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.
They let the likes of Mandleson in...
I don,t think the standards are quite the paragons of virtue anymore.
For all his faults, Mandleson actually succeeded in being elected as an MP and was also EU Commissioner for Trade. He is certainly more qualified to be a member of the House of Lords than Farage who has held one elected post (MEP) and barely ever turned up to take part in his job unless he felt like making an idiotic speech.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
They let the likes of Mandleson in...
I don,t think the standards are quite the paragons of virtue anymore.
For all his faults, Mandleson actually succeeded in being elected as an MP and was also EU Commissioner for Trade. He is certainly more qualified to be a member of the House of Lords than Farage who has held one elected post (MEP) and barely ever turned up to take part in his job unless he felt like making an idiotic speech.
Maybe qualified. But his reputation is hardly one as a honest, principled and such man.
Farage for his ills, also does in away represent a certain section of people in this countries view however too.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
They let the likes of Mandleson in...
I don,t think the standards are quite the paragons of virtue anymore.
For all his faults, Mandleson actually succeeded in being elected as an MP and was also EU Commissioner for Trade. He is certainly more qualified to be a member of the House of Lords than Farage who has held one elected post (MEP) and barely ever turned up to take part in his job unless he felt like making an idiotic speech.
Maybe qualified. But his reputation is hardly one as a honest, principled and such man.
Farage for his ills, also does in away represent a certain section of people in this countries view however too.
The point is, while both men are dishonest, unprincipled men, Mandleson actually carried out his duties as a pubic servant.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I used to be dead set against the Lords (when I was a teenager/early twenties) and favoured abolition and replacement with an elected chamber.
I changed my mind when they blocked all of the draconian legislation that Blair tried to push through; I realised that having a parliamentary house that is NOT full of slime balls beholden to the tabloid media in order to get elected is quite a useful thing.
I would propose that the last few remaining hereditary peers are abolished, plus get rid of the bishops (or include leaders of other faiths on a proportional basis) and then remove the proposal of new members from the political parties. Having senior diplomats, business leaders and other people who have actually proved themselves in the real world is a good thing, but we need to get rid of it being a reward for supporting a particular party.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
Both make good sense. A chamber with mixed skills from business, to industry, doctors, law experts and more.
I think faiths should be in there too, providing a broad range of experience including maybe police, Military former commanders.
A broad basis in many issues that can see a wide range of view points.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Their democratically elected MP's ARE their influence in the halls of government. That's the point of them. You can't have a Parliament with 70 million people in it, so we elect people to do things on our behalf. They represent the influence of the 'working people', as you put it. Certainly, they do it far better than a bunch of unelected Marxists in the employ of a foreign Government.
Unless you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that the likes of Arthur Scargill (the unelected bloke who was very happily lining his own nest with money from the SU and Libya) or Jack Jones (who swapped internal Labour files for cash from the KGB) better represented the democratic will of the people than their own MP's?
There's a serious argument to be made that our MP's aren't susceptible enough to pressure from their constituents. That argument is not best made by pointing at Unions of the 1970's and '80's as an alternative though.
I'm well aware how representative democracy work. What I'm pointing out is that you seem to have no problem when unelected rich and powerful people control and influence the government, but balk when working people organize to do it.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
I have to say I have had similar ideas; a federalised UK with national parliaments for internal affairs and then two, smaller, houses at Westminster to deal with foreign policy, defence and other high level issues.
The one interesting variant on that I have heard is rather than a domineering English parliament is to have several regional parliaments covering similar populations to Scotland, Wales and NI. The article I saw suggested using the old Saxon kingdoms, plus London (as it is now so much bigger).
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Certainly such characters might be nominated, but they aren't real people so they couldn't be elected.
I think there would be a certain amount of frivolity at first however most people are pretty serious about how they want the country to be governed. Things would settle down and sensible popular nominations would be made.
Trump is President. This is a very different position to an elected "People's Lord" who individually in my scheme would comprise about 1% of the total number of elected seats in the Parliament as a whole. I envisage the Commons and New Lords being the same size.
If Farage could get enough votes he could be nominated. I don't see a problem with that. It isn't a position for life and doesn't carry a patent of nobility from the Queen and so on.
