Comments by "Lelly Parker" (@lellyparker) on "Why the UK government is accused of ripping up part of the Brexit deal" video.

@Anymonkeyme "Not a lot of time for edits back then." - There would have been time but Boris wanted it rushed through. When Parliament voted to slow the process down Boris withdrew the bill and only returned it after he won his majority. Then he forced it through parliament super-quickly without allowing Parliament to read and inspect it.
12
To win the General Election Boris made his Withdrawal Agreement central to the Conservative Manifesto. The country would never have voted for a "no-deal" exit which was the only alternative at that time.
8
@schenwig "It was not foreseen that the EU was going to be so arrogant and discriminatory against the UK" - I have seen no evidence of that. Seems the other way round to me, the UK is being discriminatory and arrogant. The UK seems to be deliberately sabotaging the negotiations tbh.
6
@Land-of-reason "The EU have abused their position.." - How? Please explain?
5
@Anymonkeyme "boris got his majority by leaving with no delays. " - Tories could NEVER have won if they told the electorate that if we voted for them they would leave with no-deal on January 1st 2020. Never. Boris won because he had an "oven ready deal" because even remainers just wanted Brexit to be over and they fell for Boris promising an "oven ready deal".
4
@Anymonkeyme Remember that in the 2019 election more people voted for second-referendum parties than voted for Brexit parties. Boris only got his huge majority because of the constituency boundaries. The "popular vote" was against Brexit.
4
@Anymonkeyme "That deal just went from bad to worse." - And yet Boris Johnson and all the Tory MPs voted for it and ratified it and sent it to the Queen to sign it into international law. Why? Are they just too incompetent to understand what they were signing?
4
@Land-of-reason "The EU were negotiating with opposition parties in parallel with their discussions with the government. They were undermining our elected government using the opposition to cause trouble." - Members of the British Parliament are Democratically Elected officials and have every right to engage in conversations with our trading partners and allies. I have no idea what you are talking about.
4
@Land-of-reason "the EU had effectively used extortion to force the government to accept unrasonable terms" - What "extortion" did the EU use? Please explain why the EU was able to "extort" anything from the Tory Government?
3
@Anymonkeyme "We just believe in time the uk will prosper from freedom away from eu rules regulations and obligations" - We can't be free of those things. It is not the EU that is binding us, it is the trade itself that connects us. Regardless of what the UK does British companies will still have to follow EU rules when selling goods to EU countries. The question is not about taking back control but deciding on who we give control up to. Whenever there is a trade deal both sides give up some control. Fact. It is literally what "agreement" means - we agree to do certain things.
3
@artfuldodger9312 "England is the greatest country on earth." - Was. Brexit ruined it.
2
@Anymonkeyme "the EU also agreed to working on a trade deal in good faith" - Where have they not done this?
2
@Land-of-reason "Barnier undermined that one to one relationship and started to negotiate with opposition parties." - What do you think Barnier was negotiating with "opposition parties" and where do you get this srtuf from? There is a reason British MPs are referred to as "The Opposition". The reason is that Democracy works by having opposing political scrutiny. British people elected members into Parliament - opposition members. British people ALSO voted members into the European Parliament. We had democratic officials in both the UK opposition and the EU Parliament. It is THEIR JOB to talk to each other. Your arbitrary fabricated "rules" have no basis anywhere other than the right wing phoney press.
2
50% of our trade is with the EU. We can't forget about them. It is not the EU that is holding us it is the trade itself.
2
@Brother Spartacus "It's mutually beneficial for both parties to continue trading deal or no-deal" - Sure. But "no deal" makes everything more expensive so we will be poorer. But we will continue trading. Also many export businesses will become non-viable without a deal so we will have higher unemployment. But we will continue trading.
2
@Brother Spartacus "no-deal making things more expensive has been debunked." - No it hasn't. Basic maths makes it inevitable.
2
@Brother Spartacus "yes it's been debunked" - And yet you can't explain why because basic maths says if you add costs to trading the goods become more expensive. Money does not magically appear from nowhere. Someone has to pay.
