FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Staying in the EEA
Staying in the EEA
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Can't wait to see theresponses to this. I imagine some are waiting for the Mail or Express to comment first and provide guidance." The Mail was leading with the Queen's best mate passing away. But has now switched to some woman who is paying for her entire Christmas by collecting coupons. So... err... don't hold your breath! -Matt | |||
"What a load of bollocks. Leaving the EU is leaving the single market and the government has never promised to remain a member of the single market, it couldn't. And it seems to me that the only people who think foreigners are pesky are the people who wanted to remain. " Never promised? Oh c'mon... surely your denial is not THAT strong? I won't bother with quoting any news source, interviews, etc as clearly you will say they are biased. Instead let's go straight to the source: Page 72 of the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto: "reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf and safeguard British interests in the Single Market " "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade." "We have already succeeded in exempting our smallest businesses from new EU regulations, and kicked-off negotiations for a massive EU trade deal with the USA, which could be worth billions of pounds to the UK economy. " "We will build on this. We want to preserve the integrity of the Single Market, by insisting on protections for those countries that have kept their own currencies. We want to expand the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms" Or am I misinterprering that? -Matt | |||
"What a load of bollocks. Leaving the EU is leaving the single market and the government has never promised to remain a member of the single market, it couldn't. And it seems to me that the only people who think foreigners are pesky are the people who wanted to remain. Never promised? Oh c'mon... surely your denial is not THAT strong? I won't bother with quoting any news source, interviews, etc as clearly you will say they are biased. Instead let's go straight to the source: Page 72 of the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto: "reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf and safeguard British interests in the Single Market " "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade." "We have already succeeded in exempting our smallest businesses from new EU regulations, and kicked-off negotiations for a massive EU trade deal with the USA, which could be worth billions of pounds to the UK economy. " "We will build on this. We want to preserve the integrity of the Single Market, by insisting on protections for those countries that have kept their own currencies. We want to expand the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms" Or am I misinterprering that? -Matt" yes you are | |||
| |||
"Where does it say remain a member of the single market?" Oh right, you are right it doesn't say that we would remain in the single market. It says things like it would "safeguard British interests in the Single Market". It says things like "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade" It says that we want to "protect the integrity of the single market". But you are absolutely right, it does not say we would stay in the single market. Only that we would protect our interests in it and that we want it. And that we will protect the integrity of it. Not that we actually want to be *in* it. How silly of me for thinking that. -Matt | |||
"Where does it say remain a member of the single market? Oh right, you are right it doesn't say that we would remain in the single market. It says things like it would "safeguard British interests in the Single Market". It says things like "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade" It says that we want to "protect the integrity of the single market". But you are absolutely right, it does not say we would stay in the single market. Only that we would protect our interests in it and that we want it. And that we will protect the integrity of it. Not that we actually want to be *in* it. How silly of me for thinking that. -Matt" and isn't that what they are now trying to do? Leaving it but protecting our interests in it? And break down barriers further? | |||
"And the EEA is not the single market" Is Norway in the Single Market? | |||
"And the EEA is not the single market Is Norway in the Single Market? " Here we go again  . No you know it isn't. It has greater access to it than other non EU countries because it pays a fee and accepts other conditions. There are only 28 members of it | |||
" and isn't that what they are now trying to do? Leaving it but protecting our interests in it? And break down barriers further?" How exactly do you see us protecting our interest in it if we leave it? How do you see us breaking down barriers (whatever that means) being outside of it? -Matt | |||
"And the EEA is not the single market Is Norway in the Single Market? Here we go again . No you know it isn't. It has greater access to it than other non EU countries because it pays a fee and accepts other conditions. There are only 28 members of it"31 members of it. The question is: On leaving the EU; will the UK automatically leave the EEA? Probably, unless it is agreed that as an interim measure it can remain.( if it wishes. Can it apply to rejoin if it wishes? Can UK join EFTA? ( if it wishes) If it joins EFTA, can it rejoin the EEA at the same time? ( if it wishes). And given that the UK apparently doesn't want to sign up to all of the conditions required by membership of either EFTA or the EEA, then it would seem that none of the above are going to be an option. | |||
| |||
| |||
"And the EEA is not the single market Is Norway in the Single Market? Here we go again . No you know it isn't. It has greater access to it than other non EU countries because it pays a fee and accepts other conditions. There are only 28 members of it
31 members of it.
