The Brexit aftermath thread

[Acidbaron]

Why does location matter? Come on please explain exactly why it is so important and why it matters now and apparently not in Oct 2017 or Sept 2018 when Barnier said that a Canada style deal was an option. Did Barnier forget where the UK was?

Your point about the UK wanting to screw over its workers is more of your usual xenophobic nonsense. Post financial crisis regulation in the city is of a higher standard than throughout the EU - so again more nonsense.

Your second paragraph is completely untrue. FTA with Canada and Japan offer access to the Canada and Japan's markets. To have access to other markets in Asia or NA the EU would need agreements with other nations.

More ignorance and bigotry. Pathetic!

The last paragraph is not true either.

As has pointed out before Canada style means the same format, a structure in what trade is available. Not to be used when comparing industry 1 on 1 and pointing out why Canada can have that and the UK cannot, i already told you why location matters and that is due fair competition. I would be saying that in England you can produce a certain product and that will be taxed at roughly 15% on a resource needed to make said product and in Wales it would be 5% taxed.
Or let's say you reduce the cost of producing a product by lowering the standards of said product and want to introduce that product that is similar into another market where others participating in there do have a higher cost attached to it due to being mandated to follow those standards and so forth, but that paints a good a enough picture.
Did you really believe the EU and its member states would not protect their interest and industries? Did you really believe we would simply accept everything the UK tried to do? Perhaps it is the EU fault as for a long time you had quite a bit of say in the matter to defend your own industries despite being obstructive on other fronts, it is time to wake up, you wanted out of the club and that means the UK needs and wants are secondary to that of member states, especially considering this act of a Brexit is going to cause economic issues, why should the EU carry about giving you a deal more favourable to you when you guys pulled the trigger?

I expect this kind of nonsense from dribbles but maybe i have given you more credit than you deserved.

Also suddenly when Barnier says something that can be twisted into sounding favourable for the UK government, his word is gospel and all other times it is ignored or worse. Interesting.


The UK not screwing over their workers, have you forgotten who Thatcher was? What legacy and mindset she created in the conservative base? The Brexit is putting a manufacturing industry that mainly employs a certain demographic of worker class citizens under even greater stress than it already is now. Is it not once more that same demographic that is going to take the biggest hit during all this?
None of that however seems to matter as it is considered a non-issue in the light of fairy tales of the EU and immigration concerns looking at the current government.

As for being xenophobic my comments are aimed at the UK government, can't separate the government from the people not my problem to be honest. I will repeat that a vote for Brexit is at some level born from racism. Something you have issue with swallowing also but you can't translate the brexit in any other way either it is vote out of racism or it is vote out of ignorance and generally ignorant people are well you can guess what, easily motivated by certain populist slogans to put it kindly.

Of course they need to make trade deals with individuals nations or States, but it gives them an entry point. A point of where contacts can be made and business relations can be build from in that region, access to businesses, people and so forth. It also introduces a product in region, if an European company launches a successful product in Canada chances are that lays the basis for it to also make its way in the US. The UK does not give us access to any of that, and also due to their location they don't pose a direct competition for some industries in the EU, but you already said you gladly handwave such arguments away because you don't wish or refuse to accept that.

Well perhaps, perhaps they don't want the EU to blink as apparently the No-deal situation as in hurting both economies the most and everyone involved has been the end goal all along.

- - - Updated - - -

Pann seems to think that "Canada style" means "copy/paste", else all of his argumentation seems at odds. Also, what happened since 2017 and 2018 and that it was a different British government seems not to matter at all.

Pretty much, and as i wrote before it is amusing that suddenly Barnier words are gospel...

[Pann]

You can't hop in a lorry and drive across the border from Japan to the EU. You can do that from the UK. If you feel that a Canada style deal with measures insuring a level playing field is not a Canada style deal at all, well then that is your right. But that does not mean that Barnier or anyone in the EU has to feel the same.

Hmm, so now it's lorries?!?

CETA has several sections devoted to ensuring there is a level playing field.

