# EU and Japan to sign historic trade deal



## TheBigShort (17 Jul 2018)

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0717/979174-eu_japan/


Im not too au fait on the details of these matters, but on the face of it I assume that as the UK is still part of the EU it is also a beneficiary of this EU and Japan free trade deal?

However, when it leaves the EU it will, apparently, try to negotiate its own free trade deal with Japan?

But as far I as I know, under WTO rules, Japan will not be in a position to negotiate better t&c for the UK over the EU? The EU would be mightily pee-d off I would imagine and it would undermine this new deal?

So the best the UK can hope for is a free-trade deal with Japan equal to this deal with the EU (of which the UK is already a part of).

Is the madness of Brexit not obvious or am I missing something?


----------



## dub_nerd (17 Jul 2018)

Yes, but _sovereignty_ dear chap.


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Jul 2018)

That’s fair enough, but it’s a sad reflection of the British psyche today if, after centuries of invading other peoples lands, and centuries of past wars with its European neighbours that it cannot cope with the concept of pooled sovereignty.

Regardless of the issues some Brits have with the EU (and depending on who you listen to it could be anything from fish to immigration to EU courts or free-trade agreements) the real politik is that the issues they have will not disappear upon leaving the EU.

Instead they will be back to the negotiating table very soon afterwards tying to untangle what it was that was not untangled in the first place.

A free-trade deal with Japan perhaps?


----------



## T McGibney (17 Jul 2018)

Nothing like a bit of Brit-bashing to liven up a dull evening...


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Nothing like a bit of Brit-bashing to liven up a dull evening...



Not at all, the same applies to the French, the Germans, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch et al.
It would apply to us also if we had ever had had the wherewithal to pursue foreign riches.
I have every respect for British people and its nation. Outside its military endeavours and arms sales, its influence on the world has been hugely positive.
I just think it is sad that, despite the failings of the EU (perceived or real) that the ordinary Brit, and right up to highest political office, cannot see beyond a very narrow nationalistic stance that still says we are better than all the rest.

If they want to leave EU, well and good, I wish they would get on with it instead of bemoaning what the EU will or wont do.
Instead they want a deal, with all the best bits of EU membership (free trade) but none of the pooled sovereignty that has facilitated that free-trade in the first place.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Jul 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> EU (perceived or real) that the ordinary Brit, and right up to highest political office, cannot see beyond a very narrow nationalistic stance that still says we are better than all the rest.



QED.

This sort of nation-baiting has no place on AAM, in my opinion.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> QED.
> 
> This sort of nation-baiting has no place on AAM, in my opinion.



Not sure how you have interpreted my comments as 'nation-baiting'?
I think it is a legitimate criticism of the viewpoints that are driving Brexit. Boris Johnson, in his Telegraph article, states he wants to see a more open, more global Britain after Brexit, by;  

Step 1 - close borders to European citizens.

Step 2 - leave customs unions and single market, so as to negotiate a bespoke customs union and frictionless access to the single market.

Step 3 - take back control of courts and laws, by aligning courts and laws with that of the EU.

Step 4 - Take control of our fish!


----------



## T McGibney (18 Jul 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> *Not sure how *you have interpreted my comments as 'nation-baiting'?



There's a clue in the part of your comment which I quoted.



TheBigShort said:


> I think it is a legitimate criticism



Every two-bit bigot in the land thinks that their criticisms of entire nationalities are legitimate. Not for a second suggesting you're one of those but you get my drift.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Jul 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Not sure how you have interpreted my comments as 'nation-baiting'?
> I think it is a legitimate criticism of the viewpoints that are driving Brexit. Boris Johnson, in his Telegraph article, states he wants to see a more open, more global Britain after Brexit, by;
> Step 1 - close borders to European citizens.
> Step 2 - leave customs unions and single market, so as to negotiate a bespoke customs union and frictionless access to the single market.
> ...



Canada and Australia are open and global nations, and control all those things.
How open and global are the Visegrád group of EU member states, by comparison?
Has the EU done a better job than Canada and Australia at managing immigration, or fish?

