most regards, there's actually very little in the way of additional legislation, safeguards, and so forth required.

Then it's no true free trade.

No services, no free flow of capital, no passporting rights for financial companies, nationality requirements on bidding contracts, exemptions, exceptions or quotas on certain items....

Alright. Let's flip it on its head. Where's the EU's give? Since according to this perspective the trade itself and the negotiations under which it will be held aren't part of the 'give', what is the EU offering us? Where is their 'give'? We should demand the return of Normandy, the subordination of the EoJ to Parliament, and exclusive fishing rights off the Spanish coast!

It doesn't work just one way y'know.

EU give is access to the largest single economic block in the world. That's why it gets to more often than not set the tone (if not outright dictate) the terms.

**Ketara**

Easier visa requirements are one thing, losing the ability to block visa issue is another. Paying into joint funds on a case by case basis depending on the agreement negotiated requiring them is one thing, writing a blank cheque each year is another.

The whole point is that in a trade agreement, each condition is agreed on a case by case, point by point, relevance to trade assessed basis. So you sit down for a few years, haggle, and go back and forth, and try and gain two commercial advantages for every one you cede. Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail. But pointedly ignoring Britain's entire trade position and demanding additional concessions unrelated to the trade involved on the basis that you are the EU and demand it shall be so doesn't work with sovereign powers. They wouldn't even consider saying such things in negotiations with Japan, and the only reason some are saying it now is because of a leftover mentality from past affairs.

**reds8n**

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/17/no-guarantee-of-help-for-disabled-passengers-says-southern?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook

Southern train. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images
Diane Taylor
Tuesday 17 January 2017 17.19 GMT Last modified on Tuesday 17 January 2017 20.52 GMT
View more sharing options
Shares
2,807
Southern rail users with disabilities face delayed journeys or the prospect of no longer being able to board some trains after the company said there was no “cast-iron guarantee” that assistance would be available at all stations.

Southern has admitted it may have to book taxis for disabled travellers who cannot complete their journey because the only member of staff on the train is the driver.

Previously there were 33 stations across the Southern rail network where passengers in need of assistance to get on or off the train could turn up and be guaranteed help.

Southern staff have held a series of strikes in recent months in protest at the replacement of conductors with onboard supervisors (OBSs).

Conductors are in charge of opening and closing doors on trains but OBSs are not. Under the old system both driver and conductor must be on board before the train can proceed; under the new system the train can proceed even if the OBS is absent.

Southern, which is owned by Govia Thameslink Railway, has said there will be a net increase of about 130 onboard staff under the new system.

But the right to guaranteed assistance has quietly disappeared. Previous train maps specified the stations where passengers needing assistance could turn up and travel. Now, the maps on the trains say that if such passengers do not book help in advance, “there might be a significant delay to your journey”.

A spokesman for GTR said: “It would be correct to say that there is no cast-iron guarantee that passengers with accessibility requirements can spontaneously board a train in the assumption there would be a second member of staff on board every train.

“On the rare occasion a train does run without an OBS, the process is to alert any customers on the platform (via announcement and use of the screens) to the fact that the next service does not have an OBS and for them to contact the team (help point of free phone number).

“The team will then provide the same guidance and options as a station team member to ensure they can complete their journey – from advice on when the next service with an OBS is due at the station through to book a free taxi for the passenger to continue their journey. This could be to end destination or to the nearest accessible station where boarding assistance can be provided.”

The change could mean significant delays to the journeys of disabled passengers and others needing assistance. And even disabled passengers who book assistance ahead of travelling cannot be guaranteed help.

The Paralympian Anne Wafula Strike, who this month told the Guardian of having had to wet herself on a train journey because there was no accessible toilet working, expressed concern about the changes.

“As disabled people, we also have a life. Some of us commute, have deadlines to meet and meetings to attend,” she said. “I am concerned that it is becoming more and more difficult for disabled people to have the same access to transport systems as able-bodied ones.

“Why should we as disabled people have to wait on a platform for another train because there is no second member of staff on a particular train, and why should we have to wait for a taxi partway through the train journey we have chosen to take?”

This month Sandra Nighy, a wheelchair user, said she had booked assistance to board a Southern train at West Worthing but was left stranded on the platform on 6 January. A GTR spokesman said the company was investigating.

