Jump to content

EU Trade Talks Thread


keano77

Recommended Posts

"oh, did you ask me for supporting evidence?"


That was me - you didn't respond


you didn't respond either when I answered your question about fishing



CiWF don't seem particularly convinced the UK has the high and over EU on animal welfare?


https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2016/03/compassion-explores-the-pros-and-cons-of-brexit


enforcement standards appear to be an issue but that is true of many lawas anywhere - not sure what, specifically, about the EU, and leaving it in particular, helps with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Im not questioning the 'fact checking' of the

> > website being referenced...as to be honest I

> > haven't yet clicked on the link.

>

> Good to see you won't be commenting on something

> you can't be bothered to read, and that you're at

> least being honest about it.

>

>

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But suffice to say that I can imagine the

> derision

> > and bile that would spew forth on these pages

> if

> > any Leavers posted a 'factcheck' from a site

> > called ihatetheEU.com......

>

> Oh, no, that restraint didn't last long! Your

> usual tactic of attacking a "lack of decorum and

> respect" is now being used on imaginary "derision

> and bile"! Innovative!

>

>

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > 'facts' (or 'incomplete facts as the case may

> be

> > on this occasion).

>

> It gets better! You start questioning the fact

> checking of the site immediately after posting

> that you won't be questioning the fact checking of

> the website you haven't even clicked on! Classic!



The irony of you mocking my calls for respect after such a petty, niggling and aggressive post such as this is quite amusing.


And you u wonder why I'm not willing to properly enter the discussion? I'm not interested in people like you twisting and deliberately misrepresenting nearly every word of something you disagree with.


PS: between my first post c7:30pm and my next after 10pm...even someone as stupid as me had the time to click on the link and read it....but you knew that and just thought you'd have a pop anyway right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And you u wonder why I'm not willing to properly

> enter the discussion? I'm not interested in people

> like you twisting and deliberately misrepresenting

> nearly every word of something you disagree with.


I did not twist your words, I quoted you verbatim. There is nothing in there to disagree with, it's vacuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > And you u wonder why I'm not willing to

> properly

> > enter the discussion? I'm not interested in

> people

> > like you twisting and deliberately

> misrepresenting

> > nearly every word of something you disagree

> with.

>

> I did not twist your words, I quoted you verbatim.

> There is nothing in there to disagree with, it's

> vacuous.


Misrepresentation and verbatim quotes are not mutually exclusive as I'm sure you well know.


If my comments are so vacuous, then why do they clearly upset you so much? (your gratuitous use of the exclamation mark is very expressive by the way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If my comments are so vacuous, then why do they

> clearly upset you so much?


You're projecting, those exclamation marks should be read as exasperation rather than upset or anger.


I'm exasperated because you are "not willing to properly enter the discussion" and continue to resort to making arguments in bad faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------


>

> I'm exasperated because you are "not willing to

> properly enter the discussion" and continue to

> resort to making arguments in bad faith.



Ha. Says the person who was in such a rush to aggressively take down my fairly innocuous (vacuous even?) comments after I re-entered the thread that they either didn't notice that there were circa 2.5 hours between my posts to read the referenced links; or did notice and still wanted to attack me anyway.


Okay. This has been fun. But I might stepdown now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> there were circa 2.5 hours between my posts to

> read the referenced links


Quite telling that you keep insisting there was sufficient time between your posts to read the link rather than actually claiming you read it. You didn't read it, did you?


I didn't "attack" you, I mocked the imaginary scenarios and contradictions in your posts, that's not "aggressive" behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS TheCat - Grow up.


The debate was about whether the claims made in a blog posted by Uncle are true or not. It is not that hard to read the fact check and acknowledge the blog is in fact untrue. But you can't/ won't do that. Instead you think it perfectly acceptable to resort to insult instead and hijack the thread with your petulance. Just stop it. Either engage in the points being made (about myth vs reality) or don't engage at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay....sure....here's a fact based opinion which I'm sure will excite a few of you......