The question is:
On leaving the EU; will the UK automatically leave the EEA? Probably, unless it is agreed that as an interim measure it can remain.( if it wishes.
Can it apply to rejoin if it wishes?
Can UK join EFTA? ( if it wishes)
If it joins EFTA, can it rejoin the EEA at the same time? ( if it wishes).
And given that the UK apparently doesn't want to sign up to all of the conditions required by membership of either EFTA or the EEA, then it would seem that none of the above are going to be an option.
"I just heard it on BBC news at 12, Government ministers have released a statement saying that membership of the EEA and the single market are automatically linked. | |||
"And the EEA is not the single market Is Norway in the Single Market? Here we go again . No you know it isn't. It has greater access to it than other non EU countries because it pays a fee and accepts other conditions. There are only 28 members of it
31 members of it.
The question is:
On leaving the EU; will the UK automatically leave the EEA? Probably, unless it is agreed that as an interim measure it can remain.( if it wishes.
Can it apply to rejoin if it wishes?
Can UK join EFTA? ( if it wishes)
If it joins EFTA, can it rejoin the EEA at the same time? ( if it wishes).
And given that the UK apparently doesn't want to sign up to all of the conditions required by membership of either EFTA or the EEA, then it would seem that none of the above are going to be an option.
"28 members of it. The fact is there is no single market, it has no seperate legal identity from the EU. It is even wrongly described as the single market, it is the EU's internal market | |||
" I just heard it on BBC news at 12, Government ministers have released a statement saying that membership of the EEA and the single market are automatically linked." Seems reasonable. Did they say anything about how that in turn relates to their position on leaving the EU? -Matt | |||
" 28 members of it. The fact is there is no single market, it has no seperate legal identity from the EU. It is even wrongly described as the single market, it is the EU's internal market" This says there are 32 members. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market | |||
"And the EEA is not the single market Is Norway in the Single Market? Here we go again . No you know it isn't. It has greater access to it than other non EU countries because it pays a fee and accepts other conditions. There are only 28 members of it
31 members of it.
The question is:
On leaving the EU; will the UK automatically leave the EEA? Probably, unless it is agreed that as an interim measure it can remain.( if it wishes.
Can it apply to rejoin if it wishes?
Can UK join EFTA? ( if it wishes)
If it joins EFTA, can it rejoin the EEA at the same time? ( if it wishes).
And given that the UK apparently doesn't want to sign up to all of the conditions required by membership of either EFTA or the EEA, then it would seem that none of the above are going to be an option.
28 members of it. The fact is there is no single market, it has no seperate legal identity from the EU. It is even wrongly described as the single market, it is the EU's internal market"You said ( on the basis that the discussion was about the EEA, not the EU; there are 28 members of the EEA; There aren't; there are 31. | |||
" I just heard it on BBC news at 12, Government ministers have released a statement saying that membership of the EEA and the single market are automatically linked. Seems reasonable. Did they say anything about how that in turn relates to their position on leaving the EU? -Matt" I sudorct they didn't; since dovfar they don't have a position. Actually that's not true; they have several "positions ", but none of them know what the actual one is; and none of them know enough about anything to understand any of the " positions" they think they might have. | |||
" I just heard it on BBC news at 12, Government ministers have released a statement saying that membership of the EEA and the single market are automatically linked. Seems reasonable. Did they say anything about how that in turn relates to their position on leaving the EU? -Matt I sudorct they didn't; since dovfar they don't have a position. Actually that's not true; they have several "positions ", but none of them know what the actual one is; and none of them know enough about anything to understand any of the " positions" they think they might have." Don't worry, Theresa May's faith in God is guiding us through this. So we'll be OK. 
