The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (121 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

At the end of the day the EU has a united front (unlike our government). There’s no deviation between the 27. Junker clearly isn’t pulling the strings, regardless of who he’s appointed to what job the real issue is there is 27 countries all with a veto who don’t approve our governments brexit plan and only one of those countries has to veto it and the deal can’t be done. Chequers is dead, there isn’t a majority consensus for it either inside or outside the U.K. The easiest negotiations in history are as expected to anyone with the tiniest bit of common sense (ie not the bloke who we initially entrusted with the negotiations) not the easiest negotiations in history.

 

---

[Astute]

No. Grendel tried to deflect on to Macron‘s honesty or dishonesty. I was talking about what he actually said about Brexit. If I criticise people like Banks, Wigmore and Farage, it is because they are the culprits ( bad boys ) of leave. Macron was not involved in leave, but has every right to criticise an act which makes problems for his country. Saying he has other problems doesn’t alter the facts that he is mentioning in this case. Are you saying that what he said is not true?

He has an opinion. Just like you do.

So why is it you don't want to investigate or talk about wrongdoings/crimes committed by anyone in the EU unless they are on the side of Brexit. But if they are from the UK you want them prosecuted unless they talk in favour of staying in the EU?

 

[Astute]

That doesn’t get leave off the hook. Nice try. How much did they say remain overspent as opposed to leave?

Didn't you either read it or not understand it?

Both sides overspent.

One side was told to stop spending. The other side got told it was OK then later told it wasn't.

It needs sorting. But like it says they would have to prosecute while saying that they gave the wrong advice.

So does that mean remain overspent knowingly and Brexit unknowingly?


Or are you saying that the High Court is wrong after looking at all the evidence?

 

[clint van damme]

How about explaining why we would need to go to WTO rules?

because if we leave without a deal we will be the only country in the world, (or I think there might be one other, Mauritania or somewhere like that), without any trade deals so if we want to trade with other countries we have to do so under WTO terms.
I stress, this is in a no deal scenario.

 

[Astute]

The bad boys all did a runner. You know that you are talking crap about grave stones. What is relevant, is where is Brexit and what are the advantages of the mess we are in? What does our manufacturing industry think of the mess so far? Or our hauliers, banking industry, food industry, Pharma industry?

Ah change of attack?

So let's concentrate on those who wanted to leave and ignore those who wanted to remain.

Is David Cameron right that leaving EU could increase the risk of war?

 

[Astute]

27 countries representing 440 million think you are talking crap. We will pay the divorce bill. We signed up for it and will honour it.

You seem to think that they are separate to the EU. They were all there at a summit, all say our ideas are crap. And that after two years time to prepare for Brexit. The Brexit culprits are not even there, apart from Gove, who says any deal struck can be altered by the next government anyway. Pointless having a deal with the UK if you know it is not done in good faith. No wonder 27 countries are not happy with us.

Consumers will pay tax on imported goods and/or companies will reduce their profit margins. No one wins and 27 countries are pissed off with our attitude. They are not going to wreck the single market and do away with the 4 freedoms because you want them to.

The UK will continue to be hit with the results of uncertainty. The economy will start to reflect that if we don’t get a deal. And you blame the people who didn’t want Brexit.

Yeah OK.

As part of a deal we said we would pay.

No deal means no payment.

Theresa May says UK might not pay Brexit 'divorce bill' in 'no-deal' scenario

 

[Astute]

Who is us BTW? He spoke out against liars who misled people, not the people of the UK. Are you a liar trying to mislead people? Why should you count yourself as part of „us“ otherwise? Does it hurt being called a liar by a president representing millions?

How about explaining yourself instead of using code for once.

 

[martcov]

How about explaining yourself instead of using code for once.

Answer the question. Why do you feel part of the „us“?

 

[Astute]

It’s OK. Rees Mogg has pointed out that Australian wine is going to go down by 30% (believe that when I see it. Maybe at the border but that doesn’t guarantee it will be passed onto the consumer) so it’s going to be cheaper to drown our sorrows.

