Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The reason for this is that EU negotiators are coming to the trade talks with the U.K. on a pure ideological outlook,and are not looking at the broad picture that a fair conclusion would be in everybody’s best interest.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 29
|
By:
Next year maybe?
|
|
By:
Pesky Europeans, imagining that we'd actually stick to what we agreed.
|
|
By:
Sobeit. The Covid-19 bill for the EU is colossal. Also, its practise of nationalism over solidarity at the height of the pandemic clearly demonstrated the number 1 objective of individual members eg Germany and Netherlands.
No Hanger-on = Increased Prosperity for the UK. |
|
By:
There will be a trade deal. The EU know Boris will no-deal them. They are acting exactly the same way they did with May. They cannot be seen to be letting the UK leave on equal terms. However if they allow a no-deal they know it will be the end of the EU. The one thing the EU wants to hang onto is doing deals for all the other members if they let a no-deal happen The UK will deal with the other countries individually and that would screw them. Trapped like the rats they have acted for the last 4 years.
|
|
By:
Money talks, bulls**t walks, impossible123.
£/$ sub 1.22 Get all your money out of the UK (nap) |
|
By:
No country in the world, in or out of the EU, values trade with locked-down Global Britain more than trade with the EU.
Could you post a link, bigrust........? To your drug dealer.  |
|
By:
It is just common sense Biscuit. Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with?
|
|
By:
It is just common sense Biscuit. Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with?
The conclusion, bigrust There will be a trade deal. Odds on. Although a deal is logically incompatible with Brexit, I believe the UK will sue for a deal and then welsh on it. The EU know Boris will no-deal them. Yes, they know that no-deal is a lose/lose but reckon that, if the UK lose 40% the max lost in any EU country would be less than 10%; except for Ireland, but they can afford to buoy them up for their loyalty. They are acting exactly the same way they did with May. Agreed, the EU are consistent. They cannot be seen to be letting the UK leave on equal terms. Agreed, the EU is a club for the preferment of its members. Govt UK position ask for all the privileges of membership whilst standing outside the club. Good luck with that. However if they allow a no-deal they know it will be the end of the EU. Only if they allow the UK to play divide and rule. My mission, and that of many patriots, is to make sure that doesn't happen. 27 are more powerful than 1. The one thing the EU wants to hang onto is doing deals for all the other members if they let a no-deal happen The UK will deal with the other countries individually and that would screw them. That would be contingent on an individual EU country prizing trade with the UK above trade with the EU. Unlikely, innit? Trapped like the rats they have acted for the last 4 years. That's why I asked for a link to your drug-dealer. |
|
By:
Where the EU made their mistake is trying to screw May. She was a 'remainer' and wanted to stay as close as possible but they thought she was weak and tried to screw her. Luckily the rats lost out.
The EU have level playing field deals with other countries yet they still think they, and you, think they can screw the UK. Well, stuff them. And if that is what you want as well then stuff you. The EU is in a lose-lose situation of their own making. If they no deal this then I really do believe it will be the end of the EU. If you think otherwise well good luck with that. |
|
By:
Of course there will be a trade deal. It's just a case of whether it's with the EU as a whole or with individual member states of the EU who sell more to us than we buy from them. And, Italy could be leading the pack given the discrimination Italy faced from Germany (and the EU) at the height of their fight against Covid-19.
A trade deal is the way forward for all concerned in the EU esp so when they sell more to us than we sell to them. |
|
By:
If it's so logical and easy for individual member countries to strike trade deals with 3rd countries, why did the UK insist on leaving in order to be able to strike deals with 3rd countries?
|
|
By:
If there is no deal and the collateral damage is 60/40, according to loss of trade, then 60% divided by 27 is a lot less than 40% divided by 1.
Is it starting to sink in, Leavers? |
|
By:
United the vast majority of the EU members are receivers not givers. The reason the joined is to become a receiver. They haven't the money to be a giver in fact so the impact is going to be far greater than you think. The EU isn't a group of equals as you seem to think. How many of the receivers do you think will be happy to pay for their membership? Being a receiver means you are losing out because of the EU and they are reimbursing you for your losses.
It is going to be a bumpy ride if the EU do not agree a deal and all of those countries have to pay tariffs along with the givers. It will not be pretty but it will be interesting watching Barnier et al blaming the UK for their trying to cheat us. |
|
By:
Yes its going to be bad in a no deal bexit for EU countries, but its far far worse for us.
