http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.

Just wait and see...

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harry wrote

http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals
with all the other countries in the world, we've been told,

Much easier than with the EU where any since
country with a vested interest can veto the deal.

Even if Scotland and NI do stay in Britain with it no
longer in the EU, they don’t get to veto any trade
deal. They don’t even get to veto leaving the EU.

Just wait and see...

See Britain do fine outside the EU, just like all of the USA,
China, India, Taiwan, Canada, Australia etc etc etc do.

On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when it
was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the EU
the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

If I saw everything in the world as negatively as Harry, I'd have jumped off
a high building by now.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.

Just wait and see...

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that the
UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when it was
ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the EU the
trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if that
were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when
it was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the
EU the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if
that were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate is just how long trade deals
take to set up. You're talking about 5 years plus of intensive
negotiations. And if anything important changes in either country's
circumstances (like a deal with another country), you may well have to
start again. It is simply not just a handshake over a pint one night.

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 22/07/2016 11:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.


You don't necessarily need a deal to buy/sell to trade with the rest of
the world.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 22/07/2016 11:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they
reckon the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any
deals.


You don't necessarily need a deal to buy/sell to trade with the rest of
the world.

You don't need any deal at all to buy from anyone. They will always be
delighted to take your money. Selling may be a different matter, though.
For that you need to be competitive with rivals.

The world has moved on from when Grace Brothers was the only store in town.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before.

Have you only just noticed this Dave?

Of course not. Was obvious to most what would happen if we left. But not
to the many optimists. Like the one I replied to.

Everyone else has know about it
for some weeks, including the fact that the Kiwis have offered us some
of theirs.

That might be a bit like using the wife's brother for a lawyer during a
divorce.

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before.

Have you only just noticed this Dave?

Of course not. Was obvious to most what would happen if we left. But not
to the many optimists. Like the one I replied to.

Everyone else has know about it for some weeks, including the fact
that the Kiwis have offered us some of theirs.

That might be a bit like using the wife's brother for a lawyer during a
divorce.

Only if the trade deal we're doing is with the Kiwis.

Or with one of their competitors.

Surely the idea of taking back control is to do just that? After all, no
foreigners are to be trusted. They are all out to get the UK.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 22 July 2016 11:49:17 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when
it was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the
EU the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if
that were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate is just how long trade deals
take to set up. You're talking about 5 years plus of intensive
negotiations. And if anything important changes in either country's
circumstances (like a deal with another country), you may well have to
start again. It is simply not just a handshake over a pint one night.

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.



It takes a long time because the EUSSR is an idiot organisation of 27 countries.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote
alan_m wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harry wrote:

http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.

Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when
it was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the
EU the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally
withdrawing from it, if that were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate
is just how long trade deals take to set up.

Don’t need any trade deals initially. Britain is free to trade under
the WTO rules just like all of the USA, India, China, Korea, Taiwan,
Bangladesh, Canada, Australia etc etc etc all do fine right now.
That is the whole point of the WTO rules.

You're talking about 5 years plus of intensive negotiations.

Clearly the reason they take a while is because
there is no great urgency about them. And they
arent in fact all that intensive either.

And if anything important changes in either country's
circumstances (like a deal with another country), you
may well have to start again.

That doesn’t happen often.

It is simply not just a handshake over a pint one night.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything
like enough trained negotiators for new trade deals.

That is very arguable given that there have been plenty of
Brits doing that for the EU. Less clear what they will chose
to do with Britain leaving the EU, return to Britain and keep
doing that stuff for Britain or stay in the EU and give up on
Britain because they like the EU more than they do Britain.

Not surprising, as they've all had to be
done in conjunction with the EU before.

In fact it was often Brits working for the EU doing it.

And doing a deal with inexperience negotiators
is a sure way to get stitched up.

They wouldn’t be inexperience negotiators
if they were the ones doing it for the EU.

And no one can get stitched up when whatever has got agreed
still has to be legislated by the respective parliaments.

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

No one has ever said anything like that, you silly little pathological liar.

Commonwealth countrys would obviously like to see a return to the
sort of deal that they had with Britain before it joined the EEC and
there would be no negotiation needed on that, just decide to do it.

And you keep ignoring the fact that Britain doesn’t need any deals
at all, its free to trade under the WTO rules, just like all of the USA,
India, China, Korea, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Canada, Australia etc etc
etc all do fine right now.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
alan_m wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here.
That they reckon the entire world is queueing up to be
nice to the UK in any deals.

You don't necessarily need a deal to buy/sell
to trade with the rest of the world.

You don't need any deal at all to buy from anyone.
They will always be delighted to take your money.

Selling may be a different matter, though.
For that you need to be competitive with rivals.

Nope. The WTO rules mean that while ever any
of your competitors have a deal, you get to sell
under the same deal.

The world has moved on from when Grace
Brothers was the only store in town.

World trade was never anything like that.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like
enough trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising,
as they've all had to be done in conjunction with the EU before.

Have you only just noticed this Dave?

Of course not. Was obvious to most what would happen if we left.
But not to the many optimists. Like the one I replied to.

He's not an optimist, he just has enough of a clue to have noticed
that you don’t need deals to trade, just like all of the USA, China,
India, Taiwan, Canada, Australia etc etc etc have all noticed.

Everyone else has know about it for some weeks, including
the fact that the Kiwis have offered us some of theirs.

That might be a bit like using the wife's brother for a lawyer during a
divorce.

Nothing like when its for negotiations with the yanks and krauts etc.

On Friday, 22 July 2016 11:49:17 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when
it was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the
EU the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if
that were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

I seriously hope we don't agree to a trade deal that exposes us to the level of stupidity of CETA.

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate is just how long trade deals
take to set up. You're talking about 5 years plus of intensive
negotiations. And if anything important changes in either country's
circumstances (like a deal with another country), you may well have to
start again. It is simply not just a handshake over a pint one night.

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

Usually when we're short of skilled labour we hire it from abroad

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't recall anyone saying that. It's just in everyone's interest to trade internationally, so there is a desire to do so.


NT

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:54:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't recall anyone saying that. It's just in everyone's interest to trade internationally, so there is a desire to do so.


A concern could be the attitude of the USA and its habit of wishing to
control things beyond its borders to the benefit of itself and the
detriment of others.
As an example if say the UK got a favourable trade deal with China but
the South China sea dispute between the USA and China escalates to
the extent the US wishes to impose sanctions or declares China a new
axis of evil.
It would be quite hard for the UK to ignore the US if it threatened
any country trading with China also had trade sanctions applied
against it, A good part of our defence equipment supply is intertwined
with theirs and not getting say warplanes delivered could make things
awkward as would lack of spares etc for Boeing Airliners operated by
British operators.

The UK may find itself escaping from the influence of Brussels but
having to jump to Washingtons orders.
Just because the Yanks speak English doesn't automatically mean they
are friendly , they always look after their interests first and don't
worry who they trample over on the way.

G.Harman

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Dave Plowman wrote

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like
enough trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising,
as they've all had to be done in conjunction with the EU before.

Have you only just noticed this Dave?

Of course not. Was obvious to most what would happen if we
left. But not to the many optimists. Like the one I replied to.

Everyone else has know about it for some weeks, including
the fact that the Kiwis have offered us some of theirs.

That might be a bit like using the wife's
brother for a lawyer during a divorce.

Only if the trade deal we're doing is with the Kiwis.

Or with one of their competitors.

That isnt what modern trade deals are about.

Surely the idea of taking back control is to do just that?

Nope, it is to avoid having the EU proclaim that Britain must do
what the EU decides must be done with directives and regulations.

After all, no foreigners are to be trusted.
They are all out to get the UK.

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:54:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't recall anyone saying that. It's just in everyone's interest to
trade internationally, so there is a desire to do so.


A concern could be the attitude of the USA and its habit of wishing to
control things beyond its borders to the benefit of itself and the
detriment of others.
As an example if say the UK got a favourable trade deal with China but
the South China sea dispute between the USA and China escalates to
the extent the US wishes to impose sanctions or declares China a new
axis of evil.
It would be quite hard for the UK to ignore the US if it threatened
any country trading with China also had trade sanctions applied
against it, A good part of our defence equipment supply is intertwined
with theirs and not getting say warplanes delivered could make things
awkward as would lack of spares etc for Boeing Airliners operated by
British operators.

The UK may find itself escaping from the influence of Brussels but
having to jump to Washingtons orders.

Trouble with that line is that that applys already with the yanks and
sanctions. And did happen with Iraq after the first Gulf War. But it is
quite likely that Britain would agree with the sanctions, like it did
with Iraq.

Just because the Yanks speak English doesn't automatically mean they
are friendly , they always look after their interests first and don't
worry who they trample over on the way.

And yet they bailed out europe, TWICE, when they didn't have to.

On Saturday, 23 July 2016 00:04:51 UTC+1, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:54:53 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:



I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't recall anyone saying that. It's just in everyone's interest to trade internationally, so there is a desire to do so.


A concern could be the attitude of the USA and its habit of wishing to
control things beyond its borders to the benefit of itself and the
detriment of others.
As an example if say the UK got a favourable trade deal with China but
the South China sea dispute between the USA and China escalates to
the extent the US wishes to impose sanctions or declares China a new
axis of evil.
It would be quite hard for the UK to ignore the US if it threatened
any country trading with China also had trade sanctions applied
against it, A good part of our defence equipment supply is intertwined
with theirs and not getting say warplanes delivered could make things
awkward as would lack of spares etc for Boeing Airliners operated by
British operators.

The UK may find itself escaping from the influence of Brussels but
having to jump to Washingtons orders.
Just because the Yanks speak English doesn't automatically mean they
are friendly , they always look after their interests first and don't
worry who they trample over on the way.

G.Harman

I thought I could comment on that but I'm sure there are others with greater knowledge. But then comes along Rod!


NT

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all
the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the
EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when
it was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the
EU the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if
that were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate is just how long trade deals
take to set up.

That may be true of the MITS, it isn't true of the people arguing against
you here

tim

In article ,
harry wrote:
The thing so many don't seem to appreciate is just how long trade
deals take to set up. You're talking about 5 years plus of intensive
negotiations. And if anything important changes in either country's
circumstances (like a deal with another country), you may well have to
start again. It is simply not just a handshake over a pint one night.

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've
all had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal
with inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they
reckon the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any
deals.



It takes a long time because the EUSSR is an idiot organisation of 27
countries.

Thanks for confirming you don't read posts before replying.

--
*When a man opens a car door for his wife, it's either a new car or a new

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
The thing so many don't seem to appreciate
is just how long trade deals take to set up.

Don’t need any trade deals initially. Britain is free to trade under
the WTO rules

Yes, pet. You import something which goes to a bonded warehouse etc until
the duty is paid. Very efficient way of trading in this day and age.

--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

Usually when we're short of skilled labour we hire it from abroad

That is simply not what a vast number voted out for. They want zero
immigration - not more.

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they
reckon the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any
deals.

I don't recall anyone saying that. It's just in everyone's interest to
trade internationally, so there is a desire to do so.

There is a desire to trade on the best possible terms. For yourself. Which
almost certainly won't be the best terms for that partner in trade. Hence
the long winded negotiations.

--
*Few women admit their age; fewer men act it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
The UK may find itself escaping from the influence of Brussels but
having to jump to Washingtons orders.
Just because the Yanks speak English doesn't automatically mean they
are friendly , they always look after their interests first and don't
worry who they trample over on the way.

And just imagine if Trump gets in.

It is perfectly natural for every country to want the very best deal it
can get. Hence very long winded bargaining to reach a suitable compromise.
And the UK now having much less bargaining power than the EU.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Surely the idea of taking back control is to do just that?

Nope, it is to avoid having the EU proclaim that Britain must do
what the EU decides must be done with directives and regulations.

Of course. Now we're out of the EU, we will be able to freely trade with
them while ignoring all their quality standards etc. They will be forced
to accept our right hand drive cars and be grateful. And so on.

Remind us of which planet you're on currently, Wodney?

--
*i souport publik edekashun.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate
is just how long trade deals take to set up.

Don't need any trade deals initially. Britain
is free to trade under the WTO rules

Yes, pet. You import something which goes to
a bonded warehouse etc until the duty is paid.

That isnt how all of the USA, Canada, India,
China, Taiwan, Korea, Bangladesh, Singapore,
etc etc etc trade under the WTO rules now.

Very efficient way of trading in this day and age.

Works fine for USA, Canada, India, China, Taiwan,
Korea, Bangladesh, Singapore, etc etc etc.

Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should
have notice that China dominates world trade in
quite a few areas trading under WTO rules currently.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

Usually when we're short of skilled labour we hire it from abroad

That is simply not what a vast number voted out for.

You have no idea what a vast number actually voted for.

They want zero immigration

You don’t have a shred of evidence that a vast number want that.

- not more.

He wasn’t talking about more, just the same deal for EU
citizens as there is for the rest of the world. And that would
mean fewer immigrants, because currently it isnt just those
who Britain is short of skilled labour wise that are allowed
to move to Britain, it is any EU citizen who decides they
want to do that and can work out how to do that.

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here.
That they reckon the entire world is queueing up to be
nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't recall anyone saying that. It's just in everyone's
interest to trade internationally, so there is a desire to do so.

There is a desire to trade on the best possible terms. For yourself.

But that doesn’t mean that you can't do fine with less than that.

Which almost certainly won't be the best terms for that partner in trade.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

Completely free trade within the EU is
in fact the best terms for all the partners.

Hence the long winded negotiations.

That is for other reasons, normally because not everyone
wants completely free trade in all areas. And because some
like the yanks want to include other stuff like corporations
being able to sue when they don’t like a policy choice one
of the partners' govts has decided it will legislate.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote

The UK may find itself escaping from the influence of
Brussels but having to jump to Washingtons orders.

Just because the Yanks speak English doesn't automatically
mean they are friendly , they always look after their interests
first and don't worry who they trample over on the way.

And just imagine if Trump gets in.

It is perfectly natural for every country to want the very best deal it
can get.

And they can agree that completely free trade is the best
deal for everyone. That was what the EEC was about.

Hence very long winded bargaining to reach a suitable compromise.

There is no compromise when they agree to completely free trade.

And the UK now having much less bargaining power than the EU.

But doesn’t have 27 other countries with a veto on what is agreed.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Surely the idea of taking back control is to do just that?

Nope, it is to avoid having the EU proclaim that Britain must do
what the EU decides must be done with directives and regulations.

Of course. Now we're out of the EU, we will be able to freely
trade with them while ignoring all their quality standards etc.

But Britain will be free to do what it likes with the stuff that
isnt traded with the EU and is used internally, and is traded
with other than the EU.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

Rod Speed wrote:

That isnt how all of the USA, Canada, India,
China, Taiwan, Korea, Bangladesh, Singapore,
etc etc etc trade under the WTO rules now.

There are trade agreements between most of these countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_agreements.
If as you say the WTO rules are just as good,
why do they go to the trouble (lots of trouble)
of negotiating trade deals?
Why is the EU negotiating with Canada?
What is the point of the Asia-Pacific trade agreement?
Or innumerable other trade deals?

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 22/07/2016 11:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when
it was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the
EU the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if
that were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate is just how long trade deals
take to set up. You're talking about 5 years plus of intensive
negotiations. And if anything important changes in either country's
circumstances (like a deal with another country), you may well have to
start again. It is simply not just a handshake over a pint one night.

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't think anyone is under any delusion that it will not take
significant time and effort. However, if done right, there is no reason
the final result can't be as good or better than what the EU has
achieved thus far.

The key point is there is no point wasting time and energy worrying
about all the reasons we can't achieve the results the nation needs,
when it would be far more productive working out the best way to
actually go out and get them.

So, there are not enough negotiators? Work out how to fix the problem,
how to recruit experienced negotiators from the private sector - people
with years of experience of international negotiations. Start training
the brightest and the best selected from the ranks of the civil service.
Start making use of our remaining links to the commonwealth, and former
colonies. Behave like an entrepreneurial outward looking nation again.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't think anyone is under any delusion that it will not take
significant time and effort.

