Tory Brexit DOOM™: No deal

[northernladyuk]

Brexit news: EU better off without UK taunts German Finance Minister | UK | News | Express.co.uk

I hereby declare a jambargo. Let them eat their filthy continental preserves.

[original PM]

Brexit news: EU better off without UK taunts German Finance Minister | UK | News | Express.co.uk

You'd think they would just get something sorted and let us go then...

Strange how they are not

And by them I mean the EU and Germany as they seem to be pretty much the same things.

[BlasterBates]

You'd think they would just get something sorted and let us go then...

Strange how they are not

And by them I mean the EU and Germany as they seem to be pretty much the same things.

They have, the UK needs to settle the bill and then they can go.

Just write a cheque for 100 billion.

You be amazed about how most of Europe couldn't give a sh*t about Brexit. No-one is forcing the UK to come to Brussels; they could simply stay in the UK and wait for April 2019.

[NotAllThere]

...
Now we’re being told to prepare for that to happen, and it’s the EU’s fault.

That seems to be the Brexit understanding. If it's not all champagne and flowers, it's because

The EU only wants to make the UK suffer.

It's great really, because when the UK goes down the pan, the Brexiters relieve themselves of all guilt by carrying on as they always have done.

[BlasterBates]

That seems to be the Brexit understanding. If it's not all champagne and flowers, it's becauseIt's great really, because when the UK goes down the pan, the Brexiters relieve themselves of all guilt by carrying on as they always have done.

I was listening to LBC this morning and a some European politician or commentator they interviewed made a good point. If the UK gets a deal based on equivalence i.e. recognising each others regulations then in effect the UK influences EU law because the EU can't change it without the UK's permission. Therefore it aint going to happen and the government's Brexit plan is dead in the water.

If you are going to have an integrated trade agreement you have to have common regulations and someone is going to have to decide on what they are.

[jamesbrown]

I was listening to LBC this morning and a some European politician or commentator they interviewed made a good point. If the UK gets a deal based on equivalence i.e. recognising each others regulations then in effect the UK influences EU law because the EU can't change it without the UK's permission. Therefore it aint going to happen and the government's Brexit plan is dead in the water.

If you are going to have an integrated trade agreement you have to have common regulations and someone is going to have to decide on what they are.

The commentator (and presumably you, by implication) appear not to understand that harmonization, equivalence and mutual recognition are all different things. Harmonization is a direction of travel towards similar methods and outcomes. Equivalence is about outcomes, not methods, and it is specifically about outcomes in the context of trade (not standards more generally). Mutual recognition further allows outcomes to deviate, providing that they are sufficiently similar to not provide one party with a regulatory advantage (in trade) over the other.

Crucially, mutual recognition is about recognition of the systems adopted by each partner to ensure standards. If one system identifies a product as passing, then is passes according to all other mutually recognized systems (there's plenty of ECJ case law on this). In other words, there is far more flexibility in product and services standards w/r to FTAs than you appear to understand, and the focus of these is avoiding a regulatory advantage to one partner at the expense of another (i.e. in trade terms). If the regulations do not impact trade, they are not material.

[BlasterBates]

The commentator (and presumably you, by implication) appear not to understand that harmonization, equivalence and mutual recognition are all different things. Harmonization is a direction of travel towards similar methods and outcomes. Equivalence is about outcomes, not methods, and it is specifically about outcomes in the context of trade (not standards more generally). Mutual recognition further allows outcomes to deviate, providing that they are sufficiently similar to not provide one party with a regulatory advantage (in trade) over the other.

Crucially, mutual recognition is about recognition of the systems adopted by each partner to ensure standards. If one system identifies a product as passing, then is passes according to all other mutually recognized systems (there's plenty of ECJ case law on this). In other words, there is far more flexibility in product and services standards w/r to FTAs than you appear to understand, and the focus of these is avoiding a regulatory advantage to one partner at the expense of another (i.e. in trade terms). If the regulations do not impact trade, they are not material.

The EU doesn't have any trade deal which involve "harmonisation" or "equivalence". So I'm afraid you don't have any more of a clue about how it can work with a country outside the EU than the commentator does other than adopting the Norway/Switzeralnd model. The ECJ rules on internal market, but the UK doesn't want to be a part of it.

https://capx.co/the-canada-eu-trade-...el-for-brexit/

CETA is the most ambitious trade deal the EU has with any other country not subject to the ECJ.

there is no agreement on common standards or mutual recognition of standards in CETA, and the agreement makes a point of the fact that neither Canada nor the EU commit to such outcomes in the work of the Forum.

[chopper]

They have, the UK needs to settle the bill and then they can go.

Just write a cheque for 100 billion.

And on what basis do you think we owe them 100 billion?

Of course the EU would be better off without the UK, if we gave them 100 billion. We don't owe them that. And nobody on the EU or UK side has even said that we do.

In fact, if the UK walks away from negotiations, then that is pretty much as was expected. Seems pretty standard in large disputes really. Ultimately, 'no deal' means no money from the UK to the EU, so the EU wont let that happen.

[BlasterBates]

And on what basis do you think we owe them 100 billion?

Of course the EU would be better off without the UK, if we gave them 100 billion. We don't owe them that. And nobody on the EU or UK side has even said that we do.

In fact, if the UK walks away from negotiations, then that is pretty much as was expected. Seems pretty standard in large disputes really. Ultimately, 'no deal' means no money from the UK to the EU, so the EU wont let that happen.

That's the point the UK doesn't want to pay anything, it has offered a paltry 20 billion which basically is nothing more than a fee to extend for two years, after that zilch. The EU will earn far more than 20 billion by having no deal and nicking all the lucrative investment bank tax revenues in perpetuity.

[SueEllen]

May speaking.

She is full of sh*t.

oh and the only way she hasn't explicitly excluded is Switzerland.