In October the transport select committee said in a report: “We are concerned that no official impact assessment has been made of the potential effects of [driver-only operation] on disabled people’s access to the railway.”

A Department for Transport spokesman said: “We are determined that disabled people have the same access to public transport as non-disabled people, and that is why we have committed over £400m to improve accessibility at stations since 2010.”

Malcolm Chisholm, an OBS with Southern and an RMT union rep, said: “GTR’s modernisation plan offers at most a minimal improvement to reliability but will greatly disadvantage those requiring assistance to board services and will reduce the number of disabled customers using the service. This should be recognised by GTR as an unacceptable price for the introduction of their modernisation plans.”

The GTR spokesman said a team had been established to provide extra support to disabled passengers.

“It will only be in extreme circumstances where we run a train without a second person on board at short notice,” the spokesman added.

All those disabled people have had it good for too long as it is.

**Ketara**

Eurgh. The slashing of disabled support is the biggest reason to oppose Southern's cost cutting.

**Herzlos**

Ketara wrote:

I'm hearing the same calls again today though, which is revealing something of a fundamental disconnect on how the situation has now changed. The difference between then and now is that Britain is saying, 'I am a sovereign power once again, and will conduct negotiations according to that status'. It is not asking to be treated as a special snowflake yet remain part of the same intrinsic whole, it is rather asking to be treated entirely separately, like the USA, Canada, Japan, and so forth.

But it's still asking for a deal that is better than those from the USA, Canada, Japan and so forth. We're essentially asking for full EU membership, but with a different name and without the ECJ, free movement or the maintenance fees. If she'd said "We expect to mirror the Canadian deal" then that'd at least be realistic.

So the question isn't "what give are you providing to get the same deal as anyone else" but "Why should we give you a better deal than anyone else?"

I'm interested in how she plans to keep an open border in Ireland though, whilst still restricting movement out of the EU.

**Future War Cultist**

@ Ketara

That is very true. I wish mor people would realise this. We're no longer a member of the eu, one who's demanding special treatment that they can rightfully turn down. We're now a separate nation looking to do business. Just as the EU wouldn't demand that Japan or South Korea or Australia cede sovereign powers to their control, they shouldn't try it with us either. That's the EUs biggest problem; they're a bunch of control freaks.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Ketara

That is very true. I wish mor people would realise this. We're no longer a member of the eu, one who's demanding special treatment that they can rightfully turn down. We're now a separate nation looking to do business. Just as the EU wouldn't demand that Japan or South Korea or Australia cede sovereign powers to their control, they shouldn't try it with us either. That's the EUs biggest problem; they're a bunch of control freaks.

I hate to be pedantic

but legally, we're still EU members and will have to honour all obligations until we're out, which includes sorting out Farage's pension

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
Easier visa requirements are one thing, losing the ability to block visa issue is another. Paying into joint funds on a case by case basis depending on the agreement negotiated requiring them is one thing, writing a blank cheque each year is another.

The whole point is that in a trade agreement, each condition is agreed on a case by case, point by point, relevance to trade assessed basis. So you sit down for a few years, haggle, and go back and forth, and try and gain two commercial advantages for every one you cede. Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail. But pointedly ignoring Britain's entire trade position and demanding additional concessions unrelated to the trade involved on the basis that you are the EU and demand it shall be so doesn't work with sovereign powers. They wouldn't even consider saying such things in negotiations with Japan, and the only reason some are saying it now is because of a leftover mentality from past affairs.

That will happen when we do trade deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

but my big fear is a new trade deal with the USA.

They will lay down the law to us, and I worry that the Tories being Tories, will accept anything. TTIP lite.

We could end up gaining sovereignty from the EU, only to lose it in a one sided trade deal with the USA.

**Future War Cultist**

Well that's a negotiating point then. In the two years to do it we should work out what our future relationship with the eu will be with the understanding that we aren't members anymore and if they're not interested then WTO rules it is then.

**Herzlos**

Future War Cultist wrote:
That was out of line, I grant you that. But I don't think the big red bus won the election. I think people had largely made up their minds by the time it started. It was an issue that went back decades after all.

Bear in mind that the election was won on a 2% swing, so it's entirely possible that bus was enough to have done it. On another forum I'm on, there's on Brexiteer who mentions the £25m/day EU club fee on every other post.