[Acidbaron]

I'm not making you post anything.

No-one is asking for a verbatim copy of anything.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you seriously suggesting that shipping costs are a serious consideration when setting tariff and quota schedules? Really?

First i went out that you were just acting obtuse, but it seems you are really not understanding why location matters in relation to a trade deal to protect member states of unfair competition.

Let us give it one more try.

https://www.politico.eu/article/heik...it-trade-deal/

Or one more considering you like Barnier all of the sudden,

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ated-1.4073112

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has warned the UK at Web Summit that Europe “will not tolerate” unfair economic competition on its doorstep, if Britain chooses to “pick and mix” EU trading standards post Brexit.

Looking beyond the withdrawal agreement negotiated last month with Boris Johnson’s UK Government, Mr Barnier also warned that the trade talks scheduled for next year will be a major challenge because they are “short” at 11 months, from the end of the January Brexit extension until the UK’s proposed transition period concludes at the end of 2020.

Mr Barnier said the challenges would also be increased because the UK and EU will come at the talks “from different starting points”. But, he warned, the EU will be firm in the trade talks.

You might also want to go and look back on that "Canada deal comment" in context mate. Because most of the reason why one the muppet know as Davis liked it was due to his selective reading skills, and you aren't even quoting the correct EU official on who promoted that deal for the UK back then.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? your making me post the picture again?


There, a 'Canada style' deal is not a verbatim copy of the deal with Canada or Japan, it is a deal that does not have all the red lines that tighter connections to the EU has.

Ofcourse location matters, as a carpenter my carpenter neighbour is a bigger competitor then the one living in Canada. Despite him being able to put his furniture on a ship and selling it over here.
Your aware distance brings costs right? It costs a certain amount of money to ship things from Canada/Japan to the EU. This cost increases the price of these products when they are sold on the EU market. The UK is rather close, therefor the cost to ship things to the EU is less. A thing that costs the exact same money to make in the UK and Canada will not have the same price on the EU market because distance matters.

To be absolutely brutal, people who are touting the Canada deal don't know what was on the table to begin with. They are looking at industries and comparing them one on one, while that was not the case. Instead of looking at the deal frame work in its entirety they ended up nitpicking parts here and there they liked. It's more of UK buffoonery where they wanted all the benefits of a deal and nothing else, pretty much the same thing we saw since the start of this charade.

It is amusing however that when looking at the Canada deal for the UK, non of those proponents mentioned how great it would be for the financial sector. You can guess why.

[Pann]

As has pointed out before Canada style means the same format, a structure in what trade is available. Not to be used when comparing industry 1 on 1 and pointing out why Canada can have that and the UK cannot, i already told you why location matters and that is due fair competition. I would be saying that in England you can produce a certain product and that will be taxed at roughly 15% on a resource needed to make said product and in Wales it would be 5% taxed.

No, it does not. It means a deal similar or based on the EU/Canada deal.

You did not tell me why location is important and I doubt that you ever will instead preferring to try and blag your way through.

You'll have to explain your whole 15% England tax and 5% Wales tax as in its present form it makes no sense.

Or let's say you reduce the cost of producing a product by lowering the standards of said product and want to introduce that product that is similar into another market where others participating in there do have a higher cost attached to it due to being mandated to follow those standards and so forth, but that paints a good a enough picture.

What does standards have to do with location? Stop trying to blag.

Did you really believe the EU and its member states would not protect their interest and industries? Did you really believe we would simply accept everything the UK tried to do? Perhaps it is the EU fault as for a long time you had quite a bit of say in the matter to defend your own industries despite being obstructive on other fronts, it is time to wake up, you wanted out of the club and that means the UK needs and wants are secondary to that of member states, especially considering this act of a Brexit is going to cause economic issues, why should the EU carry about giving you a deal more favourable to you when you guys pulled the trigger?

No, and I have never said anything of the sort - this is what quotas and tariffs are for.

We don't want a more favourable deal - we want something that is similar to what has been offered to other nations.