Britain should have left the EU at Maastricht, they were clearly uncomfortable with the entire concept of the EU, the mess now is the price they are paying for bottling it then. If there is no trade deal between Britain and the EU, EU citizens will pay a heavy heavy price too. Some Irish peoole who should know better are laughing at the mess Britain is in, yet whole sectors of our economy will be at risk in the event of no deal as they are dependent on UK to take our exports. Anyone in the EU laughing, sneering or gloating at Britain obviously doesn't give a damn about Irish farmers, Spanish produce growers or French winemakers, to name but a few.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Every two-bit bigot in the land thinks that their criticisms of entire nationalities are legitimate. Not for a second suggesting you're one of those but you get my drift.



Ok, I will desist from trying to decipher your cryptic clues only to suggest that when I said 'ordinary brit', I should have clarified it as 'ordinary brit _who is in favour of Brexit driven primarily by a narrow nationalistic agenda _- unfortunately that is a majority.

Obviously the part where I commended the British and its 


TheBigShort said:


> influence on the world has been hugely positive.


...passed you by.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Canada and Australia are open and global nations, and control all those things.
> How open and global are the Visegrád group of EU member states, by comparison?



I dont see the correlation, sorry. The EU is a collection of member states pooling sovereignty in agreed common interest. 
The concept originates from a shared history of war over hundreds of years that typically manifested itself from trade disputes, bankruptcies, arms races etc between nation states.
So a common market, with common rules and laws, a pooling of resources and wealth, can assist in a process of a level playing field amongst all member states.
The UK wants to leave. Which is fine, that is their right to do so. 
Its the basis upon which they are leaving is what I think is stupid. 
"Take back our controls of our laws", they yell. 
One of the first decisions made by the British High Court, ruling that the British Parliament give consent to the notice of Brexit, was labeled as "Enemies of the People!" by prominent Brexiteers The Daily Mail.
This was a British court, imposing British law.
The point being, it doesn't take an EU court to impose decisions that are not agreeable, it happens all the time, in all courts.
The primary issue surrounding court decisions is whether or not there are built on democratic ideals of due process, presumption of innocence, access, etc...all of which EU courts are, as are British courts.




odyssey06 said:


> If there is no trade deal between Britain and the EU, EU citizens will pay a heavy heavy price too. Some Irish peoole who should know better are laughing at the mess Britain is in, yet whole sectors of our economy will be at risk in the event of no deal as they are dependent on UK to take our exports.



I agree, hence the stupidity of Brexit. Which sectors of the British economy were at risk before the Brexit referendum? Which sectors are now at risk in the absence of a trade deal?
Who, and why exactly have these risks emerged? It is wholly disingenuous to start pointing the finger at the EU.
Im no lover of the EU, disenchanted somewhat since we had to vote twice in our referendums, but I blame the lack of political backbone here for not standing up for our peoples decisions.
And I dont like the Euro currency. It doesn't work, its one glove fits all is not suitable to all participating economies.
Nevertheless, the concept of a Europe pooling its sovereignty and its resources in common cause of peace, and improving the standards of living of its people outweighs the narrow nationalistic agenda in my view.




odyssey06 said:


> Anyone in the EU laughing, sneering or gloating at Britain obviously doesn't give a damn about Irish farmers, Spanish produce growers or French winemakers, to name but a few.



I would disagree. It was Nigel Farage who stood in the European Parliament and said "...you are not laughing now, are you?".
Again, its the self-deprecating psyche of the British nationalist to think that it is them against the rest. 
If there is no trade deal, the only ones laughing will be Farage and his travelling donkeys.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

But back to the OP. 

Can the UK negotiate a 'better' trade deal with Japan than what is already on the table with the EU (of which they are a beneficiary)? 
Im sure they can agree to trading on things like Whale spearing and fox-hunting holidays, that they wouldn't be able to do as a member of the EU, but overall, what can the UK achieve with Japan that it hasn't already have with the EU?


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Jul 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> And I dont like the Euro currency. It doesn't work, its one glove fits all is not suitable to all participating economies.
> Nevertheless, the concept of a Europe pooling its sovereignty and its resources in common cause of peace, and improving the standards of living of its people outweighs the narrow nationalistic agenda in my view.