So your point is more expensive imports puts prices up but cheaper imports doesn't bring prices down?

Abolish the CAP, let food prices tumble - Institute of Economic Affairs

No protectionism in the EU?

Stephen Cadogan: Protectionism next threat for EU food and farm sector

 

[Astute]

It’s all faux outrage again. The leave campaign spent most it’s time saying that the EU is a protectionist organisation (ironically one of the few truths they told) and this is why we must leave. Now we’re leaving and the EU is acting to protect itself it’s all shock, horror and anger about the protectionist way it’s behaving. Did they not believe their own campaign? Maybe they just can’t remember which bits were true and which bits weren’t?

All they are trying to protect is billions of pounds each year from us.

 

[Astute]

At the end of the day the EU has a united front (unlike our government). There’s no deviation between the 27. Junker clearly isn’t pulling the strings, regardless of who he’s appointed to what job the real issue is there is 27 countries all with a veto who don’t approve our governments brexit plan and only one of those countries has to veto it and the deal can’t be done. Chequers is dead, there isn’t a majority consensus for it either inside or outside the U.K. The easiest negotiations in history are as expected to anyone with the tiniest bit of common sense (ie not the bloke who we initially entrusted with the negotiations) not the easiest negotiations in history.

Yeah OK.

Shall we wait and see before saying things that you say will happen is right?

United front? How about the last link I provided? Shows that what happens behind the scenes is different to what we get to hear

Stephen Cadogan: Protectionism next threat for EU food and farm sector

 

[Astute]

because if we leave without a deal we will be the only country in the world, (or I think there might be one other, Mauritania or somewhere like that), without any trade deals so if we want to trade with other countries we have to do so under WTO terms.
I stress, this is in a no deal scenario.

We already trade all over the world under WTO rules. And the reason we trade all over the world under WTO rules is the EU won't let us make any trade deals. Once we leave the EU we will be free to make trade deals around the world. And we already sell more to the rest of the world than to the EU which is on our doorstep.

 

[Astute]

Answer the question. Why do you feel part of the „us“?

What????

 

[Grendel]

No. Grendel tried to deflect on to Macron‘s honesty or dishonesty. I was talking about what he actually said about Brexit. If I criticise people like Banks, Wigmore and Farage, it is because they are the culprits ( bad boys ) of leave. Macron was not involved in leave, but has every right to criticise an act which makes problems for his country. Saying he has other problems doesn’t alter the facts that he is mentioning in this case. Are you saying that what he said is not true?

I’m not deflecting at all. Macron is a pathetic creature who will say anything to try and gain some positive press.

He is under investigation and faces serious accusations - his popularity rating is at 19 half that of Donald Trump

Macron couldn’t lie in bed straight so no I don’t believe a word he says and nor it seems does the whole of France

 

[clint van damme]

We already trade all over the world under WTO rules. And the reason we trade all over the world under WTO rules is the EU won't let us make any trade deals. Once we leave the EU we will be free to make trade deals around the world. And we already sell more to the rest of the world than to the EU which is on our doorstep.

We mainly trade within the frame work of trade deals we are part of due to our membership of the EU.
We will no longer be able to trade under those terms if we leave the EU with no deal so we lose free trade with the other 27 members of the EU and we lose being able to trade under the terms of trade deals with about 50 or 60 other countries which we currently have access to due to our EU membership.
We then have to submit what's called a schedule to the EU which lays out the terms we will trade under with all other WTO members including the EU and we must then trade under those terms until we agree trade deals with each particular country. If one of the other 160 WTO members rejects our schedule we would then have to dispute it which is apparently a lengthy and expensive process, (although we can still keep trading under the terms of the schedule until the dispute is settled).
Negotiating trade deals will take years so we will be considerably worse off in the mean time.

