I may sound surreal, but to me a trade agreement, by its name, is about trading.


Nothing more.


We offer you some of what we produce, and you can offer us some of what you produce. If our people at home like what byou offer, they will buy it, and vice versa. If they do not likie it, they will not buy it, and vice versa. The yearly ammount of how much is to be offered, we can have a mutally agreed limit on, to have a dynamic baölance in import-export balances. We can also have a mutually agreed tax or free-of-tax regime.


Thats what a trade agreement is about to me. Obviously not for the EU. It has always demaqnded so very much more, and linked it to a thousand things that have nothing to do with trade.


A European free trade zone. A combined military effort for collectively defend the members and their international shipping lines. Cooperation in fighting crime, maybe military intel gathering and counter-terror. Thats what the EU should be limited to, and strictly so.



On the other side of the planet, the biggest free market zone on this globe has just been created. And it will teach us lessons. It focusses on bartering goods, and doe snto aim at wanting to be more than that: a low or no tax market. And very different govenrment styles and reigmes and nations can cooperate inside that framework without needing to collide head on over their differences.



And how they will teach us!

What exactly DOES the EU demand?
I have not heard about or seen details of those negotiations, only propaganda vids :hmmm:

Maybe Johnson should have an exchange with Biden?

The EU demands compliance with standards in production, warranty, consumer safety and so on. And rightly so! Whats wrong with environmental standards, avoidance of hazardous materials, prohibition of child labour, limit the power consumption of certain products? Whats wrong with electrical safety, toys that do not poison your children, groceries that are controlled for herbicide residues? Absolutely nothing.

We have enough dirty sh!t coming into the EU from Asia (Yes almost the whole oh so terrific free trading zone.) We don't need any more of that.

It is really annoying and sad to see how little is known about what the EU does and tries by the loudest critics.

^ But, you see, Rees-Mogg will not like this :03:

You are right imho, what i meant is that it does not seem to be the fishery, but another thing that stalls the talks. And the only "big fish" left is the Ireland problem. I cannot imagine how they want to solve that.

I'm struggling to see any deal now so it might be a good idea for Boris to build a few extra naval flotillas :O:

Ah, Rees-Mogg! I almost had forgotten he is still around. :hmph:

Maybe the negotiations have reached a stage where any concession is interpreted as losing one's face. Even if a deal means mutual benefit, it could never compensate for a few tons of cod in a European net. Ridiculous. Johnson is blocking anything that feels like less sovereignty, that much is clear.

And the NI problem? A border in the Irish Sea is the only possible solution. That way Ulster could become the most prospering part of the UK.

I wonder how many people know, without looking it up, that EU states per year export more to the UK than to China or the US. The UK is the modt important single export destination for the EU .


And how translates this for Germany...? Eh...?


Ist doch egal - wir hams ja!!

^ Yes, it is also bad for Germany, or the other 26 EU nations, but it is worse for the UK.
You cannot force anyone to trade or improve relations against their will.
They want to go back in time, you have to let them. Even if the EU fails sooner or later, or can be exchanged with something better - England's reason to leave has nothing to do with it.
Farage or LePen, primitive populism ist getting strong everywhere.They say the EU did not deliver, but little do they know or care. Nationalism, populism and a hate towards foreigners barely disguised as patriotism.
A lot of projects, restorations, improvements will now stop, it will only be felt in 5-10 years from now alright.
In my not at all "humble" opinion it was not the majority who wanted brexit, nor was it even a real referendum. They could have ignored it, or make a real offical referendum, a majority 50 to 50 is not a significant outcome for such a decision.
A lot of young people were too lazy to vote and now the 56+ aged decided the outcome for the younger. And the latter will now have to live through the mess, when the deciders of their fate are gone.
You can read it everwhere on the net, in forums, the younger majority in the UK never wanted this. Even the older farmers in the UK are now doubting the benefits.
Boris Johnson will not be PM for very much longer, regardless deal or no deal.

B.t.w. Rees-Mogg has moved his business to the southern part of Ireland.

Tell that Brussels. The EU has wanted - always - much more than is being covered by the term "trade". It wanst the UK to play by EU rules. Obviously the EU ignores to understand the meaning of the term "Brexit". And it does intentionally so.


And those who did not vote in the referendum, or believed the wrong politicians - a voter or non-voter is liable for his decision. He shoulkd be held accountable for it. As we know it is common habit in the EU that referendums get repeated as often as needed until one gets the outcome politicians demand. But that does not mean that it is anything more than just the destruction of the meaning of holding majority votes.

Yes indeed the EU wants its members to play fair and have certain values, or as Skidman wrote.

"The EU demands compliance with standards in production, warranty, consumer safety and so on. And rightly so! Whats wrong with environmental standards, avoidance of hazardous materials, prohibition of child labour, limit the power consumption of certain products? Whats wrong with electrical safety, toys that do not poison your children, groceries that are controlled for herbicide residues? Absolutely nothing."

Of course this could hinder total exploitation, and one can see how Rees-Mogg must hate those newish socialist ideas. Maybe workers could even get some kind medical health insurance, god forbid.


The real point is that England (not the UK, the rest sans Wales prefers to stay in the EU) wants the same common market access and tarriff-free trade after brexit like any EU member, and as it was rightly said four years ago "you cannot have your cake and eat it".

Try harder to understand that the UK is no member anymore and thus is free to reject dresscode and houserules mandatory inside the clubhouse.


A trade agreement is not about a thousand things non-related to trade.
In Asia they have understood this. The EU does not want to understand this, it demands non-member UK to still play by EU house rules and accept EU interference. But that they do not want to obey these rules anymore is the reason why the UK brexited. Whether you like the EUs motives or not, does not matter - the EU claims and demands go too far since they are directed at a sovereign state AND NON-MEMBER.


Both sides should agree on a certain volume for barterings goods per year, and for heavens sake leave it to that, in principle.

But England does not want any restrictions or a pre-planned "volume for bartering goods"! Bartering? What should his be, like a communist 4-years plan of "free" trade?
They want full access to the single[SIC!] market without having to provide any transparency and sustainability of the underlying production, longevity, no guarantee base for equipment and goods.
They want to receive all the club's advantages and privileges and ease of trade without "paying" for membership?
You cannot visit "your" club in London when you do not accept the club's dresscode and other rules.
It is not your club anymore.

The EU has been formed to EASE trade, and this is being done by STANDARDS, accepted by all MEMBERS.
A non-member has no obligation to follow any security- or whatever standard - it can say it meets all but who shall prove this - England alone? No one will pay for testing when he can have safe guaranteed standards everywhere else.
The Morgan car company has all my sympathy and admiration, as has manufacture and hand-built articles from England and everywhere else, but do you build a nation's economy on that alone in post 2020?

You cannot compare goods when the properties of said trade goods are not known or when the qualities differ too much, when the connections do not fit, when the composition of the chemicals or other materials has to be checked and double checked by other countries to prevent a right royal cluster-f...
This all has been done for transparency and comparison and ease of trade.
Chlorinated chicken anyone? When it comes to this burning skyscraper the standard was obviously off and the company got away once more.

No country with a clear mind would want to install questionable non- (read sub-) standard electrical lines, plumbing or safety-relevant structures of any kind, not only because of love of its people but for insurance reasons.
Of course, dumping loans and a hire-and fire culture will probably bring the price on english goods down (good luck to the workers), but so will quality.
And then there is the EU AND the China trade block to compete with. And the US, of course.


Regarding dress code i sincerely hope Dominic Cummings did not set a new standard :D

You see, these ^ are the reasons why I said from all beginning on to do Brexit real: without any of these negotiated compromises. I never said anythign else, since only this is really a Brexit. Of course the UK should not have membership priviliges while dodging club rules. But of course the eU also shoudl nto demand to mdinster internal affairs of the UK.

Brexit should mean: Britain exits from the club, and then beign treated like any other foreign outsider, bartering goods for goods (I use that term to simplify what I am about when I say "trade agreement": trading, bartering goods that are in demand on the other side, in the end money-based trading is just bartering again). That includes no other poltical fields and demands. Trading is trading.

The Asian formed their biggest free trade zone pretty much on this premisse, and that is why so widely differing potlical system came togther in that scheme: becasue they focus not on wanting to be all the same and educating the other, but they focus on trading. Not so with the EU, it ants to be, likeRockstr reminds us often, a superstate, taking over evertyhin from national govenrments and parliaments, in pricnpel we can stop to have natipnal elecitosn and parliaments anymore. We are not yet there, but that si where the eU wants to go. And I strictly oppose this new form of a sovjet union. Becasue that is what it is: a sovjet union. Politicians fail us, all the time. The lagrer their playgorudn, the more devastating the consequence sof their falures. Therefore, we must not increase the stage they rampage on, but we must limit it to as small a field as possible, that way reducing the damages and consequences they cause. They atc as if thex can know evertyhign and plan evertyhign ahead. I see misplanning in the most, and a cinstant fall coming from that. The money system. The social and cultural desintegration of communties. The waste of ressoruces for a misled strategy to deal with warming climate. The replacing of diverse cultural identities with an artifical laborotary-ID . The weka stand of the European states on the global stage. The discrepancy between big paroles and demands, and real military power. In Germany especially the misconception of energy pltlics, namely abandong nuclear power while all others build it new. The unnecessary mismanagement of Covid in Germany since spring. The irresponsible waste of moeny on non.maitainable projects.

The lst could be deepened in more detail, endlessly it seems. The reach of politicians must not be extended. It must be cut down and kept as tight as possible.

Britain should not keep emmbership priviliges. But it also shoudl ntobe punsihed for leaving and treated worse than other foreign trade partners. But that is what the eU demands. They call it "due to close geographic vicinity the UK must obey". What drivel.

I do not agree with the conclousi0ns of the author of this, but he does a good job in describing the role of difefrent cultural legacy and philosophy over the course of history that differs the UK form the continent. There are fundamental thinking and worldview differences betwene the anglosaxon and the continetla Eurppean world. Its worth to be aware of these. I always felt very attracted by the anglosaxon side. The contient always has been more totalitarian-oriented, socialist if one want sto name it this way, and the Germany are no expection there, but maybe even the texbook example. I see them being much closer to the Slavic than to th Anglosaxon culture.

https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/ist-de...ode-ld.1578308

Google'S Translator:

https://translate.google.com/transla...ode-ld.1578308

That is precisely what I object to, the unfair treatment.

The EU and Europe before it have short memories and are damaging their own image before the eyes of the world.

Macron is going to be in big trouble back home when the French fishermen find their livelihoods jeapordized and that is only one small example.

Merkel on the other hand has been far more cautious and reasonable, realising the impact on German car exports will be hit hard.

All the major players (UK included) are going to suffer as a consequence and the vast majority of of EU members who are net receivers will see little difference in the impact on themselves.

Anyone for Italy going next?