Colburn_Claret wrote:Tell me, what standards are we lowering??????
Our standards are already as high as most other countries and better than most in the EU, so which standards are we dropping to prevent us getting a trade deal, pray tell.

You were the one saying we’ll be free to deregulate once we leave. I’m just pointing out that we won’t if we want a free trade deal with the EU.

Amazing watching question time.
Banardoes exec earns £200k , he works for a charity FFS.
That’s more then the prime minister and he does **** all for anyone.

Lancasterclaret wrote:This is a shite deal.

But it's better than a no deal.

Your autocorrect has made a real mess of “great”.

It isn’t a hard Brexit, that term used to refer to no deal. It’s a medium Brexit, a real one, with some compromises to maintain trade. Just the kind of Brexit I wanted (I would have voted for May’s deal without the backstop but this is better).

Remain MPs had a chance to get May’s deal through, they turned it down. Remain members of the public had a chance to engage but chose to spend that time trying to overturn the vote and widening divisions. I have no sympathy for them now. They will have to like the deal or lump it.

martin_p wrote:But why on earth would we be discussing opening a bank account in the US? You keep talking about common sense, use some!

Martin, correct me if I'm wrong I'm not the 1 questioning basic stuff like the requirements needed to open a bank account, children in primary school would probably have an idea, I know exactly what I'm doing regarding banking, I wirelessly transfer & receive money via PayPal & pingit on a daily basis.

Jakubclaret wrote:Martin, correct me if I'm wrong I'm not the 1 questioning basic stuff like the requirements needed to open a bank account, children in primary school would probably have an idea, I know exactly what I'm doing regarding banking, I wirelessly transfer & receive money via PayPal & pingit on a daily basis.

Are you saying primary school children know more about banking than Paul Waine does? Seems a bit harsh to me even if he does post a lot of nonsensical waffle at times

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Your autocorrect has made a real mess of “great”.

It isn’t a hard Brexit, that term used to refer to no deal. It’s a medium Brexit, a real one, with some compromises to maintain trade. Just the kind of Brexit I wanted (I would have voted for May’s deal without the backstop but this is better).

Remain MPs had a chance to get May’s deal through, they turned it down. Remain members of the public had a chance to engage but chose to spend that time trying to overturn the vote and widening divisions. I have no sympathy for them now. They will have to like the deal or lump it.

It's a shite deal but it's better than a "no deal" is a much more accurate reading of it to be fair.

Devils_Advocate wrote:Are you saying primary school children know more about banking than Paul Waine does? Seems a bit harsh to me even if he does post a lot of nonsensical waffle at times

It was my initial error posting the US link & I'll hold my hand up, I wasn't really following who said what, I had a quick glance at the banking conundrum & posted the unsuitable link.

AndrewJB wrote:I honestly try not to be insulting. Once again, if we want a free trade deal with the EU, it’ll be us conforming to their standards. The degree to which we lower our standards will result in reduced trade with them.

Edit: and it’s not about what they sell to us, but what we sell to them. They won’t allow us to get a competitive advantage in an area of f free trade by lowering our standards to make the product cheaper.

When the EU trades with the United States, for example, the EU can insist that all US products exported to the EU meet EU standards. (And vice versa, of course.) This is normal in trade deals. What they can't do is insist that all US products sold within the US meet EU standards. The EU has no authority to tell the US what internal standards to maintain.

That's the point here. At present, products made in the UK for the UK are subject to EU standards. We can't relax them, we can't make them more stringent. When we leave, products made for export to the EU will still have to be made under EU standards, but products for the UK need not be.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Your autocorrect has made a real mess of “great”.

It isn’t a hard Brexit, that term used to refer to no deal. It’s a medium Brexit, a real one, with some compromises to maintain trade.

No, no deal is the term used to refer to no deal. This is a hard Brexit, certainly in the terms talked about in the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/what-is-hard-brexit/

dsr wrote:When the EU trades with the United States, for example, the EU can insist that all US products exported to the EU meet EU standards. (And vice versa, of course.) This is normal in trade deals. What they can't do is insist that all US products sold within the US meet EU standards. The EU has no authority to tell the US what internal standards to maintain.

That's the point here. At present, products made in the UK for the UK are subject to EU standards. We can't relax them, we can't make them more stringent. When we leave, products made for export to the EU will still have to be made under EU standards, but products for the UK need not be.

Of course we can make them more stringent.

So the point is that we can manufacture sub standard products for the uk market. Good result that.

martin_p wrote:Of course we can make them more stringent.

So the point is that we can manufacture sub standard products for the uk market. Good result that.

"Sub standard" only if you accept that the EU is the epitome of standards and every rule they have is the acme of rule making.

I don't know if your first sentence is suggesting that we can make rules more stringent now than the EU lays down. If it is, then one of us is wrong, and I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't think it's me. If the EU sets the rule on product standards, the UK (except for a very few exceptions) has to accept that rule because to alter it would be an unfair trade barrier according to the EU.

From the horses mouth, the official campaign, just one example. A promise, a statement of intended future fact. Not a projection or a prediction.

This is why I oppose Brexit in all it's forms deal or no deal, because it's foundations are rotten and the house built on top is one made of lies, contradictions, misrepresentations, ignorance, fallacies, distortion and fiction.

Lancasterclaret wrote:It's a shite deal but it's better than a "no deal" is a much more accurate reading of it to be fair.

With the greatest of respect that is a comment through the prism of a Remain voter - where the closer the relationship to the EU the better we will be.

But Leave won. So it is about what is the best way to leave and plough our own way forward. This deal offers so many compromises, e.g. quotas on fishing. It isn’t even close to a hard Brexit. So I’m really struggling to understand why it is ‘shite’. It is the nearest deal possible to remaining that is still properly leaving.

So two-bob Trump has managed to negotiate an even worse deal than May's deal. How's he managed that?

martin_p wrote:No, no deal is the term used to refer to no deal. This is a hard Brexit, certainly in the terms talked about in the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/what-is-hard-brexit/

Sorry, that’s nonsense. I am happy to lay that charge to the research group you quoted, if I recall this was the one I accused of not being quite impartial earlier in the week.

Hard Brexit in 2016 meant an immediate exit. Not a 2 year transition deal. That is a huge difference. You can’t leave transition in 2021 after 5 years and call it a hard Brexit. I appreciate it is harder than a customs union - that is why I call it a medium Brexit.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Sorry, that’s nonsense. I am happy to lay that charge to the research group you quoted, if I recall this was the one I accused of not being quite impartial earlier in the week.

Hard Brexit in 2016 meant an immediate exit. Not a 2 year transition deal. That is a huge difference. You can’t leave transition in 2021 after 5 years and call it a hard Brexit. I appreciate it is harder than a customs union - that is why I call it a medium Brexit.

Here’s another

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/inews.co ... 2489%3famp

And another

https://www.investec.com/en_gb/focus/br ... -mean.html

And another

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dictiona ... ard-brexit

And another

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/

Oh, and another. A handy video from the BBC from last year that even explains no deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politi ... rexit-mean

All biased no doubt.

martin_p wrote:Of course we can make them more stringent.

So the point is that we can manufacture sub standard products for the uk market. Good result that.

That’s not really a practical counter, as the products won’t sell or be very slow to sell, China have been exporting that same model & it’s repetition purchases for the consumer, we don’t have to go OTT when manufacturing & use common sense ensuring adequate levels are compliant with our own benchmarks.

dsr wrote:When the EU trades with the United States, for example, the EU can insist that all US products exported to the EU meet EU standards. (And vice versa, of course.) This is normal in trade deals. What they can't do is insist that all US products sold within the US meet EU standards. The EU has no authority to tell the US what internal standards to maintain.

That's the point here. At present, products made in the UK for the UK are subject to EU standards. We can't relax them, we can't make them more stringent. When we leave, products made for export to the EU will still have to be made under EU standards, but products for the UK need not be.

You need to look at trade agreements the United States has with Canada, Mexico, and other countries, in which the dispute panels can effectively override national sovereignty - and of course being the largest member of those agreements, the US government has used its weight to amend things here and there for US benefit. What the US has done in the past with Canada is insist on a "level playing field" in certain economic sectors (and of course that means adhering to or coming close to US rules).

This is the reality of a smaller country trading with a larger one. So if we consider the area of services - which is one of our biggest exports - the EU could pass laws calling for certain levels of transparency that the UK might have vetoed before, but now can't. I don't think, for example, that we'll be able to become a tax haven (more than we are), because the EU could legislate against dealing with companies operating in tax havens (as they define them). You might point out that British financial services companies are very agile, and will respond to this by becoming geographically compliant - which they probably would, and deny the UK as many jobs. My point being the companies will go for profit over country.

I found your last sentence the most disturbing. We can sell to them at their standards, and lower our standards for products at home. That is what a Third World country does.

AndrewJB wrote:You were the one saying we’ll be free to deregulate once we leave. I’m just pointing out that we won’t if we want a free trade deal with the EU.

You must be confusing me with somebody else, I never used the term deregulate anywhere.
I know from when I worked in the food industry that the cost of regulations is in implementing them, once they are in place the savings on deregulation would be pennies.
As these are already in place leaving them shouldnt be an issue. This goes back to what I said about the EU moving the goalposts though. If we accept the status quo, then they cannot be allowed to move them without negotiations first. If we allow the EU to dictate to us, then Brexit hasn't happened.

Colburn_Claret wrote:You must be confusing me with somebody else, I never used the term deregulate anywhere.
I know from when I worked in the food industry that the cost of regulations is in implementing them, once they are in place the savings on deregulation would be pennies.
As these are already in place leaving them shouldnt be an issue. This goes back to what I said about the EU moving the goalposts though. If we accept the status quo, then they cannot be allowed to move them without negotiations first. If we allow the EU to dictate to us, then Brexit hasn't happened.

Could be me, he asked me the other day about which EU regulations I’d like us to shed & at that point well just short before that point, the media were reporting that 2 scientists (telegraph & express) were warning that the EU rules were responsible for damaging academic research & making the clinical trials more expensive to the smaller drug licensing companies in treating cancer & increasing the likelihood of cancer deaths, oddly I never received a response nor from any other remainer willing to discuss this.

Colburn_Claret wrote:You must be confusing me with somebody else, I never used the term deregulate anywhere.
I know from when I worked in the food industry that the cost of regulations is in implementing them, once they are in place the savings on deregulation would be pennies.
As these are already in place leaving them shouldnt be an issue. This goes back to what I said about the EU moving the goalposts though. If we accept the status quo, then they cannot be allowed to move them without negotiations first. If we allow the EU to dictate to us, then Brexit hasn't happened.

But my point is that the EU will still dictate to us, and once we've left we don't have a voice. So we get some independence, but still remain under their thumb, and have no say in what they command. I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

AndrewJB wrote:But my point is that the EU will still dictate to us, and once we've left we don't have a voice. So we get some independence, but still remain under their thumb, and have no say in what they command. I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

I agree with you and suggest we should go for a harder Brexit as this is still too soft a deal.

Corbyn has backed down on a second referendum and now he's backed down on MP's who support the deal losing the whip, i think it will now go through.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:With the greatest of respect that is a comment through the prism of a Remain voter - where the closer the relationship to the EU the better we will be.

But Leave won. So it is about what is the best way to leave and plough our own way forward. This deal offers so many compromises, e.g. quotas on fishing. It isn’t even close to a hard Brexit. So I’m really struggling to understand why it is ‘shite’. It is the nearest deal possible to remaining that is still properly leaving.

It isn't in the slightest.

Look, it's better than a "No Deal".

The WA is much better than anyone thought to be fair, with a nice long transition period and no hard border. The compromises to get that are that it's a big weakening of the union and a reinforcement of the idea that what England wants, it gets.

That's really bad for the union.

And the rest of the deal isn't good.

Essentially the evidence free stuff you've been coming out with for three years with nothing to back it up is the official way forward.

That's going to hit the economy when reality kicks in down the line.

But full marks to Johnson here. He's put himself in a strong position and he only needs a few Labour MPs to back him and he gets this through.

Then an election against a useless opposition leader, in which he's nullified the danger of the Brexit Party and (because it's Labour MPs who will have made sure Brexit has gone through) Labour will take a kicking from remainers.

He should get a majority from there one would think, and that would give him a free hand to shape the political decleration to what he wants.

But he's also been lucky that he's dealing with the EU. Someone like Trump would have enforced a terrible deal for him and that is something he'll have to bear in mind going forward

AndrewJB wrote:But my point is that the EU will still dictate to us, and once we've left we don't have a voice. So we get some independence, but still remain under their thumb, and have no say in what they command. I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

Are you mad? This deal is giving us back control. Boris said so.

What’s happening with the most important thing of all in this whole Brexit fiasco, our fishing rights?

One thing is for sure though.

Less regulations for exporters and importers?

In your dreams!

Bordeauxclaret wrote:What’s happening with the most important thing of all in this whole Brexit fiasco, our fishing rights?

We can't kick the Poles out so they will still be stealing Lowbank's carp.

On a more serious note, I assume Lowbank, as a keen anger knows how much EU finding the Angling Trust relies upon?

Bordeauxclaret wrote:What’s happening with the most important thing of all in this whole Brexit fiasco, our fishing rights?

Notice that Crosspool rather skated over that did you?

I suspect our fishermen have been DUPed.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Notice that Crosspool rather skated over that did you?

I suspect our fishermen have been DUPed.

Skated. Nice gag.

Biggest problem is that MPs have got less than 48 hours to read this, analyse this and work out if its good or bad.

Parliament have got about five hours to debate this.

Its clearly part of the plan to railroad this through, and that isn't good for proper scrutiny and debate.

TheFamilyCat wrote:Skated. Nice gag.

I thought my last line was better to be fair!

On the plus point, we won't have to fight in the European Army for its coming war with Russia.

Or deal with the fallout when Turkey joins the EU

Or pay for anymore bail outs of the eurozone

Or have to live under the thumb of the new Fourth Reich

*Sigh*

Lancasterclaret wrote:I thought my last line was better to be fair!

Skated was subtler

TheFamilyCat wrote:Skated was subtler

This is a Brexit thread, there’s no point in being subtle!

Who can honestly say they gave a **** about any of these regulations or rules before the Brexit vote?

ClaretAndJew wrote:Who can honestly say they gave a **** about any of these regulations or rules before the Brexit vote?

I’d be surprised if anyone could tell us what any of them are now! It’s a question repeatedly asked and ignored by Brexiteers, ‘which EU rule or regulation are you most looking forward to getting rid of’.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Biggest problem is that MPs have got less than 48 hours to read this, analyse this and work out if its good or bad.

Parliament have got about five hours to debate this.

Its clearly part of the plan to railroad this through, and that isn't good for proper scrutiny and debate.

It's not possible to pass a motion and ratify a 500 page withdrawal agreement by then, there should be a technical extension to allow due process that the Benn Act was supposed to facilitate. With so much at stake for the union and our future relationship with Ireland and the EU, government pressure to "get this done" should not stand in the way of parliament as a whole giving it the scrutiny it deserves. Whether you're remain or leave, that much is owed to everyone.

Yes, this "get it done" rhetoric really does project Brexit as a trifling little matter like mowing the lawn or painting the fence.

If Tinnies was here then there wouldn't be all this Brexit uncertainty.

willsclarets wrote:It's not possible to pass a motion and ratify a 500 page withdrawal agreement by then, there should be a technical extension to allow due process that the Benn Act was supposed to facilitate. With so much at stake for the union and our future relationship with Ireland and the EU, government pressure to "get this done" should not stand in the way of parliament as a whole giving it the scrutiny it deserves. Whether you're remain or leave, that much is owed to everyone.

Sadly a lot of them would agree to sacrifice their first born just to get any deal signed off.

AndrewJB wrote:I found your last sentence the most disturbing. We can sell to them at their standards, and lower our standards for products at home. That is what a Third World country does.

Why do you only look on the bad side? I said that we can apply different standards. I know you love the EU, but it appears that you love it to the point where you assume that everything the EU does is right and everything the UK does differently is wrong. We can apply UK standards to UK products, and if in so doing it turns out that (for example) animal welfare standards are higher, then why should you object?