There are lots of narrow nationalistic agendas being pursued *through *the EU. It was one of the reasons Britain is leaving.
The Euro has been a weapon of mass destruction to the peoples of Europe, I don't care about the concept it claims to serve, I care about the reality. It was not originally as the EEC, but it has become, a power project for large EU nations.

Britain perhaps naively assumed the EU would think about the impact of the failure to do trade deal would have on its own citizens and would approach it with those considerations in mind.
But the project is all that matters, the fact that it's a trans-national agenda rather than a "narrow nationalistic" one is irrelevant.  The same contempt for the ordinary person we saw with the Euro, is evident in how the EU conducts Brexit negotiations.
There is no reason why Brexit has to mean disastrous economic consequences for the EU citizens, but Barnier and Juncker appear to care as little about them as Farage. 

EU treaties do allow for a member state to leave don't they? I don't see what common cause of peace is served by the way they are conducting Brexit negotiations, like some spurned lover in a divorce.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> There are lots of narrow nationalistic agendas being pursued *through *the EU.



I agree. But the pooling of sovereignty requires in some instances unanimity, hence the reason it can take longer to negotiate trade deals. This has advantages (general concensus, no one power broker dominating affairs or the agenda) and disadvantages (time).



odyssey06 said:


> The Euro has been a weapon of mass destruction to the peoples of Europe, *I don't care about the concept it claims to serve, I care about the reality*. It was not originally as the EEC, but it has become, a power project for large EU nations.



The concept is the reality. Perhaps it does not resonate so profoundly on these shores, but Europe and war are synonymous with each other.



odyssey06 said:


> Britain perhaps naively assumed the EU would think about the impact of the failure to do trade deal would have on its own citizens and would approach it with those considerations in mind.



See this is what I dont understand. Firstly, it is the UK that wants to leave. It has a PM that says it wants a deal, but there are those who could take her place who are quite prepared to do no-deal. 
So what is the EU to do? Negotiate a deal with a PM who doesn't have the support to get the deal done? 

I heard snippets of Johnsons resignation speech in the UK Parliament today. 
Its clear to me that he thinks May should go. 
But will he go for leadership? 
Who are the EU supposed to negotiate with?



odyssey06 said:


> EU treaties do allow for a member state to leave don't they? I don't see what common cause of peace is served by the way they are conducting Brexit negotiations, like some spurned lover in a divorce.



What negotiations? What does the UK want exactly? 
Read Johnsons speech today, he lambasts the Chequers agreement. But he was full steam behind Lancaster House 18 months ago. 
Its clear, there are at least two (if not more) Brexit camps. 
This is the farce, this is the idiocy. Who knows what they want? Or what they will propose? 
And when they figure that much out (if ever), then there is no guarantee that it will be accepted by Brussels.
Aside from fanciful notions that Brussels are acting like 'spurned lovers', they do actually have to manage the interests of the EU. It is their responsibility to ensure it prevails - that is their business. 
So agreeing trade deal with the UK that has all the benefits of EU membership, but none of the obligation to pool sovereignty, is simply cloud-cukoo land. For the EU to agree such a deal, they might as well wind-up and call it a day.


----------



## Sunny (18 Jul 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> There are lots of narrow nationalistic agendas being pursued *through *the EU. It was one of the reasons Britain is leaving.
> The Euro has been a weapon of mass destruction to the peoples of Europe, I don't care about the concept it claims to serve, I care about the reality. It was not originally as the EEC, but it has become, a power project for large EU nations.
> 
> Britain perhaps naively assumed the EU would think about the impact of the failure to do trade deal would have on its own citizens and would approach it with those considerations in mind.
> ...



Sometimes when I listen to people talking about the EU, I am reminded of that famous scene from the Life of Brian where the question 'What have the romans ever done for us...' is asked. There is a lot wrong with the EU and the politicians are to blame for being so disconnected to people on the ground but the benefits of the EU far outweigh the negatives in the long term. The problem with the UK is that they are not exactly sure what they want. They want to pick and choose what parts of the EU they want to keep but it can't work like that. Otherwise everyone will just keep the bits and pieces they want and the project will fall apart. They can't even come up with a coherent strategy amongst themselves so they can hardly expect the EU to do it for them. Yes, the EU will suffer with no deal and especially Ireland but I think they would rather suffer that for a period of time than offer the UK an easy exit and have to repeat the exercise the next time an Anti EU party comes to power in another country.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

Here is a question, why does the EU and UK have to agree a deal at all? 
Why not simply agree now, today, to implement WTO rules and see how things pan out? 
If a common cause arises, a deal can be struck at a later time in the future.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

Sunny said:


> There is a lot wrong with the EU and the politicians are to blame for being so disconnected to people on the ground



Exactly, but this is the type of thinking that prevails in national politics too. You dont have to go all the way to EU to find politicians out of touch. Local politicians tend to do a good job of that themselves.
Arguably the Brexit Yes vote was a consequence of national politicians out of touch with its electorate.
Political upheaval has/is occurring across Europe (incl Ireland) and US to lessor and greater degrees ever since the economic collapse.
Politicians across the spectrum have failed, or are failing to address the consequences of that crash.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Jul 2018)

Sunny said:


> Yes, the EU will suffer with no deal and especially Ireland but I think they would rather suffer that for a period of time than offer the UK an easy exit and have to repeat the exercise the next time an Anti EU party comes to power in another country.



They won't suffer. They're too cute to cut off their noses to spite their faces. It's ordinary people, their own citizens, who will suffer.


----------



## Sunny (18 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> They won't suffer. They're too cute to cut off their noses to spite their faces. It's ordinary people, their own citizens, who will suffer.




Surely the fact that they are too cute to cut off their noses to spite their faces is a good thing?? Everyone will suffer. Citizens of the UK and citizens in the EU. That doesn't mean that the EU should automatically choose the least painful option of just letting the UK pick what parts of the single market they want without any of the obligations. There will be an impact but it won't lead to a Great Depression. Can't blame the EU for thinking that protecting the Single Market going forward is more important than making Brexit as painless as possible. In many ways, it has to be painful so other countries don't get the same idea. Might not be right but it is understandable. What it means is that the onus has been on the UK to provide the exit strategy that satisfies the EU and that so far has been anything but straightforward. They can't even get a negotiating position agreed between themselves, never mind involving the EU.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> They won't suffer. They're too cute to cut off their noses to spite their faces. It's ordinary people, their own citizens, who will suffer.



I don't think its as simple as this. Tensions in the EU from monetary policy to fiscal constraints to immigration from Africa and Syria to racial tensions are manifesting in political upheaval. 
Brexit is a symptom of this and a hard Brexit is in no-ones interest. That said, given the political upheaval in the UK at the moment its hard to see anything but a hard Brexit. 
This will obviously have economic consequences, but it is in the interest of Brussels to minimise those consequences as much as possible, ditto ECB. 
What exactly this would entail, I do not know. But economic downturns breed political instability, political instability breeds conflict. 
Whatever the outcome of Brexit, its in both the UK and EU's interest to advance common interests to the mutual benefit of its citizens - that is the political challenge.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Jul 2018)

Sunny said:


> Surely the fact that they are too cute to cut off their noses to spite their faces is a good thing?? Everyone will suffer.



The EU mandarins and political hangers-on won't suffer. They'll let everyone else roast though.




Sunny said:


> That doesn't mean that the EU should automatically choose the least painful option of just letting the UK pick what parts of the single market they want without any of the obligations


The UK haven't even asked for that. All they want is a negotiated process.



Sunny said:


> There will be an impact but it won't lead to a Great Depression.


If all this leads to even a minor economic depression, there will be hell to pay across Europe.



Sunny said:


> In many ways, it has to be painful so other countries don't get the same idea. Might not be right but it is understandable.



It's only understandable in the context of a Union that has lost all vestiges of popular accountability. The idea that the EU should be some sort of prison offends both common decency and common sense. Any political power that needs enforcement by intimidation and threats is but transitory and will recede as the tides recede. The USSR is an example of that.



Sunny said:


> They can't even get a negotiating position agreed between themselves, never mind involving the EU.



Show me a country on the planet where there is actual political unanimity on any major issue.  The UK's problem isn't unanimity, it's the dreadful state of leadership displayed by the PM. Mrs Thatcher would have had this sorted in a wet week.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> The UK's problem isn't unanimity, it's the dreadful state of leadership displayed by the PM. Mrs Thatcher would have had this sorted in a wet week.



I respectfully disagree with this view. I think TM is simply facing into the real politik of leaving the EU. 
If not, its time Davis, Johnson, Rees-Mogg et al stood up to be counted - whats holding them up? As far as I know all thats needed is 48 'letters' to launch leadership bid. 
I suspect the delay is that they cant even agree amongst themselves who should be leader!


----------



## T McGibney (19 Jul 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I think TM is simply facing into the real politik of leaving the EU.



Her actions in running her Brexit negotiation plan by Angela Merkel before disclosing it to her own colleagues in Chequers was highly questionable. This was only one of a whole raft of poor decisions, all smacking of incompetence leadership. The "terrible two" advisors debacle and calling an election only to alienate her own base by running with a milk-and-water soft-left campaign were but two examples.



TheBigShort said:


> If not, its time Davis, Johnson, Rees-Mogg et al stood up to be counted - whats holding them up? As far as I know all thats needed is 48 'letters' to launch leadership bid.
> I suspect the delay is that they cant even agree amongst themselves who should be leader!


Rees-Mogg is a backbencher who has never explicitly expressed any leadership ambitions.  Davis is 70 this year and, having lost to Cameron in 2005, is hardly likely to bother at this stage. Johnson will undoubtedly strike at some point, but probably will let May destroy what's left of her authority first.


----------



## Jim2007 (19 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Her actions in running her Brexit negotiation plan by Angela Merkel before disclosing it to her own colleagues in Chequers was highly questionable.



What hard evidence to you actually have to support that statement????


----------



## T McGibney (19 Jul 2018)

Jim2007 said:


> What hard evidence to you actually have to support that statement????


What you do mean hard evidence? It's a statement of fact.


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> What you do mean hard evidence? It's a statement of fact.



Which she denies

[broken link removed]



I'm not suggesting she is doing a good job. I'm suggesting that if some of her former cabinet ministers think she is doing such a bad job, isn't it time they stood up to be counted?


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Davis is 70 this year



So what? Clearly he considered able enough to hold one of the most important briefs of any cabinet Minister? Why not the PM brief?



T McGibney said:


> and, having lost to Cameron in 2005, is hardly likely to bother at this stage



Why not? He wont be competing against Cameron this time.



T McGibney said:


> Johnson will undoubtedly strike at some point, but probably will let May destroy what's left of her authority first.



In the meantime the Brexit deadline is looming. Not really a time to wait in the long grass, imo.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Jul 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> So what? Clearly he considered able enough to hold one of the most important briefs of any cabinet Minister? Why not the PM brief?
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? He wont be competing against Cameron this time.


My opinion, that's all. You're free to differ. 


> In the meantime the Brexit deadline is looming. Not really a time to wait in the long grass, imo.


Your opinion, that's all. I'm free to differ.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Jul 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Which she denies


Well she would, wouldn't she? 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07...with-merkel-before-consulting-her-colleagues/


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> My opinion, that's all. You're free to differ.



Absolutely, of course.



T McGibney said:


> Well she would, wouldn't she?



Of course she would, especially if it s true?
Which means between her views and the reported views of the newspapers, there is a contradiction (The Spectator is hardline pro-Brexit, diminishing Mays authority may be in their interests?).
I'm not saying she didn't show her whitepaper to Merkel first, just pointing out that in the midst of contrary views and reports its hard to know what is actually a statement of fact or not.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Jul 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> (The Spectator is hardline pro-Brexit, diminishing Mays authority may be in their interests?)..



Hardline? No. Their editorial support for a Leave vote back in June 2016 was very much of a "on the one hand but on the other..." nature. They have both pro- and anti-Brexit columnists. Charles Moore is indeed one of the former, but is also one of Britain's most highly respected political commentators. His article which I linked above is more than credible.


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Hardline? No. Their editorial support for a Leave vote back in June 2016 was very much of a "on the one hand but on the other..." nature. They have both pro- and anti-Brexit columnists. Charles Moore is indeed one of the former, but is also one of Britain's most highly respected political commentators. His article which I linked above is more than credible.



My bad so.


----------



## Sunny (19 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> His article which I linked above is more than credible.



Really? The actual quote from the article is '_At Chequers, I hear, one of her responses to suggested changes in her blueprint was to say, ‘No, that’s not possible, because I’ve already cleared it [the existing text] with Mrs Merkel.’
_
So your statement of fact is based on a journalist saying 'I hear'. No mention of corroborated sources. Sounds more like pub talk. Neither Johnson or Davies have come out with this claim (as far as I know) which is very damaging so I don't know how you can call it a statement of fact because the story appears in article.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Jul 2018)

Sunny said:


> Really? The actual quote from the article is '_At Chequers, I hear, one of her responses to suggested changes in her blueprint was to say, ‘No, that’s not possible, because I’ve already cleared it [the existing text] with Mrs Merkel.’
> _
> So your statement of fact is based on a journalist saying 'I hear'. No mention of corroborated sources. Sounds more like pub talk. Neither Johnson or Davies have come out with this claim (as far as I know) which is very damaging so I don't know how you can call it a statement of fact because the story appears in article.


Moore's record on such matters is very, very good. His Telegraph and Spectator columns and his biography of Margaret Thatcher consistently bear that out.


----------



## Jim2007 (19 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> What you do mean hard evidence? It's a statement of fact.



You would have confirmation from one of the participants that it actually happened....



T McGibney said:


> Well she would, wouldn't she?
> 
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07...with-merkel-before-consulting-her-colleagues/



So it is not a fact then, it is an unsupported opinion at best.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Jul 2018)

Jim2007 said:


> You would have confirmation from one of the participants that it actually happened....
> 
> 
> 
> So it is not a fact then, it is an unsupported opinion at best.


Whatever you like. I couldn't care less to be honest. But again, Moore's record on this is very good, as is The Spectator's.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Jul 2018)

https://www.rte.ie

Rees-Mogg predicting a hard Brexit now. I would have to agree, cant see anything else but a hard Brexit at this stage.
So what happens next March?

If I understand things correctly, importers and exporters with the UK will be subject to WTO rules (whatever they may entail?). I presume it means that the cost of goods and services will rise between EU and UK.
So if I was an importer of UK goods, wouldn't it be in my interest to bring forward orders, where practicable, under single market/customs union rules, as the cost will be cheaper?
If so, I would imagine that the initial impact of Brexit will boost UK and EU economies pre-leaving day. The negative impact of Brexit wont occur until sometime after this as price rises impact and traders look for alternative markets in which to source produce.
Id imagine Ireland, with access to the single market etc will be better placed to do this than the UK as it searches high and low for new trade partners across the globe.
Notwithstanding the fact that the EU will be competing with the UK in those very same markets too - Japan for instance.
Japan may cut a deal with the UK for Whale-spearing/fox hunting holidays which the EU wont do, but when it comes to car manufacturing, electronic goods, its hard to see how the UK can negotiate better terms with Japan than what the EU can negotiate?

The UK of course wants to 'take back its waters', denying Irish fishing vessels their livilihood. Thats ok, but if the EU takes back its skies, well thats a threat!
Of course beyond the political bluster, reality always dawns. 40% of fishermen on UK fishing vessels are immigrants. So presumably after 'taking control of borders', a new visa scheme to allow immigrant fishermen will emerge?
The UK catches and sells more fish than it actually eats. Fresh fish being a perishable good will need somewhere to go, quickly - Canada perhaps? Although I suspect that they have their own fish already? And anyway there isn't enough of them to compensate the EU market. So unless Johnny English is going to have fish for breakfast, lunch, dinner and a late night snack, there is going to be a lot of angry fishermen about.
Of course, they could come to some agreement with EU countries, very, very, similar, in fact exactly like the deal they have now already?
In fairness to BJ and his high flying mates in the city of London, financial services is a huge part of the UK economy, London being one of the financial capitals of the world. Many EU financial institutions have large bases there so best the EU dont mess with UK fish or the UK will mess with EU financial institutions - right?
On the other hand, what is it that they say about capital these days? Its very mobile isnt it? How does Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Paris...even Dublin suit?
Fish on the other hand are fish, also mobile but on their own terms, not ours.


