Double Standards

[Workingman]

This patently is what you have not been saying over the months.

You have been using 'free movement of people' as an umbrella term and then using the version applicable to member states of the EU, its single market and customs union, as though it is the only one available and the one everyone operates under. If you look at WTO Mode 4 you will see that WTO workers are allowed to travel within the EU to carry out their work in the job they are doing. They have no rights over cxitizenship, no residency rights, no right to move job without reapplying for a work visa. When it comes to social benefits - schooling, healthcare, out-of-work benefits etc. they are negotiated on a bilateral basis. BoJo was talking of free movement for an unknown number of EU citizens for an unspecified amount of time under the rules we have today within the EU.

You are also confusing membership of the EU, and its operations, with third party free trade deals between the EU and other countries. Not one of those free trade deals offers the third county anything like full access to EU institutions its single market or its customs union, they are just that: bilateral trade deals. The EU is not lying when it says that a full Brexit will require a new trade deal, and for it to be *comprehensive* (access all areas) that new deal will require free movement (EU version) otherwise it will be a bog standard deal. The EU has been consistent on this from day one, but if we want to bury our heads in the sand that is our problem.

And if anyone thinks that the EU only has 27 free trade agreements go look somewhere else. Google could be your friend, but please stay away from Leave propaganda sites. The truth is out there.

[Suff]

I most certainly have been saying for months that the EU are saying that the only way we can have a free trade deal is to accept EU levels of movement.

That is patently and totally a lie.

[medsec222]

I think we have to look at leaving the EU in the context of what it is. They won't miss us but they will certainly miss our contribution.

[Suff]

Just to add, the link I posted, underneath the comment, came from the EFTA. The European Free Trade Area website. In each "agreement", they even have the full text of the agreement in the tables.

Personally I did believe that they know what they are talking about but I am willing to learn they don't.

They even have a map.

I notice that there the "FTA;s" become a bit more tenuous as China goes from "having a free trade agreement" to "FTA relations of individual member states". Not quite the same thing.

I have been listening to the rhetoric coming out of Brussels about how the UK can't have a better deal than it has today. Which deal is that? The UK export trade is already less than 50%. If the current trend continues it will be less than 40% by the time the negotiations are over. Not only do we not want a better deal then we currently have, we don't want a deal anywhere near as _good_ as we have and we certainly don't want to pay for it.

In simple terms we have all the access anyone could ever want and we don't use it. Why? Because UK companies find that it is easier to do business with the US and Asia, even via WTO rules, than it is to do business in the EU.

Even more, the UK loses work to the EU via the EU markets. Witness Austria winning the contract to assemble the Mini Countryman, taking it away from the UK.

Right now the discussion is being driven by what the EU wants. Namely full access to UK markets and uncontrolled immigration and full EU rights for EU citizens in the UK. That is not what the UK wants and some time, somehow, the entire discussion needs to turn on it's head and the UK needs to be saying "if you want access to our markets it's going to cost you".

This is what I've been saying for months. The EU must stop putting their words into our mouths and stop telling us what they want as if it is what we _need_.

We do not need what they need and it is imperative that this is portrayed, honestly, by the press.

[Workingman]

EFTA's FTA with the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with any agreement the UK makes, or is likely to make... we are not in EFTA. It is a straw man.

I most certainly have been saying for months that the EU are saying that the only way we can have a free trade deal is to accept EU levels of movement.

The EU has said nothing of the sort. It has said we cannot have a post Brexit free trade deal under the same terms and conditions we currently enjoy as a member of the EU. It has not said that we cannot have any sort of free trade deal. It has also said that because of the unique situation it will allow a traditional deal, limited in scope, to run for three years as we move to a ful Brexit deal. Full Brexit is what we are supposedly negotiating and the EU stance is wholly in line with deals it has already made with other third countries.

When it comes to WTO rules and all the different types of Brexit supposedly on offer, or not, as the case may be I think I will go with UK business leaders, bankers, financial institutions, economists and so on. They are not singing from the same Leaver hymn sheet, and they are worried. They could well be wrong but I think it is worth putting a few bob on them being more than likely right.

It might suit some nefarious purpose to continually paint the EU as the Evil Empire, but they did not put us in this position. We are where we are all of our own doing. If blame for the mess lies anywhere it is right on our doorstep.