I'm well aware how representative democracy work. What I'm pointing out is that you seem to have no problem when unelected rich and powerful people control and influence the government,
I don't? I'd appreciate a quote showing where I said those words. Because if I had, I'm pretty sure that a lot of other people would have jumped on it by now.
but balk when working people organize to do it.
Such as? You're being very oblique here. Either clearly state what you're trying to imply (likely that Union officials of the 70's in some way represented the 'working people' more democratically than their MP's), or leave it alone.
My idea is "The Peoples' Lords". This would be a senior house containing a mixture of members elected by proportional representation from lists put forwards by the various parties, .
I largely agree on this. A Lords made up of doctors, teachers, police, soldiers, businessmen, scientists, and so on would be a real democratic upper body. As opposed to being occupied by whoever chucked the latest establishment spivs a large cheque and the descendants of people who made their money exploiting everyone else.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/05 13:25:44
Great. This is part of why we have high employment.
But if it continues nous serons emmerdés.
Using your French while you're still part of the EU, eh? Not sure if you'll have that luxury post-Brexit.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
BaronIveagh wrote: You'd have Lord Trump in the very first vote, and the abyss yawns below you from there.
More like Corbyn.
Corbyn is our version of Trump.
You keep saying that, but I really don't see it. How is Corbyn in any way near as bad as Trump?
Did I say that?
He's our version of Trump in that he's a reactionary populist. Doesn't mean he's "as bad as Trump", just that he's performing a similar role.
No Corbyn is our version of Bernie Sanders. Corbyn has held his the same belief for many years before it grabbed a significant fraction of the populations imagination (which for a large part can be put down to people getting frustrated that the people that got us into this awful mess don't have to pick up the pieces and pay for it). Boris and Farage are our version of Trump as they speak what they think is popular at the time and are quite happy to change if the population's view changes. They tell people what they want to hear in simple soundbites (immigration/EU is the problem of all our woes etc). Rest assured when things go down the pan they will still be blaming someone else that the populace believe incorrectly is at fault.
Great. This is part of why we have high employment.
But if it continues nous serons emmerdés.
Using your French while you're still part of the EU, eh? Not sure if you'll have that luxury post-Brexit.
There will be witch hunts in the street if used in the open....
Seriously though what it shows is that our production has stagnated since the crash. Regardless of the employment levels we are still just employing more people to do the same amount of work. Given that many are now in part time or zero hour contracts you can argue that all businesses have done (generally) is exploit the work force for the same output. I'd always be interested to see the statistics in actual FTE hours worked by the country rather than the raw employment figures.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/05 18:59:47
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Great. This is part of why we have high employment.
But if it continues nous serons emmerdés.
So I take it it might be a good time to invest in diapers?
This ain't the 51st state yet. The correct word is nappy
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
jhe90 wrote: Both make good sense. A chamber with mixed skills from business, to industry, doctors, law experts and more.
I think faiths should be in there too, providing a broad range of experience including maybe police, Military former commanders.
A broad basis in many issues that can see a wide range of view points.
Sounds good to me! Just as long as they don't overdo it. Like I said, 800 is excessive.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
I have to say I have had similar ideas; a federalised UK with national parliaments for internal affairs and then two, smaller, houses at Westminster to deal with foreign policy, defence and other high level issues.
The one interesting variant on that I have heard is rather than a domineering English parliament is to have several regional parliaments covering similar populations to Scotland, Wales and NI. The article I saw suggested using the old Saxon kingdoms, plus London (as it is now so much bigger).
Good idea. Bring back the ol' Heptarchy with London added on top. The only issue is, I think there's some English people who aren't keen on 'breaking up' the country, even if it's not really breaking it up per say. I can understand their concern.
Rather interesting article from Richard Aboulafia on Brexit, economic nationalism, and its effect on aviation:
Dear Fellow Le Bourget Melted Tarmac Connoisseurs,
Spexit. I didn’t invent this funny word; it currently gets 49,100 Google hits, and refers to a Spanish EU exit. It’s not a popular idea. Even in Catalonia, where I am now, where just under half the population is pro-independence, open borders and the EU are still hugely popular. This is because the idea of economic nationalism is discredited here. The last guy who promised to Make Spain Great Again died 40 years ago. Spain was stagnant under Franco; even when the economy was okay it was a sluggish, inbred society. The local aerospace industry reflected this stagnation. As the UK confronts Brexit, it might want to reflect upon Spain’s experience.
