[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Pann]

Eh?

What are you having trouble with? Stating that I find an attitude to be bizarre that is not the same as saying I find you bizarre.

How is it counter productive to call out the brexiteers for what they are? It has been made clear from the start that of this whole sorry mess will executed to its ultimate conclusion, deal or no deal. Britain is a deeply divided country and those that forced our country to its knees need to be called out for what they are.

Do you really not understand why it is counter-productive to insult people that voted differently from you? Really?

So those that will suffer for the decision of 17.4 million morons aren't victims? I think you are under estimating the impact of our impending cliff edge Brexit.

Nope. I think I've not mentioned anything about the impact of our impending so I really am not sure how a reasonable person could reach any sort of conclusion as to whether I am under or over estimating it.

And you believe that we ever had any chance of a second say on this sorry mess? You are as delusional as the Brexit muppets.

I think we had a chance, albeit a small one, and we might even still have it but unfortunately people like you seem determined to wreck it.

[Teleros]

You realize that any of those deals would take years to form? 5-6 years of constant negotiations is not at all uncommon for a single trade deal of that scope, and the UK is looking to negotiate multiple such deals simultaneously with no international trade negotiating corps of any experience.

Perhaps, although they don't need to be of large scope. Also, if the plan is for a genuine free trade agreement, then the process doesn't need to take more than, frankly the time it takes to agree on the scope of the treaty and write it down.

Canada: So, free trade in manufactured goods except cars and tractors, okay?
UK: Okay.

Treaty Text: The UK/Canada shall not impose tariffs on Canadian/British manufactured goods, except cars and tractors. For definitions, see all the huge pile of existing WTO cases and definitions already in existence. Signed... etc etc etc.

What makes these modern "free trade" deals take time is all this regulatory stuff. Sure, the companies might find it easier if Canadian & British electrical standards are identical, but that is not necessary for a free trade agreement.

You'll be lucky if you haven't lost any lives in those one or two years. Extremely lucky.

The difficulty will be proving the link between deaths and Brexit.

Even then though... worth it.

[Mayhem]

Even then though... worth it.

And there you have it, folks.

[Teleros]

And there you have it, folks.

What, are human lives priceless now? Is there nothing worth dying for?

[Mayhem]

What, are human lives priceless now? Is there nothing worth dying for?

It's not you dying for, now is it?

[zealo]

Name one country that is lining up for a trade deal with the UK after a no deal Brexit.

That they'll be lining up to sign trade deals isn't an all that far fetched conclusion.

The caveat is just that those trade deals with major economies will both take years to materialise into anything, and that they'll be negotiating with a UK that has a weaker negotiation position than the EU does.

[Teleros]

It's not you dying for, now is it?

I have no idea. I mean, I think Slant's being pretty damn silly, and never having been in the armed forces I'm not going to go out and say "oh yes I'd die for my country" because I don't even pretend to know if I'd do that if it came to the crunch. I'd like to think I would, but that's not the same as actually doing so.

The thing is though, you can apply Slant's way of thinking to just about every policy in existence. People will die if you raise the speed limit. And lower it. And leave it where it is.

[Mayhem]

That they'll be lining up to sign trade deals isn't an all that far fetched conclusion.

The caveat is just that those trade deals with major economies will both take years to materialise into anything, and that they'll be negotiating with a UK that has a weaker negotiation position than the EU does.

I'm sceptical, I just don't see what the UK has to offer. Having millions of people isn't enough to get trade deals when no one can assure that these millions are also able to buy/produce stuff. Also, the reason why I still belive that there will not be a no deal brexit.

[Teleros]

A free trade deal negotiation would need to head down those tariff lines and discuss every single one of them, with prolonged negotiations involving special interests as well as tit for tat practice in tariff lines that either side holds deficit accounts.

Okay, first off, the UK is already a member of the WTO, so we can immediately start trading on WTO rules, avoiding Russia's 19 year process to join, for example.

Second, a free trade agreement is, by definition, an agreement to allow trade between two states without either imposing tariffs. Such an agreement can be specific ("the US-British handmade woollen gloves free trade agreement") or general ("the US-British manufactured goods free trade agreement").

Third, and again, the reason these trade agreements take so long to hammer out is in no small part due to the desire to harmonise regulatory regimes between countries or trading blocks. This is not necessary for a free trade agreement. Sure there's also other stuff - lobbyists, national security concerns, job losses in marginal seats etc - but you get the point.

Fourth, yes I understand the difference between goods & services. I think London will still be very competitive (plenty of businesses still investing there etc), but if it loses business... TBH I'm not too worried about us worrying about the banking sector shrinking. The UK economy's been a bit too London- and banking- heavy for a while now.

[Teleros]

First off the WTO denied your request to utilize the existing tariff scheme you held as a member of the EU.

That's fine, and I was never suggesting we'd use the EU's WTO status when we leave. Rather, the UK is a member of the WTO irrespective of our position vis-a-vis the EU, and so would be able to trade under the basic WTO rules.

On your second and third points, again, no. The main issue is never tariffs.

That's besides the point. Whatever the main point is, a free trade agreement is, by definition, basically about tariffs.

Harmonizing regulatory regimes is almost entirely the point of a free trade agreement

A modern "free trade" agreement, yes, because of the growth of regulatory regimes.

a free trade agreement is about the harmonization of all regulations so as to eliminate NTBs (Non-Tariff Barriers)

The reason this stuff takes up all the time, besides the obvious growth of regulations, is that because of things like the WTO actual tariffs just aren't that important any more. But go back to the great days of free trade, such as late 19th century Britain, and you find none of this stuff. If you as a German train manufacturer wanted to sell a train to the Brits you had to make sure it worked on their railways and under their laws, but provided you did that, all was good.