Apparently, according to a poll in november, more Leavers regretted their vote than the leave margin won by, implying that if re-run, it'd be a remain: http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-vote-regret-leave-margin-victory-2016-10

Which makes me wonder if leaving is still the "right" or "democratic" thing to do. Would proper democracy allow the electorate to call backsies on a decision that they feel was the wrong one, before the damage was one?

I'm not sure what I'd have done, but since both sides and businesses want to maintain single market access, I'd have that as my number 1 priority.

In all honesty I'd probably open the issue up to debate in parliament and hope that the whole thing gets sunk there, citing that it was only an advisory referendum and being too close to view as a clear mandate, before retiring from the political scene as a multi-millionaire. The angry bigots are going to be angry either way.

**Ketara**

Herzlos wrote:

But it's still asking for a deal that is better than those from the USA, Canada, Japan and so forth. We're essentially asking for full EU membership, but with a different name and without the ECJ, free movement or the maintenance fees. If she'd said "We expect to mirror the Canadian deal" then that'd at least be realistic.

So the question isn't "what give are you providing to get the same deal as anyone else" but "Why should we give you a better deal than anyone else?"

I'm interested in how she plans to keep an open border in Ireland though, whilst still restricting movement out of the EU.

I think you've misunderstood what May meant. When she said that we weren't looking to emulate a previous trade agreement, she was saying that we're not looking to copy paste an existing agreement, but negotiate one from scratch custom made to all of our requirements. Which makes sense, we have different interests to Canada, and the EU wants different things from us. Agricultural concerns take more of a back seat for us!

What's more, most issues relating to trade agreements stem from differing levels of quality assurance, certification, and so forth. So in answer to 'What makes us different', the answer is 'We already conform to all EU expectations in that regard, and exceed them in many (see animal welfare for example)'. That should substantially speed things up.

In general though, I'm not sure how you demand full EU membership without name, when you're excluding the ECJ, the European Parliament, participation in most of their domestic programmes, freedom of movement, and many other things. That sounds a lot like 'Not wanting to be a EU member', period. Negotiating for one aspect of EU membership doesn't make us pseudo-EU members, any more than if we suddenly decided the only thing we wanted was participation in the EOJ instead of open trade.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That will happen when we do trade deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

but my big fear is a new trade deal with the USA.

They will lay down the law to us, and I worry that the Tories being Tories, will accept anything. TTIP lite.

We could end up gaining sovereignty from the EU, only to lose it in a one sided trade deal with the USA.

Possibly. But the grand thing about trade agreements is that they can be renegotiated in a decade. EU membership is like being swallowed by a large snake, the further in you go the harder it is to get out.

**Herzlos**

Ketara wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

It should never be a referendum issue as its too complicated for any individual, including me, to fully understand

You don't consider the 'The population should not be allowed to vote on anything we consider complex' position to be a dangerous one?

Isn't that why we elect professional representatives to do all of the research to act in our best interests?
I mean, ignoring the fact that they're a corrupt group of self-serving sociopaths.

**Ketara**

Herzlos wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

It should never be a referendum issue as its too complicated for any individual, including me, to fully understand

You don't consider the 'The population should not be allowed to vote on anything we consider complex' position to be a dangerous one?

Isn't that why we elect professional representatives to do all of the research to act in our best interests?
I mean, ignoring the fact that they're a corrupt group of self-serving sociopaths.

...you think MP's understand most of what they vote on?

We elect politicians because it diffuses power, but because we know someone has to run the bloody place. Self governing communes don't work above a few thousand people.

**SirDonlad**

jouso wrote:
Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
[
The answer not just "trade", it's how much of my trade vs how much of yours, and whose rules will it follow.

Just looking at the Canada trade agreement, for example EU companies can tender for public contracts in Canada, but not the other way around.

Those are merely the terms of the trade. The EU doesn't expect Canada to cede control of its borders, its police force, redesign its flag, or whatever. The point being that there is no extra 'give' beyond the trade itself. If the EU agrees to a free trade agreement with us, it is expected that we will agree to certain shared provisions and limitations. It is not expected that they will demand we get rid of the Queen, cede the Isle of Man, or pay the President of the EU a large cash sum every year.

The 'give' is the trade, the terms under which it will occur may be negotiable, but expecting us to 'give' other things as well is misunderstanding the basis upon which a free trade agreement is drawn up. As we already have unified standards in most regards, there's actually very little in the way of additional legislation, safeguards, and so forth required.

Then it's no true free trade.