I first visited Spain thirtysomething years ago, and the country was still afflicted with the dismal echoes of Francoist autarky. There wasn’t much innovation, since out-of-box thinkers were routinely exiled, or shot. The military was just beginning to figure out that the enemy was located outside the country, not inside it. The country’s aerospace industry was focused on building aircraft for national requirements. It seldom worked with global partners, and seldom built anything exportable. CASA’s corporate history, a lovely two-volume cloth-bound set, shows little work of lasting value being done by the company before the 1980s.
After Franco began his valiant struggle to remain dead (per 1975 Saturday Night Live), Spain opened up. So did its aero industry. CASA partnered with other companies in other countries, took more risk-sharing partnerships, and ultimately was absorbed by Airbus. Aernnova emerged as a noteworthy structures firm. ITP emerged as a global engine partner company, to be acquired by Rolls-Royce. Spain’s A400M and Eurofighter assembly lines may be the last of their kind.
Today, Spain produces many important composite structures, systems, and turbine components, but almost all for global customers. This isn’t the same as producing planes under license or building small props for local use, but it is generally profitable. Much of the country’s economy has morphed along similar lines; SEAT, for example, was like CASA for cars, and like CASA it is now owned by a global company (Volkswagen). That’s why nobody takes Spexit seriously. It was already tried under Franco, and it was dumb.
The UK is a different story. The Brexiteers promised to Make Britain Great Again. They won. And from an aerospace perspective, that’s intriguing, because unlike Spain, the UK’s aerospace industry has a truly glorious past. But it was seldom, if ever, a profitable past.
Worse, the UK Government shows no signs of funding or supporting a return to this past. The RAF’s F-35s are coming from a foreign line, with Pratt engines and no plans to restore UK fighter sovereignty. In fact, right after the Brexit vote, at Farnborough last year, the government announced big plans to buy AH-64Es and P-8s from Boeing, but with nothing for UK industry. The original Apache buy came with mandated local production by Westland (Leonardo today) and Rolls-Royce engines. This time, Boeing will rebuild the helicopters, and they will use GE engines. Similarly, the P-8 buy comes with no local content (other than what’s baselined on all P-8s). Britain’s long history of building maritime patrol aircraft – Shackletons and Nimrods in the post-War era – has conclusively ended.
Without a back-to-the-future plan, the UK aerospace industry will stay on its current path: as globalized as Spain’s, only much larger and more important (to the UK economy and to the world). All Airbus wings – over 1,200 per year – are produced in Britain, with their parts imported from all over the world. Some 90% of GKN’s business is outside the UK, with a similar percentage for Rolls-Royce and other UK firms. So, the future of UK industry depends on the terms of Brexit.
Yet the road to Brexit is not starting well. This month’s election produced comically disastrous results for Prime Minister Theresa May, who somehow managed to make opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn look like a serious person, which he isn’t. A weakened May still insists that “Brexit means Brexit” but seems to have no idea about how to handle the upcoming negotiations with the EU. They have two years (from March) to come to an agreement, and the EU has every incentive to make this painful to the UK, as a cautionary lesson for other would-be EU exiters.
The default outcome of these negotiations is no deal, or a hard Brexit. The UK would need to negotiate its own trade agreements, quickly, and hope that the EU would be generous with them. Without new agreements, all those aero components coming in to the UK could be inspected and taxed. All those UK wings and engines going out of the UK could be inspected and taxed. Engineers and workers crossing borders could need new professional certifications, work visas, and be subject to income taxes.
That’s just the start of it. Pan-European technology development funds would dry up. Air access agreements would need re-negotiation. The age of pan-European programs will likely come to an end, since Germany would be unlikely to work on future European military aircraft without UK involvement. Notably, in May Germany requested its first classified F-35 briefing. This month, El País reported that Spain will likely follow them.
The rest of the world seems to be slowly backing away from closed borders. The Trump administration has reversed every single daft Make America Great Again anti-trade idea it ever proposed, particularly the ghastly Border Adjustment Tax (more at tinyurl.com/yb52qqfa). France’s Emmanuel Macron campaigned and won in May on a globalization agenda. Germany’s Angela Merkel and Canada’s Justin Trudeau are proving able champions for the cause too. Only Theresa May’s Britain is still eagerly paddling towards the economic nationalism waterfall.
