deleted
Our biggest trading partner is the USA.
The biggest single market the EU trades with (outside of the EU) is the UK.
I’m surprised after all this time, you still don’t understand these things.
It’s all going to kick off in the EU in a few weeks. Like Ireland and the Netherlands, Macron will instruct its farmers to start culling their cattle herds in the name of net zero.
The French farmers will push back on this like you have never seen, the people even more. As the rest of the member states look on at the sheer stupidity of Macron and the WEFs net zero con, it could well be over for the EU. It will definately be over for the WEF and net zero though.
Look what happened in the Netherlands
1 Like
Think you need to go to Specsavers.
You haven’t seen me complaining.
Ah would you look at that…
Bread I agree with Kemi regarding the EU regulations and this is what I thought would happen anyway, not trying to change your mind as you’re entitled to what you think, just pointing this article out to you and anybody else who might be interested:
Leaving the EU should never have been regarded as an opportunity for a “bonfire”, she argued, for it is better to “reform” laws than tear them up. “I am not an arsonist. I am a conservative.”
3 Likes
The global economy has begun to improve, but the recovery will be weak, according to the OECD’s latest Economic Outlook. The Economic Outlook projects a moderation of global GDP growth from 3.3% in 2022 to 2.7% in 2023, followed by a pick-up to 2.9% in 2024.
Lower energy prices are easing the strain on household budgets, business and consumer sentiment are recovering, a
West Ham won Europa Conference League… despite Brexit
1 Like
I was hoping for “+0%” instead of “-0%” for Germany. 
This is what happens when you shaft growth by hiking up taxes borrowing.
Hi
There was no simple reason why people voted to leave.
For me, it was no further integration, our Politicians just let Merkel andCO run us over.
So for me, we have already had the major Benefit.
Financial Benefits?
Well those promised have simply not happenned and unless our Politicians get their act together they never will.
We have the highest inflation of the major economies and a government at war with itself.
1 Like
Hope this helps Wendy … Kemi has changed her mind, she was favouring the bonfire of regulations. There is no point keeping EU regulations that hinder our trade with other countries. The reason this is all being spun as “reforming” and “having a really hard think about it” etc is because our fckwit government just realised they signed us up to a non-competition (or “level playing field”) order in the TCA which prevents us from having any competitive advantage over the EU.
Here are the clauses that are relevant (highlighted). Note, the “level playing field” are single market rules and that there is a tie-in clause on net-zero.
This is why there has been such a u-turn on burning EU regulations - we can’t because of these clauses as under the TCA we cannot diverge.
Article 1.1: Principles and objectives
-
The Parties recognise that trade and investment between the Union and the United Kingdom under the terms set out in this Agreement require conditions that ensure a level playing field for open and fair competition between the Parties and that ensure that trade and investment take place in a manner conducive to sustainable development.
-
The Parties recognise that sustainable development encompasses economic development, social development and environmental protection, all three being interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and affirm their commitment to promote the development of international trade and investment in a way that contributes to the objective of sustainable development.
-
Each Party reaffirms its ambition of achieving economy-wide climate neutrality by 2050.
-
The Parties affirm their common understanding that their economic relationship can only
deliver benefits in a mutually satisfactory way if the commitments relating to a level playing field for open and fair competition stand the test of time, by preventing distortions of trade or investment, and by contributing to sustainable development. However the Parties recognise that the purpose of this Title is not to harmonise the standards of the Parties. The Parties are determined to maintain and improve their respective high standards in the areas covered by this Title.
This document has been agreed between the European Union and the United Kingdom and is provided for information only. No rights may be derived from it until the date of application. The numbering of the articles is provisional.
Article 1.2: Right to regulate, precautionary approach and scientific and technical information
-
The Parties affirm the right of each Party to set its policies and priorities in the areas covered by this Title, to determine the levels of protection it deems appropriate and to adopt or modify its law and policies in a manner consistent with each Party’s international commitments, including its commitments under this Title.
-
The Parties acknowledge that, in accordance with the precautionary approach, where there are reasonable grounds for concern that there are potential threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or human health, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for preventing a Party from adopting appropriate measures to prevent such damage.
-
When preparing or implementing measures aimed at protecting the environment or labour conditions that may affect trade or investment, each Party shall take into account relevant, available scientific and technical information, international standards, guidelines and recommendations.
Article 1.3 Dispute settlement
Title I [Dispute settlement] of Part Six [Dispute settlement and horizontal provisions] does not apply to this Chapter, except for Article 1.2(2) [Right to regulate, precautionary approach and scientific and technical information]. Articles 9.1 [Consultations] and 9.2 [Panel of experts] apply to Article 1.1(3) [Principles and objectives].
Chapter two: Competition Policy
Article 2.1: Principles and definitions
-
The Parties recognise the importance of free and undistorted competition in their trade and investment relations. The Parties acknowledge that anticompetitive business practices may distort the proper functioning of markets and undermine the benefits of trade liberalisation.