[Workingman]

So why are we hearing all these moans from business leaders in all sectors of the economy? They are hard-headed businessmen looking out for their businesses, profits and shareholders and workers and they will have teams peering into every minute detail.

Their observations are published almost daily and they throw up warnings and reasons not to be cheerful and they give us alternatives to the Leaver's *rose tinted spec* views of Brexitopia. Forgive me if I do not see them all as Remainiacs or agents of the Evil Empire.

[Suff]

EFTA's FTA with the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with any agreement the UK makes, or is likely to make... we are not in EFTA. It is a straw man.

Actually I was using the EFTA information site to highlight the EU trade deals with the rest of the world. But, yes, you are correct. Let's go straight to the horses mouth then.

Here. Notably when you look for EU trade agreements the actual source site is not the most obvious.

I count three free trade agreements. South Korea (in force), Vietnam and Singapore. Now every time I say LIE below, please remember, this is the EU site which lists their Trade Agreements. At least ONE of these countries, has restricted movement of people between itself and the EU. It only takes ONE for the statements below to be a lie.

To highlight that.

From the Free Trade Agreement with Korea. I note that in the actual text of the document. It says

Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent a Party from
applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons
into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those
measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the
orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders,
provided that such measures are not applied in such a
manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the
other Party under the terms of a specific commitment in this
Chapter and its Annexes

In a note at the bottom of the chapter it says.

The sole fact of requiring a visa for natural persons of certain
countries and not for those of others shall not be regarded as
nullifying or impairing benefits under the terms of a specific
commitment in this Chapter and its Annexes.

I most certainly have been saying for months that the EU are saying that the only way we can have a free trade deal is to accept EU levels of movement.

The EU has said nothing of the sort. It has said we cannot have a post Brexit free trade deal under the same terms and conditions we currently enjoy as a member of the EU.

OK let me see. Note I have tried to avoid UK right wing papers or EU right wing press.

Verhofstat:

Any future relationship between Britain and the EU “cannot infringe on the four freedoms,” Verhofstadt said, which include the freedom of movement for people who want to work in another EU country, as well as the free movement of capital, goods and services.

That, as we can see from the treaties , is a subtle LIE. What he means is: The EU does not want to negotiate a less open agreement with the UK than it currently has today. No matter what the UK wants. Because it is too damaging to the EU to do so.

But Verhofstadt, the leader of the liberal ALDE group in the European Parliament, said that tariff-free single market access would only be possible if the freedom of movement of people was accepted.

Again a reiteration of the same lie. The EU has these agreements with other countries without free movement of people. The UK does not need and does not use the full rights of access it has today. The EU _does_ use those full rights in the UK. The two situations are not equal and they need to start telling the truth.

Barnier:

“I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits – that is not possible.

Yes, _some_ people. But the UK government has said it does NOT want to leave the single market and keep all its benefits. It is the EU that wants to keep all the benefits to the UK

I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve ‘frictionless trade’ – that is not possible

Which is a backhanded way of turning the truth into a lie. It is not so much the UK who want some kind of customs union. The UK wants free trade, it is the EU that needs customs union because the EU exports more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU.

He then set out the EU’s three “red lines” – that free movement of persons, goods, services and capital are indivisible, that there can be no “sector by sector” participation in the single market, as desired by the UK, and that the EU must have autonomy to set its own rules, a reference to the ECJ.

Yet another Lie. As proven by the Free Trade treaties the EU has already entered into. There can be but they Do Not Want To because it would impact their own access to the UK market.

Juncker:

Britain will have to accept European Union rules “without exception or nuance” if it wants to keep full access to the single market after Brexit, European Commission president Jean Claude Juncker has said.

Again with the "full access". Which part of "free trade" not "full access" is not being understood? Well, actually, it is understood. The EU understand that Free Trade is not Full Access for the EU to the UK. So they say it's not possible.

Again, as per their own agreed and documented treaties. It is possible. So this is a Lie.

In a blunt statement Wednesday, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the U.K. couldn't pick and choose what it liked about the EU once it has left.

Actually isn't that what a Free Trade deal is? That appears to be the content of those trade deals I read. Essentially the picking and choosing of what each party liked in terms of trade with each other.

"There can be no 'a la carte' access to the single market," Juncker said in his annual state of the union speech

All evidence to the contrary; documented in pedantic detail, by the EU itself.

‘There will be no access to the internal market for those who do not accept the rules – without exception or nuance – that make up the very nature of the internal market system.’