No services, no free flow of capital, no passporting rights for financial companies, nationality requirements on bidding contracts, exemptions, exceptions or quotas on certain items....

Alright. Let's flip it on its head. Where's the EU's give? Since according to this perspective the trade itself and the negotiations under which it will be held aren't part of the 'give', what is the EU offering us? Where is their 'give'? We should demand the return of Normandy, the subordination of the EoJ to Parliament, and exclusive fishing rights off the Spanish coast!

It doesn't work just one way y'know.

EU give is access to the largest single economic block in the world. That's why it gets to more often than not set the tone (if not outright dictate) the terms.

The largest trading block left after britain has left the EU is the USA - and trump has made noises to the effect he wants a trade deal with the UK, so we'll actually be leaving the EU and maintaining access to the largest trading block in the world!
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/29/brexit-will-put-the-u-s-back-atop-the-world-gdp-rankings/

**Herzlos**

Ketara wrote:

I think you've misunderstood what May meant. When she said that we weren't looking to emulate a previous trade agreement, she was saying that we're not looking to copy paste an existing agreement, but negotiate one from scratch custom made to all of our requirements. Which makes sense, we have different interests to Canada, and the EU wants different things from us. Agricultural concerns take more of a back seat for us!

I think I just haven't expressed it very well. We're going to negoiate our own terms, which will result in a closer, better deal for us than Canada will get (ideally).

In general though, I'm not sure how you demand full EU membership without name, when you're excluding the ECJ, the European Parliament, participation in most of their domestic programmes, freedom of movement, and many other things. That sounds a lot like 'Not wanting to be a EU member', period. Negotiating for one aspect of EU membership doesn't make us pseudo-EU members, any more than if we suddenly decided the only thing we wanted was participation in the EOJ instead of open trade.

That's kind of my point; she wants only the bits of full EU membership she feels are good, and doesn't want the bad. She's already been told that an a la carte option is not available.

Possibly. But the grand thing about trade agreements is that they can be renegotiated in a decade. EU membership is like being swallowed by a large snake, the further in you go the harder it is to get out.

That's true, but they can also put in all sorts of hideous clauses that mean that whilst we could renegotiate in a decade, we'd potentially have to make huge severance payments to all of the companies that we'd disadvantage by no longer letting them run roughshod over us. Plus, if we've allowed private companies to dismantle the NHS within those 10 years, the damage may already be long done before we can get rid of them, and we can spend the next 50 years trying to undo it all.

We're much better not getting into an awful agreement in the first place, but I really doubt the US under Trump will offer us one that doesn't suck.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I would caution rushing into a new trade deal with the USA.

Yes, they are close friends and allies, and long may the friendship between our two nations continue,

but food standards and investor courts allowing corporations a free hand to sue the government, not to mention a possible carve up of the NHS, scares the hell out of me...

**Herzlos**

Ketara wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

It should never be a referendum issue as its too complicated for any individual, including me, to fully understand

You don't consider the 'The population should not be allowed to vote on anything we consider complex' position to be a dangerous one?

Isn't that why we elect professional representatives to do all of the research to act in our best interests?
I mean, ignoring the fact that they're a corrupt group of self-serving sociopaths.

...you think MP's understand most of what they vote on?

We elect politicians because it diffuses power, but because we know someone has to run the bloody place. Self governing communes don't work above a few thousand people.

Oh, I know they don't, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. That we elected incompetent, corrupt, self-serving sociopaths doesn't mean the idea isn't good, just that the execution is terrible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I would caution rushing into a new trade deal with the USA.

Yes, they are close friends and allies, and long may the friendship between our two nations continue,

but food standards and investor courts allowing corporations a free hand to sue the government, not to mention a possible carve up of the NHS, scares the hell out of me...

I don't think anyone can safely regard Trump as a friend or ally. I'm pretty sure he'd sell his mother if anyone was going offer him cash for her.

**Ketara**

Herzlos wrote:

That's kind of my point; she wants only the bits of full EU membership she feels are good, and doesn't want the bad. She's already been told that an a la carte option is not available.

That's the opening negotiating position. You always ask for more than you expect to get in any negotiation. I've no doubt it'll be whittled down and reified, much like CETA and every other agreement with the EU was. I expect whatever agreement we get will be better than CETA though, on the grounds that we already meet many criteria which were sticking points for CETA, and we're a much larger and more powerful economy on top.