2
@Brother Spartacus "Finally the regulatory burdens enforced by the EU." - These will never go away. As long as UK companies sell to EU countries they will have to meet the regulatory standards of the EU. But after Brexit this will get more expensive. Why? Because currently the UK can issue EU regulation certification. But after Brexit the UK will lose that status and UK companies will have to use EU regulatory bodies in other countries.
2
Typical clueless Brexiteer at the end spouting baseless tabloid "theories" and the same old "they need us more than we need them" idea which is rooted in bad maths that ignores the fact that the EU is economically 4 times larger than the UK.
1
@Anymonkeyme "so your telling me they only voted for those parties because ..." - I am telling you that more people were happier with what "second-referendum" parties were offering than what Brexiteers were offering. Simple as that.
1
@Anymonkeyme "i think he means this" - That was 2 years before Boris made his deal and has zero affect on the currently ratified WA that Boris and all the Tory MPs voted in favor of and had the Queen pass into international law.
1
@schenwig When you say "the EU lost the argument" what really happened is the EU had a negotiating position but was willing to compromise and did compromise. I see nothing unusual about that. By your own admission the EU has compromised and given ground to the UK time and time again. Hardly the actions of an "arrogant" negotiator. As regarding favourability, no other nation has been offered so much in terms of market access as the UK is demanding from the EU - so of course the terms will be different for THAT level of access.
1
@schenwig "the whole purpose of an FTA is to allow free market access " - That's is just tariffs. The UK is asking for way more than just zero tariffs. We are physical neighbors and so we share a bunch of stuff remote territories do not.
1
@schenwig T"he EU made stupid demands like access to UK territorial waters " - So? What is wrong with this? Boris Johnson already agreed to manage those waters jointly with the EU in his Political Declaration. All the EU is asking is that Boris sticks to what he already promised. Those waters have historically been fished by all the sea facing countries of Europe for hundreds of years.
1
@schenwig "the EU started by asking for regulatory alignment to subject the UK under the ECJ jurisdjction. Such arrogance!" - Why? The ECJ is the natural and obvious court to decide matters of Single Market rules - being that it is THE Single Market court. There is no reason to use a different court and it is unreasonable to expect to. We SHOULD want the court that is most expert in EU law making those decisions and the ECJ is also unbiased because the rulings it makes affects the ENTIRE Single Market. Any judgement it makes against the UK (for example) would subsequently apply to EVERY EU country. If they were biased against the UK then they would be shooting themselves in the foot too. That makes it the perfect court. Remember the EU is not 1 entity it is 27 sovereign states. It is not the UK against the EU it is ALL the countries in the Single Market balanced against each other. The ECJ must be fair and responsible.
1
@schenwig " If you know of any demands the UK has made, then cite them here." - The UK is asking for identical access it used to enjoy as a full member which is ridiculous and the epitome of hubris. The EU is asking one of two things. EITHER we pay some tariffs OR we give them other things like regulatory alignment. Seems fair given that they MUST protect their Single Market.
1
@schenwig "All what the UK has demanded is, treat us in the same way you have treated Canada ..." - That is not true. The EU - Canada deal is a TARIFF deal which took years to negotiate. The EU is definitely willing to negotiate a TARIFF deal for the UK. But the ridiculous thing here is that the UK has no right to expect the same deal given to another country when the UK is not that country. The UK is geographically different from Canada and the UK has a WAY different level of economic penetration than Canada and the UK trades much different produce than does Canada. To expect to be treated like Canada is just BANANAS. And even then, the UK doesn't want a Canada deal it wants a so-called "Canada Plus Plus" deal.
1
@schenwig "so according to you the UNnited Nations Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 is irrelevant because it prescribes provides for 200 nautical nules as territorial waters whereas these countries have been fishing for more thN 100 years?" - Nope not according to me. I never said that was irrelevant. You seem to be ignorant about how trading works. Both sides have valueble things to the other side so they NEGOTIATE what they want in return for what the other side wants. It is called making a deal. The EU wants rights to access British waters because they have fished those waters for hundreds of years and therefore much of their culture is bound up in that trade EVEN THOUGH it is insignificant to their economy. The UK wants access to the Single Market. Both sides want things from each other. See how this trade thing works now? Asking for stuff is not "arrogant" it is the very nature of trade deals. And by your own admission the EU has been willing to compromise where the UK has never compromised a single thing.
