Tory Brexit DOOM™: No deal

[BlasterBates]

May speaking.

She is full of sh*t.

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

Indeed EU commissioners have pointed to Switzerland as the model of a possible "bespoke red white and blue" Brexit

[jamesbrown]

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.

Your post was utterly confused on both the details (namely the differences between equivalence and mutual recognition) and on the implications (namely that the UK cannot, in principle, improve upon existing EU trade deals). The EU doesn't have any FTAs with ex-members of the EU Always happy to clear up your confusion.

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.

That part isn't comprehensible English.

[BlasterBates]

Your post was utterly confused on both the details (namely the differences between equivalence and mutual recognition) and on the implications (namely that the UK cannot, in principle, improve upon existing EU trade deals). The EU doesn't have any FTAs with ex-members of the EU Always happy to clear up your confusion.



That part isn't comprehensible English.

You can't have equivalence and then either side start modifying its regulations without having to refer to the other side. Basically May admitted in parliament that Hard Brexit is dead in the water when she stated that CETA wasn't suitable. CETA is the only possibility of getting a "Hard Brexit".

This means the UK will be pushed into the EEA and will stay indefinitely, with the EU shoving laws and regulations down its throat. Remember David Davis said he wanted parallel talks and then caved in an hour into the negotiations. It will take a while longer but the UK will be caving into all sorts of other demands from the EU. On LBC Iain Dale was moaning today on his show that the EU always gets what it wants and the UK keeps caving in.

[jamesbrown]

You can't have equivalence and then either side start modifying its regulations without having to refer to the other side. Basically May admitted in parliament that Hard Brexit is dead in the water when she stated that CETA wasn't suitable. CETA is the only possibility of getting a "Hard Brexit".

This means the UK will be pushed into the EEA and will stay indefinitely, with the EU shoving laws and regulations down its throat. Remember David Davis said he wanted parallel talks and then caved in an hour into the negotiations. It will take a while longer but the UK will be caving into all sorts of other demands from the EU. On LBC Iain Dale was moaning today on his show that the EU always gets what it wants and the UK keeps caving in.

Again, I don't think you've understood the difference between equivalence and mutual recognition. The former does not admit different outcomes, but admits differences in methodology, the latter admits differences in both methodology and outcomes (within limits). The suitability of these two things depends very much on the applications considered (e.g. financial services, JIT supply chains, agriculture, food standards etc.). It's rather pointless to have a general conversation about appropriate mechanisms to secure (degrees of) barrier-free trade, but it's easier for you to talk in terms of the noddy book of free trade, because it suits your narrative that the EEA is where we're heading when clearly we aren't. We're either heading for an FTA from a starting point of regulatory equivalence and whose ultimate degree of convergence will vary between sectors (i.e. something in between EEA and CETA, whether you prefer to call it EEA- or CETA+) or we're heading for no deal at all. This has been obvious for months. I'd put the odds at around 50/50 for each outcome.

[AtW]

It will be "Hard Brexit", or what they now call "No Deal, which is better than bad deal"

Tory traitors want it to happen to make it unlikely quick return back to EU.

[WTFH]

It will be "Hard Brexit", or what they now call "No Deal, which is better than bad deal"

Tory traitors want it to happen to make it unlikely quick return back to EU.

Except a hard Brexit would make returning to the EU easier as there would be no deals to unpick or re-negotiate.

[AtW]

Except a hard Brexit would make returning to the EU easier as there would be no deals to unpick or re-negotiate.

There will be quick deal with USA, which will be quick, but truly aweful for Britain - it won't be possible to join EU with it.

After that Tory Scum will wash their hands and let Labour into the driving seat.

[SueEllen]

There will be quick deal with USA, which will be quick, but truly aweful for Britain - it won't be possible to join EU with it.

After that Tory Scum will wash their hands and let Labour into the driving seat.

Apparently Indonesia are making a fuss about the deal we are attempting to negotiate with the EU so it's either WTO rules or Switzerland. The EU isn't having it any other way.

[BlasterBates]

Again, I don't think you've understood the difference between equivalence and mutual recognition. The former does not admit different outcomes, but admits differences in methodology, the latter admits differences in both methodology and outcomes (within limits). The suitability of these two things depends very much on the applications considered (e.g. financial services, JIT supply chains, agriculture, food standards etc.). It's rather pointless to have a general conversation about appropriate mechanisms to secure (degrees of) barrier-free trade, but it's easier for you to talk in terms of the noddy book of free trade, because it suits your narrative that the EEA is where we're heading when clearly we aren't. We're either heading for an FTA from a starting point of regulatory equivalence and whose ultimate degree of convergence will vary between sectors (i.e. something in between EEA and CETA, whether you prefer to call it EEA- or CETA+) or we're heading for no deal at all. This has been obvious for months. I'd put the odds at around 50/50 for each outcome.

Switzerland is the word you're looking for May sprinkled "Switzerland" all over her speech, even the registering of EU immigrants is copied from Switzerland.

Obviously Equivalence can be anything the two parties agree it to be, which is why it is possible to take a journey into fantasy land (cake having and eating etc) as to what it might mean. However on one limited case for example with the US exchanges, it means common regulation, i.e. the US and the EU have a agreed on a very limited amount of common regulation.

It is abundantly clear that the UK's FTA as with Switzerland will mean swallowing EU regulations. The US might be at eye level with the EU on that very limited agreement they have on clearing derivatives but the EU won't be allowing the UK to crawl all over their regulations any more than Switzerland can. The UK will also be paying money and accepting in all but name freedom of movement.

This will happen, it is a fact, and one only had to hear Jacob Rees Mogg sulking in the Commons to know this is where it is heading

[jamesbrown]

The UK will also be paying money and accepting in all but name freedom of movement.

Which is precisely why it won't be Switzerland (also rejected explicitly BTW) It will be Switzerland minus because, if HMG has been clear about anything, it's that the post-Brexit immigration system will not be consistent with full access to the SM. May has repeatedly offered that as a "lesson learned" from the referendum. The outlines of that system have already been leaked. They didn't need to do this; they could've gone the Swiss route, which Hannan and some other Leavers advocate.

Obviously Equivalence can be anything the two parties agree it to be

Only if you subscribe to the noddy book of free trade. An apple isn't the "same" as an orange We won't end up with the same degree of convergence in agriculture as financial services or pharmaceuticals, for example.