Michel Barnier

ICBM

holnrew said:

ICBM said:

Snap said:

Nowt wrong with Quorn

Apart from causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, lowered body temperature, violent shivering and difficulty breathing in a significant number of people.

That doesn't seem very balanced, the majority of people aren't allergic. It's a very sustainable way to get protein in your diet and comes in loads of tasty variants. If you don't like it, don't eat it. Bit disingenuous to call it nasty based on your own experience.

After the second time when I then became certain it was the Quorn and not some other sort of food poisoning, I'll never eat it again. Based on my own experience and what I then found out about it when I did some research, I would call it nasty and that is not in any way disingenous.

I am far from alone - the reaction is more common than you may think and quite serious, you don't want to have it if you're going to have to drive or go to work or anything like that, and for some people it may even be dangerous. It really made me quite ill and I doubt I'm at the extreme end of the range.

It my opinion it should not be sold without clear health warnings on, in the same way as any product containing nuts. Just because most people aren't allergic to nuts that is no reason to justify endangering those who are, and the same is true of modified soil fungus sold as food.

Evilmags

South Africa''s trade is fairly base materials. It could easily trade a lot more, especially as much of what it trade serves is low margin. Singapore is a much better example as a free trading nation. 

The UK''s main trade issue with the EU has always been the impossible nature of trading services without significant physical presence. I can't shop around the EU for insurance cover or a savings product in the same way as I can buy a German car or French wine. It is not a good deal for the UK and a very good one for the continent. 

quarky

Limehouse_Blues said:

The UK is going to lose the benefit of all those agreements when it leaves the EU and will spend years (and inordinate amounts of taxpayer money) simply trying to recreate them. Post Brexit the UK is going to be running very hard indeed just to stand still.

I don't think it is as cut and dried as that. The UK is a signatory on those trade agreements, so just because the UK leaves the EU, doesn't necessarily mean that trade agreements can't still be operational. No guarantees though obviously. 

[W]e have made it very clear to countries that we would like to see a transition of their agreements to a UK agreement at the point that we leave the EU. So far, we have not yet had a country that did not want to do that.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmintrade/817/817.pdf

prowla

crunchman said:

It's not just whether you can negotiate a FTA.  It's what it contains.  You can negotiate an agreement that allows free trade in fresh dinosaur faeces, but but it wouldn't be a lot of use.

I read about a potential EU trade deal with some Latin American countries that got scuppered because the Italians vetoed it to protect their tomato growers.  We don't need to protect tomato growers, or orange growers, or olive growers.  Without interests like that, we can negotiate deals that are much more wide ranging.

We might even get some tomatoes that have flavour, rather than the rubbish we bring in from EU poly-tunnels.

Jalapeno

I'd welcome some decent tasting tomatoes from Spain rather than the flavourless crap from Channel Islands & Netherland's poly tunnels

ToneControl

Evilmags said:

Whatever they claim their is no EU SA free trade. Tax on a car import is 100% in SA.

and similar in Turkey, my Turkish friend tells me

ToneControl

Limehouse_Blues said:

ToneControl said:

Limehouse_Blues said:

ToneControl said:

Are the EU experts at trade deals? Look at their record - pathetic, how many significant trade deals have they signed?
The answer is none:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
South Korea is the best one there

But of course, any problems with these current trade talks will be blamed on the UK

Using the WTO’s database of RTAs covering goods and services (http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx) I decided to test your assertion by looking at the number of bilateral RTAs that each of China, the USA and the EU have agreed with other G20 members (ie bilateral deals in which their counterparty is one of the 19 sovereign nation states that participate in the G20, or the EU itself (the EU being the 20th member of the G20). Focusing on bilateral deals is the reason that Mexico and Canada don’t appear in the US list. Equally, when it comes to the EU I have ignored the fact that some of its member states (4 if you count the UK) are G20 members.

thanks for doing some research, most don't bother

The argument typically offered is that "the EU do everything better than the UK alone could ever hope to achieve"
At face value this is clearly ridiculous - the UK is a G7 country with a long history of democracy, trading and law, and clearly less contention from 27 other countries will enable easier decision making (since in the UK, there are not 27 states with conflicting interests who can veto any agreement)

I'm not sure your research is complete enough:
what we are trying to see is "are the EU better than everyone else at negotiating FTAs, or average, or worse"
The publicity during Brexit arguments claimed that the tiny UK could never match the amazing deals the EU had agreed.

Looking at this list of bilateral FTAs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free-trade_agreements#ASEAN

CARICOM is doing well: 10 FTAs with G20 countries

• Australia
• Canada
• China
• European Union
• India
• Japan
• Mexico
• Turkey
• South Korea
• United States

EFTA seems to have the same main ones as the EU

Japan has 3

Mexico has 4

Serbia has 4

Singapore has 7

South Korea has 7

Switzerland has 7

so I'd maintain my assertion that the EU's negotiating has been piss-poor, nowhere near as successful as many individual states, both larger and smaller than the UK. 

and incidentally, South Africa is not a major economy, so you should downgrade the EU significant FTAs to 3


Anyway, do you feel that the UK can't negotiate as many or more FTAs than the EU?

It's not about the sheer numbers of agreements. The terms of the deals and their scope are rather important.

I can't believe you wheeled out CARICOM as an example of someone 'doing better' than the EU yet in virtually the same breath panned South Africa. SA is something like the 30th largest economy in the world, many times larger than all CARICOM economies put together! If you want to draw comparisons with the EU, look at the US and China alone as they're the only two economies remotely close in size to the EU. Even Japan is a comparative minnow while ASEAN's GDP is a fraction of the EU's.

Bananas and other agricultural products are probably CARICOM's main exports. Their trade profile is pretty simple so it's no surprise they have lots of RTAs signed. When countries sit round the table with CARICOM there's not a whole lot to talk about (except fruit).

Anyway, to answer your question I think there's every likelihood that the UK will, post Brexit succeed in negotiating at least as many RTAs as the EU already has with non-EU countries. The UK will spend at least a decade doing little else. However, the UK will struggle to improve on the terms of those agreements with non EU countries and will be lucky to secure the same terms as the EU - because to any international counterparty, access to the smaller UK market now and always will be, worth less than access to the much larger economy of the EU.

Whichever way we slice it (and leaving aside whatever beef anyone might have around sovereignty or the CJEU or immigration or whatever else) anyone who truly believes that leaving the EU is actually going to enhance the UK's international trade profile is clearly incapable of rational thought.

Remember that bilateral agreements that count as RTAs for WTO purposes don't give you the full picture for trade. There are over 700 bilateral agreements (most of which are not actually RTAs but which nevertheless contribute to trade) between the EU and non EU countries that span areas like regulatory co-operation, fisheries and agriculture, transport, customs and energy (including nuclear).

The UK is going to lose the benefit of all those agreements when it leaves the EU and will spend years (and inordinate amounts of taxpayer money) simply trying to recreate them. Post Brexit the UK is going to be running very hard indeed just to stand still.

why are you solely commenting on the CARICOM deals?
that's just an example of tiny weak countries succeeding in getting lots of deals with major G20 economies (which was your yardstick). repeatedly we are told that "tiny UK can't possibly do the deals that clever, big EU can"

Then I listed 6 other countries with the same or more deals than the EU, in particular South Korea has 7
It's a G20 state (your test criteria), and has 7 FTAs with other G20 states, so tell me again that the EU has an outstanding record in creating FTAs

ToneControl

ICBM said:

holnrew said:

ICBM said:

Snap said:

Nowt wrong with Quorn

Apart from causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, lowered body temperature, violent shivering and difficulty breathing in a significant number of people.

That doesn't seem very balanced, the majority of people aren't allergic. It's a very sustainable way to get protein in your diet and comes in loads of tasty variants. If you don't like it, don't eat it. Bit disingenuous to call it nasty based on your own experience.

After the second time when I then became certain it was the Quorn and not some other sort of food poisoning, I'll never eat it again. Based on my own experience and what I then found out about it when I did some research, I would call it nasty and that is not in any way disingenous.

I am far from alone - the reaction is more common than you may think and quite serious, you don't want to have it if you're going to have to drive or go to work or anything like that, and for some people it may even be dangerous. It really made me quite ill and I doubt I'm at the extreme end of the range.

It my opinion it should not be sold without clear health warnings on, in the same way as any product containing nuts. Just because most people aren't allergic to nuts that is no reason to justify endangering those who are, and the same is true of modified soil fungus sold as food.

I got stomach pains when I tried Quorn (pre-WWW days, so could not research), I have avoided it since

ToneControl

quarky said:

Limehouse_Blues said:

The UK is going to lose the benefit of all those agreements when it leaves the EU and will spend years (and inordinate amounts of taxpayer money) simply trying to recreate them. Post Brexit the UK is going to be running very hard indeed just to stand still.

I don't think it is as cut and dried as that. The UK is a signatory on those trade agreements, so just because the UK leaves the EU, doesn't necessarily mean that trade agreements can't still be operational. No guarantees though obviously. 

[W]e have made it very clear to countries that we would like to see a transition of their agreements to a UK agreement at the point that we leave the EU. So far, we have not yet had a country that did not want to do that.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmintrade/817/817.pdf

Indeed, why would states think a FTA with the EU was in their interests, but NOT want an FTA with an independent G7 UK?

Fuengi

I think the fact that the EU want to punish countries for leaving is extremely telling. What kind of club does that? (One that isn't worth joining?).

Set aside the current negotiating difficulties and consider how will things look in 5 years time.

Looking forward I cannot see a valid argument that we would be better off inside the EU and would bet there will be some serious concerns for countries still in.  

Nissan are lined up to replace the German supply of cars to the UK market. Any hit to the German economy will destabilise the EU. 

TheBigDipper

Fuengi said:

I think the fact that the EU want to punish countries for leaving is extremely telling. What kind of club does that? (One that isn't worth joining?).

<snip>

We really should stop spreading this emotive lie. It's intended to make people bypass the facts and get indignant. The UK has commitments that were freely made at the time and should be honoured. If someone renting from us decided to move out early and then said they weren't paying the rent they were due until the end of the period we'd still  say the rent is still due. Only the defaulting tenant would try and call it punishment. 

fields5069

TheBigDipper said:

Fuengi said:

I think the fact that the EU want to punish countries for leaving is extremely telling. What kind of club does that? (One that isn't worth joining?).

<snip>

We really should stop spreading this emotive lie. It's intended to make people bypass the facts and get indignant. The UK has commitments that were freely made at the time and should be honoured. If someone renting from us decided to move out early and then said they weren't paying the rent they were due until the end of the period we'd still  say the rent is still due. Only the defaulting tenant would try and call it punishment. 

Indeed. The best we should be hoping for is negotiation of the "cancellation fee" to something lower than the full obligation.

Bidley

TheBigDipper said:

Fuengi said:

I think the fact that the EU want to punish countries for leaving is extremely telling. What kind of club does that? (One that isn't worth joining?).

<snip>

We really should stop spreading this emotive lie.

But that's precisely the language coming directly from the EU camp.

ESBlonde

TheBigDipper said:

Fuengi said:

I think the fact that the EU want to punish countries for leaving is extremely telling. What kind of club does that? (One that isn't worth joining?).

<snip>

We really should stop spreading this emotive lie. It's intended to make people bypass the facts and get indignant. The UK has commitments that were freely made at the time and should be honoured. If someone renting from us decided to move out early and then said they weren't paying the rent they were due until the end of the period we'd still  say the rent is still due. Only the defaulting tenant would try and call it punishment. 

Likewise the EU made commitments to the UK as a member state but already scientists are announcing discrimination and problems with previously agreed funding. This sucks of more than retoric at this stage. The EU is affraid of more copycat exodus states, France and the Netherlands being the two big nations that had a wobble and some growing political/populus unrest while some easter states of the union are out and out disobeying EU rules for thier own good. The structure is weak and needs reinforcement. I say this as someone that voted remain, the short term 1+ years will be harder leaving but after that (mainly for the benefit of the next generation) I see the UK emerging as an international powerhouse and able to fill the role of a G7 state.
 

quarky

TheBigDipper said:

Fuengi said:

I think the fact that the EU want to punish countries for leaving is extremely telling. What kind of club does that? (One that isn't worth joining?).

<snip>

We really should stop spreading this emotive lie. It's intended to make people bypass the facts and get indignant. The UK has commitments that were freely made at the time and should be honoured. If someone renting from us decided to move out early and then said they weren't paying the rent they were due until the end of the period we'd still  say the rent is still due. Only the defaulting tenant would try and call it punishment. 

But if you move out, you are not expected to continue to pay for upkeep of a flat that you no longer live in.

digitalscream

ToneControl said:

ICBM said:

holnrew said:

ICBM said:

Snap said:

Nowt wrong with Quorn

Apart from causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, lowered body temperature, violent shivering and difficulty breathing in a significant number of people.

That doesn't seem very balanced, the majority of people aren't allergic. It's a very sustainable way to get protein in your diet and comes in loads of tasty variants. If you don't like it, don't eat it. Bit disingenuous to call it nasty based on your own experience.

After the second time when I then became certain it was the Quorn and not some other sort of food poisoning, I'll never eat it again. Based on my own experience and what I then found out about it when I did some research, I would call it nasty and that is not in any way disingenous.

I am far from alone - the reaction is more common than you may think and quite serious, you don't want to have it if you're going to have to drive or go to work or anything like that, and for some people it may even be dangerous. It really made me quite ill and I doubt I'm at the extreme end of the range.

It my opinion it should not be sold without clear health warnings on, in the same way as any product containing nuts. Just because most people aren't allergic to nuts that is no reason to justify endangering those who are, and the same is true of modified soil fungus sold as food.

I got stomach pains when I tried Quorn (pre-WWW days, so could not research), I have avoided it since

I'm in the same camp as @ICBM - twice had Quorn, twice been more ill than I've ever been in my life.

Sod's law says that I had to marry a vegetarian, who loves the stuff. In an ironic twist, we have to quarantine her food to protect me from it.

Evilmags

Their is no legal contractual obligation for the UK to pay anything. It has been very clearly explained by treasury lawyers to the EU and why Barnier has a wasp up his ass. 

Ravenous

Can all you Quorn complainers get a room?

I'm very sorry you have allergy problems but let's not blame it on Michel Barnier or the EU.

mellowsun

Barnier is right in that the great British public who voted for Brexit will learn what life will be like outside the single market.

Meanwhile we are turning away potential trading partners because we don't have the time or resources to negotiate a trade deal with them!

fields5069

Evilmags said:

Their is no legal contractual obligation for the UK to pay anything. It has been very clearly explained by treasury lawyers to the EU and why Barnier has a wasp up his ass. 

Hmm. There's law, and then there's doing the right thing. Sometimes not related.