Also suddenly when Barnier says something that can be twisted into sounding favourable for the UK government, his word is gospel and all other times it is ignored or worse. Interesting.

"Another option would be a free trade agreement like the CETA-deal with Canada.” These are Barnier's own words - they seem pretty clear to me.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...style-eu-deal/

The UK not screwing over their workers, have you forgotten who Thatcher was? What legacy and mindset she created in the conservative base? The Brexit is putting a manufacturing industry that mainly employs a certain demographic of worker class citizens under even greater stress than it already is now. Is it not once more that same demographic that is going to take the biggest hit during all this?
None of that however seems to matter as it is considered a non-issue in the light of fairy tales of the EU and immigration concerns looking at the current government.

Thatcher has not been in power for 30 years. But what you appear to be saying now is that trading conditions will not be favourable to many industries which is completely different to original claim "... the UK wants is to be able to unfairly compete in markets by screwing over their own workers when it comes to pay and social benefits so they could get a bigger slice of market share"

As for being xenophobic my comments are aimed at the UK government, can't separate the government from the people not my problem to be honest. I will repeat that a vote for Brexit is at some level born from racism. Something you have issue with swallowing also but you can't translate the brexit in any other way either it is vote out of racism or it is vote out of ignorance and generally ignorant people are well you can guess what, easily motivated by certain populist slogans to put it kindly.

Your posts are xenophobic - rather than trying to make excuses - stop it!

Of course they need to make trade deals with individuals nations or States, but it gives them an entry point. A point of where contacts can be made and business relations can be build from in that region, access to businesses, people and so forth. It also introduces a product in region, if an European company launches a successful product in Canada chances are that lays the basis for it to also make its way in the US. The UK does not give us access to any of that, and also due to their location they don't pose a direct competition for some industries in the EU, but you already said you gladly handwave such arguments away because you don't wish or refuse to accept that.

It doesn't.

Pretty much, and as i wrote before it is amusing that suddenly Barnier words are gospel...

Are you suggesting that we should not trust what Barnier says?


Honestly all you have posted above is a series of strawman arguments and number of blags.

Please try to explain why location means that terms that have been offered to other nations and that were previously seen as an option are not available to the UK. Please try to avoid blagging when you don't know something - if you don't know the answer say that you don't know (there is no shame in not knowing the ins and outs of something so complex) or avoid trying to answer - or resorting to attacking the poor strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

First i went out that you were just acting obtuse, but it seems you are really not understanding why location matters in relation to a trade deal to protect member states of unfair competition.

Let us give it one more try.

https://www.politico.eu/article/heik...it-trade-deal/

Or one more considering you like Barnier all of the sudden,

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ated-1.4073112

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has warned the UK at Web Summit that Europe “will not tolerate” unfair economic competition on its doorstep, if Britain chooses to “pick and mix” EU trading standards post Brexit.

Looking beyond the withdrawal agreement negotiated last month with Boris Johnson’s UK Government, Mr Barnier also warned that the trade talks scheduled for next year will be a major challenge because they are “short” at 11 months, from the end of the January Brexit extension until the UK’s proposed transition period concludes at the end of 2020.

Mr Barnier said the challenges would also be increased because the UK and EU will come at the talks “from different starting points”. But, he warned, the EU will be firm in the trade talks.

You might also want to go and look back on that "Canada deal comment" in context mate. Because most of the reason why one the muppet know as Davis liked it was due to his selective reading skills, and you aren't even quoting the correct EU official on who promoted that deal for the UK back then.

Neither of those articles have any relation to location. The fact that we are asking for a deal similar to the one agreed with Canada - which has extensive sections dealing with standards, regulations, dispute resolution, etc - negates their point.

[Acidbaron]

To be honest Pann, believe whatever makes you more happy.

