ValentaFan1974
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2014
- Messages
- 225
The agreements were all negotiated separately and is nothing to do with the EU - agreements are purely based on business done between networks and commercial terms.
"Price rises" and "comptetitive market" are very rarely, if ever, part of the same sentence without a negative joining clause - for example "price rises have been minimised due to the competitive market" or "despite price rises, the market remains competitive"...
After all, if the market is competitive raising your prices is hardly likely to win you new customers!
Going on holiday next month with a few friends.
One of my friends passports expires in a few months. As of 31st January, you now need 6 months on your passport to travel to EU countries (except Ireland). So, my friend only has a few weeks to get a new passport.
Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving. No doubt this passport issue is someone else's fault though.
Going on holiday next month with a few friends.
One of my friends passports expires in a few months. As of 31st January, you now need 6 months on your passport to travel to EU countries (except Ireland). So, my friend only has a few weeks to get a new passport.
Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving. No doubt this passport issue is someone else's fault though.
Incorrect. During the transition period, nothing changes so you don’t need 6 months on your passport.
The risk of a no-deal in two weeks time seems remote, considering a withdrawal deal has been agreed between the EU and the UK government and just awaits ratification from a Parliament that will now do Boris's bidding. It's possible though that the Lords voting today to put back some associated measures removed by the government will lead to some brinkmanship where the government and the Lords might dare each other to blink as the clock runs down.That is not what the Gov.uk website says. They have said my friend's passport will not be valid after 31st January 2020 'if the UK leaves with no deal'.
It would seem a bit risky to not apply for a new passport.
The EU-Canada deal took ten years...There's another sticking point at the end of December as Boris has said that deadline for a longer-term agreement won't be extended, but most people with knowledge of the matter believe a full agreement is unlikely by then.
I have highlighted what caused the delay in that deal.The EU-Canada deal took ten years...
Assuming you are correct, our trade deal will also be with the EU, so....I have highlighted what caused the delay in that deal.
That is not what the Gov.uk website says. They have said my friend's passport will not be valid after 31st January 2020 'if the UK leaves with no deal'.
It would seem a bit risky to not apply for a new passport.
On the other hand, this man promising - but in the end refusing - to die in a ditch
ONE of our trade deals will be with the EU, which is a minority of our world trade AND an area where our imports heavily outweigh our exports.Assuming you are correct, our trade deal will also be with the EU, so....
ONE of our trade deals will be with the EU, which is a minority of our world trade AND an area where our imports heavily outweigh our exports.
I know you say that like it is a good thing, but neither of those inspire any confidence. Eight of the ten largest purchasers of UK production are EU members, and more than half of UK food imports come from EU member states.ONE of our trade deals will be with the EU, which is a minority of our world trade AND an area where our imports heavily outweigh our exports.
More accurately, we've put ourselves over the barrel...Whether we like it or not the EU have us over a barrel...
The no deal referred to there is for the end of December potentially...
Where will all the lost volumes be made up? Africa, where their combined GDP is lower than France's?
But, at least we'll have blue passports (printed in Poland by a French company)...For anything non-essential, we just wouldn't have it, thus we become a little bit more like Africa and less like the near continent.
No. The US and/or China. In an ideal world, a mix of the two, but in a realistic world (we're seeing it already), the US is saying either the US or China. With China, we risk getting goods that have been made with cutting corner strategies, and the Chinese government obtaining scores of our data, while with the US, we risk becoming a vassal state where the worst-quality US goods are dumped (i.e. goods that the manufacturers know are barely safe). Alternatively, we can dip our toe into the water with three trading partners (i.e. the world's top 3 economies), be of little significance to either and suffer disadvantageous trading terms. For anything non-essential, we just wouldn't have it, thus we become a little bit more like Africa and less like the near continent.
Just to point out, the rubbish is coming from the government, the BBC just reported it, and I think they tried their best to point out that it was rubbish using neutral language.I was referring to this rubbish from the BBC yesterday
The post of mine that started this bit of the discussion was referring specifically to the EU trade deal, because that is the one that threatens another "cliff edge" at the end of December. The fact we have numerous others to conclude even to get back to where we are now (replacing the EU deals we are part of) is worrying but irrelevant to the point in hand.ONE of our trade deals will be with the EU, which is a minority of our world trade AND an area where our imports heavily outweigh our exports.
Just in case anyone is still under illusions of what a free trade deal with the US would be like: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/business/economy/trump-bribery-law.htmlNo. The US and/or China. In an ideal world, a mix of the two, but in a realistic world (we're seeing it already), the US is saying either the US or China. With China, we risk getting goods that have been made with cutting corner strategies, and the Chinese government obtaining scores of our data, while with the US, we risk becoming a vassal state where the worst-quality US goods are dumped (i.e. goods that the manufacturers know are barely safe). Alternatively, we can dip our toe into the water with three trading partners (i.e. the world's top 3 economies), be of little significance to either and suffer disadvantageous trading terms. For anything non-essential, we just wouldn't have it, thus we become a little bit more like Africa and less like the near continent.
This would make it perfectly legal in the US for American businesses to bribe British officials.The president asked administration officials to help kill the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, according to a new book from two Washington Post reporters.
Where will all the lost volumes be made up?
Which assumes, of course, that there are any significant "lost volumes".
Still less than 50%, and falling, which by any definition is a minority.Minority? The EU is the UK's biggest trading partner at present.
Where will all the lost volumes be made up? Africa, where their combined GDP is lower than France's?
The UK is in for a rude awakening and seeing as Johnson is ruling out an extension to the transition period, no deal has just been postponed 11 months...
Still less than 50%, and falling, which by any definition is a minority.