39 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

"Lastly.....", lets make something up and throw in some "feelings"

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I get the feeling that you're not a feeling fan? 

34 minutes ago, potless said:

Thanks for your reply. I dont know how these deals work. I was wondering if a simple solution could be found. I cant imagine why these deals take so long. Get a deal up and running and tinker with it after? Most of the basics are already in place.

 

Well, if both parties fully agree on the content and coverage it would not have to take too long. But certainly with major trade partners one can expect detailed negotiations on aspects like product coverage, tariffs, rules of origin, various non-tariff barriers, technical standards, intellectual property, certification, Customs cooperation etc., just to name a few.

 

9 minutes ago, damascase said:

Well, if both parties fully agree on the content and coverage it would not have to take too long. But certainly with major trade partners one can expect detailed negotiations on aspects like product coverage, tariffs, rules of origin, various non-tariff barriers, technical standards, intellectual property, certification, Customs cooperation etc., just to name a few.

Seems like a real ugly stew.

1 hour ago, potless said:

 if a country wants to buy something from the U.K. or wants to sell something to the U.K., why would they not?           

I didn’t say they would not want to trade with the UK under an FTA. What I said is that it’s unlikely that anyone would just copy over the existing EU FTA.

 

Under the existing EU FTA, a country gets access to the whole single market. That is obviously more attractive than only getting access to the UK market. So a country might want to renegotiate the terms to reflect what it gets out of such FTA with the UK. Similarly, the UK’s market might be less interesting in some and more interesting in other sectors, as it is structured differently than the single market. A country might want to renegotiate terms to extract concessions in particular sectors. 

 

Another issue is “rules of origin”. All FTA have rules under which a certain percentage of a product must be produced domestically in order to qualify for free trade, typically around 40%. As an EU-member, a UK producer can source 40% from the UK, France, or Germany; it all counts as domestic parts so the product would qualify for free trade. After Brexit, the same producer would have to source those 40% parts from the UK market alone in order to qualify for free trade, otherwise his products would be subject to import tariffs in the respective country. 

 

Then, FTA even more so also cover complying with standards, rules, and regulations. Existing EU FTA have endless lists and clauses of what and how EU regulations and procedures must be met. You can’t just copy/paste them; they would have to be replaced with UK equivalents. Similar issues arise from governance definitions, such as committees and arbitration procedures. Those have to be setup, and the partner needs to agree to it. 

 

How about specific thresholds, such as opening a certain sector for access only if x% of y are met? Will those x and y be the same for the UK? Or would it have to be reassessed and renegotiated? When the EU and a country agreed that a certain quantity per year only shall be permitted to enter free of customs duty, say 1,000 tons of beef, would copy-paste really work, I.e. that country would allow 2,000 tons of beef to enter free of customs duty? Or would it want to sit down with the UK and the EU and somehow split that amount? 

 

Have a look at some of those FTA; they are online. Hundreds of pages with definitions tailored to an integrated market of 28 different economies, rather than an isolated market of only one. Replacing every “EU” with “UK” will never work. 

 

Quote

                                                      Why cant the existing agreements just be replicated?  

See above. 

9 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I didn’t say they would not want to trade with the UK under an FTA. What I said is that it’s unlikely that anyone would just copy over the existing EU FTA.

Thanks for your informative reply. I appreciate you taking the time to put it all together. The devil is in the detail then. My application to join the negotiating team is in the bin.  

13 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I didn’t say they would not want to trade with the UK under an FTA. What I said is that it’s unlikely that anyone would just copy over the existing EU FTA.

 

Under the existing EU FTA, a country gets access to the whole single market. That is obviously more attractive than only getting access to the UK market. So a country might want to renegotiate the terms to reflect what it gets out of such FTA with the UK. Similarly, the UK’s market might be less interesting in some and more interesting in other sectors, as it is structured differently than the single market. A country might want to renegotiate terms to extract concessions in particular sectors. 

