Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

I’m asking you - over hundreds of pages, you and fellow Brexiters have repeatedly played up our bargaining power - you mentioned the massive trade surplus in goods the EU enjoys and the fact we’re now ready to walk away if necessary in your last few posts, so must have some views on how we can make these ‘advantages’ count and what they can get us?

 

And what is your reading on the economic impact of nontariff, nonquota FTAs? You dismiss my view, so you must have some basis for that confidence. As I say, this has nothing to do with Brexit or the UK going it alone as presumably the UK will be signinh similar FTAs with other countries.

 

The apposite phrase was used by somebody else recently, "it takes two to tango". I'll also jump in and say "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". I'm sure that there are many others which illustrate the situation. I'm sure that you're bright enough to recognise the EU's dilemma, torn as they are between being sensible about arriving at a free trade agreement that is in the mutual interests of both parties and the EU's desire to keep us as closely tied to them against our will to prevent us thriving outside the EU, encouraging others to follow us out. To use another pertinent phrase, they are between a rock and a hard place. None of this has anything remotely to do with Brexit, does it?

 

Surely I have stated my position often enough that some of it must have penetrated. For me it is far more about sovereignty than economics. I can't be more happy that finally after all these years we out of the EU and I'm totally laid back about whether we get a basic FTA or whether it is WTO. After a short period of enduring a few economic bumps along the way until we begin to see the fruits of expanding our trade with the rest of the world, we will thrive outside of the EU, whereas they will continue to decline as a force in world trade. As an arch remoaner, I understand why you should be so keen to only see the negative side of our position, but as I suggested earlier, a person of your eminence economically must also have seen forecasts about the EU's economic forecasts in the event of a basic FTA or indeed us leaving on WTO terms. I expect that it makes for really dire reading, doesn't it? Now all you have to acknowledge, is that those economic repercussions are leverage for the EU to be more sensible in the negotiations, although their track record since Boris arrived has not been great.

[Wes Tender]

Meh. That was just the fig leaf. Most other countries in the EU keep production in-house on national security grounds - which is a perfectly valid exemption. May chose not to do it - but that is a British problem made in Britain. Even Brexit central, the Daily Express acknowledged it.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/936265/eu-uk-passports-security-printing-brexit

 

As I freely admit, May was totally and utterly useless, the worst PM we have ever had by some distance. But we have to be eternally grateful to her for bringing about the situation through her massive incompetence whereby she was ejected as leader by the party and replaced by Boris, who managed to get the WA over the line and then fool the girl Swinson into agreeing to the GE which changed the political landscape for the next five years, probably even ten years. So I view May with some affection.

[buctootim]

The apposite phrase was used by somebody else recently, "it takes two to tango". I'll also jump in and say "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". I'm sure that there are many others which illustrate the situation. I'm sure that you're bright enough to recognise the EU's dilemma, torn as they are between being sensible about arriving at a free trade agreement that is in the mutual interests of both parties and the EU's desire to keep us as closely tied to them against our will to prevent us thriving outside the EU, encouraging others to follow us out. To use another pertinent phrase, they are between a rock and a hard place. None of this has anything remotely to do with Brexit, does it?

 

Surely I have stated my position often enough that some of it must have penetrated. For me it is far more about sovereignty than economics. I can't be more happy that finally after all these years we out of the EU and I'm totally laid back about whether we get a basic FTA or whether it is WTO. After a short period of enduring a few economic bumps along the way until we begin to see the fruits of expanding our trade with the rest of the world, we will thrive outside of the EU, whereas they will continue to decline as a force in world trade. As an arch remoaner, I understand why you should be so keen to only see the negative side of our position, but as I suggested earlier, a person of your eminence economically must also have seen forecasts about the EU's economic forecasts in the event of a basic FTA or indeed us leaving on WTO terms. I expect that it makes for really dire reading, doesn't it? Now all you have to acknowledge, is that those economic repercussions are leverage for the EU to be more sensible in the negotiations, although their track record since Boris arrived has not been great.

 

How far we've come in a few short years. From 'We can name our terms' to 'Yes we'll be poorer but it will be our decision to be poorer'

[Wes Tender]

How far we've come in a few short years. From 'We can name our terms' to 'Yes we'll be poorer but it will be our decision to be poorer'

 

Indeed, how far we've come from the Norway option to Canada or WTO, eh?

 

Please do read a bit more carefully taking everything in context. My position has always been that we would likely suffer a short economic reversal whilst adjustments were made, but that once past those, we would thrive. I'm sure that you will be happy to show me where I have said anything different, without that caveat. Going back historically of course, much the same was said about how we would suffer if we didn't join the ERM at the time. History will judge the expediency of our actions, but the time to assess how we have fared through this process will be about five years down the road.

[shurlock]

The apposite phrase was used by somebody else recently, "it takes two to tango". I'll also jump in and say "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". I'm sure that there are many others which illustrate the situation. I'm sure that you're bright enough to recognise the EU's dilemma, torn as they are between being sensible about arriving at a free trade agreement that is in the mutual interests of both parties and the EU's desire to keep us as closely tied to them against our will to prevent us thriving outside the EU, encouraging others to follow us out. To use another pertinent phrase, they are between a rock and a hard place. None of this has anything remotely to do with Brexit, does it?

 

Surely I have stated my position often enough that some of it must have penetrated. For me it is far more about sovereignty than economics. I can't be more happy that finally after all these years we out of the EU and I'm totally laid back about whether we get a basic FTA or whether it is WTO. After a short period of enduring a few economic bumps along the way until we begin to see the fruits of expanding our trade with the rest of the world, we will thrive outside of the EU, whereas they will continue to decline as a force in world trade. As an arch remoaner, I understand why you should be so keen to only see the negative side of our position, but as I suggested earlier, a person of your eminence economically must also have seen forecasts about the EU's economic forecasts in the event of a basic FTA or indeed us leaving on WTO terms. I expect that it makes for really dire reading, doesn't it? Now all you have to acknowledge, is that those economic repercussions are leverage for the EU to be more sensible in the negotiations, although their track record since Boris arrived has not been great.

 

So no answers then and hardly ringing endorsement of the UK’s leverage in these negotiations. Guess talk is cheap. I asked you specifically about the benefits of nontariff, nonquota FTAs that the UK hopes to to strike not only with the EU but with other countries.

Edited 24 February, 2020 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

....My position has always been that we would likely suffer a short economic reversal whilst adjustments were made, but that once past those, we would thrive.

 

So we are back to JRM's "...I may not know for years whether it has been better or worse" and "The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next fifty years" ?

 

[Wes Tender]

So no answers then and hardly ringing endorsement of the UK’s leverage in these negotiations. Guess talk is cheap. I asked you specifically about the benefits of nontariff, nonquota FTAs that the UK hopes to to strike not only with the EU but with other countries.

 

If you think that I am going to write you an essay on the benefits and disadvantages of FTA agreements then you can go and get lost. I'm sure that you know exactly what they are, although of course you will interpret them from a remoaner stance, so that some things might be disadvantages to remoaners which are in the other column from a Brexit perspective. But as I say, I can't be arsed to indulge you any further when you are like a dog with a bone. As I continue to say, wait until Thursday to see what our negotiating stance will be.

[Wes Tender]

So we are back to JRM's "...I may not know for years whether it has been better or worse" and "The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next fifty years" ?

 

 

So you are back to that video from JRM, who said that the overwhelming opportunity of Brexit will be felt over the next 50 years and all the half-wits took it to mean that it would take 50 years for the benefits of leaving the EU to be felt. Which group are you in? You worded it correctly, but did you take the half-wit's meaning of it?

[badgerx16]

So you are back to that video from JRM, who said that the overwhelming opportunity of Brexit will be felt over the next 50 years and all the half-wits took it to mean that it would take 50 years for the benefits of leaving the EU to be felt. Which group are you in? You worded it correctly, but did you take the half-wit's meaning of it?

I am in possession of all my wits, do you have a full set ?

What is your view of the first JRM quote ? What is the chance that some years down the line things will be shown to be worse ?

[shurlock]

If you think that I am going to write you an essay on the benefits and disadvantages of FTA agreements then you can go and get lost. I'm sure that you know exactly what they are, although of course you will interpret them from a remoaner stance, so that some things might be disadvantages to remoaners which are in the other column from a Brexit perspective. But as I say, I can't be arsed to indulge you any further when you are like a dog with a bone. As I continue to say, wait until Thursday to see what our negotiating stance will be.

 

Perhaps the Telegraph should write an essay on their costs and benefits - if it did, it might be able to tell it’s arse from its elbow instead of pumping out falsehoods lapped up by its swivel-eyed readership. Do you read the DT Les?

 

This correction from today:

 

[Weston Super Saint]

Little did I know when the thread’s dimmest poster talked about the negotiating difficulties of meeting “the expectations of 27 countries - each with their own different agenda” and some analogy about them having too many fingers in too many pies, he was actually including the UK. Everything my colleagues and I previously and professionally understood about the EU (including the UK) being composed of 28 member states was dead wrong. Turns out the UK was part of the EU27. I learn something new everyday on this place, including how not to cover my tracks and make up a bigger fool of myself

 

This literally my final post on the issue as I can positively feel my IQ declining every minute I’m engaging with such disingenuous simpletons.

 

He's having a 'mare!

 

You're all over the place, pal.

 

It's a pretty basic assumption that the '27' countries comprise the EU without the UK and that the UK was the 28th member. Yet, we were talking about an agreement to the terms by which the UK would leave. No-one in their right mind would group the UK with the other 27 countries in that context, excepet you when it suits your agenda to throw more petty insults.

 

So tell us, oh magnificient one, what is this deal that is 'diammetrically opposed' to a 'no deal' that you mentioned - surely you can let us know the details, unless of course you made it up to try and be all superior, that wouldn't be like you at all.....

[Wes Tender]

I am in possession of all my wits, do you have a full set ?

What is your view of the first JRM quote ? What is the chance that some years down the line things will be shown to be worse ?

 

What are you taking as the first JRM quote? Basically I agreed with all JRM had to say and my opinion of the interviewer was that he was a bit of an idiot. He asked whether JRM was prepared to resign if things went wrong over Brexit, when of course JRM was nothing but a back bench MP at the time. Perhaps the idiot journo meant that he should consider resigning from the Chairmanship of the European Research Group, where everybody was largely of the same opinion, so that perhaps they should all resign at once. Of course there is always a chance that things will be worse some time down the road, but I very much doubt it.

[Wes Tender]

Perhaps the Telegraph should write an essay on their costs and benefits - if it did, it might be able to tell it’s arse from its elbow instead of pumping out falsehoods lapped up by its swivel-eyed readership. Do you read the DT Les?

 

This correction from today:

 

 

This seems akin to the Treasury forecasts which concentrated on all the downsides of the worst case scenario of Brexit, whilst ignoring any upside. The Telegraph has apologised for their error, but I don't think that the remoaner Treasury has admitted yet that they deliberately stilted the statistics to show Brexit in the worst possible light. What was it? Each household to be £4300 a year worse off? As an economist, you've never been wrong before, have you Gavyn? Where were you on the ERM?

[buctootim]

This seems akin to the Treasury forecasts which concentrated on all the downsides of the worst case scenario of Brexit, whilst ignoring any upside. The Telegraph has apologised for their error, but I don't think that the remoaner Treasury has admitted yet that they deliberately stilted the statistics to show Brexit in the worst possible light. What was it? Each household to be £4300 a year worse off? As an economist, you've never been wrong before, have you Gavyn? Where were you on the ERM?

 

"Using a negotiated bilateral agreement like Canada as the central assumption for the alternative, Britain would be worse off by the equivalent of £1,800 every year for every man, woman and child in Britain after 15 years, and overall GDP would be lower by 6.2%. Other options being proposed would be worse still."

 

"There would also be a significant hit to tax receipts, equivalent to an 8p increase in the rate of income tax"

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hm-treasury-analysis-shows-leaving-eu-would-cost-british-households-4300-per-year

 

You lied Wes. Or to be charitable, you are confused again.

Edited 25 February, 2020 by buctootim

[benjii]

The sunny uplands of lower income and higher tax.

 

Control!

 

Result!

 

[shurlock]

This seems akin to the Treasury forecasts which concentrated on all the downsides of the worst case scenario of Brexit, whilst ignoring any upside. The Telegraph has apologised for their error, but I don't think that the remoaner Treasury has admitted yet that they deliberately stilted the statistics to show Brexit in the worst possible light. What was it? Each household to be £4300 a year worse off? As an economist, you've never been wrong before, have you Gavyn? Where were you on the ERM?

 

They’re different types of error Les: one is a prediction that turned out to be wrong; the other is a claim that involved elements that were objectively and factually wrong at the time it was made e.g. import tariffs are never ever levied on retail prices which was the basis of the IEA/DT’s calculation.

[Wes Tender]

"Using a negotiated bilateral agreement like Canada as the central assumption for the alternative, Britain would be worse off by the equivalent of £1,800 every year for every man, woman and child in Britain after 15 years, and overall GDP would be lower by 6.2%. Other options being proposed would be worse still."

 

"There would also be a significant hit to tax receipts, equivalent to an 8p increase in the rate of income tax"

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hm-treasury-analysis-shows-leaving-eu-would-cost-british-households-4300-per-year

 

You lied Wes. Or to be charitable, you are confused again.

 

I think that it is you who is confused, Timmy, or maybe you just misread what I had written. I never provided any link to the Treasury report, but I thank you for providing evidence showing that my figures were correct. It says that every family would be worse off financially to the tune of £4300 if we voted to leave the EU. I didn't go into specifics as to what the figures would be under different outcomes, as at that time before the referendum it was unclear about what the outcome would be. Your link was published 2 months before the referendum took place and you were espousing the Norway option, so I am not about to accept being called confused by you, Timmy. As I said, it was widely accepted that the Treasury figures were project fear writ large to show the remoaner worst case scenario.

[shurlock]

Tell us what you really think Frostie:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/dont-panic-heres-how-brexit-can-make-britain-can-be-a-great-trad/

 

[Johnny Bognor]

How can you negotiate a trade deal with the EU, when the EU want the Elgin Marbles, ancient Greek sculptures taken to Britain more than 200 years ago and now on display in the British Museum, returned to Greece.

 

Are these jokers for real?

 

 

[buctootim]

I think that it is you who is confused, Timmy, or maybe you just misread what I had written. I never provided any link to the Treasury report, but I thank you for providing evidence showing that my figures were correct. It says that every family would be worse off financially to the tune of £4300 if we voted to leave the EU. I didn't go into specifics as to what the figures would be under different outcomes, as at that time before the referendum it was unclear about what the outcome would be. Your link was published 2 months before the referendum took place and you were espousing the Norway option, so I am not about to accept being called confused by you, Timmy. As I said, it was widely accepted that the Treasury figures were project fear writ large to show the remoaner worst case scenario.

 

Still confused, or still lying. Which is it?

 

The Treasury report showed a number of options with all the figures were based on 15 years after Brexit had been implemented - not after a vote to leave. All options were worse with the WTO producing the worst result

[buctootim]

...

Edited 25 February, 2020 by buctootim
duplicate post

[Wes Tender]

Still confused, or still lying. Which is it?

 

The Treasury report showed a number of options with all the figures were based on 15 years after Brexit had been implemented - not after a vote to leave. All options were worse with the WTO producing the worst result

 

You're usually quite bright, so I don't know why you're attempting to show the opposite today. It wasn't me who linked that report, it was you. I was happy to quote the example of the remoaner Treasury's £4300 forecast as evidence of them deliberately distorting statistics as part of project fear.

Britain will be worse off by £4,300 a year per household if Britain votes to leave European Union, new analysis published today (18 April 2016) by the Treasury shows.

Where did I try to connect it with any particular scenario, such as Canada, Norway, WTO? That's right; I didn't. I'll say it once again, just in case it doesn't penetrate once more. It was an example of the Treasury deliberately publishing distorted statistics as part of project fear before the referendum.

[Wes Tender]

Tom Newton Dunn on tw*tter.

@tnewtondunn

New: No10 wholly rejects the two most contentious chunks of the EU’s trade deal mandate - for a Level Playing Field that follows Union standards, and to maintain EU fishermen’s current fishing access to UK waters. (Monday’s first negotiation meeting could be a short one)

 

Good news if true. But the EU holds all the cards, doesn't it?

[shurlock]

Tom Newton Dunn on tw*tter.

@tnewtondunn

 

 

Good news if true. But the EU holds all the cards, doesn't it?

 

Which EU official ever said that Les?

[Mosin]

Tom Newton Dunn on tw*tter.

@tnewtondunn

 

 

Good news if true. But the EU holds all the cards, doesn't it?

 

I heard, French fisherman are threatening to block eu ports and protest should the eu fail to agree a deal that allows them access to our waters...

 

In other news, Shurlock tells pm eu don't need a deal, and they are all sorted and won't even notice we have left.... And all the eu country's are fully behind France and have sympathy for them and are wondering what they will do with out all the fish that the UK hardly consumes....

 

Meanwhile, UK fisherman consider expanding to ship millions of tons if fish to the eu instead of them helping them self's.... Happy fisherman already out protecting our waters.. Good on them lol

[Mosin]

I heard, French fisherman are threatening to block eu ports and protest should the eu fail to agree a deal that allows them access to our waters...

 

In other news, Shurlock tells pm eu don't need a deal, and they are all sorted and won't even notice we havea left.... And all the eu country's are fully behind France and have sympathy for them and are wondering what they will do with out all the fish that the UK hardly consumes....

 

Meanwhile, UK fisherman consider expanding to ship millions of tons if fish to the eu instead of them helping them self's.... Happy fisherman already out protecting our waters.. Good on them lol

 

Can't edit so have post again.. So lame...

 

And our ports.. Lol see. They don't care shurlock? They don't care about a no Deal.... We don't care about a no Deal and have been preparing for such an event... We just want our sovereignty..... ...

 

 

See how the EU holding all the cards are going? We don't hold them all, but a no Deal to us although not ideal still gives us our sovereignty back and this is all we want back.... Any trade deal on top is a bonus.. But we are expecting a no Deal...

 

I can picture bojo saying same on Thursday..

[Wes Tender]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-51658091

 

It's all very encouraging stuff so far in the Government's agenda for the trade talks with the EU. I particularly like the idea that we just walk away from them if sufficient progress hasn't been made towards our stated aims by June

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51657273

 

I like the idea of this as well:-

 

The mandate seeks a suite of different agreements on fisheries, aviation, energy and migration, unlike the EU mandate, which seeks one whole agreement covering everything.

 

We really are beginning to look quite good at this negotiations lark, now that we have somebody competent handling it. That was never the case with the terminally useless May and Robbins.

[Nolan]

Mutaba Rahman tweets:-

 

Senior EU officials concede that it will be *impossible* to agree internally among the 27 which UK sectors/products should be hit with retaliatory EU tariffs if UK doesn't comply with EU's LPF demands. There's simply no time to have a line-by-line tariff negotiation.

 

 

[buctootim]

I particularly like the idea that we just walk away from them if sufficient progress hasn't been made towards our stated aims by June

 

Jeez you bend over whichever way Boris says to go. Last week you were vehemently denying that negotiations would need to complete by JUne

[Wes Tender]

Jeez you bend over whichever way Boris says to go. Last week you were vehemently denying that negotiations would need to complete by JUne

 

Was I? I was saying that if a deal hadn't been agreed by the 31st December we would be out without one, but of course that is not the same as "vehememtly denying that negotiations would need to complete by June" is it?

I'm sure that you'll be happy to post the quote. I did manage to find this though:-

 

Do I have to repeat myself yet again? It will become clear on Thursday what we expect our leverage to be. Personally I would be happy if our negotiating leverage was to walk away from the talks and tell the EU that we will reopen them when they had come to their senses and were prepared to listen to what they were told by Frost in his speech last week. I'm entirely happy with WTO myself, so I don't know why you insist on your stuck record questioning.

It seems to me that Boris I are on the same page, but clear also that I was already saying this previously.

[Wes Tender]

I sense a growing degree of panic in Brussels and the EU over our stance on what our terms will be for a FTA. In particular, where the EU were insisting that it would be extremely difficult to get a FTA over the line by the end of December, they are now being forced to accept that they will have to have a significant amount of it underway by the end of June, or we will simply walk away from the talks and prepare for WTO. The EU believed that the end of June was one of their aces to play, the deadline for us if we wished to ask for the Transition Agreement period to be extended. We have turned the tables on them and made it our deadline, already having made it clear that under no circumstances will we extend the Transition Agreement period beyond 31st December anyway. The EU have in the past delayed decisions on matters like these until the 11th hour as a negotiating tactic, a form of brinkmanship, expecting the other party to blink first and agree to their demands. Clearly we have outmaneuvered them, and by making it clear that we are willing to make preparations to go to WTO terms commencing from the end of June if they have not shown themselves serious about accepting our terms, the ball is firmly in their court.

[Guided Missile]

I sense a growing degree of panic in Brussels and the EU over our stance on what our terms will be for a FTA. In particular, where the EU were insisting that it would be extremely difficult to get a FTA over the line by the end of December, they are now being forced to accept that they will have to have a significant amount of it underway by the end of June, or we will simply walk away from the talks and prepare for WTO. The EU believed that the end of June was one of their aces to play, the deadline for us if we wished to ask for the Transition Agreement period to be extended. We have turned the tables on them and made it our deadline, already having made it clear that under no circumstances will we extend the Transition Agreement period beyond 31st December anyway. The EU have in the past delayed decisions on matters like these until the 11th hour as a negotiating tactic, a form of brinkmanship, expecting the other party to blink first and agree to their demands. Clearly we have outmaneuvered them, and by making it clear that we are willing to make preparations to go to WTO terms commencing from the end of June if they have not shown themselves serious about accepting our terms, the ball is firmly in their court.

Boris (and Dominic) continue to play a blinder...

[buctootim]

I sense a growing degree of panic in Brussels and the EU over our stance on what our terms will be for a FTA. In particular, where the EU were insisting that it would be extremely difficult to get a FTA over the line by the end of December, they are now being forced to accept that they will have to have a significant amount of it underway by the end of June, or we will simply walk away from the talks and prepare for WTO.

 

Still haven't grasped the basics. If the choice is between compromising the single market and no deal with the UK wandering off to WTO, they'll go for the wandering off.

[Wes Tender]

Still haven't grasped the basics. If the choice is between compromising the single market and no deal with the UK wandering off to WTO, they'll go for the wandering off.

 

Yes, I can see that you haven't grasped the basics. The UK has stated clearly that if there is to be a FTA, it wants one similar to those already agreed with Canada, Japan and S.Korea. I presume that those deals didn't compromise the EU's single market rules, so why would a similar deal with us? If the EU wish to cut off their nose to spite their face by persisting to claim stupidly that a similar deal cannot be granted to us because of our geographical proximity, then more fool them. And just to be correct, it will not be the EU going for the wandering off to WTO, it will be us.

[buctootim]

Yes, I can see that you haven't grasped the basics. The UK has stated clearly that if there is to be a FTA, it wants one similar to those already agreed with Canada, Japan and S.Korea. I presume that those deals didn't compromise the EU's single market rules, so why would a similar deal with us? If the EU wish to cut off their nose to spite their face by persisting to claim stupidly that a similar deal cannot be granted to us because of our geographical proximity, then more fool them. And just to be correct, it will not be the EU going for the wandering off to WTO, it will be us.

 

You haven't even read the UK's proposals have you? I have attached them.

 

FYI the UK wants to maintain current equivalence in rules for financial services (where it has a surplus with the EU). Undoubtedly the quid pro quo will be that the EU want equivalence in goods, including agriculture and fisheries, where it has a trade surplus with the UK. Both of those will require a mechanism for resolving disputes, tying in both parties to existing rules - the same EU rules the UK currently operates to. That's sovereignty for you - 'we have the right to choose our own rules, we just independently choose not to'

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/868874/The_Future_Relationship_with_the_EU.pdf?mod=article_inline.

Edited 28 February, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

You haven't even read the UK's proposals have you? I have attached them.

 

FYI the UK wants to maintain current equivalence in rules for financial services (where it has a surplus with the EU). Undoubtedly the quid pro quo will be that the EU want equivalence in goods, including agriculture and fisheries, where it has a trade surplus with the UK. Both of those will require a mechanism for resolving disputes, tying in both parties to existing rules - the same EU rules the UK currently operates to. That's sovereignty for you - 'we have the right to choose our own rules, we just independently choose not to'

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/868874/The_Future_Relationship_with_the_EU.pdf?mod=article_inline.

 

I have read them. It is comparatively short and concise compared with the EU's output in these areas that are prone to extend to the hundreds of pages of verbiage. The UK have ruled out equivalence on trade rules, so over to the EU to see whether they rule it out on financial services. In both areas it is in the mutual interests of both parties to come to a deal, but I suspect that WTO will be a lot more damaging to the EU on trade than it would be for our service industry.

 

I note that you have not answered my question regarding where it is that you believe that a FTA like Canada, Japan or S.Korea compromises the EU's single market.

[badgerx16]

Front page of the Fail on Sunday;

A senior advisor at the Treasury, and chum of Dom, says that the UK doesn't need the farming or fishing industries.

[Wes Tender]

Also in the Daily Mail, Sir Disaster, the Civil Service Mandarin involved in the spat with Priti Patel. It appears that getting shot of the likes of him from the Civil Service is long overdue.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8061047/How-Sir-Philip-Rutnams-byword-bungled-advice.html

[shurlock]

Also in the Daily Mail, Sir Disaster, the Civil Service Mandarin involved in the spat with Priti Patel. It appears that getting shot of the likes of him from the Civil Service is long overdue.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8061047/How-Sir-Philip-Rutnams-byword-bungled-advice.html

 

Because a hit piece by the Mail tells the full story? That’s desperate even by your standards, Les.

[Wes Tender]

Because a hit piece by the Mail tells the full story? That’s desperate even by your standards, Les.

 

Did I claim that it told the full story? No, I didn't. They have obviously reported what they have been told by their sources, bearing in mind that if anything that they have published was libelous, it could result in them being sued, of course. I await your bebunking of any part of it. No doubt we will hear Sir Disaster's side of the story in due course, but on the face of it, he isn't going to emerge from it smelling of roses.

 

In the meantime, you might like to have a read of an article titled "The behaviours of the civil service" from Conservative Home, which gives a good assessment to the current situation between the Government and the Civil Service and provides some background to the situation regarding this seemingly incompetent Mandarin.

[shurlock]

Did I claim that it told the full story? No, I didn't. They have obviously reported what they have been told by their sources, bearing in mind that if anything that they have published was libelous, it could result in them being sued, of course. I await your bebunking of any part of it. No doubt we will hear Sir Disaster's side of the story in due course, but on the face of it, he isn't going to emerge from it smelling of roses.

 

In the meantime, you might like to have a read of an article titled "The behaviours of the civil service" from Conservative Home, which gives a good assessment to the current situation between the Government and the Civil Service and provides some background to the situation regarding this seemingly incompetent Mandarin.

 

As I say, desperate even by your blinkered standards Les. And if you’re going to write a hit piece (never mind the classic “unnamed sources”), why not focus on the issues at hand?

 

Conservative Home? Another cracking source of objectivity and nonpartisanship there

Edited 1 March, 2020 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

....this seemingly incompetent Mandarin.

 

Perhaps the 'mandarin' was not the incompetent side of the disagreement.

[Wes Tender]

As I say, desperate even by your blinkered standards Les. And if you’re going to write a hit piece (never mind the classic “unnamed sources”), why not focus on the issues at hand?

 

Conservative Home? Another cracking source of objectivity and nonpartisanship there

 

Did you read the article? Or do you only take stuff in the Guardian or the Not Independent to be the truth? What am I desperate for, Gavyn? I can't think of anything that is making me desperate. Do please enlighten me.

[Weston Super Saint]

Did you read the article? Or do you only take stuff in the Guardian or the Not Independent to be the truth? What am I desperate for, Gavyn? I can't think of anything that is making me desperate. Do please enlighten me.

 

Well, whatever it is, it clearly doesn't apply to badger who quoted another headline from the same paper...

 

Front page of the Fail on Sunday;

A senior advisor at the Treasury, and chum of Dom, says that the UK doesn't need the farming or fishing industries.

[badgerx16]

Well, whatever it is, it clearly doesn't apply to badger who quoted another headline from the same paper...

The difference being that I merely quoted, for the giggle quotient, what is printed on the front page, as pictured on the BBC news site, ( which is where I saw it, I would not soil myself with actually handling that rag ), whereas Wes believes that the article he quoted is proven and trusted fact.

I thought my post might be particularly provoking given the Brexiteer rhetoric over the boost to UK fisheries that leaving the EU is supposed to provide.

Edited 1 March, 2020 by badgerx16

[Wes Tender]

The difference being that I merely quoted, for the giggle quotient, what is printed on the front page, as pictured on the BBC news site, ( which is where I saw it, I would not soil myself with actually handling that rag ), whereas Wes believes that the article he quoted is proven and trusted fact.

I thought my post might be particularly provoking given the Brexiteer rhetoric over the boost to UK fisheries that leaving the EU is supposed to provide.

 

So I believe that the article is proven and trusted fact, do I? I don't recall claiming that it was. I merely stated an opinion that it was about time that the Civil Service got rid of the likes of Sir Disaster, having read that, and indeed other articles, from other sources saying that he was incompetent. As I asked Gavyn, no doubt you will be happy also to debunk any part of the article that you can prove to be false. I read a broad spectrum of media sources online, in order to see a wide range of views, but naturally I make allowances for the political agendas of each. I expect that it is this sort of sniffiness towards the Mail from the leftie Guardian reading Islington Corbynistas that put them in the position of not having the faintest idea what their traditional core voter support in the Midland and Northern industrial heartlands believed and wanted over Brexit.

[shurlock]

So I believe that the article is proven and trusted fact, do I? I don't recall claiming that it was. I merely stated an opinion that it was about time that the Civil Service got rid of the likes of Sir Disaster, having read that, and indeed other articles, from other sources saying that he was incompetent. As I asked Gavyn, no doubt you will be happy also to debunk any part of the article that you can prove to be false. I read a broad spectrum of media sources online, in order to see a wide range of views, but naturally I make allowances for the political agendas of each. I expect that it is this sort of sniffiness towards the Mail from the leftie Guardian reading Islington Corbynistas that put them in the position of not having the faintest idea what their traditional core voter support in the Midland and Northern industrial heartlands believed and wanted over Brexit.

 

For someone who claims to read a broad spectrum of media sources, it’s amusing how you cite with unerring regularity sources that reflect only a tiny part of that spectrum.

 

Btw any article that singles out a Permanent Secretary’s pay which is pittance given the responsibility and complexity of the role and compares it to the PM’s pay is an automatic red flag in my book. It is a textbook example of an apple and oranges comparison and simply cheap, rabble-raising populist shlock. Of course you wouldn’t know any better.

 

Can I ask: have you ever worked in central government?

Edited 1 March, 2020 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

I read a broad spectrum of media sources online, in order to see a wide range of views, but naturally I make allowances for the political agendas of each.

When was the last time you made an 'allowance' for the agenda of the Mail, or took on trust something in the Guardian ?

[Wes Tender]

For someone who claims to read a broad spectrum of media sources, it’s amusing how you cite with unerring regularity sources that reflect only a tiny part of that spectrum.

 

Btw any article that singles out a Permanent Secretary’s pay and compares it unfavourably to the PM’s pay is an automatic red flag in my book. It is a textbook example of an apple and oranges comparison. Of course you wouldn’t know any better.

 

Can I ask: have you ever worked in central government?

 

I see that neither you nor Badger are going to debunk anything that the article says. So I cite articles from sources that represent my opinions from the side of the political spectrum and policy positions that I approve of. What a revelation eh? Are you and Badger going to deny that you do exactly the same thing? I would have thought that it was a human nature trait, wouldn't you?

 

I consider a comparison between the pay of the PM and a Civil Service mandarin to be more an eating apple and cooking apple one, or an orange and mandarin orange one. Apples and oranges is more one between the PM and say a Premier League footballer. And yes, I have worked in the Civil Service many moons ago, although quite what that has to do with anything is beyond me.

[Wes Tender]

When was the last time you made an 'allowance' for the agenda of the Mail, or took on trust something in the Guardian ?

 

When I have a different opinion to that expressed in those publications. Also, much depends on who the author of the article is. You?