-Matt | |||
" 28 members of it. The fact is there is no single market, it has no seperate legal identity from the EU. It is even wrongly described as the single market, it is the EU's internal market This says there are 32 members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market"why keep referring to wikipedia when you have told me that it doesn't count? I will say it again for clarity, there are 32 members of the EEA but only 28 members of the single market, or the EU internal market as it should more correctly be referred to. | |||
" 28 members of it. The fact is there is no single market, it has no seperate legal identity from the EU. It is even wrongly described as the single market, it is the EU's internal market This says there are 32 members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
why keep referring to wikipedia when you have told me that it doesn't count?
I will say it again for clarity, there are 32 members of the EEA but only 28 members of the single market, or the EU internal market as it should more correctly be referred to."So why does it say there are 32 then? | |||
| |||
" 28 members of it. The fact is there is no single market, it has no seperate legal identity from the EU. It is even wrongly described as the single market, it is the EU's internal market This says there are 32 members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
why keep referring to wikipedia when you have told me that it doesn't count?
I will say it again for clarity, there are 32 members of the EEA but only 28 members of the single market, or the EU internal market as it should more correctly be referred to.
So why does it say there are 32 then? "I think the distinction he is referring to is that there are only 28 members of the EU, hence 28 *members* of the "single market". There are an additional 4 members of the EEA (Norway, etc) that have *access* to the single market by virtue of being part of the EEA. Ie the EEA is a mechanism to extend *access* to the single market not *membership* of the single market. It is this distinction that probabaly gives rise to some of the argument further up this thread. -Matt | |||
| |||
"Correction: as noted above, Switzerland is not part of the EEA but has access to the common market by other means" I stand corrected on that one too, I meant 31. But basically to be 'in' the single market as it is called, you have to be 'in' the EU. So the government couldn't promise to stay in that market and at the same time hold a referendum. What they said was that they are all for free trade and a single market on a wider basis, ie bring down trade barriers and get the best for the UK with the single market (EU internal market), even if we'd voted to stay in the EU | |||
"Where does it say remain a member of the single market? Oh right, you are right it doesn't say that we would remain in the single market. It says things like it would "safeguard British interests in the Single Market". It says things like "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade" It says that we want to "protect the integrity of the single market". But you are absolutely right, it does not say we would stay in the single market. Only that we would protect our interests in it and that we want it. And that we will protect the integrity of it. Not that we actually want to be *in* it. How silly of me for thinking that. -Matt" You do know that legally there is no such thing as the single market, don't you? | |||
| |||
| |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will." But that would take years and years to create. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. " why would it? and even if it did, so what? Most people voted to leave the EU for the sake of their children | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. " Or weeks and weeks | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. why would it? and even if it did, so what? Most people voted to leave the EU for the sake of their children" And their children will never forgive them for it. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will."  yes and the Brexit secretary David Davis has already said it in Parliament that the UK will not be looking for a Norway deal or a Swiss deal, we'll be negotiating a unique British deal with the EU. As you say a zero tariff arrangement or maybe a bilateral uk/eu free trade deal that would be mutually beneficial to both sides. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. yes and the Brexit secretary David Davis has already said it in Parliament that the UK will not be looking for a Norway deal or a Swiss deal, we'll be negotiating a unique British deal with the EU. As you say a zero tariff arrangement or maybe a bilateral uk/eu free trade deal that would be mutually beneficial to both sides. "Yes why not? We cant be in the single market without free movement but we can be outside of the single market but have a tariff free trade deal,both sides benefit and the EU can claim that free movement has been kept for those in the single market. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. yes and the Brexit secretary David Davis has already said it in Parliament that the UK will not be looking for a Norway deal or a Swiss deal, we'll be negotiating a unique British deal with the EU. As you say a zero tariff arrangement or maybe a bilateral uk/eu free trade deal that would be mutually beneficial to both sides.
