Sport18 mins ago
Do They Want A Deal Or Not?
62 Answers
https:/
"The biggest obstacle is the EUSSR's demand the UK match future rules to ensure fair competition." - surely even these deluded dictators must realise that no nation could accept such undefined interference in perpetuity.
"The biggest obstacle is the EUSSR's demand the UK match future rules to ensure fair competition." - surely even these deluded dictators must realise that no nation could accept such undefined interference in perpetuity.
Answers
When this nonsense started way back, I said that the EU was going to play very very hard ball from day one, in an effort to discourage any other member states from getting bright ideas about leaving as well. I also suggested that they fully expected the UK to play even harder, and a rough tough fight to the line to follow. What actually happened was Teresa May,...
13:21 Fri 11th Dec 2020
-- answer removed --
//Yes, and post-Brexit all that import could dry up or be too expensive//
And where will all that import go then? For how long, pray, do you expect the producers of those imports (their exports) to see them stored indefinitely or rot away on some quayside?
The mention of M. de Gaulle was interesting.
The UK’s membership of the EU has been disastrous – for both the UK and the EU. The UK is not a “European” country. It has a totally different philosophy on trade, governance and many other things. It was never going to succumb to being part of a European Federal State and during its membership it hindered many of the steps the EU wanted to make in that direction. De Gaulle knew this and that is why he resisted the UK’s application for membership so vehemently.
But the Euromaniacs saw the Big Bucks that would fill their coffers should the UK join them. It overrode their ideological visions and provided them with much needed ready money to splash of their integrationist strategies. It believed that the UK could be whipped into line. It couldn't and they should have listened to de Gaulle.
The UK will probably never fully recover from its calamitous dalliance with EU membership. But neither will the EU. It was never about trade, but trade was used as a disguise for political integration and protectionism. That integration is now probably never likely to be fully realised. The UK was principle among the members who dissented against that idea and now “ever greater integration” is positively shunned by many members, especially some of the newer members. It’s a great shame because as a pure trading bloc the EU has probably no equals. As a political entity it is an undemocratic (and unmitigated) disaster.
And where will all that import go then? For how long, pray, do you expect the producers of those imports (their exports) to see them stored indefinitely or rot away on some quayside?
The mention of M. de Gaulle was interesting.
The UK’s membership of the EU has been disastrous – for both the UK and the EU. The UK is not a “European” country. It has a totally different philosophy on trade, governance and many other things. It was never going to succumb to being part of a European Federal State and during its membership it hindered many of the steps the EU wanted to make in that direction. De Gaulle knew this and that is why he resisted the UK’s application for membership so vehemently.
But the Euromaniacs saw the Big Bucks that would fill their coffers should the UK join them. It overrode their ideological visions and provided them with much needed ready money to splash of their integrationist strategies. It believed that the UK could be whipped into line. It couldn't and they should have listened to de Gaulle.
The UK will probably never fully recover from its calamitous dalliance with EU membership. But neither will the EU. It was never about trade, but trade was used as a disguise for political integration and protectionism. That integration is now probably never likely to be fully realised. The UK was principle among the members who dissented against that idea and now “ever greater integration” is positively shunned by many members, especially some of the newer members. It’s a great shame because as a pure trading bloc the EU has probably no equals. As a political entity it is an undemocratic (and unmitigated) disaster.
If the EU or UK feel a change has been made that changes the so called level playing field then they are at liberty to discuss and enact compensatory measures at that time. This level playing field claim is a red herring, and not from UK waters.
Each side wants the best deal they can but being awkward in order to ensure that there is no deal doesn't help that cause.
Meanwhile any refusal to make allowance for peace in Ireland highlights the lie that, that side is who has kept peace. They clearly consider peace a lower priority than a short strech of border that they could monitor from afar.
Each side wants the best deal they can but being awkward in order to ensure that there is no deal doesn't help that cause.
Meanwhile any refusal to make allowance for peace in Ireland highlights the lie that, that side is who has kept peace. They clearly consider peace a lower priority than a short strech of border that they could monitor from afar.
A very, very good B.A.. At the moment I just feel that it is pointless continuing round after round of meaningless talks and that perhaps it would be better to pre-empt the inevitable and say "Goodbye EU. We can never accede to your terms. We would have liked to be friendly competitors, but now we will pull-out all the stops."
The reporting isn't good. Mrs. V. der L.'s offer of 'UK can reject going along with future legislation' sounds OK (as reported by the Beeb - I heard it) until you get the rest of it which says that extra tariffs etc. will have to be imposed if we did diverge. WHY can't they get it?
The reporting isn't good. Mrs. V. der L.'s offer of 'UK can reject going along with future legislation' sounds OK (as reported by the Beeb - I heard it) until you get the rest of it which says that extra tariffs etc. will have to be imposed if we did diverge. WHY can't they get it?
I'm not really sure what Ms Van der Wosname is really on about. As far as I understand WTO rules, those trading under them must apply identical tariffs to everybody they do business with under those terms. The tariffs are set by the WTO and the EU cannot punish the UK by applying 25% tariffs to widgets if the WTO tariff is only 10%.
Whatever tariff a country (or supra national organisation) levies on imports, it cannot levy different rates to different suppliers of the same goods. I quote from the WTO guidance:
"The 'Most Favoured Nation' principle means that WTO members cannot discriminate between their trading partners and must, with a few exceptions, offer access to their market on the same terms for all other WTO members (unless there is a trading agreement between them)."
"The 'Most Favoured Nation' principle means that WTO members cannot discriminate between their trading partners and must, with a few exceptions, offer access to their market on the same terms for all other WTO members (unless there is a trading agreement between them)."
Latest Posts
Crosswords39 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
ChatterBank68 mins ago
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |