stepdown

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the EU won?t need to impose a border. There already is a border, the nature of the border going forward is a subject of negotiation. We went over this before you misrepresented a Reuters article, selectively quoted to pretend that criticism of your point validated it and then got muddled up about the monetary policy, protectionism and the EU budget and started with the ad-hominems. At least we've moved on from you making up that "EU states have to erect a border against non EU states", but there's no need for the irrelevant insults against our "friends and partners" as Boris Johnson likes to call them, it's pretty transparent trolling.

The status quo does exist, it's simply how things currently are. An uncertain future does not negate the fact that there is a present.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What does 'economically inactive' mean? Surely not > unemployed? I imagine it's worded that way so that it doesn't impact wealthy people who are unemployed and living off income/capital gains from assets.

It's a desperate sort of blend of straw man and ad-hominem, attacking you for a lack of adventure or me for close-mindedness, rather than actually discussing the issues at hand. I wouldn't pay much attention to such "radical" thinking.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Monetarism is about the supply of money. Right, it's about how much money the ECB prints and what interest rates they set. So why do you think that has anything to do with the EU budget?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Err, hello - ?10 Billion hole in annual > contributions now the U.K. has thrown off the > shakles You've exposed your ignorance of what monetary policy is. keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Translation - to keep prices artificially high > > Why do you think CAP had wine lakes and beef > mountains? Yes, as I explained that is the mechanism by which protectionism works, but you've exposed your ignorance of the difference between subsidies and tariffs as well as the MacSharry reforms that began in 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy#1992

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s all about money stepdown, something Remainers > appear to be unable to grasp. You can't even stay on-message between posts, last time round money was only an issue "unless the U.K. accepts its rules". So what is it all about, regulations or revenue? keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There?s a reason ex World Bank and new ECB > President Christine Lagarde is instigating a root > and branch review of the bank?s monetary policy. Yes, the reason is to decide how they calculate their inflation target which was last updated in 2003: https://www.ft.com/content/c3d72f52-1834-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385 keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The reason the EU imposes border checkpoints is to > collect taxes/tariffs because it?s a protectionist > market. No, "protectionist" means tariffs to protect local industry from foreign competition, the clue is in the name. The aim is to reduce domestic consumption of foreign imports, not to generate revenue.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you, you?ve proved my point. You haven't made a point, you're just spouting falsehoods and talking points. Your use of "vassal state" makes it painfully transparent that you're just regurgitating the words of others, pitiful really.

I appreciate your efforts to copy and paste, but you've deliberately edited out the relevant information. That would only be the case if there wasn't an agreement, and as I said, what the border looks like depends on the agreement reached. Reuters Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without an agreement with Britain, it would insist > on checks on the border keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...it would insist on checks on the border... ie > the EU would insist. You're not actually responding to any of the points raised or defending any of your own. You're just spinning one section of an article from August last year explaining the border situation before Boris Johnson dropped the red line of "no border on the island of Ireland".

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the EU spent 3 1/2 years blackmailing the U.K. > in the divorce talks It was not until 29 March 2017 that the UK invoked Article 50. The withdrawal agreement was published on 14 November 2018. The negotiations lasted less than 1 3/4 years. Even if we were to accept your unfair characterisation of the negotiations, more than half that time was the UK's representatives arguing amongst themselves.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Switzerland is not in the EU but is in the > Schengen area - It's in EFTA. True, but their border still looks "harder" to me: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44054594 keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m always happy to be corrected stepdown but your > answer doesn?t quite cut the mustard. So, you stand by your assertions that "EU states have to erect a border against non EU states" and an "independent Scotland within the EU would need to erect such a border that would make Hadrian?s wall look like a flimsy picket fence" despite the example of Norway? That was the point I was responding to. keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There?s a reason the EU spent 3 1/2 years > blackmailing the U.K. in the divorce talks - it > was the UK?s Achilles heel and if the U.K. didn?t > play ball Ireland (NB not the U.K.) would need to > introduce a border to protect the integrity of the > Single Market and all problems that would flow > from it. > > It was well played by the EU, managing to place > the onus onto the U.K. The Good Friday Agreement was not the EU's doing, and is where the border complications arose from. The UK's position was contradictory, there was no "blackmailing" as you so emotionally put it.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It has always been the case that EU states have to > erect a border against non EU states. Don?t ask me > under what EU Law or directive because I?ve never > read them nor never will. > > An independent Scotland within the EU would need > to erect such a border that would make Hadrian?s > wall look like a flimsy picket fence. You're wrong. The reality is that the nature of the border depends on how aligned and cooperative the two sides are willing to be, there is no need to erect walls. As such, even if you were willing to read, there's no law to or directive to point you to as it doesn't exist. However the BBC has a nice little article about how things work between the EU and Norway: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but again the longer term concept is > irreconcilably different amongst many leavers - > never mind Remainers. Therefore it will forever be > a mirage and never a remote possibility. You won't find any disagreement from me on that front.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know many people on the left and on the right > (and in the centre) who voted Leave (neither > side can see the problem with leaving and The > Other Lot getting in) I think it's more that they can put up with the "wrong" party for 5 years if it means they get the Brexit they want, but it's definitely true Leave/Remain isn't drawn along the usual party lines.