Again a twisting of words. We don't want access to the "internal" market, we want External access to the EU market. Couching the requirements of the EU as requirements of the UK, again, is not working for me and the terminology needs to be changed.

Britain will have to accept EU rules including free movement “without exception or nuance” if it wants to retain full access to the single market, Jean-Claude Juncker has said.

Yet again. We don't want or need _full_ access to the single market. We have that today and we find it is not worth the cost. So we export our goods to other countries outside of the EU.

This very long series of statement posted above is to highlight what I have been saying for months. The leaders of the EU, the negotiators of the EU and, to an extent, the leaders of the states within the EU, are all telling differing levels of mistruths and putting their wants and needs forward as our own to varying degrees.

The person who has stuck to the strictest truth and only talked, peripherally, about the EU needs as also being the UK needs is Tusk. For which I give him a large measure of credit. Notably Tusk is rarely in the news over Brexit because his statements are conciliatory and sensible.

To go back to the crux of what I'm saying here. The EU is saying that we can't have _any_ access to the single market, outside of WTO rules, unless we accept full free movement of people.

That is clearly articulated above and is something I keep reiterating because they keep on doing it.

The second part is where they keep on pushing their needs as ours and then using their needs to justify their claims. That we, the UK, need to stop and realign it to UK needs and EU needs and where we are going to meet in the middle.

Why do I recognise the second part so readily? Because the EU, formerly the EEC, has been doing this for over 40 years and it was the strongest reason I wanted to leave the EU in the first place.

[Workingman]

Well done. Once again you have conflated free trade agreements between the EU and other countries and the free trade enjoyed between members of the EU with other members of the EU and filed them under the same heading. You are comparing apples with pears and you know it. To compare Italy and the EU with the UK and the EU would be fine, they are both members. To compare S. Korea with the EU and Vietnam with the EU would also be fine as they are third countries with bilateral agreements. However, when you look at their agreements with the EU you will notice two things:

1. They are unique to S.Korea and the EU and Vietnam and the EU respectively, and negotiated between those countries (hopefully) to benefit all their peoples. They are not off-the-shelf deals, sign her, job done.

2. They offer nothing like the comprehensive cover membership of the EU confers to its members.

No place has ever gained the same comprehensive access to the EU as its members enjoy without actually becoming a member... and that includes EFTA. Every deal the EU has done with a third country or trading bloc has been unique and different according to the wishes of both sides.

Which brings us to the second part. You are still comparing apples with pears to validate your opinions. You keep harking back to those treaties as if they somehow applied to the UK today, now. They do not.

We are a member of the EU working to its rules and regulations. We are trying to negotiate an exit strategy in order for us to leave in the most orderly fashion. If, during that process, we can cobble together some sort of trade deal many people will probably go along with it and have a cup of tea. If we cannot get a deal we leave and are on our own. At that point we will either go to WTO or try for our own bilateral deal.

Only then can we look at all the other EU bilateral deals - from Albania to Zimbabwe - and compare and contrast. Only then will all these other *free trade deals* be relevant to us, but we will be clear in the knowledge that none of them come remotely close to what we have today; and just like all the other holders of *free trade agreements* we will be locked out of certain sectors and have no say in any rule changes the EU wishes to employ.

[Suff]

Well done. Once again you have conflated free trade agreements between the EU and other countries and the free trade enjoyed between members of the EU.

No I haven't.

The EU is doing that.

I'm clear. Absolutely clear.

The UK needs a Free trade deal as an External country with access to the EU for trade. Not as in the access we have today but as in the other Trade Agreements they have written with other External countries..

The EU keeps conflating the two. I do not.

[Workingman]

At one point in your diatribe the UK did not need a deal (various threads), now we have this:

The UK needs a Free trade deal as an External country with access to the EU for trade. Not as in the access we have today but as in the other Trade Agreements they have written with other External countries.

At last it sinks in. That is what the EU has been telling the UK since the day of stupidity: the Referendum. Totally consistent.

The EU view: You can have a trade deal, but do not expect it to be the same as the one you have today. We will give you limited access to some sectors, industries and institutions, but not all, and we will require the same from you in return. We are prepared to share, for our mutual benefit, but we are not entering into a garage sale.

That is how the EU negotiates, if you Leavers do not like it, tough shit. When we had an Empire, Little Englanders take not, it is how we *negotiated* with the natives. Karma.