Sabre rattling

[Farmer1001]

The point for me is that the NZ government decided what was best for their industry, not a comission of very far removed people from me, with no consequences if the policy does not work. I want my elected representatives to make the decisions that affect me and then I can voice my (dis) satisfaction at the next election.
The UK may in fact decide to have more stringent regulations than the EU, I have no problem with that as long as we are suitably rewarded for our products. The point is it will be our government making the rules.

Sorry but you seem unable to see that we (the UK) have the power/right etc do exactly as NZ did but seem convinced the EU are forcing us to accept their rules, their not, they have said they are a condition of access and we can say no and offer an alternative solution if we wish. But the way your portraying it is we have no choice here. We have "left" the EU without a deal in place, both are under immense pressure to get a deal in principle that removes uncertainty and allows a continuity of established trade - not new trade. We wouldn't use the rhetoric elsewhere but we will with our closest trading partner, it's bizarre and not a position the likes of a world leading exporter like NZ would adopt. Indeed (for fear I'm obsessed with NZ) the whole message we got from NZ was are you seriously considering turning your back on a market that size and only 20 miles by truck, and despite NZ carving our huge markets across the globe they could only dream of having access to one so close. The Uk is exceptionally lucky, we have a great domestic market and a huge export market, but this BS approach risks both because of blinkered government who have deliberately crafted this trade negotiation as some sort of war. We can walk away if that's good for the country, we have that choice, we have that power, but if we do so let's make sure it's based upon what's right and not this desire to shout "stick your trade up your arse".

 

[Farmer1001]

This is the key point, it's all about accountability and the ability to unilaterally change things to suit our national interest.

I can't see how this is any different to the situation that NZ now has. The current rules are set in what it believes to be its national interest and those setting the rules are accountable for them.

Exactly right! NZ decided its best for them and we can do, but we seem determined to argue against anything the EU requires even when it makes sense. I'm not defending the EU, but I am extremely critical of our stance so far.

 

[jendan]

Exactly right! NZ decided its best for them and we can do, but we seem determined to argue against anything the EU requires even when it makes sense. I'm not defending the EU, but I am extremely critical of our stance so far.

The trouble is you are arguing that against Kippers.Its why we will get nowhere.

 

[yin ewe]

Sorry but you seem unable to see that we (the UK) have the power/right etc do exactly as NZ did but seem convinced the EU are forcing us to accept their rules, their not, they have said they are a condition of access and we can say no and offer an alternative solution if we wish. But the way your portraying it is we have no choice here. We have "left" the EU without a deal in place, both are under immense pressure to get a deal in principle that removes uncertainty and allows a continuity of established trade - not new trade. We wouldn't use the rhetoric elsewhere but we will with our closest trading partner, it's bizarre and not a position the likes of a world leading exporter like NZ would adopt. Indeed (for fear I'm obsessed with NZ) the whole message we got from NZ was are you seriously considering turning your back on a market that size and only 20 miles by truck, and despite NZ carving our huge markets across the globe they could only dream of having access to one so close. The Uk is exceptionally lucky, we have a great domestic market and a huge export market, but this BS approach risks both because of blinkered government who have deliberately crafted this trade negotiation as some sort of war. We can walk away if that's good for the country, we have that choice, we have that power, but if we do so let's make sure it's based upon what's right and not this desire to shout "stick your trade up your arse".

The EU say that they want a level playing field, I took it that this is in terms of UK and EU trade with the rest of the world ie the standards that a UK company would have to meet when exporting to Peru would be the same as an EU company. IMO a trade deal between the UK and Peru is no-one else's business, if they decide to take a lower or higher standard of goods, that is between the negotiating parties.

 

[Danllan]

Exactly right! NZ decided its best for them and we can do, but we seem determined to argue against anything the EU requires even when it makes sense. I'm not defending the EU, but I am extremely critical of our stance so far.

See below...

The trouble is you are arguing that against Kippers.Its why we will get nowhere.

Daft. There is an obvious difference between choosing to work to a given part of a set of rules / standards - when you want to and when deemed to be in your own interest - and having to accept all of them, all of the time, even if / when they go against one's own interest and one would rather not.

 

[Farmer1001]

See below...


Daft. There is an obvious difference between choosing to work to a given part of a set of rules / standards - when you want to and when deemed to be in your own interest - and having to accept all of them, all of the time, even if / when they go against one's own interest and one would rather not even if / when they go against one's own interest and one would rather not.

No one the EU deals with outside the EU “ accept all of them, all of the time, even if / when they go against one's own interest and one would rather not” - not even NZ. You either think they do or are trying to spread mistruths. But, even if they did accept those things then they made the choice to and decided it was worth it. End of the day it’s our choice, not the EUs.

 

[Danllan]

No one the EU deals with outside the EU “ accept all of them, all of the time, even if / when they go against one's own interest and one would rather not” - not even NZ. You either think they do or are trying to spread mistruths. But, even if they did accept those things then they made the choice to and decided it was worth it. End of the day it’s our choice, not the EUs.

Nowhere have I written that to be the case; I almost certainly have a wider knowledge and better understanding of EU law than you, be it treaty, ECJ law, Directives or Regulations. You will not find a single post wherein I have asserted that any EU trading partner does as you claim I have.

I have made it clear that I don't care what the EU rules are provided we can choose which to follow, if any.

I am undecided as to whether you are deliberately trying to misconstrue, or really, genuinely are unable to read and digest plain English. On balance I think it most probable that you really are just an utter f^ckwit.

 

[Farmer1001]

Nowhere have I written that to be the case; I almost certainly have a wider knowledge and better understanding of EU law than you, be it treaty, ECJ law, Directives or Regulations. You will not find a single post wherein I have asserted that any EU trading partner does as you claim I have.

I have made it clear that I don't care what the EU rules are provided we can choose which to follow, if any.

I am undecided as to whether you are deliberately trying to misconstrue, or really, genuinely are unable to read and digest plain English. On balance I think it most probable that you really are just an utter f^ckwit.

See here’s the thing, you didn’t spout that off to those who have been lead to believe the opposite is true, you allowed the theory to take root, indeed you fuelled it by implying it’s what we face - didn’t say that’s how it is, but you did allow the theory grow. But sometimes your self righteous superior attitude scuppers a good discussion/debate. My English is pretty good but I did google the definition of f^ckwit - “stupid person - often used as a general term of abuse”. I’m 51, dad of three and husband of 30 years, I’ve managed to survive so far so I’m not entirely sure I fit the definition of f^uckwit, I’d like to say I don’t think you meant it as abuse, but with such a self proclaimed CV I think there’s little doubt. Until the next time. ?

 

[stewart]

The EU say that they want a level playing field, I took it that this is in terms of UK and EU trade with the rest of the world ie the standards that a UK company would have to meet when exporting to Peru would be the same as an EU company. IMO a trade deal between the UK and Peru is no-one else's business, if they decide to take a lower or higher standard of goods, that is between the negotiating parties.

The UK is free to choose who it wishes to trade with and whether it accepts the deal in negotiations, if the UK finds the deal with either the EU or Peru unacceptable then walk away, simple.
Why would you look at producing to lower standards?

 

[stewart]

See here’s the thing, you didn’t spout that off to those who have been lead to believe the opposite is true, you allowed the theory to take root, indeed you fuelled it by implying it’s what we face - didn’t say that’s how it is, but you did allow the theory grow. But sometimes your self righteous superior attitude scuppers a good discussion/debate. My English is pretty good but I did google the definition of f^ckwit - “stupid person - often used as a general term of abuse”. I’m 51, dad of three and husband of 30 years, I’ve managed to survive so far so I’m not entirely sure I fit the definition of f^uckwit, I’d like to say I don’t think you meant it as abuse, but with such a self proclaimed CV I think there’s little doubt. Until the next time. ?

From your posts you are far removed from a fu¢kwit, you seem to be one of the few that have an understanding of how international trade works, there are many on here who are blinkered regarding the EU, in fact after re-reading some of the posts it is worse than blinkered, they have a full blindfold on.
Perhaps it is at last slowly dawning on them that it is after all not the easiest deal in history, they do not need us more than we need them and despite claiming to be one of the largest economies in the world you are not negotiating from a strong position when you are sat across from your opposite number at the negotiating table.

 

[stewart]

Nowhere have I written that to be the case; I almost certainly have a wider knowledge and better understanding of EU law than you, be it treaty, ECJ law, Directives or Regulations. You will not find a single post wherein I have asserted that any EU trading partner does as you claim I have.

I have made it clear that I don't care what the EU rules are provided we can choose which to follow, if any.

I am undecided as to whether you are deliberately trying to misconstrue, or really, genuinely are unable to read and digest plain English. On balance I think it most probable that you really are just an utter f^ckwit.

Despite your self proclaimed superior intelligence you seem to be missing a basic point. You are free to choose whatever rules you wish to follow, however if you want to trade with the EU, or any other trading block for that matter, you have to follow the rules of that trading block, if you do not wish to the answer is simple, don't trade with them.

 

[stewart]

Crap

Forum members will also tell you that BSE was not just a British problem anything near as much as was portrayed, its all on here

Never let the facts spoil a good story.

 

[Henarar]

Never let the facts spoil a good story.

yep you would do well to remember that before you put them on here in future

 

[Farmer1001]

From your posts you are far removed from a fu¢kwit, you seem to be one of the few that have an understanding of how international trade works, there are many on here who are blinkered regarding the EU, in fact after re-reading some of the posts it is worse than blinkered, they have a full blindfold on.
Perhaps it is at last slowly dawning on them that it is after all not the easiest deal in history, they do not need us more than we need them and despite claiming to be one of the largest economies in the world you are not negotiating from a strong position when you are sat across from your opposite number at the negotiating table.

Thank you for that, although I'm not sure I deserve it. But putting my neck in the line - I'd say the majority on here and elsewhere would hope a level of common sense takes hold (on both sides), that we look at the future rather than dwell on the past, Brexit is happening, we who voted remain wish to have our concerns proved wrong, not right.

 

[Danllan]

See here’s the thing, you didn’t spout that off to those who have been lead to believe the opposite is true, you allowed the theory to take root, indeed you fuelled it by implying it’s what we face - didn’t say that’s how it is, but you did allow the theory grow...

I am flattered that you think I have any influence over others in this matter, though I doubt it. But you'll have to explain where I've done what you 'accuse' me of, it seems a crime of omission... I've repeatedly stated, across many TFF threads, precisely what the case is and what I think it should be; you're kicking the arse out of something that isn't even there, just for the sake of argument? Probably using your time wisely, better than on some other things...

Despite your self proclaimed superior intelligence you seem to be missing a basic point. You are free to choose whatever rules you wish to follow, however if you want to trade with the EU, or any other trading block for that matter, you have to follow the rules of that trading block, if you do not wish to the answer is simple, don't trade with them.

Yeah... and that is exactly what I've written throughout this and sever other threads. With your ever-so-bland and yet nauseatingly self-righteous omniscience, you should have picked up on that. But haven't...

All that written, and this is to you particularly @runny egg, what about your omissions? Shame on you for not stating true facts, for 'allowing' others to bimble along while being mislead. You haven't stated plainly and outright that the EU trying to ensure that the UK remains subservient to the ECJ and is tied to EU 'standards', not be volunteering to follow them, but be bound to. While you let on that the EU is merely some benign body who wants the best for all, shame on you. Hypocrites.

 

[Hindsight]

I assumed the number 50,000 was a typo when I read about it in The TImes. But having googled all Mainstream News are running with the same number and timeline of six months to recruit and train?

UK races to find extra 50,000 staff for post-Brexit paperwork

New recruits needed to process millions of extra declaration forms from 1 January 2021

www.theguardian.com

I was quite amazed.

 

[caveman]

I assumed the number 50,000 was a typo when I read about it in The TImes. But having googled all Mainstream News are running with the same number and timeline of six months to recruit and train?

UK races to find extra 50,000 staff for post-Brexit paperwork

New recruits needed to process millions of extra declaration forms from 1 January 2021

www.theguardian.com

I was quite amazed.

Guess that can be multiplied many times over......"over there".
Oh well. Full employment for European nations.

 

[stewart]

Yeah... and that is exactly what I've written throughout this and sever other threads. With your ever-so-bland and yet nauseatingly self-righteous omniscience, you should have picked up on that. But haven't...

All that written, and this is to you particularly @runny egg, what about your omissions? Shame on you for not stating true facts, for 'allowing' others to bimble along while being mislead. You haven't stated plainly and outright that the EU trying to ensure that the UK remains subservient to the ECJ and is tied to EU 'standards', not be volunteering to follow them, but be bound to. While you let on that the EU is merely some benign body who wants the best for all, shame on you. Hypocrites.

No I haven't picked up on it, possibly because you come across as being bitter that the EU may require some stipulations in place in their terms of trade, this is normal practice.

 

[Danllan]

No I haven't picked up on it, possibly because you come across as being bitter that the EU may require some stipulations in place in their terms of trade, this is normal practice.

Not bitter, check my posts and you'll see from the start that I've no problem with UK business adopting EU standards for trading with the EU market, none at all, just as I'm fine with the same being the case for trade with the US and Japan etc..

What I am against and what I do dislike is the EU's attempts to have its rules imposed as a blanket upon the UK for all of its - the UK's - trade, globally. Your '... may require some stipulations in place in their terms of trade...' is fine if it is solely to do with trade with them, but that's not what they're after is it? Have you not read the EU's recent pre-neg's publication?

It certainly isn't '...normal practice...' for one trade side to have its 'stipulations' apply to another's trade with all others too. No idea where you get that from, just a wind up, or lack of homework?

 

[Farmer1001]

I am flattered that you think I have any influence over others in this matter, though I doubt it. But you'll have to explain where I've done what you 'accuse' me of, it seems a crime of omission... I've repeatedly stated, across many TFF threads, precisely what the case is and what I think it should be; you're kicking the arse out of something that isn't even there, just for the sake of argument? Probably using your time wisely, better than on some other things...


Yeah... and that is exactly what I've written throughout this and sever other threads. With your ever-so-bland and yet nauseatingly self-righteous omniscience, you should have picked up on that. But haven't...

All that written, and this is to you particularly @runny egg, what about your omissions? Shame on you for not stating true facts, for 'allowing' others to bimble along while being mislead. You haven't stated plainly and outright that the EU trying to ensure that the UK remains subservient to the ECJ and is tied to EU 'standards', not be volunteering to follow them, but be bound to. While you let on that the EU is merely some benign body who wants the best for all, shame on you. Hypocrites.

Your accusing me of "omissions" in a previous post of mine, whilst then deliberately taking a small extract of that post and "omitting" the bits you dont want to comment on, and then call me a hypocrite?And btw I have no doubt the EU want the UK to remain subservient, point is if we do then that was our choice, not theirs, and as we have already chose to be a subservient state of the EU then its clear we exercised the choice. Get off your high horse Dan, if your such a capable individual then why are you wasting your time on here, or perhaps you can only get away with your self centred superiority on here and not that well amongst others more capable than the average TFF f^ckwit?