EU standards are not perfect. It is wrong to assume that all changes to EU standards will be negative.

willsclarets wrote:It's not possible to pass a motion and ratify a 500 page withdrawal agreement by then, there should be a technical extension to allow due process that the Benn Act was supposed to facilitate. With so much at stake for the union and our future relationship with Ireland and the EU, government pressure to "get this done" should not stand in the way of parliament as a whole giving it the scrutiny it deserves. Whether you're remain or leave, that much is owed to everyone.

Most of this has already been scrutinised by MP's. This new deal is 95% old deal. 5% of words will have been removed, moved around or been added to.
Once Parliament or should I say IF EVER, Parliament let's us leave the EU-then the real work begins in thrashing out our future relationship with the EU including tariffs, a trade agreement how close we stay or not to EU regs etc.
All Boris has done is to get the EU to alter the back stop and keep us out of a customs Union to permit us to do other deals BUT any Labour, or Lib Dem government could move us closer to the EU and even have another referendum to get us back in but this time we would need to join the Euro.

Dominic Raab this morning:
"What Northern Ireland businesses get is remaining part of the UK customs territory, no infrastructure at the border with the Republic and frictionless access to the single market. It is a cracking deal for Northern Ireland businesses."

Oooh frictionless trade. That sounds like a good idea!

mdd2 wrote:Most of this has already been scrutinised by MP's. This new deal is 95% old deal. 5% of words will have been removed, moved around or been added to.
Once Parliament or should I say IF EVER, Parliament let's us leave the EU-then the real work begins in thrashing out our future relationship with the EU including tariffs, a trade agreement how close we stay or not to EU regs etc.
All Boris has done is to get the EU to alter the back stop and keep us out of a customs Union to permit us to do other deals BUT any Labour, or Lib Dem government could move us closer to the EU and even have another referendum to get us back in but this time we would need to join the Euro.

Sorry have you read it? I don't care what Nigel Farage or anyone else says about how similar it is, I want to know representatives and lords across parliament have done their duty and read one of the most important documents in modern history for the UK. A consensus that "it's more or less the same" doesn't cut the mustard. Would you sign a new contract that your future rested upon without reading it properly?

TheFamilyCat wrote:Skated was subtler

Subtle is wasted on here!

willsclarets wrote:Dominic Raab this morning:
"What Northern Ireland businesses get is remaining part of the UK customs territory, no infrastructure at the border with the Republic and frictionless access to the single market. It is a cracking deal for Northern Ireland businesses."

Oooh frictionless trade. That sounds like a good idea!

Its a good deal for NI (not as good as Mays mind) but a good deal for NI.

Of course, that means it isn't for Scotland, Wales and England

And of course, the Scots will be saying "Why can they have that? and we can't?"*

*impossible for them under any circumstances really, but it will aid the SNP

mdd2 wrote:Most of this has already been scrutinised by MP's. This new deal is 95% old deal. 5% of words will have been removed, moved around or been added to.
Once Parliament or should I say IF EVER, Parliament let's us leave the EU-then the real work begins in thrashing out our future relationship with the EU including tariffs, a trade agreement how close we stay or not to EU regs etc.
All Boris has done is to get the EU to alter the back stop and keep us out of a customs Union to permit us to do other deals BUT any Labour, or Lib Dem government could move us closer to the EU and even have another referendum to get us back in but this time we would need to join the Euro.

We could be in the customs union until the end of 2022 under Johnson’s deal as it allows a two year extension to the transition period if we ask for it. As it stands we’ll be in the customs union until the end of 2020. The only difference under May’s deal is that if the Irish border hadn’t been sorted out by the end of 2022 we’d be into the backstop. There is no backstop in Johnson’s arrangement although perversely it keeps the Irish customs arrangement in place until at least 2024, so possibly longer than would have happened with the May deal.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its a good deal for NI (not as good as Mays mind) but a good deal for NI.

Of course, that means it isn't for Scotland, Wales and England

And of course, the Scots will be saying "Why can they have that? and we can't?"*

*impossible for them under any circumstances really, but it will aid the SNP

you're obviously not listening Lancaster - https://youtu.be/b4m_ajuNmSA?t=102" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret wrote:Subtle is wasted on here!

Ooh you nicked my comment!