Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Britain nears abandoning Brexit trade deal hope - The Telegraph

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 What future agreements? 

 

 With no one queuing up to negotiate agreements, where will your future agreements come from?

 

In 2016 Vote.Leave told us that countries were already falling over themselves to do trade deals with us once we were out of the EU. Four years later, those deals are very few and far between; and we have none with any of our major partners and are nowhere near close to getting any! 

 that was a rather silly and childish response, worthy a barstool brexiteer

 

from now on trade deals will be the subject of continuously ongoing efforts by the pommies some efforts will result in zilch some in little some probably pretty good

 

will take time - its a learning process for UK they haven't done such for ages

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, RayC said:

And again.... You do not directly address my original proposition. No concrete counter-examples, just tangential rhetoric.

 

The absence of referenda for 41 years has meant that new treaties have been passed through by Europhile UK governments with compliant oppositions.

 

(Nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Now you have a problem with UK parliamentary democracy.

 

Treaty law, yes (as above). After we sign them we're screwed.

 

Then don't sign! As I pointed out previously, EU Treaty law/ change requires unanimous support. If the UK was so opposed to a Treaty (change), it had a veto and it could not have become EU law. QED.

 

But EU law is imposed on the UK or any other member state.

 

Tosh (see above and below).

 

What you say is true but directives and regulations can be passed by QMV now - vetoes or noes don't stop them. 

 

And this is 2% where the UK was forced to enact EU law with which it didn't agree. As I said at the outset, all this toil and trouble for 2% greater sovereignty. 

 

Disagree - see above. Certainly not a normal democratic process. 

 

The UK system doesn't fulfill your criteria for a democratic process (see my reply above, point 1). The EU system doesn't meet your requirements. What do you want?

 

Disagree in that a no vote will rarely count and never count if the UK votes no alone - see above.

 

Again. The 2% (see above)

 

Yes, oh the irony! We should have just left 2 years after the A50 trigger.

 

The reason we didn't was a failure on the part of the UK government. However, if we had we would now be trading on WTO rules with most of the world. Do you seriously think that would have been beneficial? 

 

If there is a deal to be had, we won't get a decent one until we are fully out.

 

Really? The EU, having had to put into place measures to deal with the UK leaving (measures that it did not want to have to take), would then be more inclined to look favourably upon the UK? I think not.

 

And finally in this exchange.... To return to the original issue:  Is there any chance of you finding example(s) where EU law has been imposed upon the UK (pre 31/1/20) without the UK firstly having been able to challenge it?

 

All full of new fiddles, riddles and this 2% nonsense but to answer your final point only, of course the UK can challenge new EU laws but most of the time, now, due to QMV, those challenges can be ignored and the UK has to accept that. I am not going through thousands of EU Council and Parliament voting records to sift out those where our UK representatives voted 'no'!  

 

IN 2014, George Osborne talked about the type of problem that I am trying to explain to you:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/extracts-from-the-chancellors-speech-on-europe

 

When he said, quote (extract):

 

'First there is a danger that the euro members could start to use their collective voting weight in the EU to effectively write the rules for the whole EU by Qualified Majority Vote.

 

Under the Lisbon Treaty, from 1 November 2014, the Eurogroup on its own will have sufficient votes to pass any financial services legislation for the whole of the EU.

 

That’s a problem because it could leave us in a position where euro members – including ones with little or no financial services industry – can caucus together to impose financial services legislation on the UK –the world’s leading financial centre.

 

And we’ve already started to see the Eurogroup discussing EU directives privately before involving other member states – like they did over the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive last June. It means there’s a very real risk that badly thought through legislation will be imposed on the UK'.

Edited by nauseus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kingdong said:

least we,ll be able to negotiate and make deals without having to appease 27 other countries all with vested interests,straight bananas? ask the eu they,ve got enough banana  republics in their gang.

QED = banans and sausages - they haven't a clue!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Blah, blah, blah; again.

 

You give your prejudiced, ignorant opinions, but facts in your post are rarer than hen's teeth.

 

Should I accept that Boris and his minister's performances, as watched live on TV, in Downing Street press conferences, PMQs etc., have been somehow altered before being broadcast live by the left wing press you are so obsessed with?

