Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[RandBlade]

Not at all there is a mandate to negotiate Brexit. If you're not prepared to walk away then you guarantee the most one sided deal so she is being mature. What realistic alternative is there? The irony is that if Cameron had been prepared to walk away and back the Leave Campaign he would probably got a much better deal so there'd be no Brexit now. I'm far from the only one I know who swung from Remain to Leave due to the failure to get any meaningful reform (confirming we'd never get it).

Either way there's an election due in 2020 a year after we Brexit so if the deal isn't acceptable we can elect a new government who can start new negotiations.

[Hazir]

So, what does it mean if you walk away? You realize that for your plan B you still need our consent don't you?

[RandBlade]

Our consent for what?

If we walk away then two years after we give Article 50 our membership lapses. That's the law.

[Hazir]

Your plan B is WTO rules. If you are walking away without an agreement we may not bother to let you.

[RandBlade]

You realistically can't stop us.

We are already WTO members in our own right. Sure in theory there is the WTO schedule issue but that exists for many nations including all who joined the EU from 95 onwards.

[Loki]

You realistically can't stop us.

We are already WTO members in our own right. Sure in theory there is the WTO schedule issue but that exists for many nations including all who joined the EU from 95 onwards.

No, you're not.

http://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing...us-post-brexit
http://www.economist.com/news/financ...ficult-process

[Hazir]

If you walk away without a deal, we can't only stop you but we will stop you.

[Hazir]

Seems the clock starts ticking in little over a week.

[RandBlade]

No, you're not.

http://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing...us-post-brexit
http://www.economist.com/news/financ...ficult-process

Your first link has the issue I mentioned. The EU hasn't addressed its own schedule for any of the accession states since 1995. Now it simply claims €72.4bn of agricultural subsidies, despite the fact the agreed schedule limit is actually 67.2bn. The second link reiterates the point that "the WTO is not as you might think" which is why such a fudge works and why a UK fudge would be possible too.

[Loki]

Your first link has the issue I mentioned. The EU hasn't addressed its own schedule for any of the accession states since 1995. Now it simply claims €72.4bn of agricultural subsidies, despite the fact the agreed schedule limit is actually 67.2bn. The second link reiterates the point that "the WTO is not as you might think" which is why such a fudge works and why a UK fudge would be possible too.

The UK will get WTO concessions only if everyone else agrees. Including the EU.

[RandBlade]

The EU hasn't had it's own concessions agreed for 22 years and counting with the WTO.

[Aimless]

The EU hasn't had it's own concessions agreed for 22 years and counting with the WTO.

http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...l=1#post179889

[Hazir]

This one is for Littlefuzzy; maybe you can understand a little bit better how the Brits built up such a deficit in sympathy with other Europeans. Michael Hesseltine, a supposed pro-EU Tory, yesterday said :

“Hitler was democratically elected in Germany. He unleashed the most horrendous war. This country played a unique role in securing his defeat. So Germany lost the war. We’ve just handed them the opportunity to win the peace. I find that quite unacceptable.”

And that one is supposed to be our friend in the UK.

[RandBlade]

Hesseltine is an octogenarian nutjob extremist on this matter that was recently sacked from being an advisor to the government. If you're going to count every statement by an extremist partisan hack then you're going to find a lot of comments to get upset at.

[Hazir]

Only weeks ago he had an advisory role to your government and he's supposedly a europarlement. That is as a matter of fact the reason why he was sacked.

[RandBlade]

Do you mean a Europhile? Yes he was an advisor, and yes he is a Europhile extremist. His comments were part and parcel of that.

[Hazir]

Bye bye.

[Steely Glint]

Laters.

[RandBlade]

[Aimless]

Exciting:

https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.ft.c...7-502f7ee26895

One good outcome of Brexit hopefully it won't be quite as dramatic as CETA.

[Flixy]

Can't read the article without subscription, how is this an outcome of Brexit?

[Aimless]

https://www.ft.com/content/20248b48-...7-502f7ee26895

May work better

I believe Brexit spurred the EU to conclude the deal just as much as Trump's promises of economic protectionism may have encouraged Japan to do the same.

[RandBlade]

Sounds good then and sets a good precedent for us to be able to get a free trade deal. Why would you set no tariffs on Japanese cars but put them on British ones? Or want to sell tariff-free to Japan but not to the UK which imports far more European agricultural produce than Japan does.

I'm not seeing any requirements for the ECJ to oversee Japanese laws or for the Japanese to agree to free movement of labour which some in the Brexit debate seem to maintain are both requirements to sign up to in order to get trade deals with Europe. Funny that.

[Aimless]

It's not particularly strange. Full access requires greater compliance. Also, the UK is not Japan, and its relationship with the EU is far more toxic.

[RandBlade]

Yes we're not Japan, we import far more European goods than Japan does. There is no need or purpose in a toxic relationship.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes we're not Japan, we import far more European goods than Japan does. There is no need or purpose in a toxic relationship.

Particularly if you yourselves poisoned the well.

[Hazir]

Yes we're not Japan, we import far more European goods than Japan does. There is no need or purpose in a toxic relationship.

So, what do you think about poisoning the relationship by grandstanding over the ratification of a convention you yourselves instigated and which has questionable value and validity?

[RandBlade]

So, what do you think about poisoning the relationship by grandstanding over the ratification of a convention you yourselves instigated and which has questionable value and validity?

Same as before.

Cancelling a treaty of questionable value and validity seems entirely sensible at a time of wiping the slate clean and starting negotiations. If the treaty was of undoubted value then it would be kept but international law is quite clear on the 200 mile zone nowadays. If during negotiations with the EU we give access to our waters in return for a quid pro quo of something then it may all be moot anyway but at least we'll have achieved something we want in return for offering others want.

Not sure why you think something being of questionable value makes it more valuable to keep rather than less.

[Aimless]

Symbolic act.

[Loki]

So, what do you think about poisoning the relationship by grandstanding over the ratification of a convention you yourselves instigated and which has questionable value and validity?

I think we've already established Rand sees no value in international law or treaties and believes there are no consequences to dismantling either.