I have absolutely no horse in this fascinating thread, but Ramira did in fact bold the phrase “English law firm” in post 195. Does your browser/reader not show bold text?
Meanwhile, in reality…
Meanwhile, in reality…
Meanwhile, in reality…
“My goodness,” said the sunbather, “The beach is so much less crowded since those tsunami sirens started to go off! And all before anything bad actually happened! Wait, where’d the sun go?”
The phrasing here really is quite telling. Let’s see who else spotted what I spotted.
The Poles are not the normal people?
The overt and the naked hostility to the Polish?
Have you actually bothered to read this thread?
Meanwhile my friends are losing their jobs as the jobs move abroad, and I’m losing friends as they move abroad…
Yeah, I spotted it too.
They CAN’T set up trade deals. It’s ILLEGAL.
But sure, moan about the lack of plan, without having a plan yourself.
And I hope your job is the first to go with no Deal.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
do not worry, the natural anglosaxon advantage will come out
Tutto va bene per la Brexit, specialmente i polacchi saranno disoccupati
Well it could be possible to pre negotiate certain understandings in anticipation so simply being not allowed to execute under existing obligations is not the great binding constraint.
What are the great binding constraints are
[ol]
[li]The UK government did not have the sufficient staff capacity to do this while also working on the framing of the Brexit[/li][li]More importantly, NO RATIONAL COUNTRY will negotiate a trade accord with just the UK when the parameters of the Brexit trade arrangement are not clear - it is completely not in their rational interest as a likely a waste of time[/li][li]It is inherently not attractive to negotiate with the UK outside of the EU when there has been no discernable coherence in the UK own position on the EU trade arrangement (No Deal WTO? Norway deal? what?)[/li][li]The EU trading zone is inherently more attractive by the size and collective market rules that are cohesive, lowering the costs. the uncertainly of what the UK may do make it not attractive to spend time given the risk of the goods standards[/li][/ol]
The problem continues to be that for some strange and bizarre reason the English have not yet understood collectively that the Brexit is not merely telling the EU to fuck off and exressing the raging paranoia about the EU foreigners, it is a multilateral risk and for others striking deals with the UK is not attractive or rationale given the very substantial risk of getting wrong-footed by changes.
The Trade Deals are expensive things to undertake taking huge human resources of skilled technical specialists and enormous work and attention to the details to avoid serious mistakes.
The English keep talking and thinking as if the complexity of these thigns is something the Cabals in Brussels invent, having forgotten over 40 years the non EU complexities in trade, and it seems from 40 years of the easy talk always blaming every thing on Brussels as the very convenient Scapegoat.
Maybe if the UK had rapidly adotped and stuck to a logically coherent vision (informed by the actual technical constraints of the international trade, not the illogical unicorns seeking) it could have pre negotiated some deals, but it is not very likely due to the standards risk.
It is? Must have missed that.
Yeah - in Paris and Frankfurt, though, not The City…
Brilliant.
Oh, yes, indeedy.
Hard to miss really
Once the EU regulation has been agreed by all the member states, it is then is legislated for in each individual member state.
Well.
Oh come on Ramira, Italian too? Stop showing us largely-monoglot Brits up! 
It is a joke Italian though, and not good.
Yes and according to that country’s legal system.
A French Code Civil reference may differ from an English common law
You just won’t give up being wrong about this, will you? Directing consumers down a route to make a complaint which not only has no teeth if the firm decides not to engage with it, but will also simply refer back to an existing body (that already has to be disclosed) if the firm does engage with it, is what I call “actively unhelpful”. What would you call it?
Hopefully you will now understand that it is you who has been missing the point, though based on past experience I’m not holding my breath.
And I am saying that in some industries, regulations already exist to do this and therefore another one is unnecessary, and indeed a waste of everyone’s time and money, no matter how little.
And I have already explained why your “Great English Wall of Internet” is a complete strawman that has no relevance to this particular discussion, but evidently you have chosen to ignore this as it means you might have to admit that you are wrong about what is really only a small detail of the big picture.
