Brexit negotiations 'have not begun well' - Sir Simon Fraser

[Pann]

Thats kinda like the point right? Having control over trade policy.

What exactly does this mean? What kind of gain will it bring to the UK? And how will I benefit from it?

[Mittens]

What exactly does this mean? What kind of gain will it bring to the UK? And how will I benefit from it?

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.

[Tinch]

I mean if that's your standard of good government.

The sky hasn't done something physically impossible. Winning?

Well when you hear hyperbolic comments like the 'UK economy is collapsing' and we're going to 'end up like Greece' etc. etc. its always good to inject a bit of reality into the conversation.

[Mormolyce]

Well when you hear hyperbolic comments like the 'UK economy is collapsing' and we're going to 'end up like Greece' etc. etc. its always good to inject a bit of reality into the conversation.

You're right, the reality is that the sky is not actually a two dimensional object physically suspended above our heads, thanks for bringing the conversation down to the facts.

[Pann]

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.

Again what exactly does this mean the man and woman on the street? What are we going to gain from the Government being able to control its trade policy?

[Tinch]

Again what exactly does this mean the man and woman on the street? What are we going to gain from the Government being able to control its trade policy?

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.

[Pann]

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.

Could we? How? Would this not negatively affect our own farmers? I am not sure how UK or EU trade policies actively work to the detriment of African farmers.

Again what benefit will I see when I pop into Tesco for my weekly shop?

[Tinch]

Could we? How? Would this not negatively affect our own farmers? I am not sure how UK or EU trade policies actively work to the detriment of African farmers.

Again what benefit will I see when I pop into Tesco for my weekly shop?

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.

[Noradin]

So? The responsibility to get the best deal for their side still applies to both sets of negotiators.

The side that has to represent several sovereign democracies can only ever work with transparency, secrency is only needed if you want to cheat someone.

[Tinch]

The side that has to represent several sovereign democracies can only ever work with transparency, secrency is only needed if you want to cheat someone.

The EU have chosen to conduct plenty of negotiations in secret when it has suited them.

[Noradin]

The EU have chosen to conduct plenty of negotiations in secret when it has suited them.

You mean when the other side (e.g., the USA) required it and even then they made their positions public as much as possible.

[Tinch]

You mean when the other side (e.g., the USA) required it and even then they made their positions public as much as possible.

Sorry but that is rubbish, the EU Commission even went to court to try and stop parts of the TTIP negotiations being made public.

And if it was just the fault of the US, why have other trade agreements and even some of the EU's own directives been negotiated in secret?

[Pann]

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.

[Noradin]

Sorry but that is rubbish, the EU Commission even went to court to try and stop parts of the TTIP negotiations being made public.

And if it was just the fault of the US, why have other trade agreements and even some of the EU's own directives been negotiated in secret?

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.

[Teleros]

I'm not close minded. I'm telling you that "he has an agenda" is not an argument. It's a poor attempt at an ad hominem. Everyone and his dog has an agenda. Heck, a baby that just popped out of the womb and tries the new concept of gulping air has an agenda. It's a non-sequitur meant to somehow imply that he's wrong because he... has a motivation?

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.

What is his agenda? The downfall of the Brits? You don't answer that, because you have no clue.

I did earlier actually. Briefly, he's trying to shape perceptions and, in doing so, hurt the UK's Brexit negotiations.

Don't tell me it's not possible to do both. Tell Theresa May, because for the longest time that is what she intended. Until the EU told her to cut it out and live with the roadmap as was presented to her. And stop your childish arguments, nobody speaks about one person sitting in two meetings at the same time. If you want to be silly, go to your local pub, get drunk and start impressing everyone with your logic there. Preferably when they're drunk as well, otherwise you'll just embarass yourself.

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.

The EU hasn't exactly been slow on this. In fact, it's the UK slowing things down.

Over four decades of a lack of experienced negotiators will do that to you .

The EU has had a common negotiating position a couple months after the Brexit. The UK still doesn't seem to have agreed on more than "we want out". And that's not even a universal agreement across the nation. Let alone in what shape this Brexit should happen in detail.

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.

Those WTO rules really are something nobody but the uneducated fools in the UK wants. You don't want to fall back to WTO rules. But again, you have been warned.

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.

= + =

The side that has to represent several sovereign democracies can only ever work with transparency, secrency is only needed if you want to cheat someone.

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.

[Slant]

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.

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.

[Noradin]

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.

Come again?
Your comment is completely unrelated to what I wrote, so please clarify the connection between your sentence and the one you quoted.

[Slant]

I disagree, I think most of the EU population at this point would just love to fuck UK as much as possible (except for people who are stuck trading with them). The commission is taking a more nuanced position.

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.

[Teleros]

Come again?
Your comment is completely unrelated to what I wrote, so please clarify the connection between your sentence and the one you quoted.

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.

[Tinch]

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.

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?