 

No, I prefer sanity to alt-right nonsense.

 

 

Blah, blah, blah?? Do you have a link to back up your claim? 

 

Yes, I'm allowed to give my opinions because this is a forum you know. Whether you like them or not means naught to me and I don't have to provide anything else to you whether you think I should or not. Actually, just thinking about that, I realise it's not wholly true. I really enjoy that you don't like them at all.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 that was a rather silly and childish response, worthy a barstool brexiteer

Maybe; but it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

But that is exactly what you said.

 

 

You were claiming the Europeans do not like Irish dairy products but like UK dairy products.

But instead of the Irish dairy farmers suffering because of Brexit they are going to see a golden time as they fill the void left by UK dairy farmers.

Oh I might also add that the reason the EU has high tariffs on dairy products is to protect domestic producers. When the UK is trading with the rest of the world on WTO terms the UK dairy farmers will have a hard time competing against far cheaper imports.

Congratulations. You just made their lives a whole lot tougher. They lost their biggest market and now have to try and undercut cheap imports.

Still. You knew what you were voting for right? 

 

No I wasn't claiming Europeans do not like Irish dairy products but like UK dairy products. Read it again.

 

This 'void' left by UK dairy farmers is rather small compared to that which may be lost as Irish exports to the UK.

 

When the UK is trading with the rest of the world on WTO terms then there will be room for replacement imports from the NZ  and Oz and I am sure that agreements will be made to make them cheap enough.

 

Of course I know what we were voting for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

No, we can't. We could when we were a member, but not anymore. Whilst still subject to EU law and regulation until the end of the transition period, whenever that may be, we no longer have any say on them.

 

 

Interesting, now read EU tax policy: from national veto to Qualified Majority Voting from the HoC in February 2019.

 

Some quotes:

  • 4.1 The EU has an extensive body of law relating to taxation, especially on indirect taxes like Value Added Tax and excise duty. It is also legislated—or tried to—in areas like energy taxation, financial transaction taxes and corporate taxation. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, tax policy is one of the few areas of EU competence where the unanimity requirement still applies for the adoption of new policy measures, given its political sensitivity. This means that many proposals by the European Commission to introduce or amend EU tax laws are vetoed in the Council of Ministers and never make it onto the statute book. 
  • 4.2 In addition to having withdrawn a number of tax proposals that were vetoed by Member States, the Commission has also recently tabled draft EU legislation in the area of taxation that are currently, by default, subject to the unanimity requirement
  • 4.4 The decision to introduce Qualified Majority Voting rules for EU tax law using the passerelle for any of the four areas identified by the Commission would be subject to a triple lock because it can be vetoed by: Any Member State Government in the European Council; Any Member State’s national parliament; and The European Parliament.
  • 4.5 The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Rt Hon. Mel Stride MP) submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on the Commission document on 5 February 2019. In it, the Minister explained the Government “is not convinced” by the Commission’s recommendation to introduce QMV for the adoption of EU tax policies, primarily because “unanimous decision making and Member States’ right to veto proposals protects national sovereignty over tax policy and their ability to design their domestic tax regime as they see fit”. He added that, in view of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU, the decision on whether to invoke the passerelle is primarily for the remaining Member States. (The Government is also of the view that “the EU-27 are unlikely to reach agreement quickly, if at all, on a way forward, given that the decision to move from unanimity to QMV must itself be taken unanimously”.)

As can be seen from para 4.5, had the UK remained a member we would have vetoed any and all attempts to move these areas from unanimity to QMV; even in the highly unlikely event of the other 27 unanimously agreeing.

 

It is the same with all areas currently requiring, and requiring before the Lisbon Treaty, unanimity; any and all attempts to move them from unanimity to QMV are all require unanimity and thus subject to veto.

I've read and suggest you might reread it. Especially the conclusions, which are more interesting. The EU proposal was just that but QMV everything is the EU's preference to speed things up. You might believe the myth that had the UK remained a member we would have vetoed any and all attempts to move to QMV but I don't. All it takes is a weak UK Gov to cave in under pressure - and we've had enough of those.

 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...