Off Topic OLOF's political thread

[Whitejock]

We've given the notice,and it ends in march,as does all obligations to pay anything.

You signed up to a gym? I'd sue them if I was you!

Btw, you going Saturday?

 

[lifecheshirewhite]

So, 'Paul' is a clue?

Hmmm. Only clue I can think that relates to is a bit outdated. In years gone by, 'Paul' would suggest you had a Christian heritage. I've met you, & you're deffo not.

You can see Paul in Lifecheshirewhite and can you list what you know about my Christian Heritage,I suspect it's nothing,and you would be wrong.

 

[Canary Rob]

No contributions to EU budget
Control of our own legal system
Control of our own borders(No EU citizens Right to live and work in the UK)
No problem with a mutually beneficial trading agreement
I believe this is what the majority expected by voting out

Trouble with that is a mutually beneficial trading agreement in all useful forms will result in some sort of loss of control of our own legal system and loss of control of our own borders. It's obviously a question of degree.

 

[lifecheshirewhite]

You signed up to a gym? I'd sue them if I was you!

Btw, you going Saturday?

I am going,but not sure about beers with it being a late ko

 

[2 pennth]

Trouble with that is a mutually beneficial trading agreement in all useful forms will result in some sort of loss of control of our own legal system and loss of control of our own borders. It's obviously a question of degree.

Why, what's a mutually beneficial trading agreement got to do with loosing control of our own legal system or our own borders other than EU dogma. What other countries who do business with the EU give up their own legal system to the EU or agree to throw open their borders. Does Donald Trump know this.

 

[Whitejock]

I am going,but not sure about beers with it being a late ko

I've got a pass out, so will be indulging. Yee-ha! Hopefully see you there pre-match woth your shandy Will try to remember to bring that Kiwi hat.

 

[2 pennth]

I've got a pass out, so will be indulging. Yee-ha! Hopefully see you there pre-match woth your shandy Will try to remember to bring that Kiwi hat.

Did you get your pass out from the EU, have you got their permission to indulge. Only kidding.

 

[Whitejock]

Did you get your pass out from the EU, have you got their permission to indulge. Only kidding.

If the EU were negotiating with Mrs WJ, they'd have been told the conditions, followed by a terrifying icy stare. All sorted on day 1 of the negotiations.

 

[dbc]

Why, what's a mutually beneficial trading agreement got to do with loosing control of our own legal system or our own borders other than EU dogma. What other countries who do business with the EU give up their own legal system to the EU or agree to throw open their borders. Does Donald Trump know this.

Norway

 

[2 pennth]

Norway

Norway

Whats Norway got to do with anything, we are talking UK

 

[2 pennth]

If the EU were negotiating with Mrs WJ, they'd have been told the conditions, followed my an terrifying icy stare. All sorted on day 1 of the negotiations.

In that case I vote for Mrs WJ as PM

 

[dbc]

Whats Norway got to do with anything, we are talking UK

You asked : What other countries who do business with the EU give up their own legal system to the EU or agree to throw open their borders.

And I answered: Norway.

 

[2 pennth]

You asked : What other countries who do business with the EU give up their own legal system to the EU or agree to throw open their borders.

And I answered: Norway.

Is that the best you can come up with

 

[Canary Rob]

Why, what's a mutually beneficial trading agreement got to do with loosing control of our own legal system or our own borders other than EU dogma. What other countries who do business with the EU give up their own legal system to the EU or agree to throw open their borders. Does Donald Trump know this.

See this is the misunderstanding. It's not about limiting doing business. It's about facilitating doing more business and doing business more fairly. That's what a trade deal does, at least one worth its salt.

How do you agree to lower tariffs with another country without forcing them to agree to be bound by law not to raise tariffs? How do you agree to have consistent trade standards with another country without accepting that you cannot change your laws to decide your own standards? How do you agree that parties who have cross-border disputes are not bound by another country's laws if you want your traders to have certainty that they can sue another country's traders who behave badly?

You cannot. You either trade with those risks increased and cross your fingers (which does not stop trade, but it does hinder it), or you trade with a nice trade deal and your businesses are happy with the security but sadly you agree to abide by the laws of another country in doing so. Not all of them, just the relevant ones.

So to answer your country directly: all 50 odd countries who "do business" (by which I assume you mean have a formal trade deal) agree to give up their own legal system to the EU in order to trade with the EU. Every single one of them. Norway, Japan, Canada, all of them. In fact, even the countries that do not have a full trade deal but still do business with the EU end up having to accept EU laws because their products have to meet the regulatory standards anyway, so that they can sell to the EU. All of them. Most of them want to meet EU standards and laws because it is the gold standard.

Does Donald Trump know this? Outwardly, no. He's losing the trade war with China because he thinks trade is a zero sum game. They'll throw him a sop with some concessions and he'll claim victory, but long term he has done significant damage to the US's economy in achieving those modest changes. Inwardly? I actually think he does know - he was quick to jump on the opportunity to offer the UK a trade deal because he knows full well that a UK on its own will be desperate to do deals and so will be bound to agree to all the US's regulatory standards, so he will get a fantastic deal for the US out of us. He's not stupid, he's just willing to hurt his country for his own political aims when it suits him, but when he doesn't need to he's quite capable of spotting a bargain for the US.

Even being a member of the WTO is, indisputably, binding ourselves to laws of another country (well countries, collectively).

Practically, even without trade deals or being part of the WTO, we'd end up being bound by other countries laws if we wanted to trade as we would have to meet their standards. So we would be bound. But without even a trade deal to help.

I get it's a catch-22 and it's not nice: but this is globalisation for you. We are not Ming dynasty China, we cannot cut ourselves off from the world completely any more. So we need an imperfect compromise.

 

[2 pennth]

See this is the misunderstanding. It's not about limiting doing business. It's about facilitating doing more business and doing business more fairly. That's what a trade deal does, at least one worth its salt.

How do you agree to lower tariffs with another country without forcing them to agree to be bound by law not to raise tariffs? How do you agree to have consistent trade standards with another country without accepting that you cannot change your laws to decide your own standards? How do you agree that parties who have cross-border disputes are not bound by another country's laws if you want your traders to have certainty that they can sue another country's traders who behave badly?

You cannot. You either trade with those risks increased and cross your fingers (which does not stop trade, but it does hinder it), or you trade with a nice trade deal and your businesses are happy with the security but sadly you agree to abide by the laws of another country in doing so. Not all of them, just the relevant ones.

So to answer your country directly: all 50 odd countries who "do business" (by which I assume you mean have a formal trade deal) agree to give up their own legal system to the EU in order to trade with the EU. Every single one of them. Norway, Japan, Canada, all of them. In fact, even the countries that do not have a full trade deal but still do business with the EU end up having to accept EU laws because their products have to meet the regulatory standards anyway, so that they can sell to the EU. All of them. Most of them want to meet EU standards and laws because it is the gold standard.

Does Donald Trump know this? Outwardly, no. He's losing the trade war with China because he thinks trade is a zero sum game. They'll throw him a sop with some concessions and he'll claim victory, but long term he has done significant damage to the US's economy in achieving those modest changes. Inwardly? I actually think he does know - he was quick to jump on the opportunity to offer the UK a trade deal because he knows full well that a UK on its own will be desperate to do deals and so will be bound to agree to all the US's regulatory standards, so he will get a fantastic deal for the US out of us. He's not stupid, he's just willing to hurt his country for his own political aims when it suits him, but when he doesn't need to he's quite capable of spotting a bargain for the US.

Even being a member of the WTO is, indisputably, binding ourselves to laws of another country (well countries, collectively).

Practically, even without trade deals or being part of the WTO, we'd end up being bound by other countries laws if we wanted to trade as we would have to meet their standards. So we would be bound. But without even a trade deal to help.

I get it's a catch-22 and it's not nice: but this is globalisation for you. We are not Ming dynasty China, we cannot cut ourselves off from the world completely any more. So we need an imperfect compromise.

I can accept EU LAW governing standards and a trade deal only so what's the problem.ps I prefer one liners my attention span is rather limited.