 

[Sick Boy]

We already trade all over the world under WTO rules. And the reason we trade all over the world under WTO rules is the EU won't let us make any trade deals. Once we leave the EU we will be free to make trade deals around the world. And we already sell more to the rest of the world than to the EU which is on our doorstep.

Errmm...about those deals have been created by the EU?

What makes you think that the UK would gain a better deal compared to what it has now?

 

[Astute]

Errmm...about those deals have been created by the EU?

What makes you think that the UK would gain a better deal compared to what it has now?

What makes you think it would be worse?

The EU is all about protectionism. 28 countries have all had to agree in principle. So those who sell one thing want it protecting. That is a lot of things to protect in 28 countries. The UK would find it much easier alone than with 27 more countries to come to agreement.

 

[martcov]

So your point is more expensive imports puts prices up but cheaper imports doesn't bring prices down?

Abolish the CAP, let food prices tumble - Institute of Economic Affairs

No protectionism in the EU?

Stephen Cadogan: Protectionism next threat for EU food and farm sector

See how our farmers react.

 

[Sick Boy]

What makes you think it would be worse?

The EU is all about protectionism. 28 countries have all had to agree in principle. So those who sell one thing want it protecting. That is a lot of things to protect in 28 countries. The UK would find it much easier alone than with 27 more countries to come to agreement.

What gives the UK the high-level of bargain power to ensure that it is getting better terms that what are on offer now? Do you not think that these countries are going to be aware that Britain is going to be in need of signing trade deals and then try and take advantage?

 

[martcov]

What makes you think it would be worse?

The EU is all about protectionism. 28 countries have all had to agree in principle. So those who sell one thing want it protecting. That is a lot of things to protect in 28 countries. The UK would find it much easier alone than with 27 more countries to come to agreement.

Years of negotiating. WTO = loads of countries that may have a reason to block things that we want.

 

[martcov]

What makes you think it would be worse?

The EU is all about protectionism. 28 countries have all had to agree in principle. So those who sell one thing want it protecting. That is a lot of things to protect in 28 countries. The UK would find it much easier alone than with 27 more countries to come to agreement.

When we trade with the EU we are dealing with the single market. That’s 27 countries less to think about, plus the EU trade deals and individual arrangements with most of the rest of the world. If we didn’t have that, we would be fighting to get it.

 

[Astute]

What gives the UK the high-level of bargain power to ensure that it is getting better terms that what are on offer now? Do you not think that these countries are going to be aware that Britain is going to be in need of signing trade deals and then try and take advantage?

Or more like we will be free to make deals and not be tied to 27 other countries.

 

[Astute]

Years of negotiating. WTO = loads of countries that may have a reason to block things that we want.

Same difficulties as trying to get 27 other countries to agree to what we would agree with?

Of course not.

 

[Astute]

When we trade with the EU we are dealing with the single market. That’s 27 countries less to think about, plus the EU trade deals and individual arrangements with most of the rest of the world. If we didn’t have that, we would be fighting to get it.

Fighting to get what?

WTO deals are what most of the deals are. So why would we fight for what is the worse that could happen?

 

[clint van damme]

Fighting to get what?

WTO deals are what most of the deals are. So why would we fight for what is the worse that could happen?

no they're not.
You're not grasping this.
If two countries don't have a trade deal they deal under WTO terms.
If they agree a trade deal they trade under the terms of that deal.
We have free trade with the 27 members of the EU and trade with around 50 or 60 other countries through our membership of the EU, (don't know if they're free trade deals but trade deals none the less).
Now all of the countries involved are members of the WTO but they don't trade under WTO terms with each other because they have signed deals.

The day after we leave if there is no deal we will be trading under WTO terms with every other country. That means higher tariffs. It will hurt our economy, yes it will hurt theirs, but they will take the hit off trade with one country, we will take the hit off them all.
We can then start negotiating trade deals with every one else in the WTO, but it won't happen overnight as you seem to think.

