[Baff]

EU rules prevent the UK from negotiating bilateral trade agreements with individual EU states. The EU has exclusive competence to negotiate and conclude trade agreements with third countries.

We're not in the EU.
We're not subject to their rules. We get to negotiate with anyone we choose.

Should an EU rule prevent you from trading with someone you wish to trade with, you should consult the EU. It's not my problem.
Leave the EU, change the EU rules, or whatever really. That's an entirely internal affair.
If push comes to shove we will bomb the EU out of existence, Flatten the place in Brussels and Strasbourg. We can always take charge of the EU any time we please. That has not changed.
but mainly, don't care. Your problem. Not mine.

If you feel you need to negotiate with 26 other countries before honouring any deals you've made with mine, then do so. Carry on.

[ingliz]

We get to negotiate with anyone we choose.

No, you don't.

WTO rules apply.

8. For the purposes of this Agreement:
(a) A customs union shall be understood to mean the substitution of a single customs territory for two or more
customs territories, so that
(i) duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce (except, where necessary, those permitted under
Articles XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV and XX) are eliminated with respect to substantially all the trade between the
constituent territories of the union or at least with respect to substantially all the trade in products originating
in such territories, and,
(ii) subject to the provisions of paragraph 9, substantially the same duties and other regulations of commerce
are applied by each of the members of the union to the trade of territories not included in the union;

Member States are not allowed to strike their own trade deals with you. The reason is quite practical and not at all some form of EU overreach. The exclusive competence over trade is a direct consequence of the EU being a customs union, as defined by the WTO.

[Baff]

They can. Whether or not they will choose to is a matter for them, not us.

So if we want a deal with Ireland, we deal directly with Ireland. If Ireland must refer it to the EU before making any agreement with the UK, that is an internal matter between Ireland and the EU, not us, since we aren't EU members.

If that means they don't want a deal with us. No problem, we will respect that.

Now, realpolitik, if the EU forces Ireland to choose between a trade deal with the UK and a trade deal with the EU 27, it will lose Ireland.
The same applies to Belgium.

I think you will find that the EU will be changing it's rules to meet the new political realities.

[ingliz]

They can

No, they cannot.

WTO rules forbid it.

8(ii) subject to the provisions of paragraph 9, substantially the same duties and other regulations of commerce
are applied by each of the members of the union to the trade of territories not included in the union;

[Baff]

And still they can.
WTO rules do not prevent a country leaving a union.

Why be a member of a trade union that disallows you to trade with your primary trade partner?
Ridiculous.

So if they need to make deals with us, the EU can either approve those deals with them, or lose another member.
Just not our problem mate.

[ingliz]

WTO rules do not prevent a country leaving a union.

Correct.

But they do prevent a member of a custom union setting its own tariffs or doing special bilateral deals with third countries.

[Baff]

They don't have to set their own tariffs, they can make "the EU" set the tariffs they agree with us.
That is a matter between them and the EU. Internal EU politics.
Nothing to do with us mate. We're not in the EU.

[ingliz]

they can make "the EU" set the tariffs they agree with us.

No, they cannot.

The UK’s two main demands: control over EU migration and single market access are irreconcilable.

[Potemkin]

Nothing to do with us mate. We're not in the EU.

The EU will still have power over us, even though we will no longer be a member, Baff. You don't have to be a part of something in order for it to have power over you. That's just a basic fact of life.

[Baff]

That cuts both ways Potemkin. And that too is just a basic fact of life.

If you allow them to have power of you, they want power over you, but in the end it's your choice whether or not you agree to interact with them at all. There is no need for us to do so.
Trump doesn't. Why play their game?

The EU has no power here. We can kill them in minutes. They really have none unless we agree to it.
Which we famously don't.

So, if an EU member agree's to be ruled by the EU, that is between them and the EU.
No beef. Carry on.

The UN has no power. It is a diplomatic institution. UN members have plenty of power.
The EU is like this. All it's power is consentual. If you do not agree to be ruled by the EU, there is nothing it can do about it. It's just a bunch of old men in a palace somewhere.

[Baff]

No, they cannot.

The UK’s two main demands: control over EU migration and single market access are irreconcilable.

Yes, they can, they just don't want to.
Which is not the same thing at all.

Equally the UK doesn't want what the EU is offering. No problem. We have left the EU. Conflict resolved.

[ingliz]

We can kill them in minutes.

Actions have consequences.

Force de Frappe: 290 warheads

UK: 120 warheads

[Baff]

Is it then your opinion that if the UK bombs the EU, that France will enact Mutually Assured Destruction?
Half the French hate the EU as much as we do.

I predict half of the population of Europe laughing and dancing in the street.


But here's the thing. You don't scare us. We are up for it.
And guess what? We have nukes too.

Are you willing to die for the EU, personally?
Is it that important to you?

And that's the bottom line.
You don't ever get to win. No matter what you do, you never get to rule here. Never get to rule the world. We won't allow it.
You have correctly identified how far you will have to take things before you can, and even if you can convince the French to all commit suicide for you vanity, you still don't win. Whoever is left standing to inherit the world, you won't be amongst them.

We will take this as far as it can go.
We have said no. And our word is final.


You really thought you could bully us. Really thought you were in a position to push us around.
How little your stick.

[ingliz]

@Baff



Reason for edits:

Your message contains too many smilies. The maximum number of smilies allowed is 10

[Baff]

In life, we treat reasonable people reasonably and unreasonable people unreasonably.
And some of the deals I make, with a certain type of person, I make with a gun in my hand.

[ingliz]

In life, we treat reasonable people reasonably and unreasonable people unreasonably.
And some of the deals I make, with a certain type of person, I make with a gun in my hand.

For your sake, I hope you are not making these deals in the UK. The mandatory five-year custodial sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm is only a starting point. If you are caught waving one around in public, you will be looking at a minimum of seven years in prison.

Prohibited firearms

All cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of calibre

[Potemkin]

At this point, I would like to say that I think Baff's drunk posting is awesome, except that I don't think he's drunk.

[Beren]

At this point, I would like to say that I think Baff's drunk posting is awesome, except that I don't think he's drunk.

In many cases posters from the Anglosphere seem drunk while posting. Many of them must be drunk while voting as well.

[Atlantis]

This is absolutely hilarious. Last year, the EU commission set up a task-force to prepare the Union for an eventual no-deal scenario because Theresa May threatened to take the UK out of the EU without a deal: "no deal is better than a bad deal."

Now the Brexit Secretary David Davis wants to sue the EU for preparing for a no-deal scenario. It can't get any crazier than this. Of course the EU has to prepare for any and all eventualities, especially for a scenario specifically evoked by the British PM.

We already know that David Davis is too lazy to commission any study about the impact Brexit would have on the UK economy. If he's too lazy to prepare the UK for Brexit, why does he suppose that the EU should not prepare for Brexit?


David Davis attacks EU’s ‘damaging’ no-deal Brexit planning

[B0ycey]

@Baff, where is this obsession with nuclear obliteration coming from? If the EU doesn't want us to trade with them for whatever reason, that is up to them. It is the UK who have walked away from the EU, not the other way.

But if 'no deal' occurs and the UK throws its toys out the the pram and has to resort to threats of war, then I will throw away my blue passport. From the offset we have been told that we cannot have our cake and eat it. If people are confused about this, it was because the leavers painted a rosey picture of 'pure riches' during the campaign. The only solution out of this mess in another referendum, but if one doesn't happen, the UK will have to deal with the consequences - whatever that maybe.