-
For the purposes of this Chapter, an “economic actor” means an entity or a group of entities constituting a single economic entity, regardless of its legal status, that is engaged in an economic activity by offering goods or services on a market.
Article 2.2: Competition law
-
In recognition of the principles set out in Article 2.1 [Principles and definitions], each Party shall maintain a competition law which effectively addresses the following anticompetitive business practices:
-
a) agreements between economic actors, decisions by associations of economic actors and concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition;
-
b) abuse by one or more economic actors of a dominant position; and
52 For greater certainty, in relation to the implementation of this Agreement in the territory of the Union, the precautionary approach refers to the precautionary principle (this is the bit of having to do something even though there is insufficient scientific evidence).
This document has been agreed between the European Union and the United Kingdom and is provided for information only. No rights may be derived from it until the date of application. The numbering of the articles is provisional.
c) for the United Kingdom, mergers or acquisitions and, for the Union, concentrations, between economic actors which may have significant anticompetitive effects.
-
The competition law referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply to all economic actors irrespective of their nationality or ownership status.
-
Each Party may provide for exemptions from its competition law in pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives, provided that those exemptions are transparent and are proportionate to those objectives. Article 1.1: Principles and objectives
-
The Parties recognise that trade and investment between the Union and the United Kingdom under the terms set out in this Agreement require conditions that ensure a level playing field for open and fair competition between the Parties and that ensure that trade and investment take place in a manner conducive to sustainable development.
-
The Parties recognise that sustainable development encompasses economic development, social development and environmental protection, all three being interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and affirm their commitment to promote the development of international trade and investment in a way that contributes to the objective of sustainable development.
3. Each Party reaffirms its ambition of achieving economy-wide climate neutrality by 2050.
- The Parties affirm their common understanding that their economic relationship can only
deliver benefits in a mutually satisfactory way if the commitments relating to a level playing field for open and fair competition stand the test of time, by preventing distortions of trade or investment, and by contributing to sustainable development. However the Parties recognise that the purpose of this Title is not to harmonise the standards of the Parties. The Parties are determined to maintain and improve their respective high standards in the areas covered by this Title.
Bread thanks for that as I’ve said before I’d need to see a debate on it to make my mind up. It sounds like the sort of thing Richard Tice comes out with and I’ve given up listening to him as don’t trust him one little bit and I’m afraid I’m the same with Nigel now too. That’s not saying that I believe what you’re saying isn’t correct it just means I need both sides of a story to make my mind up.
1 Like
You’ll be waiting a long time for a debate on this. The only thing you will hear is the propaganda around Brexit being a failure, where in reality its the government and civil service that are a failure because they didn’t deliver Brexit in the first place, they cut off part of the UK and handed it over to the EU and tied us into the single market to stop us breaking free from the EU rule book.
I guess that a bit more than one year of patience is needed until the TCA is to be evaluated again by the UK and the EU. It could be cancelled then could it not?
You suggested to cancel the TCA and go for trade under WTO rules earlier IIRC. Would you prefer to also cancel the WTO rules in order to be completely free (of all other nations)?
Just out of curiosity: as I newer hear or read anything about a movement to go for WTO rules, who here would prefer to (cancel the TCA and) trade on WTO rules or even without those?
Thank you all in advance.
As I noted before, as Brexit continues to fail the UK the fans of Brexit start blaming the people who set up the Brexit we have. They are trying to claim that it’s not that Brexit is bad, it is that ministers & civil servants did it wrong. They can’t possibly blame Brexit. And what they want is an even harder Brexit, without realising that the Brexit we already have is quite hard (compared to all options available and promises made back in 2016). But aiming for a harder Brexit is like continuing to dig a hole when everyone is shouting that you put the spade down.
But then those who advocate such damaging nonsense also think:
“Our biggest trading partner is the USA.” (In fact the UK export $375 billion to the EU and only $190 billion to the US. So these folk are not good with numbers.)
2 Likes
Hi
The Referendum was six years ago.
Both sides got their predictions wrong.
Remain held project fear, this did not happen, we did not have an economic collapse with mass redundances.
Brexiteers, well it turned out that the EU did not need us more than we needed them.
It was not the easiest FTA ever, the EU did not budge.
They drove a very hard bargain for a very basic FTA which lumped a load of extra costs on the UK.
They also applied the new rules very quickly, we still have not yet started to apply most them on imports from the EU.
We have given the EU a competitive advantage over our agricultural producers.
We still have not built all the inspection facilities we need to implement them and even those which have been built are lying empty because our Government has not yet allocated funds to staff them.
The world has also changed, globalisation is now out of fashion, protect your own industries and shorten the supply chain is the mantra now.
Boris signed his oven ready deal, the EU are very happy that he did.
The rest is, as they say, history.
The end of Globalization was not however the fault of Brexit, that was the pandemic which nobody saw coming.
The war in the Ukraine has resulted in less Free Trade and a whole raft od sanctions.
Just my personal view.
3 Likes
Answers above in bold
We trade mostly in services, add those to your figures.
As for the rest of your post, all those points have been previously answered.