So that's a second answer as to why we should expect a better deal than say, Nicaragua.

That's true, but they can also put in all sorts of hideous clauses that mean that whilst we could renegotiate in a decade, we'd potentially have to make huge severance payments to all of the companies that we'd disadvantage by no longer letting them run roughshod over us. Plus, if we've allowed private companies to dismantle the NHS within those 10 years, the damage may already be long done before we can get rid of them, and we can spend the next 50 years trying to undo it all.

We're much better not getting into an awful agreement in the first place, but I really doubt the US under Trump will offer us one that doesn't suck.

As I said earlier, the one wonderful thing is that most governments are incompetent. I fully expect we'll get nailed on some things, but they will on others. Hopefully it'll all even out.

**jouso**

SirDonlad wrote:
jouso wrote:
Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
[
The answer not just "trade", it's how much of my trade vs how much of yours, and whose rules will it follow.

Just looking at the Canada trade agreement, for example EU companies can tender for public contracts in Canada, but not the other way around.

Those are merely the terms of the trade. The EU doesn't expect Canada to cede control of its borders, its police force, redesign its flag, or whatever. The point being that there is no extra 'give' beyond the trade itself. If the EU agrees to a free trade agreement with us, it is expected that we will agree to certain shared provisions and limitations. It is not expected that they will demand we get rid of the Queen, cede the Isle of Man, or pay the President of the EU a large cash sum every year.

The 'give' is the trade, the terms under which it will occur may be negotiable, but expecting us to 'give' other things as well is misunderstanding the basis upon which a free trade agreement is drawn up. As we already have unified standards in most regards, there's actually very little in the way of additional legislation, safeguards, and so forth required.

Then it's no true free trade.

No services, no free flow of capital, no passporting rights for financial companies, nationality requirements on bidding contracts, exemptions, exceptions or quotas on certain items....

Alright. Let's flip it on its head. Where's the EU's give? Since according to this perspective the trade itself and the negotiations under which it will be held aren't part of the 'give', what is the EU offering us? Where is their 'give'? We should demand the return of Normandy, the subordination of the EoJ to Parliament, and exclusive fishing rights off the Spanish coast!

It doesn't work just one way y'know.

EU give is access to the largest single economic block in the world. That's why it gets to more often than not set the tone (if not outright dictate) the terms.

The largest trading block left after britain has left the EU is the USA - and trump has made noises to the effect he wants a trade deal with the UK, so we'll actually be leaving the EU and maintaining access to the largest trading block in the world!
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/29/brexit-will-put-the-u-s-back-atop-the-world-gdp-rankings/

Now that will be something to bring out the popcorn for.

If I were in Brussels I'll tell Mrs. May the EU is ready to sign whatever the UK signs with the US, on the very next day. Deal?

**SirDonlad**

jouso wrote:

Now that will be something to bring out the popcorn for.

Agreed!!

**notprop**

jouso wrote:
SirDonlad wrote:
jouso wrote:
Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:
[
The answer not just "trade", it's how much of my trade vs how much of yours, and whose rules will it follow.

Just looking at the Canada trade agreement, for example EU companies can tender for public contracts in Canada, but not the other way around.

Those are merely the terms of the trade. The EU doesn't expect Canada to cede control of its borders, its police force, redesign its flag, or whatever. The point being that there is no extra 'give' beyond the trade itself. If the EU agrees to a free trade agreement with us, it is expected that we will agree to certain shared provisions and limitations. It is not expected that they will demand we get rid of the Queen, cede the Isle of Man, or pay the President of the EU a large cash sum every year.

The 'give' is the trade, the terms under which it will occur may be negotiable, but expecting us to 'give' other things as well is misunderstanding the basis upon which a free trade agreement is drawn up. As we already have unified standards in most regards, there's actually very little in the way of additional legislation, safeguards, and so forth required.

Then it's no true free trade.

No services, no free flow of capital, no passporting rights for financial companies, nationality requirements on bidding contracts, exemptions, exceptions or quotas on certain items....

Alright. Let's flip it on its head. Where's the EU's give? Since according to this perspective the trade itself and the negotiations under which it will be held aren't part of the 'give', what is the EU offering us? Where is their 'give'? We should demand the return of Normandy, the subordination of the EoJ to Parliament, and exclusive fishing rights off the Spanish coast!

