The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING

[retep 68]

4 hours ago, L00b said:

In either case, "not at any price". Which is why the current draft agreement is the best on offer for the parties, and won't be renegotiated until and unless one side (the UK) gives in on some or all of its red line(s).

 

Whereby it is perfectly possible (current estimates have it at 60% likelihood) that no deal gets signed before 29 March, mutually beneficial or otherwise. Even though the answer is yes, always has been, and still is, of course.

 

There's your problem: your political class (still) doesn't know the UK's place (hint: it is resolutely not the EU27's equal; that's how and why the ball is in the UK court to row back on its red line(s)).

 

But fear not. Your political class is learning it fast, at the minute.

 

The EU is helping, as usual.

Tell that to the french farmers.

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

I believe I1L2T3's point was that you'll need to stay converged post-Brexit, hence the parallel with EEA/EFTA countries (which are outside the EU, but toe EU directives in areas of pooled sovereignty - those being fewer/smaller in scope for them, relative to 'full fat' EU member states).

 

Which kinda flies in the face of the "regain full control" mantra, unfortunately for Leavers who don't understand how the world works, nor the 'Brussels effect'.

I get that. My point is non-eu countries such as Japan, China, USA manage to trade with the eu just fine. This is happening and has happened for a long time. We sell to usa without being part of nafta and without our economy and regulations being fully converged with theirs.

Goods we export to the eu need to be compliant with their regulations, and goods we export to the usa need to be compliant with theirs.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

21 minutes ago, woodview said:

Goods we export to the eu need to be compliant with their regulations, and goods we export to the usa need to be compliant with theirs.

Yet another lie from the Leave campaign was that UK businesses would prosper once they were no longer subject to EU regulation.

[I1L2T3 10]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

I believe I1L2T3's point was that you'll need to stay converged post-Brexit, hence the parallel with EEA/EFTA countries (which are outside the EU, but toe EU directives in areas of pooled sovereignty - those being fewer/smaller in scope for them, relative to 'full fat' EU member states).

 

Which kinda flies in the face of the "regain full control" mantra, unfortunately for Leavers who don't understand how the world works, nor the 'Brussels effect'.

Yes, exactly the point.

 

We’re 23 miles away with our economy heaviliy integrated into the EU/EEA/EFTA

 

The scope for divergence is minimal. If the hardline Brexiteers try to use us as a bridgehead into the EU for substandard US produce for example, then we’ll get a very quick taste of what problems divergence will cause.

33 minutes ago, woodview said:

I get that. My point is non-eu countries such as Japan, China, USA manage to trade with the eu just fine. This is happening and has happened for a long time. We sell to usa without being part of nafta and without our economy and regulations being fully converged with theirs.

Goods we export to the eu need to be compliant with their regulations, and goods we export to the usa need to be compliant with theirs.

They do but with a high degree of convergence.

 

This is completely at odds with the divergence that hard Brexiters want. The problem for them is the EU is our biggest trading partner.

 

We have to stay converged. Even Corbyn fully gets that fact

Edited February 11, 2019 by I1L2T3

[L00b 441]

44 minutes ago, woodview said:

I get that. My point is non-eu countries such as Japan, China, USA manage to trade with the eu just fine. This is happening and has happened for a long time. We sell to usa without being part of nafta and without our economy and regulations being fully converged with theirs.

Goods we export to the eu need to be compliant with their regulations, and goods we export to the usa need to be compliant with theirs.

China and the USA manage to trade with the EU 'just fine', Japan will now trade with the EU 'better than fine', and all because norms, standards and practices of the respective parties converge towards one another; with the strongest parties doing the least converging towards the others and setting the most convergence targets for those others.

 

This is the 'Brussels effect', and it will take you all of 5 minutes' worth of Googling to find out how Japan, China, the USA (etc) have long and very gradually been converging towards the EU's norms, standards and practices, some (Japan, Korea, Canada) faster than others (China, USA), with the respective sizes of economies involved (and political strength of their domestic industries/lobbies) strongly influencing the differential in speed of convergence.

 

That explains for instance why much trade with the US is 'fine' as you say...but then you just try to import chlorinated chicken from the US into the EU 

 

Now you were highly influential in setting those EU norms, standards and practices. Yet you've decided not to be anymore. OK, fine.

 

So the question before you, is how much convergence with future EU norms, standards and practices can you afford to ignore, if you want to maintain economic relevance relative to the rest of the world converging on them?

 

Objectively, not a whole lot, because whenever you don't converge, or converge slower than competing countries, you'll be losing both EU business and non-EU (but EU-converging) business.

Edited February 11, 2019 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat 10]

4 minutes ago, L00b said:

Japan, China, the USA (etc) have long and very gradually been converging towards the EU's norms, standards and practices,

I shall repeat what I said earlier.

 

This is a really dumb time to be removing ourselves from the EU!

[L00b 441]

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I shall repeat what I said earlier.

 

This is a really dumb time to be removing ourselves from the EU!

There never was a smart time for it: it was always a really dumb idea, period.

 

The UK needed better, more inclusive and honest politics, beside deep electoral reform, years and years and years ago.

 

But well. We are where we are. So that's that.

Edited February 11, 2019 by L00b

[woodview 10]

28 minutes ago, L00b said:

China and the USA manage to trade with the EU 'just fine', Japan will now trade with the EU 'better than fine', and all because norms, standards and practices of the respective parties converge towards one another; with the strongest parties doing the least converging towards the others and setting the most convergence targets for those others.

 

This is the 'Brussels effect', and it will take you all of 5 minutes' worth of Googling to find out how Japan, China, the USA (etc) have long and very gradually been converging towards the EU's norms, standards and practices, some (Japan, Korea, Canada) faster than others (China, USA), with the respective sizes of economies involved (and political strength of their domestic industries/lobbies) strongly influencing the differential in speed of convergence.

 

That explains for instance why much trade with the US is 'fine' as you say...but then you just try to import chlorinated chicken from the US into the EU 

 

Now you were highly influential in setting those EU norms, standards and practices. Yet you've decided not to be anymore. OK, fine.

 

So the question before you, is how much convergence with future EU norms, standards and practices can you afford to ignore, if you want to maintain economic relevance relative to the rest of the world converging on them?

 

Objectively, not a whole lot, because whenever you don't converge, or converge slower than competing countries, you'll be losing both EU business and non-EU (but EU-converging) business.

And we'll trade with the eu, just as japan, china, usa, south korea all do.

We can do that without having an eu parliament. It doesn't also mean taking chlorinated chicken, we don't take it now and we don't need to take it in future.

[Obelix 11]

But why would you want to do it without an EU parliament? If you accept that you want to converge with the EU, why not, well.. stay converged with the EU?

 

Why Leave?

[Ethella 14]

29 minutes ago, Obelix said:

But why would you want to do it without an EU parliament? If you accept that you want to converge with the EU, why not, well.. stay converged with the EU?

 

Why Leave?

I've been asking the same question since 23rd June 2016

[melthebell 863]

Farages new "brexit party" gets approval

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/08/thousands-tory-party-members-defect-nigel-farages-brexit-party/?fbclid=IwAR0_6IuBXv8wq1QfXm8Ewj39So1JiRQufK1NZbSB3MsaU3DNDZsGUPvKQy0

[Top Cats Hat 10]

39 minutes ago, woodview said:

It doesn't also mean taking chlorinated chicken, we don't take it now and we don't need to take it in future.

Who says that we won't need to in the future?

 

If Trump says "We'll buy your Triumph motorcycles but you must buy our chlorinated chicken", what are we going to say?