EU-BREXIT - Page 321 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15068331
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The point is, as I think you know, that Canada is not required to automatically align itself with rules and regulations that the US might come up with at a future point.


I don't know which specific pronouncement(s) you are referring to, so can't comment. Could you provide links?


If we are talking about a conventional free trade deal, e.g. similar to the often referred to Canada deal, there is simply no reason why the ECJ should have jurisdiction at all. That the EU still insists on it would indicate that they regard it as somewhat more important than you.

It's better to not think of issues like the ECJ and dynamic alignment as completely separate issues. They are part of a broader pattern confirming the EU's wish to influence its neighbours above and beyond that which would be a natural dominance due to its size anyway. Again, it's quite a heavy handed and overbearing approach and is in my view an expression of a fundamentally different style and strategy with respect to trade and international cooperation which ought to be resisted on principle.


It depends, actually. Canada has to use some of the US regulations but not in all fields. Its complicated.

As for the courts thing. Most trade deals if not all of them have specific arbitration courts to settle disputes. You know, the courts that everyone hates for being stacked with corporatist lawyers and corporatist legal experts. I do not see what is the problem. You will have even more secretive courts if you are going to sign trade deals between your US and other countries. ECJ is much much more transparent and known compared to all of the other ones. Not to mention we can trust it to be more unbiased than others regarding corporatist lawyers and experts. (And i guess this is the real problem for your leaders)

Basically, i have my idea why the courts issue is a problem and i understand the propaganda about it. I just don't agree with it.
By Rugoz
#15068333
JohnRawls wrote:ECJ is much much more transparent and known compared to all of the other ones.


:lol:

ECJ is a EU court.

CETA sets up a tribunal for every case, whose judges are chosen by Canada and the EU in equal numbers.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15068338
Rugoz wrote::lol:

ECJ is a EU court.

CETA sets up a tribunal for every case, whose judges are chosen by Canada and the EU in equal numbers.


Okay and? My argument wasn't where the people come from. My argument was that ECJ is not packed with corporatist legal experts and corporatist lawyers. Basically the idea behind this is that the little guy will not get screwed all the time and the average joe cases will not be trashed straight away. ECJ often rules in favor of average joes. Since the disputes in these courts are usually not between countries but between common people/small businesses vs large businesses.

In regards to EU / UK bias in judges. Well, sure i can see it happening but I will assume the court people do their job properly and be impartial in this regard. I would not mind modifying it 50/50 for UK cases as long as the EU uses same legal people while UK appoints several of their own here which are properly scrutinized.
User avatar
By fokker
#15068398
Britain cannot get Canada style trade deal due to close proximity to EU. Producers in Canada need to transport goods over Atlantic ocean, while Britain just over English channel which is a lot cheaper. EU needs to ensure similar rules apply to UK companies so that EU doesn't get undercut due to EU regulations applying to one side only. Trade deal without being aligned to EU rules is an illusion.

UK is proposing new immigration rules -

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51550421

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51558830

It doesn't seem to be too strict. Job offer + job at appropriate skill level + English makes 50 points. 20 points can be easily collected by getting salary at least £25 600, which is quite low actually. It should be no problem to immigrate to UK for those who have useful skills, even for people who don't have long work experience. Points for jobs in a shortage occupation may need adjustment if it turns out there is severe shortage of unqualified workers.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15068430
ingliz wrote:Another whinging pom. :roll:

What's your problem?

If the UK doesn't want to produce goods to EU standards, fine, cease trading manufactured goods to the EU.

If the UK doesn't want 'equivalence' in services, fine, cease trading in services with the EU.

I thought you weren't interested in this topic beyond your personal circumstances?

JohnRawls wrote:It depends, actually. Canada has to use some of the US regulations but not in all fields. Its complicated.

Can you tell us which?

JohnRawls wrote:As for the courts thing. Most trade deals if not all of them have specific arbitration courts to settle disputes. You know, the courts that everyone hates for being stacked with corporatist lawyers and corporatist legal experts. I do not see what is the problem. You will have even more secretive courts if you are going to sign trade deals between your US and other countries. ECJ is much much more transparent and known compared to all of the other ones. Not to mention we can trust it to be more unbiased than others regarding corporatist lawyers and experts. (And i guess this is the real problem for your leaders)

I'd be fine with a mechanism that involved both the ECJ and UK courts (depending on, for example, where the alleged violation occurred, etc.), but in the absence of it, the tribunals are still preferable despite the fact that they do need some work.