Yes why not? We cant be in the single market without free movement but we can be outside of the single market but have a tariff free trade deal,both sides benefit and the EU can claim that free movement has been kept for those in the single market. "Exactly. But that assumes that the people running the EU are sane of course  | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks" Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. yes and the Brexit secretary David Davis has already said it in Parliament that the UK will not be looking for a Norway deal or a Swiss deal, we'll be negotiating a unique British deal with the EU. As you say a zero tariff arrangement or maybe a bilateral uk/eu free trade deal that would be mutually beneficial to both sides.
Yes why not? We cant be in the single market without free movement but we can be outside of the single market but have a tariff free trade deal,both sides benefit and the EU can claim that free movement has been kept for those in the single market.
Exactly. But that assumes that the people running the EU are sane of course "I thought they were the educated ones? 
The only reason they could find fault would be for political purposes but I thought these people acted in the voters best interests well thats what they keep saying | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services?" No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months." You say it doesn't have to be complex, but can't name a simple FTA. That's because they are inherently complex, and take years to negotiate. You say it can be negotiated in two years, when you know that the future trade agreement between the EU and the UK will not be discussed until AFTER we have left. The trade agreement is NOT a part of the article 50 negotiations. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months. You say it doesn't have to be complex, but can't name a simple FTA. That's because they are inherently complex, and take years to negotiate. You say it can be negotiated in two years, when you know that the future trade agreement between the EU and the UK will not be discussed until AFTER we have left. The trade agreement is NOT a part of the article 50 negotiations. " We've been in a fta for a long time ,so sorry I cant pluck one out of the air for you. The negotiation begins at A50, otherwise we would just leave on that day. . It suits your argument for it to be a long tormented process. I believe it doesn't need to be. EU and Uk have a zero tariff arrangement, currently on everything. That is an extremely simple starting point. The question to EU and Uk is, what criteria is acceptable to both sides for that to continue. It can be done quickly. Cameron tried and failed in a short timescale. That failure was due to his starting point of him saying, and the EU not believing we would actually leave. If he had done a better job, we would still be in the EU. A stronger version of what he was going for is achievable and would gain sufficient popular support. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months. You say it doesn't have to be complex, but can't name a simple FTA. That's because they are inherently complex, and take years to negotiate. You say it can be negotiated in two years, when you know that the future trade agreement between the EU and the UK will not be discussed until AFTER we have left. The trade agreement is NOT a part of the article 50 negotiations. " what is? | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months. You say it doesn't have to be complex, but can't name a simple FTA. That's because they are inherently complex, and take years to negotiate. You say it can be negotiated in two years, when you know that the future trade agreement between the EU and the UK will not be discussed until AFTER we have left. The trade agreement is NOT a part of the article 50 negotiations. We've been in a fta for a long time ,so sorry I cant pluck one out of the air for you. The negotiation begins at A50, otherwise we would just leave on that day. . It suits your argument for it to be a long tormented process. I believe it doesn't need to be. EU and Uk have a zero tariff arrangement, currently on everything. That is an extremely simple starting point. The question to EU and Uk is, what criteria is acceptable to both sides for that to continue. It can be done quickly. Cameron tried and failed in a short timescale. That failure was due to his starting point of him saying, and the EU not believing we would actually leave. If he had done a better job, we would still be in the EU. A stronger version of what he was going for is achievable and would gain sufficient popular support." They aren't trade negotiations, they are negotiations about everything else. How much money we owe them, about the European Arrest Warrant, about what happens to fishing, about what happens with EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU, about what happens to the EHIC system, about data protection agreements, about passports for livestock, about the UK/Eire border, about the border being at Calais or Dover, about what happens to UK staff working for the EU and our MEPs, about what happens to science projects that are already running, about the Erasmus programme, etc etc etc. That is just a small fraction of the things that will be discussed during the 2 years. The notes that were snapped yesterday says that there will be 40 concurrent negotiation strands. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months. You say it doesn't have to be complex, but can't name a simple FTA. That's because they are inherently complex, and take years to negotiate. You say it can be negotiated in two years, when you know that the future trade agreement between the EU and the UK will not be discussed until AFTER we have left. The trade agreement is NOT a part of the article 50 negotiations. We've been in a fta for a long time ,so sorry I cant pluck one out of the air for you. The negotiation begins at A50, otherwise we would just leave on that day. . It suits your argument for it to be a long tormented process. I believe it doesn't need to be. EU and Uk have a zero tariff arrangement, currently on everything. That is an extremely simple starting point. The question to EU and Uk is, what criteria is acceptable to both sides for that to continue. It can be done quickly. Cameron tried and failed in a short timescale. That failure was due to his starting point of him saying, and the EU not believing we would actually leave. If he had done a better job, we would still be in the EU. A stronger version of what he was going for is achievable and would gain sufficient popular support. They aren't trade negotiations, they are negotiations about everything else. How much money we owe them, about the European Arrest Warrant, about what happens to fishing, about what happens with EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU, about what happens to the EHIC system, about data protection agreements, about passports for livestock, about the UK/Eire border, about the border being at Calais or Dover, about what happens to UK staff working for the EU and our MEPs, about what happens to science projects that are already running, about the Erasmus programme, etc etc etc. That is just a small fraction of the things that will be discussed during the 2 years. The notes that were snapped yesterday says that there will be 40 concurrent negotiation strands. " so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months. You say it doesn't have to be complex, but can't name a simple FTA. That's because they are inherently complex, and take years to negotiate. You say it can be negotiated in two years, when you know that the future trade agreement between the EU and the UK will not be discussed until AFTER we have left. The trade agreement is NOT a part of the article 50 negotiations. We've been in a fta for a long time ,so sorry I cant pluck one out of the air for you. The negotiation begins at A50, otherwise we would just leave on that day. . It suits your argument for it to be a long tormented process. I believe it doesn't need to be. EU and Uk have a zero tariff arrangement, currently on everything. That is an extremely simple starting point. The question to EU and Uk is, what criteria is acceptable to both sides for that to continue. It can be done quickly. Cameron tried and failed in a short timescale. That failure was due to his starting point of him saying, and the EU not believing we would actually leave. If he had done a better job, we would still be in the EU. A stronger version of what he was going for is achievable and would gain sufficient popular support. They aren't trade negotiations, they are negotiations about everything else. How much money we owe them, about the European Arrest Warrant, about what happens to fishing, about what happens with EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU, about what happens to the EHIC system, about data protection agreements, about passports for livestock, about the UK/Eire border, about the border being at Calais or Dover, about what happens to UK staff working for the EU and our MEPs, about what happens to science projects that are already running, about the Erasmus programme, etc etc etc. That is just a small fraction of the things that will be discussed during the 2 years. The notes that were snapped yesterday says that there will be 40 concurrent negotiation strands. so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then" WTO tariffs | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months. You say it doesn't have to be complex, but can't name a simple FTA. That's because they are inherently complex, and take years to negotiate. You say it can be negotiated in two years, when you know that the future trade agreement between the EU and the UK will not be discussed until AFTER we have left. The trade agreement is NOT a part of the article 50 negotiations. We've been in a fta for a long time ,so sorry I cant pluck one out of the air for you. The negotiation begins at A50, otherwise we would just leave on that day. . It suits your argument for it to be a long tormented process. I believe it doesn't need to be. EU and Uk have a zero tariff arrangement, currently on everything. That is an extremely simple starting point. The question to EU and Uk is, what criteria is acceptable to both sides for that to continue. It can be done quickly. Cameron tried and failed in a short timescale. That failure was due to his starting point of him saying, and the EU not believing we would actually leave. If he had done a better job, we would still be in the EU. A stronger version of what he was going for is achievable and would gain sufficient popular support. They aren't trade negotiations, they are negotiations about everything else. How much money we owe them, about the European Arrest Warrant, about what happens to fishing, about what happens with EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU, about what happens to the EHIC system, about data protection agreements, about passports for livestock, about the UK/Eire border, about the border being at Calais or Dover, about what happens to UK staff working for the EU and our MEPs, about what happens to science projects that are already running, about the Erasmus programme, etc etc etc. That is just a small fraction of the things that will be discussed during the 2 years. The notes that were snapped yesterday says that there will be 40 concurrent negotiation strands. so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs" says who? | |||
