Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Aussie Rules
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advert:


Posted (edited)
On 10/03/2022 at 15:36, hillmanhunter said:

So in principle we could simply reach an agreement with the EU to start reducing red tape to the point where it is gone. As you say, just an agreement between two countries. There's actually nothing stopping a British Government from attempting to negotiate with the EU for the removal of the need for red tape.

Yes. If we agree to abide by all EU laws now and going forward. Is that the Brexit you want? Oh, they've also said we can re-join the single market if we allow freedom of movement. Happy with that?

 

We agree 80% of the way by the looks of it. You are trying to paint this as a permanent position though despite admitting that there is actually nothing stopping us from seeking better conditions for import/exports. I see the current state of affairs as being one up from default positions, a foundation from which the next few Governments can improve our relationship with the EU in a mutually beneficial way.

This is where the deliberate misunderstanding of brexit comes in. I think most people would agree that it is more beneficial to be inside of the single market than outside when it comes to trading with the EU. But we have to factor in the cost of being in there. Brexit says that the cost of membership was too high.

We want to trade freely but we don't want to accede sovereignty to the EU. Whether or not we allow free movement of people or whether we want to agree to trade deals with non-EU countries is of no concern to the EU. None at all.

That's why we voted for brexit and that is why remainers don't want to engage with that point, because you'd be arguing for why the EU is right to demand political sovereignty and trade deal exclusivity in return for not having to fill some forms in to export goods. 

I get the feeling you're confusing FTAs and border checks. We have FTAs with the EU but border checks are still necessary due to divergence. The EU has the same deal with all 3rd countries.  

I hope you don't think I'm not engaging with any of your points.

 

 

Why on earth would we agree to abide by all eu laws now and moving forward to avoid a bit of paperwork importing and exporting? Sounds like an absolutely terrible deal🤣

 

How about they agree to abide by all uk laws now and moving forward and they also must agree to prevent every single illegal channel crossing at the same time, and we'll consider removing our red tape?

 

Sounds silly doesn't it?

 

Edited by Regal Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


On 11/03/2022 at 21:41, Regal Beagle said:

Why on earth would we agree to abide by all eu laws now and moving forward to avoid a bit of paperwork importing and exporting? Sounds like an absolutely terrible deal🤣

 

How about they agree to abide by all uk laws now and moving forward and they also must agree to prevent every single illegal channel crossing at the same time, and we'll consider removing our red tape?

 

Sounds silly doesn't it?

 

Previously, you wrote.

"As for it going hand in hand with being outside of the single market - you have to say that because again, that has to be true to be able to conclusively state that being in the single market is the only way to avoid red tape. It isn't though, is it? 

How can there be no red tape on imports and exports within a particular "trade bloc", but to be outside of that "trade bloc" means agreeing with and accepting inevitable red tape? Your point makes zero logical sense. They can't both be true unless you can tell me explicitly how the EU manages to avoid red tape on imports and exports in a way which would be impossible for us to avoid it?"

 

Now you're saying it would be a terrible deal to avoid the red tape (a bit of paperwork, as you call it).

 

I'm sensing a bit of cognitive dissonance with you. That's never comfortable. Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hillmanhunter said:

Previously, you wrote.

"As for it going hand in hand with being outside of the single market - you have to say that because again, that has to be true to be able to conclusively state that being in the single market is the only way to avoid red tape. It isn't though, is it? 

How can there be no red tape on imports and exports within a particular "trade bloc", but to be outside of that "trade bloc" means agreeing with and accepting inevitable red tape? Your point makes zero logical sense. They can't both be true unless you can tell me explicitly how the EU manages to avoid red tape on imports and exports in a way which would be impossible for us to avoid it?"

 

Now you're saying it would be a terrible deal to avoid the red tape (a bit of paperwork, as you call it).

 

I'm sensing a bit of cognitive dissonance with you. That's never comfortable. Take care.

Honestly don't know how you dare use the term cognitive dissonance. That's exactly the thing you are displaying.

 

I'll try to be clear for you as I thought our little pretend EU trade negotiation was a great example of why the EU is a terrible deal.

 

 

Your view is that there is no way for us to be outside of the EU and avoid the red tape. Yet you also agree that the way to avoid the red tape is by negotiating and agreeing upon it's removal.

 

You can't possibly believe both of those view points because they're the opposite of each other.

 

So you seem to be justifying to yourself (cognitive dissonance) that the only way we can possibly negotiate a removal of the requirements for red tape is to re-join either fully or de facto by giving up the same things that the people of this country are not prepared to give up (sovereignty/border control).

 

I suspect you are doing this because you want us to be in the EU and so your "logic" works backwards from there. If you can make it a binary choice then the ONLY alternative would be to rejoin, this simply isn't true, which is weird because you also seem to partially agree with that?

 

You are misrepresenting the choices and freedom we have by artificially backing the EU position. We could easily start demanding that any country who wants to freely import into the UK has to sign their sovereignty over to us, but they'll never agree to it will they? And if that's true, why would we?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Honestly don't know how you dare use the term cognitive dissonance. That's exactly the thing you are displaying.

 

I'll try to be clear for you as I thought our little pretend EU trade negotiation was a great example of why the EU is a terrible deal.

 

 

Your view is that there is no way for us to be outside of the EU and avoid the red tape. Yet you also agree that the way to avoid the red tape is by negotiating and agreeing upon it's removal.

 

You can't possibly believe both of those view points because they're the opposite of each other.

 

So you seem to be justifying to yourself (cognitive dissonance) that the only way we can possibly negotiate a removal of the requirements for red tape is to re-join either fully or de facto by giving up the same things that the people of this country are not prepared to give up (sovereignty/border control).

 

I suspect you are doing this because you want us to be in the EU and so your "logic" works backwards from there. If you can make it a binary choice then the ONLY alternative would be to rejoin, this simply isn't true, which is weird because you also seem to partially agree with that?

 

You are misrepresenting the choices and freedom we have by artificially backing the EU position. We could easily start demanding that any country who wants to freely import into the UK has to sign their sovereignty over to us, but they'll never agree to it will they? And if that's true, why would we?

 

 

 

Your view is that there is no way for us to be outside of the EU and avoid the red tape.

Correct.

Yet you also agree that the way to avoid the red tape is by negotiating and agreeing upon it's removal.

Wrong. The way to remove the red tape is to agree to follow EU laws. Which is unpalatable, so only a theoretical solution. I was sort of playing devil's advocate.

This is the Brexit choice. Accept the pain of all the red tape (like Norway and to a lesser extent, Switzerland) or accept some EU demands to lessen the red tape. The closer you align yourself (and thus lose control) to The EU, the less red tape you have to deal with.

You think we can diverge from EU laws and still negotiate to get rid of red tape. These 2 things are mutually exclusive, hence your cognitive dissonance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hillmanhunter said:

Your view is that there is no way for us to be outside of the EU and avoid the red tape.

Correct.

Yet you also agree that the way to avoid the red tape is by negotiating and agreeing upon it's removal.

Wrong. The way to remove the red tape is to agree to follow EU laws. Which is unpalatable, so only a theoretical solution. I was sort of playing devil's advocate.

This is the Brexit choice. Accept the pain of all the red tape (like Norway and to a lesser extent, Switzerland) or accept some EU demands to lessen the red tape. The closer you align yourself (and thus lose control) to The EU, the less red tape you have to deal with.

You think we can diverge from EU laws and still negotiate to get rid of red tape. These 2 things are mutually exclusive, hence your cognitive dissonance.

This is insane 🤣

 

You are the one arguing two different things at the same time.

 

Why would WE have to agree to their rules? Why can't THEY agree to ours? You admitted that it takes an agreement to remove the red tape, yet you only admit that for one side of the negotiation?

 

It absolutely is not a binary choice, like I've said and like you are desperate to show, you need it to be binary because the only other option is therefore rejoining in some capacity.

 

To be as clear as I possibly can be: Your argument for why we would have to join the EU is the same argument for why we do not have to join the EU. If all it takes is an agreement to remove the red tape then there's nothing stopping them from giving up ground in negotiations.

 

That is why your argument is meaningless. You don't have a point. You are making it up. What you are saying is not true. 

 

Cognitive dissonance indeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


1 hour ago, Regal Beagle said:

This is insane 🤣

 

You are the one arguing two different things at the same time.

 

Why would WE have to agree to their rules? Why can't THEY agree to ours? You admitted that it takes an agreement to remove the red tape, yet you only admit that for one side of the negotiation?

 

It absolutely is not a binary choice, like I've said and like you are desperate to show, you need it to be binary because the only other option is therefore rejoining in some capacity.