1
@schenwig "Do you realise how stupid it sounds to say the UK is asking for market access in a Free Trade Agreement that is all about free market access? " - NO FTA in the world gives both countries UNLIMITED access to everything. That is absurd. An FTA is an agreement to make trade AS FREE AS POSSIBLE given the various needs of the participating countries. So, for example, the EU's FTA with Canada? Contains TARIFFS on SOME items. So it makes perfect sense to negotiate the level of market access in ANY FTA. The UK is asking for full market access that has not been granted to ANY other non-member and is not willing to give anything in return in terms of fishing and fair competition. The EU consider that an unreasonable request, as do I. Why would the UK expect the same level of access a member gets when the UK is not willing to take on the same responsibilities that member countries do? THAT is the height of unreasonable. For example (please pay attention): Members agree that they will not artificially promote private companies so as damage another member countries ability to trade in that sector. France is not allowed to push so much tax-payers money into selling cheap cars so as to put the German car industry out of business. Does that make sense? It is called "state aid rules" and it is very important when the LEVEL OF ACCESS is as high as it is between member states. Britain can NOT expect the level of access a member state gets WITHOUT agreeing to the same anti-competitive rules that member states agree to. THAT makes sense. But the UK is demanding to be able to do just that. They want member level market access WITHOUT having to follow anti-competitive rules. Of course that is an absurd demand. The EU have said that the UK can avoid the anti-competitive rules but NOT with full access. They are giving us a reasonable choice. We can have a high level of access and follow EU rules or a low level of access and follow our own rules. Our choice. But the UK is demanding high level access WITHOUT following the rules. Clearly the UK demands are bonkers.
1
@schenwig "... you are completely out of your depth ... " - Saying that doesn't make it true.
1
@schenwig "So, I asking you again, what is the UK demand?" - I literally answered this question in my previous long comment.
1
@schenwig "12 countries have refused to sign the Canada-EU deal because of it's many flaws" - So why is the UK demanding the same deal?
1
@schenwig "I didn't find any answer in that prattle" - That's okay, I am sure other people reading this will find it just fine. I can't explain it any simpler for you.
1
@schenwig "We want to have a Canada style agreement with the EU. We are not demanding a Canada style agreement with the EU. Do you understand?" - Not really no.
1
@schenwig "nothing substantive could be discerned from" - People reading this do not need you to tell them whether or not they are capable of understanding what I wrote and checking if what I said was true or not.
1
@l1sakr1s "What are you afraid of ?" - Bad economics.
1
@Brother Spartacus "Abolish the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)." - The CAP means the EU currently gives UK farmers BILLIONS to grow food. After Brexit either the British Government pays (we pay higher taxes) or the farmers put their prices up.
1
@Brother Spartacus "the UK's ability to slash tarrifs," - The UK can not reduce tarifs more than they are now (zero). And if we make our WTO tariffs zero we damage our ability to make trade deals with other countries - why would they make a deal when we already give them free access? So no. Our tariff schedules for 2021 are already set and they are NOT anywhere near zero. They are slightly below the EU's WTO tariff schedule prices.
1
@l1sakr1s "What about the billions we give to the EU and only get a percentage back" - When we leave the Single Market British companies will have to fill out export forms and pay export administrations costs to trade under WTO. Those will nearly be the same amount as we currently pay the EU in membership fees. So we won't be saving anything. EU membership was essentially free.
1
Brother Spartacus "So you do the maths." - The Financial Times puts the red-tape costs at £7 billion but remember that is purely the form-filling cost. In addition to this firms have to pay tariffs & QC https://www.ft.com/content/fbc6f191-6d69-4dcb-b374-0fa6e48a9a1e
1
@Brother Spartacus "So you do the maths. " - When you include tariffs the estimate is more like £27 billion. Looks like the membership fee pays for itself several times over.
1