 

[Canary Rob]

I can accept EU LAW governing standards and a trade deal only so what's the problem.

no problem! that just means you would be happy with a Canada-style deal, or even Norway's deal, which I think is totally fair enough

the only issue with that is a lot of people will say, rather than just accepting EU governing standards, shouldn't a country of our standing, economic strength and expertise have a legal say in MAKING, even a right to input on, those governing standards?

ps I prefer one liners my attention span is rather limited.

I'll give you that one

 

[2 pennth]

no problem! that just means you would be happy with a Canada-style deal, or even Norway's deal, which I think is totally fair enough

the only issue with that is a lot of people will say, rather than just accepting EU governing standards, shouldn't a country of our standing, economic strength and expertise have a legal say in MAKING, even a right to input on, those governing standards?


I'll give you that one

The EU has a right to set minimum standards for imported goods. We should also be able to set our own minimum standards for imported goods. It's really very simple, trouble is politicians make things over complicated, so much so that they don't even know what they mean.

 

[dbc]

Is that the best you can come up with

You asked for a country that met the criteria you set out so I provided one for you.

What more did you want?

 

[dbc]

The EU has a right to set minimum standards for imported goods. We should also be able to set our own minimum standards for imported goods. It's really very simple, trouble is politicians make things over complicated, so much so that they don't even know what they mean.

No you see that’s already complicated. If you have a factory in for arguments sake Portugal and you want to sell to Britain and the EU you now have to meet two sets of standards which may differ. So you have to have two different production lines for your product.

What we have at the moment is much simpler. You make a product and you have the worlds largest free trade market to sell it to without any tariffs, different regulations or custom charges/processes

 

[dbc]

See this is the misunderstanding. It's not about limiting doing business. It's about facilitating doing more business and doing business more fairly. That's what a trade deal does, at least one worth its salt.

How do you agree to lower tariffs with another country without forcing them to agree to be bound by law not to raise tariffs? How do you agree to have consistent trade standards with another country without accepting that you cannot change your laws to decide your own standards? How do you agree that parties who have cross-border disputes are not bound by another country's laws if you want your traders to have certainty that they can sue another country's traders who behave badly?

You cannot. You either trade with those risks increased and cross your fingers (which does not stop trade, but it does hinder it), or you trade with a nice trade deal and your businesses are happy with the security but sadly you agree to abide by the laws of another country in doing so. Not all of them, just the relevant ones.

So to answer your country directly: all 50 odd countries who "do business" (by which I assume you mean have a formal trade deal) agree to give up their own legal system to the EU in order to trade with the EU. Every single one of them. Norway, Japan, Canada, all of them. In fact, even the countries that do not have a full trade deal but still do business with the EU end up having to accept EU laws because their products have to meet the regulatory standards anyway, so that they can sell to the EU. All of them. Most of them want to meet EU standards and laws because it is the gold standard.

Does Donald Trump know this? Outwardly, no. He's losing the trade war with China because he thinks trade is a zero sum game. They'll throw him a sop with some concessions and he'll claim victory, but long term he has done significant damage to the US's economy in achieving those modest changes. Inwardly? I actually think he does know - he was quick to jump on the opportunity to offer the UK a trade deal because he knows full well that a UK on its own will be desperate to do deals and so will be bound to agree to all the US's regulatory standards, so he will get a fantastic deal for the US out of us. He's not stupid, he's just willing to hurt his country for his own political aims when it suits him, but when he doesn't need to he's quite capable of spotting a bargain for the US.

Even being a member of the WTO is, indisputably, binding ourselves to laws of another country (well countries, collectively).

Practically, even without trade deals or being part of the WTO, we'd end up being bound by other countries laws if we wanted to trade as we would have to meet their standards. So we would be bound. But without even a trade deal to help.

I get it's a catch-22 and it's not nice: but this is globalisation for you. We are not Ming dynasty China, we cannot cut ourselves off from the world completely any more. So we need an imperfect compromise.

I’m afraid you won’t get very far on this thread with reasoned argument, facts, acknowledgment that there are grey areas and using words like compromise.

This is the land of Michael Obama.