I also think you are naive to believe that the EU would ever consider letting only UK courts decide these matters.

fokker wrote:Britain cannot get Canada style trade deal due to close proximity to EU. Producers in Canada need to transport goods over Atlantic ocean, while Britain just over English channel which is a lot cheaper. EU needs to ensure similar rules apply to UK companies so that EU doesn't get undercut due to EU regulations applying to one side only. Trade deal without being aligned to EU rules is an illusion.

We'll see whether it's an illusion or not, but I agree that there's certainly lots of fear on the EU side when it comes to the UK's competitiveness.
User avatar
By Beren
#15068437
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:We'll see whether it's an illusion or not, but I agree that there's certainly lots of fear on the EU side when it comes to the UK's competitiveness.

It's rather a humbuggery and maximal carefulness could be justifiable indeed when it comes to the UK's ability and willingness to take advantage.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15068445
foxdemon wrote:What are you talking about. We are completely unbiased. Most opinion outside of Europe accepts that a vote is a vote and the British voted to leave.

That's right. People must surely marvel at our lack of bias.

Beren wrote:It's rather a humbuggery and maximal carefulness could be justifiable indeed when it comes to the UK's ability and willingness to take advantage.

This seems rather paranoid, but when it comes to carefulness it surely goes both ways. It's perfectly possible, for example, for the EU to come up with state aid rules that happen to disproportionately affect the UK in a negative way. It doesn't even have to be deliberate.
User avatar
By noemon
#15068446
Greece demands Elgin Marbles for EU trade deal wrote:Britain faces having to return the Elgin Marbles as part of a free trade deal with the European Union after Greece demanded a clause is inserted in the agreement.

A draft negotiating mandate circulated among European governments in Brussels today hardened EU demands in key traditional trade areas, particularly fishing, but also included the unexpected “return and restitution” line.

“The parties should address issues relating to the return or restitution of unlawfully removed cultural objects to their country of origin,” said a newly drafted text that will be signed off by EU governments next week.

The Greek government has said that Brexit will shift the political balance within the EU to force Britain to return the fifth century BC marbles.

Greece insists they were stolen by Lord Elgin, a British diplomat, from the Parthenon temple in Athens over 200 years ago.

One EU ambassador involved in talks on the draft said: “It is a measure of how Brexit has changed the game that the Greeks feel able to use the trade talks to pursue the Elgin Marbles.”


Lord Elgin brought the marbles back to Britain in the early 19th century
ALAMY
A senior EU source confirmed that the clause had been inserted at the request of Greece, with the support of Cyprus and Italy, two countries concerned about the present day trade in stolen artefacts, particularly those from the age of antiquity.

“It is not specifically about the Elgin Marbles but of course the claim by Greece is longstanding and the Greek ambassador asked for it,” said a source. “London’s auction houses are big traders in ancient and historical artefacts and we want to make sure that if they are stolen they can be returned.”

The British Museum welcomed any commitments “to fighting the trade in illicit antiquities across the world”.

“We work in partnership with law enforcement agencies to identify and help to return objects that come into the UK illegally,” it said. “The Parthenon sculptures were legally acquired and help us to tell the story of human history presented at the museum. They are accessible to the six million global visitors the museum receives each year.”

If agreed and ratified as part of a future trade and security treaty with the EU, Britain would almost certainly later face a Greek demand for the return of the marbles. The clause does not mean that the return of the marble sculpture would be a precondition for a free trade deal.

The Ethnos newspaper reported Greek diplomatic sources who said the clause did not directly concern the sculptures while noting “Greece’s position on the return of the marbles is firm”.

The marbles, which are displayed in the British Museum, were originally part of a frieze on the Parthenon but were acquired by Elgin in the early 19th century when Greece was ruled by the Ottoman Empire.

Last month, Lina Mendoni, the Greek culture minister, said Brexit would strengthen European support for her country’s case that the marbles had been taken from Greece as a “blatant act of serial theft” that was “motivated by financial gain”.

“I think the right conditions have been created for their permanent return,” she told Reuters on January 30.

In another unhelpful development for the government, the Brussels negotiating mandate has been hardened on fishing and, according to the latest text, the EU the will now demand that European boats be allowed the same access and catches in British fisheries from the end of the year.

The new demand would “uphold existing reciprocal access conditions, quota shares and traditional activity of the Union fleet” in Britain’s coastal waters after the transition period this year.

If agreed, the EU would continue to fish for “all relevant species” at the same level with quotas, as decided under the Common Fisheries Policy, “which can only be adjusted with the consent of both parties”.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned the government that concessions of fishing are a condition of a trade deal and continued access to European markets for the City of London.

Phil Hogan, the EU’s trade commissioner, warned that if Britain rejected Brussels demands for alignment with European regulations then talks this year would fail leaving the government responsible for the economic damage.

“We’re looking for a level playing field and they don’t seem to want it,” he said, responding to a speech on Monday night by David Frost, the UK’s chief negotiator. “It’s up to the UK to make sure [economic disruption ] doesn’t happen. Full responsibility is in the hands of the UK.”
User avatar
By Beren
#15068449
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:This seems rather paranoid

Don't you know who their prime minister is? :lol:
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15068456
Beren wrote:Don't you know who their prime minister is? :lol:

Of course I know the people's champion who strikes fear into the heart of the EU!
By Rugoz
#15068488
fokker wrote:Britain cannot get Canada style trade deal due to close proximity to EU. Producers in Canada need to transport goods over Atlantic ocean, while Britain just over English channel which is a lot cheaper. EU needs to ensure similar rules apply to UK companies so that EU doesn't get undercut due to EU regulations applying to one side only. Trade deal without being aligned to EU rules is an illusion.


This kind of bullshit makes my blood boil. It's a blank check for economic imperialism and fundamentally misunderstands how international trade works. As long as goods from the UK fulfill EU standards, it's none of the EU's business how they are produced*. Competitiveness is established through the exchange rate, no matter what. When the Germans exercise "Lohnzurückhaltung", that's no different from child labor in whatever 3th world country in terms of competitiveness. With different currencies it simply doesn't matter. The EU should focus on its Eurozone members instead.

*unless it causes externalities such as CO2 emissions. The UK is in line with EU goals in that regard however and obviously others are much much worse. And yes, fishing obviously.

A Canada style trade deal was always on the table, and now that it suddenly isn't, it becomes obvious that the EU is afraid of becoming fucking irrelevant.
User avatar
By Ter
#15068496
1. @noemon Can you tell us what your personal opinion is about the eventual return of the Elgin marbles to Greece?
I am asking because you are both Greek and British.

2. For the EU to insist on continuing to harvest fish in UK waters is preposterous. What is the rationale for this ? I hope the UK stands firm and refuses to budge.
User avatar
By fokker
#15068513
Rugoz wrote:This kind of bullshit makes my blood boil.


Don't stone me, I'm not an imperialist, I live in a small EU country, but from observation I see what it is about. Canada style trade deal is not in the interest of EU and it would be a threat for the future of EU. Britain is a small country and as such needs to adjust to its bigger neighbor. Brits should have thought this through before they left. My ancestors lived in Autria-Hugary and it was a similar beast like the EU. The only way to get rid of it is to fall apart like a house of cards, like the former did.

Ter wrote:2. For the EU to insist on continuing to harvest fish in UK waters is preposterous. What is the rationale for this ? I hope the UK stands firm and refuses to budge.


Geographical position is behind it and EU interests, just like UK has its interests.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15068515
fokker wrote:Don't stone me, I'm not an imperialist, I live in a small EU country, but from observation I see what it is about. Canada style trade deal is not in the interest of EU and it would be a threat for the future of EU. Britain is a small country and as such needs to adjust to its bigger neighbor. Brits should have thought this through before they left. My ancestors lived in Autria-Hugary and it was a similar beast like the EU. The only way to get rid of it is to fall apart like a house of cards, like the former did.



Geographical position is behind it and EU interests, just like UK has its interests.

Precisely. Britain is now a small nation right next to a bigger, richer and more powerful neighbour. In other words, the UK is to the EU what Scotland is to the UK. The Scots probably understand what is likely to result from that (which is probably one of the reasons they opposed Brexit), but so far the English seem oblivious to their true position. I think they're going to get a rude awakening pretty soon now.... lol.
User avatar
By Ter
#15068517
Potemkin wrote:Geographical position is behind it and EU interests, just like UK has its interests.