These days however, tariffs are much lower and regulatory burdens are much higher, so what we see is not so much a free trade agreement as that plus a regulatory harmonisation agreement. People are lazy (or want to obfuscate things) so just call it the former.

[Mayhem]

@Teleros Just how fast do you think the UK will be able to negotiate trade deals? So in a no deal brexit scenario, when will the first trade deal be passed?

[Slant]

The difficulty will be proving the link between deaths and Brexit.

Even then though... worth it.

The UK doesn't produce insuline. It is imported 100% from mainland Europe. That's just one of the problems.

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us...insulin-brexit

The links are there. They've always been there. But people don't bother to look it up.

[Teleros]

A trade agreement

Trade agreement or free trade agreement?

that does not discuss NTBs might as well not exist because it will be largely worthless since either side can still manipulate trade flows at will by changing regulations

That's certainly possible, though I think some countries are better behaved in this regard than others. A CANZUK free trade agreement would probably be pretty good in this regard. Wouldn't trust the EU a bit though, and probably not the US that much either, given the OTT corporate lobbying over there.

I mean if you want to redefine what an FTA is to something that will be useless to assist the UK to have market access abroad, feel free. Then I'd question why you'd ever be enthusiastic about those FTAs you describe if you admit they are worthless yourself.

I'm actually not very enthusiastic about them, but as that's the way everything seems to be going I've just been talking about them instead of what I want. I'd rather see minimal regulations, but tariffs to encourage domestic industries (ala 19th century USA & Germany), and then specifically tailored agreements with particular countries as and when it's beneficial / not harmful to the UK. Laissez-faire behind a tariff wall, if you will. Again though, I don't see any chance of that, so I've ignored what I want in favour of what everyone is saying.

[Kallisto]

*sigh* any time anyone goes "we can fall back on WTO." the more Churchill's comment on the biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversion with your average voter becomes more apparant

[Slant]

I have no idea. I mean, I think Slant's being pretty damn silly, and never having been in the armed forces I'm not going to go out and say "oh yes I'd die for my country" because I don't even pretend to know if I'd do that if it came to the crunch. I'd like to think I would, but that's not the same as actually doing so.

The thing is though, you can apply Slant's way of thinking to just about every policy in existence. People will die if you raise the speed limit. And lower it. And leave it where it is.

I'm talking about THE ACTUAL REAL LIFE, not your fantasy of utopia. People need medical supplies. Supplies that the UK is not producing. Isn't capable of producing. Medical supplies that need to be ordered 6 months ahead. You're already in the zone where you would have to order but nobody on mainland Europe is accepting those orders, because nobody knows if they can actually deliver them.

You still don't get it, do you? You and your attitude are endangering lives!

[Slant]

*sigh* any time anyone goes "we can fall back on WTO." the more Churchill's comment on the biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversion with your average voter becomes more apparant

Erm, educate me? I'm intrigued. What did he have to say about that?

[Teleros]

The UK doesn't produce insuline. It is imported 100% from mainland Europe. That's just one of the problems.

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us...insulin-brexit

The links are there. They've always been there. But people don't bother to look it up.

Didn't see this. Anyway, so your argument is that, because of WTO rules... what? There will be no insulin available in the UK? I'm a Brexiteer and even I don't think the EU would be so moustache-twirlingly stupid as to ban the sale of insulin to the UK.

@Teleros Just how fast do you think the UK will be able to negotiate trade deals? So in a no deal brexit scenario, when will the first trade deal be passed?

No idea. So much depends on the scope and countries involved, plus behind-the-scenes stuff I know nothing about.

Edit:

You still don't get it, do you? You and your attitude are endangering lives!

Still worth it. Human lives are not priceless, never have been priceless, never will be priceless.

Oh, and there are other sources of insulin. And the possibility of government help if the price rises. You know, reasonable measures.

[Slant]

May personally mentioned this as well. She is Type 1.

I guess WTO will solve that... right? Right!? I wish someone could just give these kids a good ol' spanking.

[Teleros]

The EU would has nothing to do with this. The major producers though cannot accept advance orders from the UK when they have no way to process those orders. This will inevitably create at least a small timeframe where there WILL be shortages and that is just unavoidable. Brexit itself isn't even the issue, it's the uncertainty. If everyone knew under what terms we'd be trading 6 months from now, they'd be able to field those orders.

Well, all I can say is whoever is involved in buying insulin from the rest of the EU in the UK is verging on being criminally negligent for not preparing. I mean, they've had a couple of years now to get something in place...

[Mayhem]

Didn't see this. Anyway, so your argument is that, because of WTO rules... what? There will be no insulin available in the UK? I'm a Brexiteer and even I don't think the EU would be so moustache-twirlingly stupid as to ban the sale of insulin to the UK.

There need to be regulations in place before the companies in the EU will be able to sell it to the UK. Right now the rules are set under the single market rules, but come march 29th the rules are unknown past that date so the companies aren't able to determine prices. Pretty hard to buy stuff if no one knows the price.

No idea. So much depends on the scope and countries involved, plus behind-the-scenes stuff I know nothing about.

Not just the scope or the countries involved but also where those countries are and what trade deals they have. You can't just make a free trade deal with Canada without involvevement of the US/Mexico and the EU because of CETA.

Still worth it. Human lives are not priceless, never have been priceless, never will be priceless.

Oh, and there are other sources of insulin. And the possibility of government help if the price rises. You know, reasonable measures.

Those other sources of insulin also won't have an idea of the prices. Prices will rise, that is just a certainty, even if the UK goes the "zero tariff we're really going to kill our companies"-route.