It doesn't work just one way y'know.

EU give is access to the largest single economic block in the world. That's why it gets to more often than not set the tone (if not outright dictate) the terms.

The largest trading block left after britain has left the EU is the USA - and trump has made noises to the effect he wants a trade deal with the UK, so we'll actually be leaving the EU and maintaining access to the largest trading block in the world!
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/29/brexit-will-put-the-u-s-back-atop-the-world-gdp-rankings/

Now that will be something to bring out the popcorn for.

If I were in Brussels I'll tell Mrs. May the EU is ready to sign whatever the UK signs with the US, on the very next day. Deal?

If you can swing it go for it. But even if the EU could you'd have to wait a few years while every parish council from Calais to Warsaw votes on it.

**reds8n**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I would caution rushing into a new trade deal with the USA.

Yes, they are close friends and allies, and long may the friendship between our two nations continue,

but food standards and investor courts allowing corporations a free hand to sue the government, not to mention a possible carve up of the NHS, scares the hell out of me...

I agree entirely.

Plus it might be a bit optimistic to think that a President who ran on a very protectionist platform is suddenly going to throw open the borders trade wise.

**jouso**

notprop wrote:

If you can swing it go for it. But even if the EU could you'd have to wait a few years while every parish council from Calais to Warsaw votes on it.

It's all about being sovereign, you know

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

reds8n wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I would caution rushing into a new trade deal with the USA.

Yes, they are close friends and allies, and long may the friendship between our two nations continue,

but food standards and investor courts allowing corporations a free hand to sue the government, not to mention a possible carve up of the NHS, scares the hell out of me...

I agree entirely.

Plus it might be a bit optimistic to think that a President who ran on a very protectionist platform is suddenly going to throw open the borders trade wise.

And he'll just rip us off.

Dodgy Business Con-man vs Incompetent Shower. It's a no contest, really.

**reds8n**

..well.. possibly.

I think some of the people involved are a bit smarter than some give'em credit for.

And I don't envy May at all here . I don't recall her campaigning as such or stridently -- which seems , career wise , to have been a wise choice perhaps -- but she was , broadly, in favour of remaining.

Will of the people and all that though eh ?

view from abroad :

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/01/the-european-media-largely-hated-theresa-mays-brexit-speech-and-that-is-a-problem-for-us/

I hope we can -- on both/all sides -- try to avoid using the various people who work abroad being used as pawns -- although one fears this will happen and will also be the source of some nasty comments and actions.

-- bit worried about the Premiership for example but my lovely Liverpool don't have too many European players IIRC and it might hurt Arsenal & Everton a bit too so there's always an upside

... it'c all going to come down to budget contributions isn't it ?

edit :

helpful as ever :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-french-president-francois-hollande-nazi-brexit-eu-a7532981.html

**notprop**

The Independent quote BJ very little and crank up their own implications allot. It could be a Japanese or Italian punishment beating just as much as a German one.

Daft reporting all in all.

BJ's message is clear though and one that has been oft reported for the last year; the application of tariff's is in no ones interest.

**Herzlos**

reds8n wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I would caution rushing into a new trade deal with the USA.

Yes, they are close friends and allies, and long may the friendship between our two nations continue,

but food standards and investor courts allowing corporations a free hand to sue the government, not to mention a possible carve up of the NHS, scares the hell out of me...

I agree entirely.

Plus it might be a bit optimistic to think that a President who ran on a very protectionist platform is suddenly going to throw open the borders trade wise.

To be fair, he never actually said the free trade would run in both directions. If he's threatening 35% import duty for German cars, we can expect the same for UK cars (of which they can't be importing may as it is?)

**reds8n**

notprop wrote:
The Independent quote BJ very little and crank up their own implications allot. It could be a Japanese or Italian punishment beating just as much as a German one. Daft reporting all in all.

BJ's message is clear though and one that has been oft reported for the last year; the application of tariff's is in no ones interest.

.... is Darius Guppy asking ?

Spoiler:

your taxes/representatives at work there.

**Yodhrin**

Ketara wrote:
Eurgh. The slashing of disabled support is the biggest reason to oppose Southern's cost cutting.

Don't worry, once the Tories get through with using Brexit as an excuse to complete the UK's transition into a low-wage tax haven with no real social security system, all the really disabled and mentally ill people will die off or commit suicide, so Southern's problem will solve itself.