I have previously proposed that most people vote on principle in most elections and/or referendums. And that this one was no different.


The number one reason (based on the Ashcroft poll...So can I call that a fact?) that people voted to leave was on the PRINCIPLE of sovreignty. They felt that the laws that govern this country should be made in this country. Not influenced by the needs and desires of 27 other countries. To believe in that principle, one did not require a detailed knowledge of how the EU Forms legislation. Similarly it didn't require them to reel off a list of specific legislation they disapprove of.


The number one reason that people voted to remain was because of 'the economy'. And, as I've said before, very few of those remain voters had a detailed knowledge of economics, trade policy or regulation. It didn't require them to reel off a list of businesses who were awarded EU grants.


But since the referendum the great majority of remainers have been so angry that they've been furiously googling and suddenly every remainer is a newfound 'expert' in the minutiae of these issues, as it gives them self-righteous comfort to be able to say 'well leavers don't know any of this, so therefore were clearly wrong'.


It is my OPINION that most of you on here citing all this detail which you've recently googled about regulatory and legislative process, knew absolutely F. All about much of this prior to the referendum.


As did most remainers, meaning most remainers voted just as much on principle as many of the leavers you so deride - it just happened to be a different principle.


So get off your high horse's and remember that the majority of remainers were just as clueless as most leavers at the time of the vote, and voted on principle...not on a superior knowledge of trade regulation, economics, legislative process or anything else....


I look forward to a stream of balanced and thoughtful replies....


PS: I did read the blog, and acknowledge that SOME of those in the list are clearly bullsh1t, but equally SOME of the retorts are fairly unconvincing. But, in anycase, ince I never knew about that list of relocated businesses in the first place, I can't say it changes my views a great deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single post from Cat has that Passive aggressive ?I look forward to the stream/ posts/ etc?


So disagreeing amounts to just another chance to say ?ha. Just as I predicted?


Anyway. Your post. It?s just a variation on ?who needs experts? isn?t it?


Most people don?t know much about trade it?s true. But we can aggregate a bunch of experts across a range of fields who have a solid consensus. ?Brexit will be bad?


Many of us don?t like having to apply, not register, to continue our lives. I know you are an exception



But here is who I think you are. On the ?clever scale? you are solid. Steady. But you fancy yourself a bit


In the dead of night, you too worry about all of this. You worry about how chancers like Johnson can so brazenly bet the house on this


But you are an oppositionist. A reactionary. And given the poor standard of ?leaver? expression on here you have taken it upon yourself to be the bigger fish in a small pond in the mistaken belief it will make you look better


But it doesn?t. You?re pushing gear. Drug addicts are victims. But the pushers usually know better. They are the real problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Anyone got any views on the EU trade talks?

> >

>

> Sure let me just Google some so I can appear

> informed....


Why not consider actually being informed?


Then you might have some ideas as to what to do in practice to minimise the damage that will follow from people voting mostly on a principle without considering the practice (although I should point out that less than half gave that as their main reason according to ashdown)


Or do you think that once about a quarter of people who voted have voted on a principle then nothing else matters, in practice?


If we?re left in a mess it least it?ll be a mess of our own making, so that?s ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is my OPINION that most of you on here citing

> all this detail which you've recently googled

> about regulatory and legislative process, knew

> absolutely F. All about much of this prior to the

> referendum.


You have no facts to back up this opinion, but it highlights the real issue here. You are busy re-litigating the referendum when things have moved on beyond the simple "PRINCIPLE of sovreignty" and into the detail. Compromises will have to be made, things other people have been discussing for years now.



TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sure let me just Google some so I can appear informed....


That's how you learn! Nobody was born with an innate knowledge of the EU, but you're now not just refusing to engage with the debate in good faith you're refusing to even inform yourself. There's no defense for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But here is who I think you are.


As TheCat is constantly goading us to speculate on their intelligence, I don't think it's particularly helpful to stoop to that level.



TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> even someone as stupid as me had the

> time to click on the link and read it....


TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But it's much

> easier to just call us all stupid and ill-informed

> than actually open your mind a little.


TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the anti-brexit mob pouncing on any

> whiff of negative news so they can gleefully pin

> it on Brexit with a big dose of 'See...I told you

> they're all stupid'....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspected that business will flatline for a little while, until EU trade negotiations are completed. My hunch is that in order to protect the cities business, we will have to concede on things like fishing. We should also be fighting hard for car manufacturing and pharmaceuticals (our two biggest export sectors to the EU).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I suspected that business will flatline for a

> little while, until EU trade negotiations are

> completed. My hunch is that in order to protect

> the cities business, we will have to concede on

> things like fishing. We should also be fighting

> hard for car manufacturing and pharmaceuticals

> (our two biggest export sectors to the EU).


"Services accounted for 41% of the UK?s exports to the EU in 2018. Financial services and other business services (a category which includes legal, accounting, advertising, research and development, architectural, engineering and other professional and technical services) are important categories of services exports to the EU ? in 2018 these two service categories made up just over half of of UK service exports to the EU."


Canada's deal does not provide for free trade in relation to services in the same way as it does for goods


it also took seven years to negotiation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Look ? Sophiroth, Pk, Stepdown et al?..

?

Im going to ?open the robe? here so to speak, so pls allow me a self-indulgent post about myself☺?..and Ill try to be as honest , non-petulant (that?s a fair accusation from Blah Blah!), and conciliatory

as possible?

?

I think that each of your responses to my longer post yesterday are all reasonable and deserve a response/proper engagement from me. As I?ve admitted to a number of times, I have shied away from actually focussing on the issues too much,

as I have clearly felt that the tone of these threads was not conducive to an open discussion. ?I have, in the past, engaged extensively on the EDF, and previously posted reams about why I voted the way I did; and have been burned somewhat by what I perceived

as dogmatic, snide, aggressive, mis-representing responses ? so hence my more recent posts which have focussed on ?decorum and respect? moreso than anything else.


?

As a brief summary for context - ?I was totally neutral prior to the vote. I did a lot of my own research (including reading 2 of the detailed economic reports ? IMF and PwC ? from cover to cover). It was a difficult decision with many

moving parts, and I came down on the side of Leave. In no way do I believe that Brexit is the panacea for all that ails us, and in no way do I think trade deals will be ?easy?, or quick to establish. ?But it?s the decision I made with as much information as

I was practically able to digest at the time (and my decision had nothing to do with what was written on the side of some bus). So I do take some issue when I see the most common comments from remain voters assuming why leavers voted to leave ?(let?s be honest,

they?re usually less than complimentary!), as they are usually WAY off base as to why I did. Yes, Im aware that there were some unsavoury types who also voted to leave, that doesn?t mean I endorse the reasons they voted to Leave ? I had my own reasons and

frankly, I don?t care what other people?s were.

?

So, to one of sephiroth?s points - yes I do fancy myself ? ?I fancy myself as something of an advocate for objectivity and balance. Without going into details ? my career is based on dispassionate assessment of various factors and forming

a conclusion. And in my experience, for complex issues such as this I think it is extremely rare (nigh on impossible) that one option is ALL GOOD and one option is ALL BAD.? SO again, I do get frustrated when I see remain voters often refusing to concede that

there is ANYTHING potentially positive about Brexit. It?s just seems to me to be willful obstinance.


?

So, Sephirtoh, ?of course I worry about the implementation of Brexit. It comes with significant risk, and I?ve never denied that. ?Anyone who doesnt worry at least a little are probably ignorant or foolish (and some leavers on the EDF don?t

help themselves with some of their comments I?ll admit!) ?Yes, I do worry about the government we have now and the way things will pan out (lets remember that at the time of the vote Cameron and Osbourne were in power ? and no matter what you thought of their

politics they were not incompetent, and it was this administration I expected (perhaps naively) to lead the subsequent process).