Those are not valid reasons.
The fish in British waters belong to the Brits.
I hope they will not cave.

Potemkin wrote:Britain is now a small nation right next to a bigger, richer and more powerful neighbour. In other words, the UK is to the EU what Scotland is to the UK. The Scots probably understand what is likely to result from that (which is probably one of the reasons they opposed Brexit), but so far the English seem oblivious to their true position. I think they're going to get a rude awakening pretty soon now.... lol.


That neighbour is not one country. I assume several countries will not agree to a hard-line approach. Likewise Spain will not be allowed to blackmail the UK over Gibraltar nor Greece over the Elgin Marbles. Let's see.
@Potemkin is a remainer, he is still smarting from the defeat. Maybe that is why he wishes the EU-UK negotiations to be difficult ?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15068521
Ter wrote:Those are not valid reasons.
The fish in British waters belong to the Brits.
I hope they will not cave.

And most of the North Sea oil fields are off the coast of Scotland rather than England. Guess who receives most of the revenues. Time to start living in the real world, Ter.

That neighbour is not one country. I assume several countries will not agree to a hard-line approach. Likewise Spain will not be allowed to blackmail the UK over Gibraltar nor Greece over the Elgin Marbles. Let's see.
@Potemkin is a remainer, he is still smarting from the defeat. Maybe that is why he wishes the EU-UK negotiations to be difficult ?

Actually, I'm in favour of Brexit. It's just that the delusional idiocy of most of my fellow Brexiters irritates me enormously. Lol.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15068524
Ter wrote:The fish in British waters belong to the Brits.

And where will they sell them? Going by the numbers, not to their domestic market. The English don't seem to eat fish in any great quantity.

UK catch - 698,000 tonnes

UK consumption - 410.000 tonnes

EU 'UK waters' total quota - 2,069,202 tonnes
User avatar
By Beren
#15068527
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Of course I know the people's champion who strikes fear into the heart of the EU!

Oh really? The EU doesn't have a heart, don't you know that? :lol:

The people eat up whatever comes out of his arse (or mouth, it's hard to tell which one is which in his case), nonetheless.

Would you tell me, please, if you're just joking or you're really so pathetic? I'm being confused a bit. :?:
By foxdemon
#15068536
Ter wrote:2. For the EU to insist on continuing to harvest fish in UK waters is preposterous. What is the rationale for this ? I hope the UK stands firm and refuses to budge.



We don’t need to worry about that silly issue anymore. Our lady and saviour has made a proclamation forbidding the consumption of fish by humans. From now on, we must only eat bugs.

And after each crunchy mouthful, remember that the Earth is depending on you.


Image
User avatar
By Ter
#15068539
ingliz wrote:And where will they sell them? Going by the numbers, not to their domestic market. The English don't seem to eat fish in any great quantity.

UK catch - 698,000 tonnes

UK consumption - 410.000 tonnes

EU 'UK waters' total quota - 2,069,202 tonnes


@ingliz your reasoning is too simple and does not hold water:

- Excess fish could be canned, sold, turned into pet food, fish food and so on.
- The British fishing fleet could be augmented and bring in extra money and providing extra jobs.
- The EU could purchase fish from the UK instead of robbing the fish from waters that do not belong to them.
- Or the UK could export fish. There is a huge demand for it.

Boris, if you read this, hold firm !

Potemkin wrote:And most of the North Sea oil fields are off the coast of Scotland rather than England. Guess who receives most of the revenues. Time to start living in the real world, Ter.

But, but, I am living in the real world ! As far as I know, Scotland is still an integral part of the UK, therefore Boris will negotiate on behalf of Scotland as well.

Potemkin wrote:Actually, I'm in favour of Brexit.

Ah, OK, so you are one of the good ones.
Sorry for the erroneous categorisation. :D
  • 1
  • 319
  • 320
  • 321
  • 322
  • 323
  • 326

Lay off the shrooms man and living in a delusiona[…]

Worship myself? Who do you think I am, Donald Tru[…]

Is that a joke or are you one of those stupid Ame[…]

The reason China has so many factory "zombie[…]