All i am getting from you is that you did not look at what deal was actually on the table, what CETA-like actually implied. If you find no arguments in my post as to why unfair competition won't be tolerated or even better why you can't even see why it would be a unfair competition, that really means you have dug yourself in on it. All i did was highlighting dumping of service costs or goods and attempting to bypass standards, rules and regulations to gain market share. Perhaps not through the best of examples but i doubt the type of example used would have changed your view on any of it. Also Tariffs and quotas don't fix everyone, it is not some sort of magical wand. edit: It is actually telling that you use Tariffs as something to fix these issues while also saying a Canada deal is what you desire, might want to look into what a Canada deal actually is.

For you these what i call "clarifications" on the Canada 'plus' or double plus or whatever it is called nowadays deal from the EU perspective come as a change in tone or even flip flopping on the matter, for me they do not. Perhaps this is due to you being more exposed to certain media outlets and press that created this sort of incorrect image, would not be the first time that happened. The UK continuously asks for Unicorns and wonders why it gets nowhere in talks.

[Mayhem]

"Another option would be a free trade agreement like the CETA-deal with Canada.” These are Barnier's own words - they seem pretty clear to me.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...style-eu-deal/

And it would take years to negotiate.

How well the negotiations are going can be seen by the amount of detail in the declarations to this date, the EU 400+ pages the UK less than 40 pages.

[Pann]

To be honest Pann, believe whatever makes you more happy.

All i am getting from you is that you did not look at what deal was actually on the table, what CETA-like actually implied. If you find no arguments in my post as to why unfair competition won't be tolerated or even better why you can't even see why it would be a unfair competition, that really means you have dug yourself in on it. All i did was highlighting dumping of service costs or goods and attempting to bypass standards, rules and regulations to gain market share. Perhaps not through the best of examples but i doubt the type of example used would have changed your view on any of it. Also Tariffs and quotas don't fix everyone, it is not some sort of magical wand.

For you these what i call "clarifications" on the Canada 'plus' or double plus or whatever it is called nowadays deal from the EU perspective come as a change in tone or even flip flopping on the matter, for me they do not. Perhaps this is due to you being more exposed to certain media outlets and press that created this sort of incorrect image, would not be the first time that happened. The UK continuously asks for Unicorns and wonders why it gets nowhere in talks.

Thanks. I will believe what is reported and I am happy to change my opinion based on new information, so far you've failed to produce anything accurate let alone new.

I did - unlike you - I have bothered to look at CETA, the Japan FTA and the UK's draft proposal. I have never mentioned anything about tolerating unfair competition - this is another strawman!

Nor have I mentioned anything about "dumping of service costs or goods and attempting to bypass standards, rules and regulations to gain market share" so why are you claiming that I have? All FTAs include multiple, detailed sections dealing with all of the above and what the UK is asking for is no different. Tariffs and quotas protect industries from lower priced international competition which apparently is the reason why UK cannot have terms similar to Canada.

You've clarified nothing! You've avoided answering anything and reverted to type by posting a load of bluff and bluster padded with strawman arguments and silly insults. At this point in time - based on what you've posted today - I don't think you even understand what is being discussed. If you can't answer don't waste your time trying.

[Acidbaron]

Thanks. I will believe what is reported and I am happy to change my opinion based on new information, so far you've failed to produce anything accurate let alone new.

I did - unlike you - I have bothered to look at CETA, the Japan FTA and the UK's draft proposal. I have never mentioned anything about tolerating unfair competition - this is another strawman!

Nor have I mentioned anything about "dumping of service costs or goods and attempting to bypass standards, rules and regulations to gain market share" so why are you claiming that I have? All FTAs include multiple, detailed sections dealing with all of the above and what the UK is asking for is no different. Tariffs and quotas protect industries from lower priced international competition which apparently is the reason why UK cannot have terms similar to Canada.

You've clarified nothing! You've avoided answering anything and reverted to type by posting a load of bluff and bluster padded with strawman arguments and silly insults. At this point in time - based on what you've posted today - I don't think you even understand what is being discussed. If you can't answer don't waste your time trying.