Almost everyone in Spain knows that Spanish aerospace can’t go back to the old days. I’m not completely sure that everyone in the UK, particularly in government, has quite absorbed that lesson. It is highly unlikely that a hard Brexit will be an extinction-level event for UK aerospace. But it’s deeply unpleasant to watch them take that chance.
June Aircraft Binder updates include the F-35, V-22, and 737/P-8 reports, and the Regional Aircraft overview. There’s a new Cirrus Vision Jet report too. Have a great month.
Yours, ‘Til A Brexited Westland Helicopters Creates Another 1980s-Type UK Political Crisis,
Richard Aboulafia
I would propose that the last few remaining hereditary peers are abolished, plus get rid of the bishops (or include leaders of other faiths on a proportional basis[i]) and then remove the proposal of new members from the political parties.
That'd be tremendous fun just for the right tearing itself inside out at the number of Muslim representatives (though I'm not sure how you'd select them since they don't have a hierarchical structure of celebrants).
jhe90 wrote: Both make good sense. A chamber with mixed skills from business, to industry, doctors, law experts and more.
I think faiths should be in there too, providing a broad range of experience including maybe police, Military former commanders.
A broad basis in many issues that can see a wide range of view points.
Sounds good to me! Just as long as they don't overdo it. Like I said, 800 is excessive.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
I have to say I have had similar ideas; a federalised UK with national parliaments for internal affairs and then two, smaller, houses at Westminster to deal with foreign policy, defence and other high level issues.
The one interesting variant on that I have heard is rather than a domineering English parliament is to have several regional parliaments covering similar populations to Scotland, Wales and NI. The article I saw suggested using the old Saxon kingdoms, plus London (as it is now so much bigger).
Good idea. Bring back the ol' Heptarchy with London added on top. The only issue is, I think there's some English people who aren't keen on 'breaking up' the country, even if it's not really breaking it up per say. I can understand their concern.
There's two things I like about the heptarchy idea; one is that I've read that it is very difficult to get a cohesive society significantly larger than ~5 million people. If you look at other federalised countries, this is about where their states come out (with a few exceptions). Dividing England's 40-odd million outside of London into 7 gets you into this ballpark. The second thing is that I think/hope that by using very traditional divisions (Mercia, Wessex, etc.) it would be easier for people to get behind it, rather than the "new North-Eastern assembly", or whatever tepid name the politicians would come up with.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
jhe90 wrote: Both make good sense. A chamber with mixed skills from business, to industry, doctors, law experts and more.
I think faiths should be in there too, providing a broad range of experience including maybe police, Military former commanders.
A broad basis in many issues that can see a wide range of view points.
Sounds good to me! Just as long as they don't overdo it. Like I said, 800 is excessive.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
I have to say I have had similar ideas; a federalised UK with national parliaments for internal affairs and then two, smaller, houses at Westminster to deal with foreign policy, defence and other high level issues.
The one interesting variant on that I have heard is rather than a domineering English parliament is to have several regional parliaments covering similar populations to Scotland, Wales and NI. The article I saw suggested using the old Saxon kingdoms, plus London (as it is now so much bigger).
Good idea. Bring back the ol' Heptarchy with London added on top. The only issue is, I think there's some English people who aren't keen on 'breaking up' the country, even if it's not really breaking it up per say. I can understand their concern.
There's two things I like about the heptarchy idea; one is that I've read that it is very difficult to get a cohesive society significantly larger than ~5 million people. If you look at other federalised countries, this is about where their states come out (with a few exceptions). Dividing England's 40-odd million outside of London into 7 gets you into this ballpark. The second thing is that I think/hope that by using very traditional divisions (Mercia, Wessex, etc.) it would be easier for people to get behind it, rather than the "new North-Eastern assembly", or whatever tepid name the politicians would come up with.
I completely agree. The more people that are involved in a democracy, the less it functions. The ancient Greeks knew that. If this was to work it would require England to be regionalised. But as you say, by using the old kingdoms, it better appeals to that sense of national pride.