 

To be as clear as I possibly can be: Your argument for why we would have to join the EU is the same argument for why we do not have to join the EU. If all it takes is an agreement to remove the red tape then there's nothing stopping them from giving up ground in negotiations.

 

That is why your argument is meaningless. You don't have a point. You are making it up. What you are saying is not true. 

 

Cognitive dissonance indeed. 

Why would WE have to agree to their rules? Why can't THEY agree to ours? You admitted that it takes an agreement to remove the red tape, yet you only admit that for one side of the negotiation?

Because it's THEIR club we're trying to gain access to.

Why would WE have to agree to their rules? Why can't THEY agree to ours? You admitted that it takes an agreement to remove the red tape, yet you only admit that for one side of the negotiation?

Because they've already set a precedent on how this works with Switzerland, Turkey and Norway. 

What is your preferred arrangement?

Norway - EEA member. Pays a fee for access. Accept the four freedoms?

Switzerland - Agree to some EU law, pay a fee for access, freedom of movement?

Turkey - Customs union only, agree to harmonise standards. No fin services passporting etc?

You knew what you voted for, so I take it you know exactly what kind of arrangement you wanted. Right?

To be as clear as I possibly can be: Your argument for why we would have to join the EU is the same argument for why we do not have to join the EU. If all it takes is an agreement to remove the red tape then there's nothing stopping them from giving up ground in negotiations.

The EU will never give up ground regarding the single market. It's a philosophical corner stone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Might is right, a union of 27 countries, does not bow and scrape to a bunch of clowns.

Yet again, remainer says "bow and scrape" because it needs to be that for their argument to stand up to any basic scrutiny.

 

I said...agreement. No bowing or scraping required to agree to mutually beneficial deals between a sovereign nation and a sovereign supranation.

 

The classic "oh but they're bigger and therefore they will dictate the terms and will not cede ground in negotiations" is garbage. 

8 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Why would WE have to agree to their rules? Why can't THEY agree to ours? You admitted that it takes an agreement to remove the red tape, yet you only admit that for one side of the negotiation?

Because it's THEIR club we're trying to gain access to.

Why would WE have to agree to their rules? Why can't THEY agree to ours? You admitted that it takes an agreement to remove the red tape, yet you only admit that for one side of the negotiation?

Because they've already set a precedent on how this works with Switzerland, Turkey and Norway. 

What is your preferred arrangement?

Norway - EEA member. Pays a fee for access. Accept the four freedoms?

Switzerland - Agree to some EU law, pay a fee for access, freedom of movement?

Turkey - Customs union only, agree to harmonise standards. No fin services passporting etc?

You knew what you voted for, so I take it you know exactly what kind of arrangement you wanted. Right?

To be as clear as I possibly can be: Your argument for why we would have to join the EU is the same argument for why we do not have to join the EU. If all it takes is an agreement to remove the red tape then there's nothing stopping them from giving up ground in negotiations.

The EU will never give up ground regarding the single market. It's a philosophical corner stone.

AHA

 

So we've gone from a binary to suddenly having 3 more options on the table. That's some climb down already.

 

Again, lets extend the logic...If 3 countries have negotiated bespoke deals already, then there's nothing stopping anyone else from negotiating a bespoke deal is there? Why would we have to copy a Turkey/Norway or Switzerland arrangement?

 

Your arguments literally support what I'm saying. 

 

 

I think the point you are trying to make, which is at least plausible is..."we're unlikely to be able to negotiate a sufficiently good arrangement to remove a satisfactory amount of the red tape".

 

Which is fine, we can agree to disagree. But we can't agree on something that is completely false. The facts are, it certainly is possible to negotiate a deal with the EU for improved access which as access goes up, red tape should come down. It all depends on what we have to negotiate with them.

 

And our "club" has taken free movement of people and uk sovereignty off the table. So forget about those things. We don't have to give them up at all, not unless the deal is something so magnificent that it would be impossible to pass up on.

 

Our deal with the EU will get better over time, whilst honoring the spirit of brexit. There's no doubt in my mind. The EU can't afford to give up too much to begin with because they needed brexit to be as not successful as possible. Once they get over that, they'll be more open to negotiation where mutually beneficial trade arrangements can be made.

 

The beauty of brexit, we don't have to accept permanent rubbish of which we have no control.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...