" so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs says who?" The EU trade commissioner http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222 | |||
| |||
" so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs says who? The EU trade commissioner http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222" and how would he know, its never been done before. And you really think its up to him? What's the name of the 2019 EU trade commissioner by the way? | |||
" so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs says who? The EU trade commissioner http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222 and how would he know, its never been done before. And you really think its up to him? What's the name of the 2019 EU trade commissioner by the way?" I can tell you really paid attention to what they had to say in the interview that I linked to as you didn't even notice what sex the commissioner is | |||
" so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs says who? The EU trade commissioner http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222 and how would he know, its never been done before. And you really think its up to him? What's the name of the 2019 EU trade commissioner by the way? I can tell you really paid attention to what they had to say in the interview that I linked to as you didn't even notice what sex the commissioner is "I never go to any links | |||
"The trade deal negotiation will begin as soon as A50 is triggered. If it isn't concluded, or there is no interim etc, then WTO tariffs apply." I have seen nothing from the EU that supports your view, I have posted a link saying the opposite. If you could post a link to support your assumption I would be very keen to read it. | |||
" so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs says who? The EU trade commissioner http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222 and how would he know, its never been done before. And you really think its up to him? What's the name of the 2019 EU trade commissioner by the way? I can tell you really paid attention to what they had to say in the interview that I linked to as you didn't even notice what sex the commissioner is
I never go to any links"That explains a lot. | |||
"The trade deal negotiation will begin as soon as A50 is triggered. If it isn't concluded, or there is no interim etc, then WTO tariffs apply. I have seen nothing from the EU that supports your view, I have posted a link saying the opposite. If you could post a link to support your assumption I would be very keen to read it. " what do you think mp's want to have a say/vote on? | |||
" so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs says who? The EU trade commissioner http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222 and how would he know, its never been done before. And you really think its up to him? What's the name of the 2019 EU trade commissioner by the way? I can tell you really paid attention to what they had to say in the interview that I linked to as you didn't even notice what sex the commissioner is
I never go to any links
That explains a lot. "it means I do my own research and think for myself | |||
" so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs says who? The EU trade commissioner http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222 and how would he know, its never been done before. And you really think its up to him? What's the name of the 2019 EU trade commissioner by the way? I can tell you really paid attention to what they had to say in the interview that I linked to as you didn't even notice what sex the commissioner is
I never go to any links
That explains a lot.
it means I do my own research and think for myself"By selectively ignoring something that might possibly impact on your world view. great. | |||
" so when the 2 years are up we carry on with the same tarrifs we already have then WTO tariffs says who? The EU trade commissioner http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222 and how would he know, its never been done before. And you really think its up to him? What's the name of the 2019 EU trade commissioner by the way? I can tell you really paid attention to what they had to say in the interview that I linked to as you didn't even notice what sex the commissioner is
I never go to any links
That explains a lot.
it means I do my own research and think for myself
By selectively ignoring something that might possibly impact on your world view. great. "I don't have a world view. And I don't read things that people tell me to read. I would not go to anything you suggest anyway, it has done you no good | |||
" By selectively ignoring something that might possibly impact on your world view. great.