 

Another issue is “rules of origin”. All FTA have rules under which a certain percentage of a product must be produced domestically in order to qualify for free trade, typically around 40%. As an EU-member, a UK producer can source 40% from the UK, France, or Germany; it all counts as domestic parts so the product would qualify for free trade. After Brexit, the same producer would have to source those 40% parts from the UK market alone in order to qualify for free trade, otherwise his products would be subject to import tariffs in the respective country. 

 

Then, FTA even more so also cover complying with standards, rules, and regulations. Existing EU FTA have endless lists and clauses of what and how EU regulations and procedures must be met. You can’t just copy/paste them; they would have to be replaced with UK equivalents. Similar issues arise from governance definitions, such as committees and arbitration procedures. Those have to be setup, and the partner needs to agree to it. 

 

How about specific thresholds, such as opening a certain sector for access only if x% of y are met? Will those x and y be the same for the UK? Or would it have to be reassessed and renegotiated? When the EU and a country agreed that a certain quantity per year only shall be permitted to enter free of customs duty, say 1,000 tons of beef, would copy-paste really work, I.e. that country would allow 2,000 tons of beef to enter free of customs duty? Or would it want to sit down with the UK and the EU and somehow split that amount? 

 

Have a look at some of those FTA; they are online. Hundreds of pages with definitions tailored to an integrated market of 28 different economies, rather than an isolated market of only one. Replacing every “EU” with “UK” will never work. 

 

See above. 

and of course, all of these trade agreements mean signing a little bit of our sovereignty away - will the brexiters put up with that?

8 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Johnson vs Corbyn. I hear the siren call of flying lessons.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

  Corbyn is not capable of anything .

 A perfect opponent for the Tories.  

 Labour party , is dead in the water. 

 

 Enter BJ, balls but no brains, the qualities reqd for our next Prime Minister ?.

    A step up from May. 

  

 

3 hours ago, potless said:

Thanks for your reply. I must say I dont know enough about these deals. However, as these deals are already in place, is there any reason why they could not just be copied chapter and verse, signed and then carry on as normal? Would a signatory to these E.U. deals say to the U.K. that they would no longer trade under existing arrangements after brexit, purely because the U.K. was no longer a member of the E.U.? I dont know. Just a thought really.

A trade deal often involves painful concessions that may not be easy to get if negotiated separately. As far as I remember, one of the most difficult part of negotiations was to get partners to agree to open their service sector to EU providers. So the negotiation was in large part about opening the large European market to their product in exchange of opening their service sector to EU providers. Hmmm... guess which country which is still inside the EU would benefit more from it?

So it is not sure that they would accept the same deal with a country representing a smaller market for products but a large service industry sector likely to penetrate their market.

 

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

The Guardian misses so much out, as ever, so please don't call it a reminder.

 

When Thatcher came in, many industries were inefficient and most British industry was losing money hand over fist. There was little reinvestment and previous Labour governments allowed Communism to penetrate the unions and they became very powerful, with their members freely spending more time in the pub (but clocked-on by their mates) or on strike than they spent at work - it was always going to end badly - now the unions are weak as a result of these previous excesses. The EEC/EU did encourage and assist the transfer of British industry, or control of it, over to other EU countries, especially after the smaller eastern European countries joined the EU. 

Our arguments are not in opposition (and what you describe is also present to some extent in the article). However, presenting the EU as only an external actor is biased. The UK was part of the EU and voted policies you complain about. Actually, the UK has been one of the most supportive of the integration of Eastern Europe countries. Other countries, such as France, were less supportive.

6 hours ago, billd766 said:

So what to do about the Falkland Islanders themselves?

 

They have already had their referendum back in 2013.