You keep saying that but based on what you write i highly doubt that you did, take this as an insult if you want but really look up what the EU-Canada deal actually is. But all of this is a bit beyond the point because even if the UK government had honest intentions in achieving a Canada sort of deal it would have never been achievable in the time they wished to dedicated to negotiating it, what leads me to believe much like the EU side the UK had either no real intention of achieving that or wished to rush something out of the door that opens up the EU to unfair competition.

If you don't see how a Canada deal without proper negotiations would turn out highly unfavourable to the EU member states and even promotes unfair competition than simply put you do not know what the EU-Canada deal actually is and by claiming that the EU simply should force this through is asking for unfair competition indirectly.

Now again bit of pointless discussion the UK has decided to crash out.

[Pann]

You keep saying that but based on what you write i highly doubt that you did, take this as an insult if you want but really look up what the EU-Canada deal actually is. But all of this is a bit beyond the point because even if the UK government had honest intentions in achieving a Canada sort of deal it would have never been achievable in the time they wished to dedicated to negotiating it, what leads me to believe much like the EU side the UK had either no real intention of achieving that or wished to rush something out of the door that opens up the EU to unfair competition.

If you don't see how a Canada deal without proper negotiations would turn out highly unfavourable to the EU member states and even promotes unfair competition than simply put you do not know what the EU-Canada deal actually is and by claiming that the EU simply should force this through is asking for unfair competition indirectly.

Now again bit of pointless discussion the UK has decided to crash out.

Yawn. Given that you keep mentioning things, such as unfair competition, that are explicitly addressed by the terms of CETA that comes as no surprise.

The time frame is a different issue entirely - what a surprise!

I haven't mentioned that there should not be proper negotiations - why can't you address what I write? - and it is implicit from the fact that I mentioned a deal similar to one agreed with Canada that the exact Canada deal would not be suitable and that certain sections would need their own negotiations tailored towards the EU/UK relationship.

As I keep pointing out to you CETA explicitly deals with unfair competition! So how could this - even if you took CETA word for word and applied it to the UK - result in unfair competition? Please stop making things up.

[Mayhem]

As I keep pointing out to you CETA explicitly deals with unfair competition! So how could this - even if you took CETA word for word and applied it to the UK - result in unfair competition? Please stop making things up.

No, it does not, at least not to the point the EU expects from the UK because of its location and size. You didn't read anything, did you?

[Muzjhath]

Yawn. Given that you keep mentioning things, such as unfair competition, that are explicitly addressed by the terms of CETA that comes as no surprise.

The time frame is a different issue entirely - what a surprise!

I haven't mentioned that there should not be proper negotiations - why can't you address what I write? - and it is implicit from the fact that I mentioned a deal similar to one agreed with Canada that the exact Canada deal would not be suitable and that certain sections would need their own negotiations tailored towards the EU/UK relationship.

As I keep pointing out to you CETA explicitly deals with unfair competition! So how could this - even if you took CETA word for word and applied it to the UK - result in unfair competition? Please stop making things up.

And, as Acidbaron keeps pointing out. Negotiating something of that nature would take years. Not a year. Years.

Something the BoJo government expressely stated they weren't willing to give.

[Acidbaron]

Yawn. Given that you keep mentioning things, such as unfair competition, that are explicitly addressed by the terms of CETA that comes as no surprise.

The time frame is a different issue entirely - what a surprise!

I haven't mentioned that there should not be proper negotiations - why can't you address what I write? - and it is implicit from the fact that I mentioned a deal similar to one agreed with Canada that the exact Canada deal would not be suitable and that certain sections would need their own negotiations tailored towards the EU/UK relationship.

As I keep pointing out to you CETA explicitly deals with unfair competition! So how could this - even if you took CETA word for word and applied it to the UK - result in unfair competition? Please stop making things up.

Yawn indeed.

Much like your government you nitpick things that suit you and disregard everything else, you only have a point if you keep looking at it all in a vacuum, disconnected from everything else.