----------



## joe sod (22 Jul 2018)

On the question of fishing surely Leo varadker should be more worried about Irish waters being swamped with European fishing trawlers when the UK waters are denied to them. This is a practical issue which the Irish government haven't talked about , surely the quotas of European fish caught in Irish waters should be reduced . Irish waters will becoming like the grand banks off Newfoundland , fished out and desolate


----------



## newirishman (22 Jul 2018)

joe sod said:


> On the question of fishing surely Leo varadker should be more worried about Irish waters being swamped with European fishing trawlers when the UK waters are denied to them. This is a practical issue which the Irish government haven't talked about , surely the quotas of European fish caught in Irish waters should be reduced . Irish waters will becoming like the grand banks off Newfoundland , fished out and desolate



I strongly recommend you read up on the existing EU fishery’s regulations and agreements that are in place before you drag this thread off-topic. This is not a Brexit thread.


----------



## joe sod (22 Jul 2018)

newirishman said:


> I strongly recommend you read up on the existing EU fishery’s regulations and agreements that are in place before you drag this thread off-topic. This is not a Brexit thread.



No, other posters have also talked about brexit stuff here, its such a big thing that its implications are everywhere especially when talking about trade deals. Also by your logic you would have to be an expert on any topic to comment . Many people have commented on brexit on this and other threads over the last few years but none are experts on it. By your logic only EU bureacrats and british government officials could properly comment as they are the only ones that no about it in detail.


----------



## TheBigShort (23 Jul 2018)

joe sod said:


> On the question of fishing surely Leo varadker should be more worried about Irish waters being swamped with European fishing trawlers when the UK waters are denied to them. This is a practical issue which the Irish government haven't talked about , surely the quotas of European fish caught in Irish waters should be reduced . Irish waters will becoming like the grand banks off Newfoundland , fished out and desolate



Very much on topic. 
I think that is what Vradakar was alluding to when he spoke of EU taking back its skies. Apparently such talk is a 'threat' to UK, but not allowing Irish fishing vessels into UK waters is not a threat?
Of course, when the Farage's and Johnsons et al are brought to the table of real politik and pragmatism they will realise that to have their cake and eat it, that in negotiation compromise is King, that 'trade' is a two-way street.


----------



## Purple (23 Jul 2018)

In my opinion May is the weakest PM in the last 30 years and yet she is still a far better option than the scheming, imperialist, populist, spineless toad that is Boris Johnson. He personifies and epitomises everything about Englishness that I dislike. I have no problem with his privileged upbringing; Cameron had that and he is a decent person. I have no problem with his bumbling persona. It is that English Nationalism, wrapped in bombast and wistfully looking back as a  glorious past that I despise. 
That was the past of squalour and racism and the most appalling sexism. That was the past of Empire and invasion and subjugation. It was the past where a privileged few, those of Johnson's stock, where being a corpulent bumbling bigot was the norm, not the description of the pretender.    

BS is 100% correct to ask what on Earth the UK is looking for when in reality they won't be getting any deals that are better than the ones they have now. They have jumped off the edge of the mountain in the hope that someday soon they might be able to climb back to the top of a different mountain which is exactly the same height. 

But it will be their mountain and there won't be any foreigners on it.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (23 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> In my opinion May is the weakest PM in the last 30 years and yet she is still a far better option than the scheming, imperialist, populist, spineless toad that is Boris Johnson. He personifies and epitomises everything about Englishness that I dislike. I have no problem with his privileged upbringing; Cameron had that and he is a decent person. I have no problem with his bumbling persona. It is that English Nationalism, wrapped in bombast and wistfully looking back as a  glorious past that I despise.
> That was the past of squalour and racism and the most appalling sexism. That was the past of Empire and invasion and subjugation. It was the past where a privileged few, those of Johnson's stock, where being a corpulent bumbling bigot was the norm, not the description of the pretender.
> 
> BS is 100% correct to ask what on Earth the UK is looking for when in reality they won't be getting any deals that are better than the ones they have now. They have jumped off the edge of the mountain in the hope that someday soon they might be able to climb back to the top of a different mountain which is exactly the same height.
> ...


I think her timing is good she left them sitting inside the tent thinking if they did nothing  the UK would finish  up with a hard Brexit I suspect she managed them out of there jobs
 without splitting her party any more than it is already  and will finish up with a soft Brexit in the long run ,


----------



## dub_nerd (23 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> It is that English Nationalism, wrapped in bombast and wistfully looking back as a  glorious past that I despise. That was the past of squalour and racism and the most appalling sexism. That was the past of Empire and invasion and subjugation. It was the past where a privileged few, those of Johnson's stock, where being a corpulent bumbling bigot was the norm, not the description of the pretender.


What gives you the idea that BoJo is anything like that? I don't warm to him personally, but he says he wants an open, forward-looking UK, not a backward looking, sexist, racist one. What do you have against him other than his accent probably sounds like a colonel from some movie you saw about the Amritsar Massacre? Is that not a bit bigoted in itself?


----------



## odyssey06 (23 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> That was the past of squalour and racism and the most appalling sexism. That was the past of Empire and invasion and subjugation. It was the past where a privileged few, those of Johnson's stock, where being a corpulent bumbling bigot was the norm, not the description of the pretender.



I think the nation that produced the specimen that is Brian Cowen throwing out lines about foreign politicians being corpulent and bumbling is a bit of a stones in glass houses moment. Johnson was a very capabale 21st century Mayor of London. I see more bigotry in what you are saying than in Johnson. 
The head of the EU is a corrupt drunk for what it's worth but I don't use that to make general insults about Luxemburgians - after all they got rid of Juncker when his corruption became too blatant.


----------



## TheBigShort (23 Jul 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> but he says he wants an open, forward-looking UK



Step 1 - close borders to Europeans.



dub_nerd said:


> not a backward looking, sexist, racist one



Is that how he views the EU?


----------



## Purple (24 Jul 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> What gives you the idea that BoJo is anything like that?


Things like this and this.
All to that his Imperialistic rhetoric and ridiculous attempts to re-cast himself as a latter day Churchill.   
He's very funny and quite smart but not a person to hold real power.


----------



## Purple (24 Jul 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I think the nation that produced the specimen that is Brian Cowen throwing out lines about foreign politicians being corpulent and bumbling is a bit of a stones in glass houses moment.


Why? Just because we had one that doesn't mean BJ isn't one as well.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (24 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> Why? Just because we had one that doesn't mean BJ isn't one as well.


Looks like you are wasting your time talking about the also ran  May was in control all along David Boris are Toast after May showed they were never  in control of there own Department Today,


----------



## Purple (25 Jul 2018)

I like punctuation. It's one of those things you don't appreciate until it's not there.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (25 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> I like punctuation. It's one of those things you don't appreciate until it's not there.


Some times it can make you blind and you don't notice,


----------



## Leo (25 Jul 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> Some times it can make you blind and you don't notice,



There has never been a case where the presence of correct punctuation has clouded the message, indeed it generally helps make sense of the otherwise incomprehensible.


----------



## T McGibney (25 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> Things like this and this.
> All to that his Imperialistic rhetoric and ridiculous attempts to re-cast himself as a latter day Churchill.
> He's very funny and quite smart but not a person to hold real power.



I stopped here:


> *On Hillary Clinton, Telegraph 2007*
> She's got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.



He wasn't far wrong.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (25 Jul 2018)

Leo said:


> There has never been a case where the presence of correct punctuation has clouded the message, indeed it generally helps make sense of the otherwise incomprehensible.


sometimes it can can make you blind and you don't notice,


----------



## Leo (25 Jul 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> sometimes it can can make you blind and you don't notice,


 
No, usually just discourages people from reading


----------



## Purple (25 Jul 2018)

Punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence;

"I helped my uncle Jack, off a horse."


----------



## Sunny (25 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> Punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence;
> 
> "I helped my uncle Jack, off a horse."



You helped your uncle Jack kill a horse??!! Why!


----------



## RETIRED2017 (25 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> Punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence;
> 
> "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse."


Stop doing everything yourself and start letting people help you,


----------



## Purple (25 Jul 2018)

Sunny said:


> You helped your uncle Jack kill a horse??!! Why!


It's a long story; He had a stroke and wanted to die but he had a dream and, well, use your imagination.


----------



## Firefly (27 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> Punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence;
> 
> "I helped my uncle Jack, off a horse."


----------