 

2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum

 

A referendum on political status was held in the Falkland Islands on 10–11 March 2013.[1][2][3] The Falkland Islanders were asked whether or not they supported the continuation of their status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom in view of Argentina's call for negotiations on the islands' sovereignty.[4]

On a turnout of 92%, 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against.[5] Had the islanders rejected the continuation of their current status, a second referendum on possible alternatives would have been held.[4] Brad Smith, the leader of the international observer group, announced that the referendum was free and fair and executed in accordance with international standards and international laws.[6]

So <deleted>*k buiness and <deleted>*k the Falklands 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-falklands-islands-single-market-trade-eu-fishing-loligo-squid-government-a8347696.html

On 6/26/2019 at 5:04 PM, welovesundaysatspace said:

1) Almost half of all UK exports go to the EU. 

2) Only 7% of all EU exports go to the UK. 

 

Who relies on whom? 

I would not argue against your statement but it could be put in another way

The 7% of EU exports to the UK is far greater than the UK percentage(50%) exports to the EU

In essence the same statement

 

EU exports are country driven and will have a much larger effect upon individual countries within the EU, If we source products from countries outside the EU

 

Suddenly the onus changes on who relies on who

 

Statistical information can always be twisted to support one way or the other

 

Please ! i don't want to get into some mega argument of who is right or wrong as i feel that many people here will only look to the negative side due to the value of the pound

 

Is it in our interest to leave on a deal, yes

Did the UK have to leave the EU, yes ( in order to stop the unsustainable migration/ please note i say migration not immigrants who are needed but can be controlled) 

Idiots in Brussels forced us into this position and now idiots in the House of Parliament(all parties) are escalating the problem for their own agenda, regardless of the cost to the country 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

I would not argue against your statement but it could be put in another way

The 7% of EU exports to the UK is far greater than the UK percentage(50%) exports to the EU

In essence the same statement

 

EU exports are country driven and will have a much larger effect upon individual countries within the EU, If we source products from countries outside the EU

 

Suddenly the onus changes on who relies on who

 

Statistical information can always be twisted to support one way or the other

 

Please ! i don't want to get into some mega argument of who is right or wrong as i feel that many people here will only look to the negative side due to the value of the pound

 

Is it in our interest to leave on a deal, yes

Did the UK have to leave the EU, yes ( in order to stop the unsustainable migration/ please note i say migration not immigrants who are needed but can be controlled) 

Idiots in Brussels forced us into this position and now idiots in the House of Parliament(all parties) are escalating the problem for their own agenda, regardless of the cost to the country 

 

 

 

 

what about stopping ex bar girls coming to the UK to sponge the system once they have ditched their singha slobs

 

7 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

getting canny pricey this Brexit lark

Boris Johnson, 1999.-

 

“I’m a raving Euro-federalist...a pro-European of the most violent, dyspeptic, and incurable disposition.”

 

 

Truly a man for all seasons....
-

22 minutes ago, tebee said:

Boris Johnson, 1999.-

 

“I’m a raving Euro-federalist...a pro-European of the most violent, dyspeptic, and incurable disposition.”

 

 

Truly a man for all seasons....
-

It wouldn't suprise me if this is true (which is why I don't trust boris as far as I could throw him), but do you have a link to this quote?

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

It wouldn't suprise me if this is true (which is why I don't trust boris as far as I could throw him), but do you have a link to this quote?

Google search, nothing

I'm sure, if  true, it would of been all over the national papers long ago

10 hours ago, SheungWan said:

"Lastly.....", lets make something up and throw in some "feelings"

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

If you say so, after all you're the authority on such things. ????

 

9 hours ago, nauseus said:

I get the feeling that you're not a feeling fan? 

Well... he clearly despises 'jolly old' & has a real hard-on for Kafkian bureaucracies / being told what to do by people on the continent - do these count?

1 hour ago, Dene16 said:

Google search, nothing

I'm sure, if  true, it would of been all over the national papers long ago

It is a quote from one of tebees favourite sources of information, twitter. Tweeted by a @jamesmelvyn, looking at his page he looks like a left wing nut job. Probably made up, I cannot find anything to attribute it to Boris on the internet, however, prove me wrong tebee.

 

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

It wouldn't suprise me if this is true (which is why I don't trust boris as far as I could throw him), but do you have a link to this quote?