So no that CETA you keep mentioning about dealing with unfair competition is not equipped to deal with unfair competition, when Barnier made that statement that Canada Plus would be possible it was done so in the light that the original format of negotiation would hold and that being at first an agreement to leave the EU followed by years of negotiating trade deals.

I get it also would like to forget the embarrassment that was the UK handling of the Brexit up until now but if you wish to have a discussion about why things change in a negotiation you can't simply start tearing out chapters from the story because they don't suit you any more.

[Pann]

And, as Acidbaron keeps pointing out. Negotiating something of that nature would take years. Not a year. Years.

Something the BoJo government expressely stated they weren't willing to give.

Which - as I pointed out in the very post you've quoted - has nothing to do with unfair competition.

But thanks anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Yawn indeed.

Much like your government you nitpick things that suit you and disregard everything else, you only have a point if you keep looking at it all in a vacuum, disconnected from everything else.

So no that CETA you keep mentioning about dealing with unfair competition is not equipped to deal with unfair competition, when Barnier made that statement that Canada Plus would be possible it was done so in the light that the original format of negotiation would hold and that being at first an agreement to leave the EU followed by years of negotiating trade deals.

I get it also would like to forget the embarrassment that was the UK handling of the Brexit up until now but if you wish to have a discussion about why things change in a negotiation you can't simply start tearing out chapters from the story because they don't suit you any more.

You're not saying anything.

CETA dealing with unfair competition is not equipped to deal with unfair competition?!? Did you bother to think about what you've written? Why do you keep going back to the time frame? Is it because you can't back up your original claim?

Forget the timeline of things - explain how the UK's location will result in unfair competition if it was offered a CETA style deal.

I haven't forgotten the appalling bad handling of Brexit by the UK - in fact I have made several posts criticising the UK government and parliament for it in this very thread - so you've introduced another disingenuous strawman. Do you even realise you're doing this?

Look none of us here are experts but based on your comments about how the EU FTA with Canada would supposedly open up the US market it is clear that you don't understand the very basics of what FTA entails or what it does. So without even a minimal understanding of the topic at hand you are wasting everyone's time when you post stuff like that.

[Acidbaron]

Which - as I pointed out in the very post you've quoted - has nothing to do with unfair competition.

But thanks anyway.

- - - Updated - - -



You're not saying anything.

CETA dealing with unfair competition is not equipped to deal with unfair competition?!? Did you bother to think about what you've written? Why do you keep going back to the time frame? Is it because you can't back up your original claim?

Forget the timeline of things - explain how the UK's location will result in unfair competition if it was offered a CETA style deal.

I haven't forgotten the appalling bad handling of Brexit but the UK - in fact I have made several posts criticising the UK government and parliament for it in this very thread - so you've introduced another strawman. Do you even realise you're doing this?

Look none of us here are experts but based on your comments about how the EU FTA with Canada would supposedly open up the US market it is clear that you don't understand the very basics of what FTA entails or what it does. So without even a minimal understanding of the topic at hand you are wasting everyone's time when you post stuff that this.

Since you are now twisting my words i am going to keep this rather simple.

What was the timeline for the negotiations of a Brexit deal when the Canada Plus option was presented to the UK?
Or to put it even easier, was it not the understanding that a trade deal would be negotiated after the "divorce bill" when this option was presented to the UK? Yes or No will suffice.

Second question, can a CETA deal such as the one with Canada that includes the removal of tariffs of goods and allow them to compete for services offered in the EU happen, something that is only possible for Canada due to a lot of legal framework and red tape be possible for the UK in a single year as a CETA starts negotiation from a tabula rasa? Yes or no.

[Teleros]

First i went out that you were just acting obtuse, but it seems you are really not understanding why location matters in relation to a trade deal to protect member states of unfair competition.

Let us give it one more try.

https://www.politico.eu/article/heik...it-trade-deal/

Or one more considering you like Barnier all of the sudden,

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ated-1.4073112

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has warned the UK at Web Summit that Europe “will not tolerate” unfair economic competition on its doorstep, if Britain chooses to “pick and mix” EU trading standards post Brexit.