I think this would be so much more healthy for the country as a whole, because the regions won't be bolted to London. Plus, in the higher parliament they can focus on the bigger issues, leaving the smaller issues to the people actually affected by them. I reckon we could get that higher parliament down to about 200 members if you used a guide of about 350,000 people (half of what a us congressional district represents)
I don't think we have a problem of too much or too little democracy and representation. We have a problem with fair democratic representation (FPTP) and with providing the level of effective government that the people actually want.
We already have local democracy and government down to the level of the parish. These bodies (e.g. Henley-on-Thames Town Council) are woefully under-powered when it comes to the kind of local issues they ought to be allowed to handle.
The regional assemblies proposed for the North were unpopular. The new regional Mayors weren't asked for so much as imposed by CentGov diktat. The Police and Crime Commissioners also remain dismally unpopular.
The London Mayor was popular largely because the office did a lot to bring back the London County Council level of government (that Thatcher abolished for being too left-wing.)
The Welsh, Scottish and N Irish assemblies seem to have been popular because they were asked for by local people.
Even with these points in mind, I still believe democracy is "the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." We'll never get it perfect, but we also don't have to put up with the precise format we have right now.
Be careful what you wish for, though. The people that end up in local municipal governments or the like usually aren't the sharpest knives in the box, and if they are they usually move on to higher-level politics.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Wouldn't it be ironic that a Nissan or Toyota car made in Japan will enter the EU tariff-free while one made in Sunderland or Derbyshire will have to pay?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/06 10:53:44
And yet they're not part of the EU. It demonstrates that despite the short term cost, it is likely that we can get a free trade deal between the EU and UK that more or less satisfies everyone.
Thank you Japan for showing us that it's perfectly possible to have a free trade agreement without having to resort to a political union. You've given us a template to work with for the future.
Ketara wrote: And yet they're not part of the EU. It demonstrates that despite the short term cost, it is likely that we can get a free trade deal between the EU and UK that more or less satisfies everyone.
No one disputes that. It only takes that the UK figures out exactly what kind of deal they want. All options are on the table.
There was a very interesting address Michel Barnier on the subject
But there are also a few certainties. The UK will become a third country at the end of March 2019. The UK government has defined a number of "red lines" for the future relationship:
- no more free movement of EU citizens,
- full autonomy over UK laws,
- autonomy to conclude own trade agreements,
- no role for the European Court of Justice.
This implies leaving the single market and leaving the EU Customs Union. On the EU side, we made three things clear:
- The free movement of persons, goods, services and capital are indivisible. We cannot let the single market unravel.
- There can be no sector by sector participation in the single market: you cannot leave the single market and then opt-in to those sectors you like most – say the automobile industry and financial services. You cannot be half-in and half-out of the single market.
- The EU must maintain full sovereignty for deciding regulations: the EU is not only a big marketplace. It is also an economic and social community where we adopt common standards. All third countries must respect our autonomy to set rules and standards. And I say this at the moment when the UK has decided to leave this community and become a third country.
These three points were already made clear by the European Council. But I am not sure whether they have been fully understood across the Channel.
I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits – that is not possible. I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve "frictionless trade" – that is not possible.
The decision to leave the EU has consequences. And we have to explain to citizens, businesses and civil society on both sides of the Channel what these consequences mean for them.
Let me be clear: these consequences are the direct result of the choices made by the UK, not by the EU. There is no punishment for Brexit. And of course no spirit of revenge. Brexit has a cost, also for business in the EU27. Business should assess, with lucidity, the negative consequences of the UK's choice on trade and investment. And prepare to manage them.
There were free trade agreements before the Japan-EU deal, and before the EU.
The problem for the UK is whether/how quickly we can make new agreements to replace the ones we are getting ourselves out of (such as the Japan-EU agreement.)
The first one we need is with the EU. It will of necessity be less favourable than what we have got right now, so we will need to make some other agreements (with Japan, Canada, South Korea, etc.) to recover the trade we will have lost. We can't start doing that until after leaving the EU, so we will be playing catch-up.
Kilkrazy wrote: There were free trade agreements before the Japan-EU deal, and before the EU.
The problem for the UK is whether/how quickly we can make new agreements to replace the ones we are getting ourselves out of (such as the Japan-EU agreement.)
The UK can sign a free trade agreement with the EU very quickly. The starting EU position is pretty much CETA which means minimal disturbance for goods, though services will take a hit.