Quoted as being from "Life in the Fast Lane by Boris Johnson, M.P." , but I haven't got a copy so can't confirm 

11 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

And it was of course a Democratic decision taken by the people, something remainers are not happy to accept.

I would suggest 98% voted to stay under UK sovereignty is conclusive, while 52% is not. The Tory gov is acting in a less than democratic manner because they fear the backlash from the electorate would be worse than doing what's best for Britain - and that's junking Brexit down the Khazi.

 

It's all politics, and self interest, never about Britain. They would even row out NI and Scotland if they had to, just to remain (no pun intended) in power. Well, the GE will finish them for good.

10 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Never mind Tolstoy. You leave those Hard Brexiteers alone and their ideological pipe-dreams. That's all they have.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Clearly, my post has gone over your head - and probably most on here. if anyone wants an explanation, I'll expand. 

18 minutes ago, tebee said:

Quoted as being from "Life in the Fast Lane by Boris Johnson, M.P." , but I haven't got a copy so can't confirm 

So a load of rollocks.... as usual. How many farts has he done today. It is sad when the media try their best to discredit a man. What is even sadder when people believe it too. I understand the media but people in the street I guess they are just plain s.....d.

10 hours ago, potless said:

Thanks for your reply. I dont know how these deals work. I was wondering if a simple solution could be found. I cant imagine why these deals take so long. Get a deal up and running and tinker with it after? Most of the basics are already in place.

 

It is the aim of the government - if Britain leaves the EU - to replicate, as far as possible, the existing treaties, but cannot activate that until it actually leaves. Also, there would be some countries, who would not accept the original agreement because of economic 'change' in global trades.

 

That's the easy part. While trade agreements could be struck in a reasonable time frame, there would be an unknown delay for Britain in implementing the agreement.

 

It really isn't that simple starting from scratch, and the only rationale for the Tory gov is that they are pandering to those well-heeled emerging market funds managed by Tories, like Rees-Mogg - who would relish the thought that the UK would be seeking trades with such countries and thereby enhancing the fund's value.   

 

Otherwise, it's nonsensical ripping up existing trading deals. As I stated before, it's self-interest that drives the Tory party. Apart from a few rebels who do put Britain above party, the rest couldn't give a toss about ruining the economy and devaluing sterling. 

They are promising billions to save the fisheries....if Brexit was so good for fishing, why is that needed........?

 

Anyway you look at it from sovereignty, to economics to politics brexit was a lie from the very start. ...

 

 

2 hours ago, Dene16 said:

Google search, nothing

I'm sure, if  true, it would of been all over the national papers long ago

It was and we all know of Boris's pro Brexit article he wrote in 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/16/secret-boris-johnson-column-favoured-uk-remaining-in-eu

 

 

Try and learn the difference between search and research

12 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

And it was of course a Democratic decision taken by the people, something remainers are not happy to accept.

Only someone truly ignorant of how democracy works would still cling to that clichee.

56 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I would suggest 98% voted to stay under UK sovereignty is conclusive, while 52% is not. The Tory gov is acting in a less than democratic manner because they fear the backlash from the electorate would be worse than doing what's best for Britain - and that's junking Brexit down the Khazi.

 

It's all politics, and self interest, never about Britain. They would even row out NI and Scotland if they had to, just to remain (no pun intended) in power. Well, the GE will finish them for good.

"I would suggest 98% voted to stay under UK sovereignty is conclusive, while 52% is not."

 

I think you are trying to say that 98% of brexit voters did so as their main interest was sovereignty?  But I'm not sure, so please make the point clearer.

 

"The Tory gov is acting in a less than democratic manner because they fear the backlash from the electorate"

 

More accurately, both the cabinet and MPs are "acting in a less than democratic manner because they fear the backlash from the electorate".  Hence the eu/May surrender treaty that only (IMO) failed as the electorate were made aware that it was 'leave in name only'.  Depressingly, boris and his ilk decided to support this surrender treaty on the second (?) attempt?

 

"It's all politics, and self interest, never about Britain."

 

Agree entirely.