?

I?ve been asked on this forum so many times exactly what my ?picture? of Brexit looked like when I voted. The answer is that I didn?t have one ? I voted to leave on various principles with as much information on process/sturtcure as I felt

was prudent at the time (and trusted that a reasonable government would be able to decide the best roadmap for implementation of that broad decision). You may disagree with that approach, that?s fine, I can see why Remaining was also a very attractive option

for wholly different reasons.

?

So we can talk about EU trade talk options now if you like?.and I say with genuine conviction, let?s disagree, I?ve absolutely no problem with disagreement. But not every post has to refute or discredit absolutely everything being responding

to. I acknowledge that the idea if a ?frictionless? transition is an absolute pipedream, so there?s no need to convince me of that, im personally interested in what the potential positive and negative risks of various options may be....

?

As a starting point?..does the UK have an opportunity to accelerate development of its tech sector dependent on the rules the trade talks come up with?

https://capx.co/the-unseen-benefits-of-leaving-the-european-union/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that is true, hence the phrase Canada plus plus, the plus being services. We won't get everything negotiated by the end of the year. Pretty much everyone who understands trade deals knows that. So we probably will end up with a loose framework where some things are agreed, while negotiations continue. The question is, does that mean an extension of the transition, because until everything is agreed, we technically are in transition. Or do we take a hit to the sectors still to be negotiated while the talks continue. I think the answer to that will be decided by how much gets agreed by the end of the year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We won't get everything negotiated by the end of the year.

> Pretty much everyone who understands trade deals

> knows that. So we probably will end up with a

> loose framework where some things are agreed,

> while negotiations continue. The question is, does

> that mean an extension of the transition, because

> until everything is agreed, we technically are in

> transition.


I think that extending transition should happen and if it doesn't we'll be doing a rushed job at best and doing a no deal at worst

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So we can talk about EU trade talk options now if

> you like?.and I say with genuine conviction, let?s

> disagree, I?ve absolutely no problem with

> disagreement. But not every post has to refute or

> discredit absolutely everything being responding

> to. I acknowledge that the idea if a

> ?frictionless? transition is an absolute

> pipedream, so there?s no need to convince me of

> that, im personally interested in what the

> potential positive and negative risks of various

> options may be....

> ?

> As a starting point?..does the UK have an

> opportunity to accelerate development of its tech

> sector dependent on the rules the trade talks come

> up with?


I fear you're right that the opportunity for a friction-less trade deal has passed, following a Norway model would require far too much integration now that "sovereignty" has become the primary aim of Brexit.


As far as how the tech sector stands to benefit from the trade deal, we don't know. The EU published draft negotiation guidelines this week but there hasn't yet been any similar detail from the UK government, details here:

https://davidallengreen.com/2020/02/a-tale-of-two-texts-what-the-united-kingdom-should-have-published-yesterday-but-did-not/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • This! And just a polite reminder to certain posters on here, the title of the thread is "cyclists taking over paths"!  
    • Is there more news on this? Plus Council/Gala response on the tree lopping?
    • If 85% of car drivers are regularly breaking the law and think they are above it - then it suggests they aren’t being caught and fined doesn’t it? 
    • But we are talking about the cyclists are we not? Did you also notice the very same pedestrian walks across the pedestrian crossing and what happens...the cyclist cycling up the wrong way of the cycle lane doesn't stop at the pedestrian crossing....   Perhaps you would like to try and find fault with the pedestrians in the other video....or are you refusing to watch that one too...time to take the blinkers off perhaps... Well if they get caught speeding they get fined...you can kill someone when youre riding a bike and claim the speed limit doesn't count for you and you can't be charged with causing death by dangerous cycling. Is that perfectly acceptable in your world?   As I have said for a long time the daily repeated examples of.bad cycling everyone can see must be down to arrogance or ignorance...which one is it? Police are starting to have to more aggressively police cycling not because they want to but because they have to..why..because cyclist behaviour is getting worse.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...