If you make a car here, after we crash out all our cars will be hammered by tariffs if exported to the 26 remaining EU countries. If you make a car in France or Spain or Germany after the UK crashes out your cars will be hammered by tariffs in the UK. But not in the other other EU countries. So its quite clear. We will be hammered a lot harder than any other EU country. Even EU leave fanatics like the toad Reece Mogg have acknowledged the short to mid term hit to UK economy. To deny this obvious truth is dim-witted. I did not vote to remain but I was not stupid enough not to see that leaving would be economically bad in the short term. |
|
By:
Look what Renault said last week. If there is a no deal, Barcelona factory shuts and they move into Nissan in Sunderland.
Car producers will open factories in their market countries. If you think it through, that makes no sense at all, which is why cars will stay zero tariff in a deal. |
|
By:
Cryofbollux doing what he does best - crying utter bollux.
Astonishing clear logic from someone clearly in line for high office. Well argues point my friend. You have clearly been to college. |
|
By:
If you think it through, that makes no sense at all, which is why cars will stay zero tariff in a deal.
I hope you are right Shaab. However other nutters seem all in favour of a no deal brexit. |
|
By:
It is not a case of wanting a no deal, but wanting a deal that does not damage the UK interests which is what the EU would like us to accept. Every day that passes without the UK having freedom to negotiate with other countries does damage to us and so it is vital to stick to Jan 1.
|
|
By:
The only deal that would do no damage to UK interests would be one that gives the UK the same access to E U markets tariff free. But we voted to leave. This means a choice. We either accept some EU rules. Or we accept tariffs.
The EU will never allow us to get a deal that gives us the same access to the EU markets without some compromise re sticking to standards etc. It would undermine the EU itself if they did that. Because we lose tariff free access to the markets of 26 other countries whilst thos 26 only lose tariff free access to one country, it is clear who is going to suffer most from Brexit, at least in the short term. Then we have the prospect of a trade deal with the USA. They are sure to demand we drop our standards regards animal welfare and chemical free food. That looks like the future. Beef stuffed with hormones and sh#t (literally) chicken treated with chlorine and an attack on our NHS. |
|
By:
I disagree Cry. We aren't asking the EU to agree with set rules to have a deal with us we are simply saying our standards are equally, and better sometimes, as good as their standards they should accept that. As we accept their standards are good enough for us. That is the agreement they have with Canada.
As far as the old chestnut about US beef and chicken. Millions of Brits go to the US every year and if selling us their beef and chicken is agreed you don't have to eat it. I have been to the states many times and eaten beef and chicken many times and I didn't notice any difference. Plus I can see no way we will agree to drop welfare standards when we are leaders in that field. |
|
By:
If we leave without a deal, the tariff on cars looks like being 10%. We are constantly being told by remainiacs that the pound will plunge against the euro. If it falls by 10% to around parity then the euro price for our continental customers will stay the same, imported cars from Europe will be up to 20% higher in £ terms. No one has to buy a car from the EU and some buyers will look elsewhere or delay the purchase and keep their old car longer.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
There are British cars believe it or not. If there weren't we would be agreeing to tariff free trade both ways. There are also Japanese, Korean and American cars if you prefer. I would be surprised if we change much of our food safety/welfare rules as they are much tighter than EU ones. The problem is that people are opposed to US food on political not scientific grounds.
|
|
By:
I think most folks would choose to buy British if they had a choice, certainly regarding food.
|
|
By:
The problem is that people are opposed to US food on political not scientific grounds
|
|
By:
The FDA are far more demanding than the UK food safety people who in turn are more demanding than the EU ones. But all three Governments tend to make decisions to suit their own pressure groups, not on scientific grounds. By the way I have worked in food and agriculture for all of my working life.
|
|
By:
Not too long ago the EU agreed to let lots more beef in from the US. They do produce hormone free beef, and that is what the EU agreed to let in.
Never made the headlines, that deal. Strange. |
|
By:
What meat used in spaghetti bolognese, etc, sold at supermarkets that caused a storm? Where did it come from? An EU member country, was it not?
|
|
By:
As far as the old chestnut about US beef and chicken. Millions of Brits go to the US every year and if selling us their beef and chicken is agreed you don't have to eat it. I have been to the states many times and eaten beef and chicken many times and I didn't notice any difference. Plus I can see no way we will agree to Brigadier Because the USA animal welfare standards are so much lower than ours, and because they do allow shyte into their ground beef etc, they can produce beef and chicken not just in appalling conditions but also very cheaply. If we allow this disgusting stuff access to our markets it will be so cheap it will find a market here at the expense of our own farmers, who will soon go bust. I am not a big fan of our farmers on the whole. They rather deserve the consequences of Brexit - by and large they voted for it and by and large they vote for the sickening Tory Party. However if Would leave us with no choice but to eat the disgusting yank food if out farmers had all gone bust. |