Looking beyond the withdrawal agreement negotiated last month with Boris Johnson’s UK Government, Mr Barnier also warned that the trade talks scheduled for next year will be a major challenge because they are “short” at 11 months, from the end of the January Brexit extension until the UK’s proposed transition period concludes at the end of 2020.

Mr Barnier said the challenges would also be increased because the UK and EU will come at the talks “from different starting points”. But, he warned, the EU will be firm in the trade talks.

You might also want to go and look back on that "Canada deal comment" in context mate. Because most of the reason why one the muppet know as Davis liked it was due to his selective reading skills, and you aren't even quoting the correct EU official on who promoted that deal for the UK back then.

- - - Updated - - -



To be absolutely brutal, people who are touting the Canada deal don't know what was on the table to begin with. They are looking at industries and comparing them one on one, while that was not the case. Instead of looking at the deal frame work in its entirety they ended up nitpicking parts here and there they liked. It's more of UK buffoonery where they wanted all the benefits of a deal and nothing else, pretty much the same thing we saw since the start of this charade.

It is amusing however that when looking at the Canada deal for the UK, non of those proponents mentioned how great it would be for the financial sector. You can guess why.

The article, to save people clicks, basically says "this is what could happen to the EU if it doesn't react the Covid issue" then ends by saying "which is why the EU will do this, which will ensure the EU doesn't crumble".

It says "we think the EU will do this". All Dribbles has to do is disagree with their assessment.

Comparing them Canada or Japan is also laughable besides those being big economic power houses

> Canada
> MFW

As for being xenophobic my comments are aimed at the UK government, can't separate the government from the people not my problem to be honest. I will repeat that a vote for Brexit is at some level born from racism. Something you have issue with swallowing also but you can't translate the brexit in any other way either it is vote out of racism or it is vote out of ignorance and generally ignorant people are well you can guess what, easily motivated by certain populist slogans to put it kindly.

Just as well you're getting rid of us then, what with 52% of the country being eeeeeeevil racists .

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has warned the UK at Web Summit that Europe “will not tolerate” unfair economic competition on its doorstep, if Britain chooses to “pick and mix” EU trading standards post Brexit.

Bwahahaha. Just shows he's scared of businesses shifting production to the UK & is trying a bit of bluster over this point. Negotiations by press release, basically. Unless a post-Brexit trade deal is Brexit-in-name-only and requires the UK to adhere to EU standards, we'll do whatever the hell we like, and Barnier can go whistle.

[Pann]

Since you are now twisting my words i am going to keep this rather simple.

What was the timeline for the negotiations of a Brexit deal when the Canada Plus option was presented to the UK?
Or to put it even easier, was it not the understanding that a trade deal would be negotiated after the "divorce bill" when this option was presented to the UK? Yes or No will suffice.

Second question, can a CETA deal such as the one with Canada that includes the removal of tariffs of goods and allow them to compete for services offered in the EU happen, something that is only possible for Canada due to a lot of legal framework and red tape be possible for the UK in a single year as a CETA starts negotiation from a tabula rasa? Yes or no.

I am not twisting your words at all! You write lots but there is no substance to it and you keep avoiding the topic.

I'm not interested in the timeline. I want to know why a Canada style deal would result in unfair competition because of its location. If you cannot answer this then retract your claim.

For crying out loud! The divorce bill was part of the Withdrawal Agreement it has already been negotiated.

Complete and utter nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! But why is this only possible for Canada? The FTA with Japan includes similar provisions. The purpose of a FTA is establish this legal framework.

[Acidbaron]

I am not twisting your words at all! You write lots but there is no substance to it and you keep avoiding the topic.

I'm not interested in the timeline. I want to know why a Canada style deal would result in unfair competition because of its location. If you cannot answer this then retract your claim.

For crying out loud! The divorce bill was part of the Withdrawal Agreement it has already been negotiated.

Complete and utter nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! But why is this only possible for Canada? The FTA with Japan includes similar provisions. The purpose of a FTA is establish this legal framework.

Colour me surprised that you refuse to answer my questions.

So i guess by that i can conclude that you are made aware that in the past the option was on the table as it would lead to a lengthy trade negotiation process after the divorce bill this with the change in administration has been limited in time as the divorce bill changed, there for a CETA deal like Canada can no longer be done as the UK government does not wish to commit enough time to it.

Ergo, the UK government took the option off the table by their own actions.

Thanks for playing, i am glad we have both been able to come to the conclusion that a fair trade deal with the current UK administration has never been possible.

[Pann]

Colour me surprised that you refuse to answer my questions.

So i guess by that i can conclude that you are made aware that in the past the option was on the table as it would lead to a lengthy trade negotiation process after the divorce bill this with the change in administration has been limited in time as the divorce bill changed, there for a CETA deal like Canada can no longer be done as the UK government does not wish to commit enough time to it.

Ergo, the UK government took the option off the table by their own actions.

Thanks for playing, i am glad we have both been able to come to the conclusion that a fair trade deal with the current UK administration has never been possible.

Uhm, yeah...

Are you going to support your claim or continue go around in circles you don't understand. It is more than a little embarrassing now.

The first question has already been dealt with, the second was nonsensical.

The timeline for negotiations is either long enough or it is not - it is looking like it will not be long enough - if it is long enough then a deal will be reached, if not it will either be extended, and a deal reached, or not and the UK will leave without a deal.

I want to know why a Canada style deal - which would imply that negotiations have been successfully concluded - would result in unfair competition because of the UK's proximity to the EU.

If you cannot support this claim then retract it.

[Acidbaron]

Uhm, yeah...

Are you going to support your claim or continue go around in circles you don't understand. It is more than a little embarrassing now.

The first question was factually inaccurate the second was nonsensical.

The timeline for negotiations is either long enough or it is not - it is looking like it will not be long enough - if it is long enough then a deal will be reached, if not it will either be extended, and a deal reached, or not and the UK will leave without a deal.

I want to know why a Canada style deal - which would imply that negotiations have been successfully concluded - would result in unfair competition because of the UK's proximity to the EU.

If you cannot support this claim then retract it.

I already explained to you why it would be unfair, you cling onto the notion that a CETA deal covers all that, treating it as some sort of magical wand what i don't accept it is.
Don't confuse my attempt into bringing home the point to you that the CETA would have never worked with the current administration simply basing this simply of the time it takes that i am in agreement that a CETA type deal the UK desired would be fair. It would not, as has shown by previous demands that they desire unicorns but for me it seemed a basic enough argument to make for you to be able to accept and not hand wave as the argument of time is in comparison to the rest rather binary, either there is enough time or there is not.

It also goes to show why your argument of "but, but barnier said so!" is childish at best and dishonest at worst as it excludes all other changes that took place between the offer and now.

[Pann]

I already explained to you why it would be unfair, you cling onto the notion that a CETA deal covers all that, treating it as some sort of magical wand what i don't accept it is.
Don't confuse my attempt into bringing home the point to you that the CETA would have never worked with the current administration simply basing this simply of the time it takes that i am in agreement that a CETA type deal the UK desired would be fair. It would not, as has shown by previous demands that they desire unicorns but for me it seemed a basic enough argument to make for you to be able to accept and not hand wave as the argument of time is in comparison to the rest rather binary, either there is enough time or there is not.

It also goes to show why your argument of "but, but barnier said so!" is childish at best and dishonest at worst as it excludes all other changes that took place between the offer and now.

I must have missed that then perhaps you could point to the post where you did? But seriously do you honestly believe that you've answered this in any of your posts?

I have not. I have pointed out that all FTA cover unfair competition and that the UK/EU FTA would be no different.

How is asking for a deal similar to the deals that have recently been agreed with other nations desiring unicorns?

More deflection! I have not made this argument however Barnier has on at least two occasions suggested such a deal so he was either lying or was too stupid to realise where the UK was located. Which is it?