I don't have a world view. And I don't read things that people tell me to read. I would not go to anything you suggest anyway, it has done you no good"CandM , I want to leave. But it's a fact, we either negotiate a trade deal or if that's not done WTO tariffs apply. The negotiation begins at A50 and ends after 2 years or longer if all agree to extend the talks. | |||
"None of the existing structures might suit . The ideal is a zero tariff arrangement. Call it what you will. But that would take years and years to create. Or weeks and weeks Can you give an example of a free trade agreement that took weeks to create between an existing trading block and a single country that included services? No it was an extreme example. My point is, it doesnt have to be complex. We have a zero tariff arrangement already. Heres an example of a deal: Zero tariff, as now, free movement of workers who have got a confirmed job offer in a required trade ir profession. That can be accomplished in 2 years. In truth it could be accomplished in months. You say it doesn't have to be complex, but can't name a simple FTA. That's because they are inherently complex, and take years to negotiate. You say it can be negotiated in two years, when you know that the future trade agreement between the EU and the UK will not be discussed until AFTER we have left. The trade agreement is NOT a part of the article 50 negotiations. We've been in a fta for a long time ,so sorry I cant pluck one out of the air for you. The negotiation begins at A50, otherwise we would just leave on that day. . It suits your argument for it to be a long tormented process. I believe it doesn't need to be. EU and Uk have a zero tariff arrangement, currently on everything. That is an extremely simple starting point. The question to EU and Uk is, what criteria is acceptable to both sides for that to continue. It can be done quickly. Cameron tried and failed in a short timescale. That failure was due to his starting point of him saying, and the EU not believing we would actually leave. If he had done a better job, we would still be in the EU. A stronger version of what he was going for is achievable and would gain sufficient popular support. They aren't trade negotiations, they are negotiations about everything else. How much money we owe them, about the European Arrest Warrant, about what happens to fishing, about what happens with EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU, about what happens to the EHIC system, about data protection agreements, about passports for livestock, about the UK/Eire border, about the border being at Calais or Dover, about what happens to UK staff working for the EU and our MEPs, about what happens to science projects that are already running, about the Erasmus programme, etc etc etc. That is just a small fraction of the things that will be discussed during the 2 years. The notes that were snapped yesterday says that there will be 40 concurrent negotiation strands. " What happens at the Dover/Calais border is nothing to do with the article 50 negotiations. It is a bilateral arrangement between Britain and France called the Treaty of Le Touquet. | |||
" By selectively ignoring something that might possibly impact on your world view. great.
I don't have a world view. And I don't read things that people tell me to read. I would not go to anything you suggest anyway, it has done you no good
CandM , I want to leave. But it's a fact, we either negotiate a trade deal or if that's not done WTO tariffs apply.
The negotiation begins at A50 and ends after 2 years or longer if all agree to extend the talks."Well thats what I thought and did know about the WTO tariffs being applied, its been covered here often enough but when _lcc comes out with things like we won't discuss trade deals until after 2 years then I start to get a bit obtuse. My bad. But depending on how talks are going it might not be WTO terms, thats the worst scenario, which actually aint that bad anyway, who knows | |||
" By selectively ignoring something that might possibly impact on your world view. great.
I don't have a world view. And I don't read things that people tell me to read. I would not go to anything you suggest anyway, it has done you no good
CandM , I want to leave. But it's a fact, we either negotiate a trade deal or if that's not done WTO tariffs apply.
The negotiation begins at A50 and ends after 2 years or longer if all agree to extend the talks.
Well thats what I thought and did know about the WTO tariffs being applied, its been covered here often enough but when _lcc comes out with things like we won't discuss trade deals until after 2 years then I start to get a bit obtuse. My bad. But depending on how talks are going it might not be WTO terms, thats the worst scenario, which actually aint that bad anyway, who knows"Its not my opinion, its what we have been told by the EU commissioner. You know, the people you used to say had all the power in the EU! But of course you are too scared to even click on the link and see what they have said. Its easier for you to think of it as just my opinion so you can dismiss it. I'm happy to read links that disagree with what I have previously read. As above I asked for a link showing that trade is what is being discussed during the article 50 negotiations, yet none has been forthcoming. | |||
| |||