Overall I reckon I have conceded about 90% of my original points in this thread, but you still seem to want to die on this hill. Really, if this was how the EU negotiators behaved, it would be no surprise if it is not possible for Britain to get an acceptable deal. Fortunately I don’t believe this is the case but I think the analogy is apposite.
I could say the same for you, I expect others may agree on this point but would rather not do so because they are much more aligned with your general position than mine.
As noted by another poster, it was bolded for no reason that I could see other than the one I suggested. In conjunction with the tone of other posts I think my inference was perfectly reasonable, even if it was the wrong one.
The only thing I misunderstood was the unnecessary bolding. I’m not saying that makes the source invalid, just like the inflammatory posting style does not invalidate the facts therein. There’s no need to get in such a palaver about it.
You know the UK agreed to this structure, right? It’s not exactly the most pressing matter of our age.
It is hard to give up being wrong when one is not wrong.
I call it Actively being a myopic provincial and actively misrepresenting/misunderstadning the Regulation. But I understand in fact there is zero EU action that can please you as you are a small England PoV and dislike all the EU things as foreign impositions, reflexively.
As a reminder: your words:
Required to use it of course was wrong - required to provide a link and of course the logic of the the regulation provides for a pan Trading area coordinating reference - as it says. So a British firm selling to the Danemark customer , the danish customer is not disadvantaged by not having a clear access.
The entire point of the regulation is the facilitation of the contacts across the online trading across the entire customs union zone - so that there is facilitation beyond the natoinal entities for online buyers - online buying by its nature within a customs union being inherently transborder.
Of course your pov of you give no fucks about the foreigners or the EU customers, only the little England, so of course you give no value to this.
But that is not a flaw in the regulation or the implementation of it at least in the legal structure, that is a rejection of the EU concept. - fine this is a position you obviously take with great emotional attachment.
This is again different than the regulation being bad as you have asserted originally among other non factual assertions.
No, I am not wrong nor have I missed the point, your original complaint was about ‘duplication’ (and evidently mistakenly thinking the EODR replaced the English ADRs existing) and complaining about no Opt Out - it is simply that your original before moving your goal posts many times objection was factually entirely wrong.
Now it is simply based on the reflexive dislike of the non-English regulation at all.
No you asserted it with much vigorous hand waiving.
It remains that so long as there is not an English only internet, online consumer sales sites do the sales via the online will of the necessity be exposed to the Customs union and to achieve the most efficient and least burden.
No, it’s not the biggest issue. Just a small example.
A friend, much older and wiser than I, once told me that there are only 3 small subjects on which he considers himself a real expert. And every time he sees something about one of those subjects in the media, there are inevitably errors. Therefore, he reasoned, similar is likely to apply to almost any subject being reported on in the media.
I would suggest similar reasoning is applicable to the way the EU works. If I, in the very small spheres in which I operate, have in the last 5 or so years observed 2 or 3 absurd situations perpetrated by the EU, is it not reasonable to assume that similar is likely occurring in other spheres? And that the institution is therefore perhaps no longer fit for purpose and not an organisation one wishes to have affiliation with, let alone pay for?
In terms of the UK “agreeing to the situation”? Did they really? Or were they outvoted? Or perhaps ground down by interminable debate among all the vested interests? That is the sort of thing I wished to vote against. It is indeed regrettable that the consequences of that have so far not been good, but things will soon sort themselves out one way or the other.
To repeat myself from earlier - this thread has convinced me that people are right to point out the dangers of a no deal Brexit. By doing so, they should prevent this actually occurring.
You tell us. It’s the sort of thing you wished to vote against after all, and it’s an issue you have some knowledge of and a strong opinion about.
Moving on, does anyone know if negotiating entire trade deals from scratch involves any sort of interminable debate among all the vested interests? Asking for a friend.
So is Dead Cat proposing that the UK avoid compromise in its dealings in the EU that he advocates for British politicians in parliament?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk