Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So you’re finally admitting that the EU not giving us a trade deal would be a detrimental punishment to us and itself in order to keep the other 27 in line?

No. I'm telling you that the 27 should expect no outside country to get a deal even approaching the benefits of membership.

 

There are two aspects:

1- leaving the EU. That was part 1 of the negotiation. The EU rightly expected clarity that we would meet our responsibilities when leaving.

2- as a third party, non-EU, country,  what trade deal will we have. We have to negotiate in the same way any other country would. It's nothing to do with punishment. If they have is the same deal as Canada, which would be terrible for our economy, because we're only prepared to accept Canada style responsibilities, that would appear to be absolutely reasonable. They expect us to negotiate market access in exactly the same way as any other country. We are the ones expecting special terms. You'd have to be living on a different planet to see this as a punishment.

 

You seem to be working under the illusion that the 27 aren't the EU.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Guest

[Guest Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

We're leaving the world's most powerful trading bloc, which due to its power gets the best deals around the world. We will not ever be able to match the deals it gets.

 

But yet it can't do a deal with China. Something managed by Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, even Georgia managed it and it took just 8 months. In fact of the 30 currently in force, the only ones with particularly notable economies are South Korea and Mexico (acknowledging Canada and Japan are to come probably). Of course, the EU also negotiates a FTA based on the interests of all 28 member states, which in fact often means it isn't negotiated in line with British interests. So a bloc that negotiates with conflicting national interests and struggles to conclude deals with top economies gets the best deals for Britain? I wonder why Switzerland isn't clambering to be part of the customs union. 

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s what I would’ve thought, the EU trade deal is the first one we are negotiating because right now it’s the only one we can negotiate. It surely strengthens our position even if it turns out to be empty threats. The timing couldn’t be better for us, although obviously we are part of the EU he is threatening to hit with tariffs.

 

As you say, we are currently part of the EU that will be hit by these tariffs - and we're negotiating a transition period. It seems unlikely that the EU would be happy for us to be implementing our own external trade deals during any transition period. So, it could be at least 2021 before we're able to negotiate any such deal. By then, Trump might no longer be President....not to mention that trade deals usually take years to negotiate.

 

Even assuming the unlikely, namely that a deal can be done quickly, I struggle to see how such a US-UK deal could benefit the UK under Trump. He's a nationalist/populist with protectionist tendencies. He's not likely to offer the UK a trade deal allowing our exporters to trade tariff-free with the US and undermine US manufacturers, surely? That would go against all he stands for and would undermine his own electoral base. I'm sure he'd be delighted to do a deal to allow US exporters to compete in UK markets on favourable terms....but is that what people voted Brexit for? To export UK jobs to the US?!  I appreciate that there'd be some give and take in any trade agreement, but the brutal facts are that the US is much more powerful than the UK economically and Trump is an "America First" President....we wouldn't get a generous deal.

 

I take your point that the EU will feel any loss of exports to the US (though, unlike the UK alone, they're big enough to retaliate). But so will the UK, at least until it has left the EU and signed a trade deal. So, for several years we'd be in the same boat.

That brings us back to the old chestnut of EU-UK trade: 45% of UK exports to EU, 53% of UK imports from EU; about 12% of EU trade with UK, almost 50% of UK trade with EU. I don't see that as a strong position for the UK to be effectively seeking to blackmail the EU into signing a generous FTA.....particularly as a generous UK deal would create major discontent among the EU27 and potentially threaten the existence of the whole bloc.....nothing is more important than that to the EU.

 

As for Trump, we know what a narcissist he is, so here's a proposal: let's melt down that golden carriage that the Queen uses to drive to Parliament so as to produce a golden sculpture of Trump with the Queen, with Trump grabbing her pussy.

We could site it in front of Buckingham Palace and name it "Brexit, Making Britain Great Again". 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

28 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So you’re finally admitting that the EU not giving us a trade deal would be a detrimental punishment to us and itself in order to keep the other 27 in line?

 

LCFC offers better prices and match availability to season ticket holders than to general sale buyers.

 

Do you think the club is exerting detrimental punishment on general sale buyers? Is it just keeping season ticket holders in line?

Or is it a reasonable expectation that if you make a serious, long-term commitment to a club, you'll get benefits unavailable to non-members?

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Surely if trump does go full retard and start slapping tariffs everywhere our offer of free trade (to a degree) will resonate a bit more loudly? Granted, we're not the biggest fish in the sea, but we aren't exactly a minnow are we. 

 

46 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s what I would’ve thought, the EU trade deal is the first one we are negotiating because right now it’s the only one we can negotiate. It surely strengthens our position even if it turns out to be empty threats. The timing couldn’t be better for us, although obviously we are part of the EU he is threatening to hit us with tariffs too.

 

As I understand it, free- trade is what Trump has an issue with because it leaves America vulnerable to cheap imports (like Chinese steel - hence the tariff) costing American jobs. If he was to negotiate such a deal with us, it would only be because it would benefit the US surely? Trump doesn't do mutual benefit - with him it's all about winners and losers - so how exactly do you see us benefitting from it? What do we have to offer them that they would want and can't produce for themselves?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Surely if trump does go full retard and start slapping tariffs everywhere our offer of free trade (to a degree) will resonate a bit more loudly? Granted, we're not the biggest fish in the sea, but we aren't exactly a minnow are we. 

1

That implies that he's not there already.

 

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

As I understand it, free- trade is what Trump has an issue with because it leaves America vulnerable to cheap imports (like Chinese steel - hence the tariff) costing American jobs. If he was to negotiate such a deal with us, it would only be because it would benefit the US surely? Trump doesn't do mutual benefit - with him it's all about winners and losers - so how exactly do you see us benefitting from it? What do we have to offer them that they would want and can't produce for themselves?

 

This is a point I've made on this discussion before - the UK team had better be prepared to walk away because the US will not be looking for any kind of mutually beneficial deal when they could bully for one that benefits them more.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

But yet it can't do a deal with China. Something managed by Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, even Georgia managed it and it took just 8 months. In fact of the 30 currently in force, the only ones with particularly notable economies are South Korea and Mexico (acknowledging Canada and Japan are to come probably). Of course, the EU also negotiates a FTA based on the interests of all 28 member states, which in fact often means it isn't negotiated in line with British interests. So a bloc that negotiates with conflicting national interests and struggles to conclude deals with top economies gets the best deals for Britain? I wonder why Switzerland isn't clambering to be part of the customs union. 

China are begging for an EU deal, it's the EU waiting for China to fall into line on a number of points that's holding it up.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

LCFC offers better prices and match availability to season ticket holders than to general sale buyers.

 

Do you think the club is exerting detrimental punishment on general sale buyers? Is it just keeping season ticket holders in line?

Or is it a reasonable expectation that if you make a serious, long-term commitment to a club, you'll get benefits unavailable to non-members?

It’s a bad example Alf because season ticket holders have no real benifit to non members being given preferential treatment nor does it effect them negatively if they punish them.

The EU is not a club, it’s a racket.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

China are begging for an EU deal, it's the EU waiting for China to fall into line on a bummer of pints that's holding it up.

 

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

As I understand it, free- trade is what Trump has an issue with because it leaves America vulnerable to cheap imports (like Chinese steel - hence the tariff) costing American jobs. If he was to negotiate such a deal with us, it would only be because it would benefit the US surely? Trump doesn't do mutual benefit - with him it's all about winners and losers - so how exactly do you see us benefitting from it? What do we have to offer them that they would want and can't produce for themselves?

As Alf pointed out by the time we’re in a position to negotiate a fta with the US, Trump will most likely be gone. His successor could be willing to rush a deal to announce America as a free trading nation again.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

China are begging for an EU deal, it's the EU waiting for China to fall into line on a bummer of pints that's holding it up.

We know it’s the EU holding up the deal/deals, that’s the point.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

As Alf pointed out by the time we’re in a position to negotiate a fta with the US, Trump will most likely be gone. His successor could be willing to rush a deal to announce America as a free trading nation again.

Having a chat with President Warren/Booker/Harris would probably be easier, yes.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

But yet it can't do a deal with China. Something managed by Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, even Georgia managed it and it took just 8 months. In fact of the 30 currently in force, the only ones with particularly notable economies are South Korea and Mexico (acknowledging Canada and Japan are to come probably). Of course, the EU also negotiates a FTA based on the interests of all 28 member states, which in fact often means it isn't negotiated in line with British interests. So a bloc that negotiates with conflicting national interests and struggles to conclude deals with top economies gets the best deals for Britain? I wonder why Switzerland isn't clambering to be part of the customs union. 

And on Switzerland, the cornerstone of EU-Swiss relations is the Free Trade Agreement of 1972.

As a consequence of the rejection of the EEAmembership in 1992, Switzerland and the EU agreed on a package of seven sectoral agreements signed in 1999 (known in Switzerland as "Bilaterals I"). These include: free movement of persons, technical trade barriers, public procurement, agriculture and air and land transport. In addition, a scientific research agreement fully associated Switzerland into the EU's framework research programmes.

A further set of sectoral agreements was signed in 2004 (known as "Bilaterals II"), covering, inter alia, Switzerland's participation in Schengen and Dublin, and agreements on taxation of savings, processed agricultural products, statistics, combating fraud, participation in the EU Media Programme and the Environment Agency.

In 2010 an agreement was signed on Swiss participation in EU education, professional training and youth programmes.

In overall, more than 100 bilateral agreements currently exist between the EU and Switzerland.

The on-going implementation of these agreements obliges Switzerland to take over relevant EU legislation in the covered sectors.

These bilateral agreements between the EU and Switzerland are currently managed through approximately 20 joint committees.

As a consequence of its partial integration in the EU's single market, Switzerland pays a financial contribution to economic and social cohesion in the new EU Member States.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

As Alf pointed out by the time we’re in a position to negotiate a fta with the US, Trump will most likely be gone. His successor could be willing to rush a deal to announce America as a free trading nation again.

 

A possibility, of course, but 'ifs, buts, and maybes' are not very sound reasons to base any hope on.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We know it’s the EU holding up the deal/deals, that’s the point.

 

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

As Alf pointed out by the time we’re in a position to negotiate a fta with the US, Trump will most likely be gone. His successor could be willing to rush a deal to announce America as a free trading nation again.

The WTO, the vast majority of economists (basically all the ones not on the Brexit payroll), our trading partners, business and industry are all telling you that we can't get the same quality of deals on our own. Your response isn't quantifiable: it's pure hope. It's ridiculous.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

As Alf pointed out by the time we’re in a position to negotiate a fta with the US, Trump will most likely be gone. His successor could be willing to rush a deal to announce America as a free trading nation again.

 

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

A possibility, of course, but 'ifs, buts, and maybes' are not very sound reasons to base any hope on.

'Could'.

 

It's like 'let's'. 

 

It means it won't happen.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

The WTO, the vast majority of economists (basically all the ones not on the Brexit payroll), our trading partners, business and industry are all telling you that we can't get the same quality of deals on our own. Your response isn't quantifiable: it's pure hope. It's ridiculous.

We don’t have a deal with them now .

[Alf Bentley]

Watched Theresa on Marr this morning. Blimey, if everything does go pear-shaped at UK plc and LCFC, she and Claude Puel could start doing recordings to help insomniacs.

 

Credit to her, though. Her speech on Friday did seem to keep both wings of her party onside (for now) and avoid alienating the EU. She also offered a bit more detail of her aims - though only a starting-point for negotiations.

I wonder if that might be enough to fend off the threat of the Soubry/Umunna amendment supporting a customs union, for now at least? The Remain/Soft Brexit crew might prefer to leave any confrontation until they see the EU reaction in negotiations.

It might only have delayed the potential confrontation and moment of truth.

 

I can sort of see how both Tory Hard Brexiteers and Tory Remainers/Soft Brexiteers could be quite accepting of May's speech - but think the Brexiteers have more to be pleased with long-term.

Granted, there's a lot she said that would be anathema to Brexiteers: cleaving close to EU regulations in some areas, continued role for ECJ in some sectors, no financial passporting etc.

But the Hard Brexiteers already have a lot that they want: no single market or customs union. Plus, firstly, May's commitment to stay close to EU standards/regulations in many fields only binds her, not any successors. This tallies with Gove's speech a couple of months ago (to which far too little attention has been paid), saying that Hard Brexiteers might have to accept compromises in the short-term and then vote in govts to introduce greater divergence over a few years.

 

It's also potentially a win-win scenario for the Hard Brexit crew. In the unlikely event that the EU accepts most of May's proposals, they have the Gove option. If, as is more likely, the EU refuses to accept divergence in some fields but not in others, then they'd end up with greater regulatory divergence anyway - even if firms and the nation has to pay a heavy price for that.

 

One area where May might be onto a (short-term) winner is financial services. The EU economy is heavily reliant on UK financial services and won't want a sudden disruption in that sector so maybe they'll be open to May's ideas of parallel regulation? No doubt some firms and jobs would move, but most would presumably stay put in the short-term....but might drift to other EU nations over a number of years, once firms were able to set up systems abroad, acquire staff expertise on the continent etc.

I could imagine this happening a few sectors. I don't imagine that car makers would immediately close down plants due to a Hard Brexit. They have too much invested in facilities, machinery, staff etc. I'd expect any departure to be more gradual - new lines or models being built abroad, plants on the continent gradually being built up and plants in the UK gradually run down.

 

On the Irish border, we still don't have any solution that avoids border controls. The best that May's suggestions seem to offer is limited border controls: 80% of small traders wouldn't be checked at all, trusted trader schemes to limit checks on bigger firms, limited checks at border. That would still entail some risk of inciting dissident Republicans - any border posts, however limited, would have a symbolic status like a red rag to a bull for a minority. Maybe we'd get away with that risk, though - and maybe it's a risk that the EU would be prepared to take (though maybe not). Purely as regards trade, though, I do wonder if different standards are being applied to N. Ireland and England. Would we be happy to allow 80% of French traders unchecked entry via Dover, with only limited checks on big traders? It seems inevitable that there would be significant divergence between UK and Irish/EU standards/regulations over a few years, whatever May says, so while a "light touch" border might alleviate the risk of violence, it could also constitute an invitation to smuggling and the undermining of trading standards on one or other side of the border. With the UK increasingly dependent on cutting standards to win external trade deals, that could become a big problem.

 

I can see Soubry & co delaying their challenge - but only until the likely outcome of EU/UK negotiations becomes a bit clearer....and when the mist clears, I reckon the EU won't be accepting most of May's ideas, so unless she backtracks (alienating) the Hard Brexiteers, then we'd be looking at a very Hard Brexit with significant tariff/non-tariff barriers - and a delayed rebellion by Tory Soft Brexiteers/Remainers. 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Watched Theresa on Marr this morning. Blimey, if everything does go pear-shaped at UK plc and LCFC, she and Claude Puel could start doing recordings to help insomniacs.

 

Credit to her, though. Her speech on Friday did seem to keep both wings of her party onside (for now) and avoid alienating the EU. She also offered a bit more detail of her aims - though only a starting-point for negotiations.

I wonder if that might be enough to fend off the threat of the Soubry/Umunna amendment supporting a customs union, for now at least? The Remain/Soft Brexit crew might prefer to leave any confrontation until they see the EU reaction in negotiations.

It might only have delayed the potential confrontation and moment of truth.

 

I can sort of see how both Tory Hard Brexiteers and Tory Remainers/Soft Brexiteers could be quite accepting of May's speech - but think the Brexiteers have more to be pleased with long-term.

Granted, there's a lot she said that would be anathema to Brexiteers: cleaving close to EU regulations in some areas, continued role for ECJ in some sectors, no financial passporting etc.

But the Hard Brexiteers already have a lot that they want: no single market or customs union. Plus, firstly, May's commitment to stay close to EU standards/regulations in many fields only binds her, not any successors. This tallies with Gove's speech a couple of months ago (to which far too little attention has been paid), saying that Hard Brexiteers might have to accept compromises in the short-term and then vote in govts to introduce greater divergence over a few years.

 

It's also potentially a win-win scenario for the Hard Brexit crew. In the unlikely event that the EU accepts most of May's proposals, they have the Gove option. If, as is more likely, the EU refuses to accept divergence in some fields but not in others, then they'd end up with greater regulatory divergence anyway - even if firms and the nation has to pay a heavy price for that.

 

One area where May might be onto a (short-term) winner is financial services. The EU economy is heavily reliant on UK financial services and won't want a sudden disruption in that sector so maybe they'll be open to May's ideas of parallel regulation? No doubt some firms and jobs would move, but most would presumably stay put in the short-term....but might drift to other EU nations over a number of years, once firms were able to set up systems abroad, acquire staff expertise on the continent etc.

I could imagine this happening a few sectors. I don't imagine that car makers would immediately close down plants due to a Hard Brexit. They have too much invested in facilities, machinery, staff etc. I'd expect any departure to be more gradual - new lines or models being built abroad, plants on the continent gradually being built up and plants in the UK gradually run down.

 

On the Irish border, we still don't have any solution that avoids border controls. The best that May's suggestions seem to offer is limited border controls: 80% of small traders wouldn't be checked at all, trusted trader schemes to limit checks on bigger firms, limited checks at border. That would still entail some risk of inciting dissident Republicans - any border posts, however limited, would have a symbolic status like a red rag to a bull for a minority. Maybe we'd get away with that risk, though - and maybe it's a risk that the EU would be prepared to take (though maybe not). Purely as regards trade, though, I do wonder if different standards are being applied to N. Ireland and England. Would we be happy to allow 80% of French traders unchecked entry via Dover, with only limited checks on big traders? It seems inevitable that there would be significant divergence between UK and Irish/EU standards/regulations over a few years, whatever May says, so while a "light touch" border might alleviate the risk of violence, it could also constitute an invitation to smuggling and the undermining of trading standards on one or other side of the border. With the UK increasingly dependent on cutting standards to win external trade deals, that could become a big problem.

 

I can see Soubry & co delaying their challenge - but only until the likely outcome of EU/UK negotiations becomes a bit clearer....and when the mist clears, I reckon the EU won't be accepting most of May's ideas, so unless she backtracks (alienating) the Hard Brexiteers, then we'd be looking at a very Hard Brexit with significant tariff/non-tariff barriers - and a delayed rebellion by Tory Soft Brexiteers/Remainers. 

That's what I think. It will delay the rebellion until it becomes clear the EU aren't playing ball with the have cake and eaters. If the rebels vote with labour to force a customs union at that point I'd suggest we'd be into a change of PM and general election territory.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Guest

[Innovindil]

41 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

As I understand it, free- trade is what Trump has an issue with because it leaves America vulnerable to cheap imports (like Chinese steel - hence the tariff) costing American jobs. If he was to negotiate such a deal with us, it would only be because it would benefit the US surely? Trump doesn't do mutual benefit - with him it's all about winners and losers - so how exactly do you see us benefitting from it? What do we have to offer them that they would want and can't produce for themselves?

I'm not talking about a free trade deal with the US, I'm talking about our negotiations with the eu. If they start suffering job losses due to US tariffs, can they continue to play hardball over a deal with us, over essentially the few concessions we want? 

 

Let's be honest, we aren't asking for a lot, overall I think we're being pretty fair. These eu rules might be all set in stone, but I'd expect them to be negotiable if shit hits the fan and prosperity is on the line. 

[Alf Bentley]

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s a bad example Alf because season ticket holders have no real benifit to non members being given preferential treatment nor does it effect them negatively if they punish them.

The EU is not a club, it’s a racket.

 

I disagree. If season ticket holders got no ticket priority or price differential over general sale buyers, there'd be serious discontent and/or a significant number of season ticket holders not renewing.

Similarly, the EU knows that if it allows the UK a great deal for a much lower level of commitment, it will be inviting discontent among its members, who have a reasonable expectation of club benefits.

 

Anyone is entitled to view the EU or LCFC as a racket. They can choose to have nothing to do with them - or to limit their commitment to a few areas where they do perceive benefits.

But if they opt out of the whole package, they can expect to pay more and get more restrictive terms for the benefits that they do want.

 

Someone is perfectly entitled to view an LCFC season ticket as a rip-off and to opt out. But they can then expect to have poorer access to tickets and to pay higher prices if they want to attend LCFC v MUFC.

That's not punishment, it's a fair and free choice.

[Buce]

Brexit: Dublin casts doubt on UK's latest NI border plan

 

The EU is unlikely to accept the UK's latest proposal for avoiding a "hard border" on the island of Ireland after Brexit, the Irish government has said.

Theresa May has said 80% of firms would face no new customs checks between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and others would be simplified.

But Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said he was not sure it would adequately protect the EU's market.

The proposal, he said, was a "starting point" for talks not a solution.

The British prime minister has ruled out the return of physical infrastructure on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic after the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019, insisting that this commitment was "absolutely clear".

But Dublin and Brussels remain to be convinced that this can be avoided after the UK leaves the EU's customs union, unless Northern Ireland continues to abides by its rules and those of the single market.

• May urges EU to embrace 'ambitious' Brexit
• Reality Check: What does the EU Brexit draft reveal?
• Johnson says NI border row being exploited

The "backstop" option agreed by the two sides in December is for Northern Ireland to remain fully aligned with the rules of the customs union - which eliminates tariffs between its members - and the single market, in areas of existing North-South co-operation.

This is unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party, on which Theresa May relies on for votes in the House of Commons, and to many Conservatives MPs who say it would create a new border in the Irish Sea and amount to Northern Ireland being "annexed".

'British mistake'

But Mr Coveney told the BBC's Andrew Marr show this remained the default outcome unless both sides could agree other workable solutions to keep goods and people crossing over a "largely invisible" border.

"Our responsibility is to work positively with Britain to explore solutions but if we can't agree solutions then what we have, of course, is the backstop which is a commitment by the British government to maintain full alignment with the rules of customs union and the single market," he said.

Asked about Theresa May's proposal, in a major speech on Friday, to waive customs checks for 80% of firms doing business across the border, he said it could not be taken for granted.

 

"This is the mistake that is made in Britain all the time," he said.

"When someone definitively says something will be the case from the British government, people assume that is the negotiated outcome. Of course it is not.

"I am not sure the EU will be able to support a situation whereby 80% of companies that trade north-south and south-north will actually protect the integrity of the EU single market," he said.

"While of course we will explore and look at all the proposed British solutions, they are essentially a starting point in negotiations not an end point." he said.

Mr Coveney said Dublin wanted to avoid a hard border with Northern Ireland as much as London did.

But he insisted that for a single market to function "if goods move from one customs union to another there needs to be some checks" unless some mechanism was negotiated to prevent them.

 

In Friday's speech, Mrs May said the vast majority of north-south trade was carried out by small and medium-sized business whose economic contribution was not "systemically significant" to the EU market but which would be most affected by custom checks and other red tape.

"We would allow them to continue to operate as they do currently, with no new restrictions," she said.

The DUP said the "sensible" idea should be the basis for negotiations currently going on in Brussels.

Speaking on Sunday, Mrs May said she was pleased that Irish PM Leo Varadkar agreed to sit down alongside the European Commission and UK to look at her proposals in more detail.

"We've got proposals as to how we're going to achieve that, now we're going to be able to sit down and talk with others about how we're going to do that," she told Andrew Marr.

But Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who wants the whole of the UK to remain in the customs union, said the PM was relying on "technological solutions that perhaps do not even exist".

"One of the most shameful features of the whole Brexit process has been the negligent way that the interests of Ireland have just been cast aside," she told ITV's Peston on Sunday.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

I'm not talking about a free trade deal with the US, I'm talking about our negotiations with the eu. If they start suffering job losses due to US tariffs, can they continue to play hardball over a deal with us, over essentially the few concessions we want? 

 

Let's be honest, we aren't asking for a lot, overall I think we're being pretty fair. These eu rules might be all set in stone, but I'd expect them to be negotiable if shit hits the fan and prosperity is on the line. 

If they backslide with us it becomes harder for them to stick to a position with anyone. They won't want to gain from the UK but lose out worldwide. I'd expect them to double down as loosening their rules would be a huge risk for them.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I disagree. If season ticket holders got no ticket priority or price differential over general sale buyers, there'd be serious discontent and/or a significant number of season ticket holders not renewing.

Similarly, the EU knows that if it allows the UK a great deal for a much lower level of commitment, it will be inviting discontent among its members, who have a reasonable expectation of club benefits.

 

Anyone is entitled to view the EU or LCFC as a racket. They can choose to have nothing to do with them - or to limit their commitment to a few areas where they do perceive benefits.

But if they opt out of the whole package, they can expect to pay more and get more restrictive terms for the benefits that they do want.

 

Someone is perfectly entitled to view an LCFC season ticket as a rip-off and to opt out. But they can then expect to have poorer access to tickets and to pay higher prices if they want to attend LCFC v MUFC.

That's not punishment, it's a fair and free choice.

But how does non season ticket holders having to pay high prices negatively affect season ticket holders. As with EU members now having tariffs on imports and exports with us? For instance we are the Holland’s second biggest trading partner, Ireland’s biggest. They lose out too, how does that compare in your example?

[Rogstanley]

Employers planning to discipline staff who couldn’t make it to work after being told by the government not to travel.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43272396

 

Capitalism  

I hope they fight and win up there, can imagine down here we’ll probably just accept the discipline. Some would probably enjoy it.