 

[Astute]

no they're not.
You're not grasping this.
If two countries don't have a trade deal they deal under WTO terms.
If they agree a trade deal they trade under the terms of that deal.
We have free trade with the 27 members of the EU and trade with around 50 or 60 other countries through our membership of the EU, (don't know if they're free trade deals but trade deals none the less).
Now all of the countries involved are members of the WTO but they don't trade under WTO terms with each other because they have signed deals.

The day after we leave if there is no deal we will be trading under WTO terms with every other country. That means higher tariffs. It will hurt our economy, yes it will hurt theirs, but they will take the hit off trade with one country, we will take the hit off them all.
We can then start negotiating trade deals with every one else in the WTO, but it won't happen overnight as you seem to think.

Me not grasping it?

After we leave we will be trading to WTO rules or have deals in place. Having a deal with the EU won't change this. But we will be free to make deals. Talks are on going all over the world right now. But nothing can be signed until after we leave the EU.

This is the biggest danger to the EU. We won't need them as much. So they are trying to keep their claws in what they can.

 

[Sick Boy]

This is the biggest danger to the EU. We won't need them as much. So they are trying to keep their claws in what they can.

...yeah, that is why the UK has been calling all of the shots in the 'negotiations' so far, isn't it?

 

[martcov]

Yeah OK.

As part of a deal we said we would pay.

No deal means no payment.

Theresa May says UK might not pay Brexit 'divorce bill' in 'no-deal' scenario

We’ve agreed to pay and we will pay. May was under pressure to take a tougher stance, so she says we may not pay. So what. We signed up to 39 billion, which includes liabilities which may not be called upon, and we will honour our commitments. There is no way we can look for new partners with open debts with our old partners. Brexit bluster as Grendel calls it.

 

[martcov]

Me not grasping it?

After we leave we will be trading to WTO rules or have deals in place. Having a deal with the EU won't change this. But we will be free to make deals. Talks are on going all over the world right now. But nothing can be signed until after we leave the EU.

This is the biggest danger to the EU. We won't need them as much. So they are trying to keep their claws in what they can.

You know that the head of the WTO says it won’t be a walk in the park don’t you? There are plenty of countries out there who will want to take advantage of our weak position.

 

[Grendel]

We’ve agreed to pay and we will pay. May was under pressure to take a tougher stance, so she says we may not pay. So what. We signed up to 39 billion, which includes liabilities which may not be called upon, and we will honour our commitments. There is no way we can look for new partners with open debts with our old partners. Brexit bluster as Grendel calls it.

No we won’t - Dominic Rabb has pretty much admitted that now

 

[martcov]

No we won’t - Dominic Rabb has pretty much admitted that now

Sportsman‘s bet says we will pay. We may claim to have got concessions, but no way are we doing a runner.

 

[Astute]

...yeah, that is why the UK has been calling all of the shots in the 'negotiations' so far, isn't it?

So are you saying that we should just leave without a deal?

We would be better off to have one. Just like the vast majority of countries in the EU would be.

 

[Astute]

We’ve agreed to pay and we will pay. May was under pressure to take a tougher stance, so she says we may not pay. So what. We signed up to 39 billion, which includes liabilities which may not be called upon, and we will honour our commitments. There is no way we can look for new partners with open debts with our old partners. Brexit bluster as Grendel calls it.

We agreed to pay if there is a deal. There is no legal right to pay.

Or would you like to prove me wrong.

 

[Astute]

You know that the head of the WTO says it won’t be a walk in the park don’t you? There are plenty of countries out there who will want to take advantage of our weak position.

So we are one of the richest countries in the world but we are in a weak position?

 

[Sick Boy]

So are you saying that we should just leave without a deal?

We would be better off to have one. Just like the vast majority of countries in the EU would be.

Where have I said we should leave without a deal? I think one will be struck but it will be down to the UK to make concessions (again).

May's embarrassing and empty words about being 'a bloody difficult woman' are all bluster.