Sacking the Secretary of State who got Stormont back up and running does seem unfair. Unsurprisingly suspected to be revenge for not believing in Brexit enough: "I hear Julian Smith sacking is linked to his comments at the height of the Brexit tension last autumn. He told MPs no deal would be ?very, very bad? for NI"

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what particularly did you find interesting? You're talking to a spam bot.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Follow all the same rules of equivalence for > products sold into the EU. But for domestic > financial products, or to third countries such as > the US, there can be different regulations. Potentially, but I guess you'd need a new fund/structure for every single product/service and assuming you don't subject products being sold abroad to domestic regulation? I mean, the devil's in the detail. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Long story short....I don't see any major reason > we can't have different regs where appropriate for > financial services. No reason at all, other than they can't be sold to markets with incompatible regulations.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?There will not be general open-ended > ongoing equivalence in financial services, nor > other management or financial agreements with the > United Kingdom,? Barnier said. ?We will keep > control of these tools, and we will retain the > free-hand to take our own decisions.? Given how they negotiated the withdrawal agreement, dismissing this as "bluff and bluster" seems foolhardy.

Boris Johnson's attempt to rebrand leaving on WTO terms (itself a rebrand of a No Deal exit) as the "Australian model" has been rightly mocked: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/ursula-von-der-leyen-mocks-boris-johnsons-stance-on-eu-trade-deal ?Australia without any doubt is a strong and a like-minded partner,? Von der Leyen told MEPs. ?But the European Union does not have a trade agreement with Australia. We are currently trading on WTO terms. And if this is the British choice, well, we are fine with that without any question. But, in fact, we just are in the moment where we are agreeing with Australia that we must end this situation and we work in a trade deal with them.?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s hardly isolationist to want to trade with the > whole world without saying ?please sir? Your last post suggested that "the EU will be paying us ?10 Billion a year" for the privilege of a free trade agreement. We probably could forgo such politeness in the trade negotiations if we were to accept your assumption that the "EU is crapping it?s pants" but that would require us to ignore reality.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect for Brexiters it's more about who is > making those rules than what the rules actually > say. Completely agree. While the principle of sovereignty is compatible with the UK unilaterally deciding to follow all EU regulations because it's in its best interests, in practice we end up in the same position we were in before with no seat at the table to influence the regulations.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > not exacting taking back control and writing our > own rules is it Yeah, his idea that "we will have the freedom to make our own rules outside the constraints of the Single Market and customs union" and "will no longer be rule-takers" is obviously naive. If you want equivalence equivalent to the Single Market, you'll need rules equivalent to the rules of the Single Market. The FT already did a fairly thorough evisceration of the rhetoric: https://www.ft.com/content/9623b8a2-4c3a-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5

Sajid Javid has set out his "vision" for how the financial services will be impacted: https://www.cityam.com/ill-give-the-city-the-flexibility-it-needs-to-thrive-outside-the-eu/ Generally pretty woolly cakeism, but looks like they'll start off on the basis of equivalence with a view to diverge over time: "As we leave the EU with the same rules, achieving equivalence on day one should not be complicated. Of course, each side will only grant equivalence if it believes the other?s regulations are compatible. But compatible does not mean identical, and both the UK and the EU have at different times recognised the importance of focusing on regulatory outcomes."

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The EU needs us more than we (as an independent > country) need them. The rest of your post relies on this assumption, so it's worth refuting. The UK is far more reliant on the EU. The EU accounts for 44% of UK exports and 53% of UK imports. The UK accounts for 18% of the EU?s goods and services exports to non-EU countries: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/ keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Access to GCHQ (superior) intelligence ?2 Billion > a year GCHQ's close relationship with the NSA is the reason for its "superior" intelligence, obviously it's symbiotic but "the partnership is asymmetrical, with the US providing far more intelligence to the UK than vice versa". It's why the US thought limiting intelligence sharing would be a credible deterrent against the UK's Huawei plans, although a former US intelligence chief described them as "hamfisted threats from people who don?t really understand how the relationship works?: https://www.ft.com/content/8cdc7aee-83aa-11e9-b592-5fe435b57a3b Intelligence sharing is done because it's mutually beneficial for both parties, a bit like trade. Five Eyes already integrates to a certain degree with other EU countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes But, maybe I'm over-complicating things, given the combined budget of all British intelligence is ?3.2bn it's obvious you're just making up numbers that look impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_intelligence_agencies#Single_Intelligence_Account

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This isn't > meant as a dig at remainers, but surely if remain > supporting politicians had just acquiesed (under > protest) we'd be in a much better position now to > approach trade negotiations. It's tiring to constantly be dragged back into the annals of Brexit, but blaming remain politicians for not giving the Prime Minister carte blanche is a really bad take. The consistently weak and changing leadership can hardly be laid at their door either. I mean, look at the timeline of Brexit Secretaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union#List_of_Secretaries_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union_(Brexit_Secretaries) There was plenty of scope to compromise and build consensus, it's hard to argue that the brinkmanship and "like it or leave it" attitude from Number 10 should have been rewarded. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For better or worse this is the first time since > the 2017 election when the government has clear > road to direct the civil service in accordance > with its desires (whether we agree with those > desires is another matter of course)... There is still no sign that there is a clear understanding of what those desires are, let alone whether they are grounded in reality. Boris Johnson only managed to "re-open" negotiations because he was willing to retreat on the Irish border issue, yet it's pointed to as an example of how he proved the "the doubters, the doomsters, the gloomsters" wrong.