"If there are no negotiations between A50 and leaving, there is no need for the 2 year gap, you'd just invoke it and go. The 2 year gap is for the negotiation. We can also leave whenever we want by repealing our own EU bill. The EU are very good at showing a 'do it this way' approach. Actually we can do it other ways too. The EU do not want a messy break-up that leads to WTO tariffs, it does not suit their industry. We have a negative balance of trade with them, tariffs are not in their best interest." "Their"... "They"... Do you actually know who you are talking about? These people are the people that you and I have more in common with than we would ever have in common with any politician. They are Irish workmen, Spanish factory workers, French workers and Dutch farm workers. The way that "they" "them" and "their" gets bandied about completely depersonalises who the EU actually is. And, just for the record....Our exit from the EU is just about to fuck the Irish again - something we have a history of doing and pay scant regard to the consequences. We are the EU, we are all people. | |||
"If there are no negotiations between A50 and leaving, there is no need for the 2 year gap, you'd just invoke it and go. The 2 year gap is for the negotiation. We can also leave whenever we want by repealing our own EU bill. The EU are very good at showing a 'do it this way' approach. Actually we can do it other ways too. The EU do not want a messy break-up that leads to WTO tariffs, it does not suit their industry. We have a negative balance of trade with them, tariffs are not in their best interest." I gave you a list of about 10 things above that will have to be negotiated. There is loads to be negotiated, but the commission has said that this doesn't include trade. | |||
" "Their"... "They"... Do you actually know who you are talking about? These people are the people that you and I have more in common with than we would ever have in common with any politician. They are Irish workmen, Spanish factory workers, French workers and Dutch farm workers. The way that "they" "them" and "their" gets bandied about completely depersonalises who the EU actually is. And, just for the record....Our exit from the EU is just about to fuck the Irish again - something we have a history of doing and pay scant regard to the consequences. We are the EU, we are all people." what word should I put to make a forum post readable? Instead of 'we' I'll write the public of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland , represented by members of HM Government. And instead of 'them' I'll write the member of the EU, excluding United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as represented by the European Commission. Just for info, I know lots and lots of fantastic citizens from other EU member countries, many of whom I consider to be good friends, so no need for the lecture, thanks anyway. | |||
" I gave you a list of about 10 things above that will have to be negotiated. There is loads to be negotiated, but the commission has said that this doesn't include trade. " Those things need negotiating, yes, not instead of, or with higher priority. A trade deal will begin negotiation following A50. | |||
" I gave you a list of about 10 things above that will have to be negotiated. There is loads to be negotiated, but the commission has said that this doesn't include trade. Those things need negotiating, yes, not instead of, or with higher priority. A trade deal will begin negotiation following A50." The commission does not support that view. Where have you seen that a trade deal will be part of the Article 50 negotiations? | |||
| |||
" I gave you a list of about 10 things above that will have to be negotiated. There is loads to be negotiated, but the commission has said that this doesn't include trade. Those things need negotiating, yes, not instead of, or with higher priority. A trade deal will begin negotiation following A50. The commission does not support that view. Where have you seen that a trade deal will be part of the Article 50 negotiations? " That is 'the negotiation' . Every aspect of leaving is discussed in that period. The items in your list and trade. The commission will push a line to strengthen their negotiating strength. You can accept that at full face value (and you will) or you can see it is what it actually is. If what you are saying is correct, we can stop bothering discussing it anyway, as it will only matter when it begins in 2 years time after we've left. | |||
"Think of it this way. 1) Until A50 negotiations are completed, is the UK a member of the EU? Yes. 2) Can individual EU member states negotiate trade deals? No. So until we leave, we cant negotiate a trade deal." That's the view she expressed. I think you will find that doesn't happen. Let's wait and see. | |||
" "Their"... "They"... Do you actually know who you are talking about? These people are the people that you and I have more in common with than we would ever have in common with any politician. They are Irish workmen, Spanish factory workers, French workers and Dutch farm workers. The way that "they" "them" and "their" gets bandied about completely depersonalises who the EU actually is. And, just for the record....Our exit from the EU is just about to fuck the Irish again - something we have a history of doing and pay scant regard to the consequences. We are the EU, we are all people. what word should I put to make a forum post readable? Instead of 'we' I'll write the public of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland , represented by members of HM Government. And instead of 'them' I'll write the member of the EU, excluding United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as represented by the European Commission. Just for info, I know lots and lots of fantastic citizens from other EU member countries, many of whom I consider to be good friends, so no need for the lecture, thanks anyway. " I also think many Remainers need to realise a lot of our European neighbours would also like to leave the EU, as anti EU parties are gaining more support and more votes right across the European continent with each passing election. The socialists are out of the running in France, it'll be between Marine Le Pen who wants out of the EU and a very right wing François Fillon from the French conservatives. | |||