Oddly, despite following all the arguments fairly closely, the time it
might take to sort this mess out was largely ignored. I'd be willing to
bet many who voted leave thought it would be reasonably quick. Not a
generation down the lines.

However, if done right, there is no reason
the final result can't be as good or better than what the EU has
achieved thus far.

But that might depend on just how well this country survives in the
interim. We won't know for some time just how many industries etc will
survive once outside the EU.

The key point is there is no point wasting time and energy worrying
about all the reasons we can't achieve the results the nation needs,
when it would be far more productive working out the best way to
actually go out and get them.

Pity you didn't tell the politicians that years ago - when the referendum
was first envisaged.

So, there are not enough negotiators? Work out how to fix the problem,
how to recruit experienced negotiators from the private sector - people
with years of experience of international negotiations.

That might be fine if they existed. Just what jobs were they doing before?


Start training
the brightest and the best selected from the ranks of the civil service.
Start making use of our remaining links to the commonwealth, and former
colonies. Behave like an entrepreneurial outward looking nation again.

Heh heh. Will need quite a turnround to start training our own people for
the jobs which are actually needed. And anticipating things. Something no
UK government is much good at. Making do and mend being more usual.

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/07/2016 11:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all
the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the
EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when
it was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the
EU the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if
that were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate is just how long trade deals
take to set up. You're talking about 5 years plus of intensive
negotiations. And if anything important changes in either country's
circumstances (like a deal with another country), you may well have to
start again. It is simply not just a handshake over a pint one night.

Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't think anyone is under any delusion that it will not take
significant time and effort. However, if done right, there is no reason
the final result can't be as good or better than what the EU has achieved
thus far.

The key point is there is no point wasting time and energy worrying about
all the reasons we can't achieve the results the nation needs, when it
would be far more productive working out the best way to actually go out
and get them.

So, there are not enough negotiators? Work out how to fix the problem,
how to recruit experienced negotiators from the private sector - people
with years of experience of international negotiations. Start training the
brightest and the best selected from the ranks of the civil service. Start
making use of our remaining links to the commonwealth, and former
colonies. Behave like an entrepreneurial outward looking nation again.

Spot on but I think Dave's thrown up his arm already.

In article ,
"tim..." writes:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that the
UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when it was
ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the EU the
trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if that
were to be the case.

We would automatically withdraw when we leave the EU, *but* regardless of that,
the UK government remains liable to pay compensation for 20 years afterwards
if it does anything which undermines the value of any trade which took place
whilst CETA was in effect.

I am much more confident that the EU countries will torpedo CETA and TTIP,
than I am that our own government would torpedo such a 1-sided trade deal -
I suspect the UK will run after any deal going, however bad it is for us.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Saturday, 23 July 2016 11:33:53 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

Usually when we're short of skilled labour we hire it from abroad

That is simply not what a vast number voted out for. They want zero
immigration - not more.

cobblers

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they
reckon the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any
deals.

I don't recall anyone saying that. It's just in everyone's interest to
trade internationally, so there is a desire to do so.

There is a desire to trade on the best possible terms. For yourself. Which
almost certainly won't be the best terms for that partner in trade. Hence
the long winded negotiations.

obviously.


NT

On Saturday, 23 July 2016 14:13:25 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

I don't think anyone is under any delusion that it will not take
significant time and effort. However, if done right, there is no reason
the final result can't be as good or better than what the EU has
achieved thus far.

The key point is there is no point wasting time and energy worrying
about all the reasons we can't achieve the results the nation needs,
when it would be far more productive working out the best way to
actually go out and get them.

So, there are not enough negotiators? Work out how to fix the problem,
how to recruit experienced negotiators from the private sector - people
with years of experience of international negotiations. Start training
the brightest and the best selected from the ranks of the civil service.
Start making use of our remaining links to the commonwealth, and former
colonies. Behave like an entrepreneurial outward looking nation again.

Woah, that's not what lefty----s do.


NT

Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That isnt how all of the USA, Canada, India,
China, Taiwan, Korea, Bangladesh, Singapore,
etc etc etc trade under the WTO rules now.

There are trade agreements between most of these countries:

But not between those countrys and the
EU and they all trade with the EU fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_agreements.

If as you say the WTO rules are just as good,

I never ever said anything even remotely like that.

I JUST said that Britain is free to trade under the WTO
rules until it negotiates other trade agreements.

why do they go to the trouble (lots of
trouble) of negotiating trade deals?

Because that can result in a better arrangement than using
the WTO rules. That is what the EEC was always about.

Why is the EU negotiating with Canada?

For the same reason.

What is the point of the Asia-Pacific trade agreement?

For the same reason.

Or innumerable other trade deals?

For the same reason.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
John Rumm wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here.
That they reckon the entire world is queueing up to be
nice to the UK in any deals.

I don't think anyone is under any delusion that
it will not take significant time and effort.

Oddly, despite following all the arguments fairly closely, the
time it might take to sort this mess out was largely ignored.

There is no mess to sort out when Britain is free to trade
under the WTO rules like the absolute vast bulk of the
trade done by all of the USA, Canada, Taiwan, India,
China, Korea, Australia, etc etc etc is done fine right now.

Yes, a free trade agreement is better than that, but
that is much more likely to be done more quickly
by a Britain outside the EU than with the EU itself,
essentially because any country in the EU can veto
a specific in an agreement being negotiated with
the EU and that is why there are **** all of those
with the EU with countrys that matter economically.

I'd be willing to bet many who voted leave
thought it would be reasonably quick.

Irrelevant, most of them don’t even realise that
Britain will be free to trade under the WTO rules
and can in fact stop charging dutys and tariffs
on stuff imported into Britain overnight if it
wants to instead of charging what the EU requires.

Not a generation down the lines.

More of your flagrant dishonesty with all of British trade.

However, if done right, there is no reason the final result can't
be as good or better than what the EU has achieved thus far.

But that might depend on just how well
this country survives in the interim.

It will survive fine when it is free to not charge any duty or
tariff on what it imports that the EU currently mandates it
charges duty or tariffs on. Clearly the absolute vast bulk
of what Britain still exports like aircraft engines and
docos and drama will still be exported fine.

Yes, a few manufacturers who have chosen to manufacture in
Britain because it is part of the EU may well chose to move their
manufacturing to some other place in the EU once Britain leaves,
but there isnt enough of that to bring the British economy undone.

We won't know for some time just how many
industries etc will survive once outside the EU.

But we do know that the most important ones like aircraft engines
and Airbus wings and docos and drama in english will do fine.

And that plenty of other stuff like large chunks of the car
manufacturing industry and the absolute vast bulk of the
manufacture of most consumer goods has moved out of
Britain even with Britain in the EU for various reasons.

And that ALL manufacturing is only a very small
part of any modern first world economy as well.

The key point is there is no point wasting time and energy
worrying about all the reasons we can't achieve the results
the nation needs, when it would be far more productive
working out the best way to actually go out and get them.

Pity you didn't tell the politicians that years
ago - when the referendum was first envisaged.

They wouldn’t have listened. The referendum was only ever
proposed in an attempt to shut a minority of Torys who have
always wanted to leave the EU up when it was expected that
the result would be to stay in the EU. Cameron would never
have had a referendum if he believed that there was any
possibility of the result being that the majority who voted
would vote to leave.

So, there are not enough negotiators? Work out how to fix the
problem, how to recruit experienced negotiators from the private
sector - people with years of experience of international negotiations.

That might be fine if they existed.

Of course they exist.

Just what jobs were they doing before?

Working for the EU doing those trade negotiations.

Start training the brightest and the best selected from the
ranks of the civil service. Start making use of our remaining
links to the commonwealth, and former colonies. Behave
like an entrepreneurial outward looking nation again.

Heh heh. Will need quite a turnround to start training our own people
for the jobs which are actually needed. And anticipating things.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Something no UK government is much good at.

Does it just as well as any other govt does.

Making do and mend being more usual.

Just like with all governments. Look at what happened
after the war which produce the Marshall Plan, NATO
and the UN.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

Usually when we're short of skilled labour we hire it from abroad

That is simply not what a vast number voted out for. They want zero
immigration - not more.

ITYF that they want zero unskilled immigration

most people have no problem with skilled immigrants

tim