1. It means just that, the government will be able to control its trade policy. Who to protect and who to expose.
2. Depends on what the government does with it. But an easy picking, I would say trade deals would be more personalized to what the UK wants and they would be done quicker.
3.Again, depends on who the government wants to benefit.
Last edited by Mittens; 2017-08-10 at 12:22 PM.
We could decide to have a trade policy that will reduce food prices and doesn't actively work to the detriment of poor African farmers, or we could relax the regulations that are in place for GMOs that are not based on science as some examples.
We can essentially formulate and adapt our trade policies around what is best for British businesses and consumers, not the EU as a whole.
It could reduce the cost of your weekly shop because we could choose to reduce the crippling tariffs that is placed on some produce purely because it comes from outside the EU. We wouldn't be a part of a Common Agricultural Policy that continues to subsidise wealthy land owners who don't need the money.
https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-a...to-submission/ is a good read on the subject.
If we reduce tariffs then our farmers will face increased competition thus we will need to pay more for domestic produce or have to subsidise farmers. But I want to hear about actual benefits that I and the average person in the UK will see from the Government's ability to set its own policies. Will these benefits offset the increased prices we are all paying due to falling sterling?
How will stopping subsidies to rich land owners benefit me?
I keep being told that leaving the EU will allow the UK to this and that but I have yet to find anyone who can tell me how my family and me will benefit from this or that.
I also find it somewhat odd, given how immigration was so important to the whole Brexit debate, that we would even consider lowering tariffs or loosening food safety regulations in order to benefit African farmers. Especially as many would like to see the foreign aid budget scrapped altogether.
Yes, they went to court because their own rules state they have to make them public but the US demanded they were kept secret from even the parliamentarians of the member states.
That one is quite the excample why negotiations shouldn't be done in secret, it demonstrates how the ones negotiating wanted to cheat each other and their electorate and even went to court to do it. I also shows how that turned out for the public acceptance of the whole process: Abysmal.
It's meant to imply that, at the very least, there's good reason to suspect he's spinning the truth in a certain way.
I did earlier actually. Briefly, he's trying to shape perceptions and, in doing so, hurt the UK's Brexit negotiations.
Look, to some extent you can negotiate it both at once - you can say (for example) "we're leaving the EEA, but would like to retain access for XYZ". But you do also have to prioritise stuff, because quite obviously there's a hell of a lot of things to discuss.
Over four decades of a lack of experienced negotiators will do that to you .
The Eurocrats may have a common negotiating position, but that's not the same as the people living under the EU, or the national governments.
I don't think *anyone* in the UK wants to fall back to WTO rules. But there's a difference between wanting something and being prepared to fall back to it.
= + =
There may be leaks, but that'll apply to both sides. That's not nearly the same as transparency, let alone the level you're suggesting.
Still not tired of winning.
You may want to give yourself to the illusion that the "Eurocrats" are somehow oppressing the entire European population, or simply ignore them or... whatever it is you're implying, but futile as it may be, let me assure you that the general European population is pretty much on board with how things are going regarding Britain. It's not that the Eurocrats are giving the UK a hard time. It's that they are offering the only reasonable position the EU can take.
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
I was about to write that. The commission is actually protecting the UK from the sentiment in Europe in an ironic twist. But it doesn't improve my argument, really. I'm just pointing out that this isn't the evil Eurocrats bludgeoning the UK. This is reasonable diplomats and politicians presenting reasonable positions. At least in comparison to what the population may be thinking in their darkest moments.
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
I mean that whilst you might expect leaks from the EU team, which will be a cause of some transparency, this will also apply to the UK's side.
However, the fact that the EU side might leak is not the same as saying the EU will openly set forth its real positions (ie, the ones it will not accept a worse deal on) in public. The Eurocrats running the negotiations will, quite rightly, ask for more than their minimum positions, and I expect them to, if necessary, lie about what those minimum positions are*.
*That's not a moral judgement. I expect the British team to do the same. Furthermore, I consider both sides obligated to do so. Matters of state tend to ride roughshod over matters of morality, and I see it as stupid to pretend or hope otherwise.
Still not tired of winning.
We can choose which products we subject to tariffs if we want to protect particular industries. It could potentially lead to a fall in food prices which is obviously going to be a benefit to the average person in the UK. (I accept this is a disputed subject as with most Brexit issues)
Those subsidies are paid forby taxpayers, don't you think we can find better use for some of it than to give billionaires millions of pounds?