The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[sidcow]

 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, colhint said:

Only recently The AUKUS deal transferred a nuclear sub deal from France to UK and US and the French are pissed about it.

That’s not a uk trade deal. That’s the Aussies ditching French diesel subs for American nuclear powered subs, plus a defence cooperation agreement between the three nations. The French are super annoyed for sure.

[fightoffyour]

18 hours ago, sidcow said:

I'd vote for it just for the cheap mobile phone calls from abroad.  Why not? It's as good a reason to go back in as most people's reasons for leaving. 

How much do you reckon roaming charges in the EU cost the average Brit? I looked it up:

Quote

One-fifth of UK mobile users travelling to the EU in the last year have faced higher than usual bills for usage, collectively amounting to £573m, according to data from Uswitch. The average charge added to bills was £61 on top of a user’s standard contract charge, while 17% faced bills of £100 or more.

We could send that money to the NHS instead to cover 1 week and half  of the headline EU membership fee.

Edited October 20, 2021 by fightoffyour

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

How much do you reckon roaming charges in the EU cost the average Brit? I’d guess around £350m per year sounds about right, £5 per person...

Well I looked it up, and it’s more:

That’s right, it costs the British people more just in roaming charges than the headline figure of EU membership.

Not to belittle the point, because we all know it was a load of bollocks, but wasn't the big red bus figure '350m a week'?

[fightoffyour]

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Not to belittle the point, because we all know it was a load of bollocks, but wasn't the big red bus figure '350m a week'?

Haha shit, it's early. Something didn't seem right. Quick, edit.

Fixed now. Just need to find the other 50 and a half weeks worth of fees. But if that much can be recovered so easily in just roaming charges, then it shouldn't be difficult.

Edited October 20, 2021 by fightoffyour

[Wainy316]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

I expect you'll enjoy him literally not knowing what up and down are here.

 

 

Lolz...

 

[bobzy]

13 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Lolz...

 

Impressively moronic - he's done well.

[Panto_Villan]

8 hours ago, colhint said:

No I didn't say we sold Subs to the Aussies because of a trade deal. I said after the trade deal the Aussies moved the business to us.

If it is for the benefit of companies why do countrys apply tarrifs. You cannot put a tax or tariff on a company and then say it is for yor benefit

It's not possible for most governments to buy nuclear submarines. The US and the UK are extremely picky about who they are willing to share their nuclear submarines with, as you might expect.

The "trade deal" you're referring to with Australia is a strategic co-operation pact, and a big part of that would be assessing that Australia is a long-term ally that won't be using them against us and has the capability to protect the secrets we are sharing with them when we allow them to operate some of our most advanced technology. The Australians immediately bought subs from us after signing the deal because it wasn't possible for them to do it before, but that doesn't make it a trade deal.

The US and the UK don't actually have a trade deal to replace the one we had as part of the EU at the moment, but they do have a very deep strategic co-operation relationship that allows us to share technology as trusted partners. Not the same thing as a trade deal though.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

assessing that Australia is a long-term ally that won't be using them against us and has the capability to protect the secrets we are sharing with them when we allow them to operate some of our most advanced technology. The Australians immediately bought subs from us after signing the deal because it wasn't possible for them to do it before, but that doesn't make it a trade deal.

Pedantically, I don't think that's quite accurate. Australia is and was already assessed as those things - trusted long term ally , won't share secrets etc. both as part of 5 eyes and in terms of both US ITAR and UK EAP. Further, there is no requirement for a "trade deal" to have been in place before it would have been possible for them to buy the American submarines - trade deals are around tariffs and quotas etc. The provision of classified defence equipment between allies (UK & Aus) is a separate matter completely and was occurring (generally) before Brexit, and since Brexit with or without trade agreements.

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

That’s not a uk trade deal. That’s the Aussies ditching French diesel subs for American nuclear powered subs, plus a defence cooperation agreement between the three nations. The French are super annoyed for sure.

I can understand why the French are annoyed  

We (Australia) have a stance of not wanting a domestic nuclear industry. So when we were looked for someone to build us some submarines we asked the French to redesign their nuclear subs (which we would have had no way of maintaining) to retrofit a diesel engine (which we could maintain). Only that change in the design brief meant a whole bunch of knock on changes in the design of the things and the project blew way out in budget and delivery.

That's when the Aus government decided it did want nuclear subs after all (they want to be able stay at se longer to monitor China more closely) and the agreement with the US/UK gives them the knowledge to maintain the subs, so we said "See ya!" to the French, after they had spent years on the project and planned their whole Pacific operations around it.  

[sidcow]

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I can understand why the French are annoyed  

We (Australia) have a stance of not wanting a domestic nuclear industry. So when we were looked for someone to build us some submarines we asked the French to redesign their nuclear subs (which we would have had no way of maintaining) to retrofit a diesel engine (which we could maintain). Only that change in the design brief meant a whole bunch of knock on changes in the design of the things and the project blew way out in budget and delivery.

That's when the Aus government decided it did want nuclear subs after all (they want to be able stay at se longer to monitor China more closely) and the agreement with the US/UK gives them the knowledge to maintain the subs, so we said "See ya!" to the French, after they had spent years on the project and planned their whole Pacific operations around it.  

I'm pretty sure the French should have the capability to make surf boards.  Maybe you can place a large surf board order with them instead?  That should keep them sweet.

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Pedantically, I don't think that's quite accurate. Australia is and was already assessed as those things - trusted long term ally , won't share secrets etc. both as part of 5 eyes and in terms of both US ITAR and UK EAP. Further, there is no requirement for a "trade deal" to have been in place before it would have been possible for them to buy the American submarines - trade deals are around tariffs and quotas etc. The provision of classified defence equipment between allies (UK & Aus) is a separate matter completely and was occurring (generally) before Brexit, and since Brexit with or without trade agreements.

I think you might have misunderstood. I wasn't saying that AUKUS was a trade deal - I was saying that it was a deepening of the existing defence relationship between the three countries.

Sure, Australia already would have been near the top of the list in terms of trusted allies (it already flies the F-35s etc) but nuclear cooperation is a whole new ballgame. The US / UK nuclear subs are the main pillar of the nuclear deterrant of both countries, and remember that the UK is the only other country that the US shares its nuclear technology with - the Trident missiles we use are actually American made and maintained, and the nuclear warheads are "British" but basically the same as the US ones. It's probably the most heavily classified military technology we have.

I'm fairly sure a big part of AUKUS would have been some very in depth discussions about exactly how Australia is going to operate its nuclear subs, and stop Chinese or Russian hackers accessing important data on them. Without that they wouldn't be getting the submarines. There's quite a big difference between being a Five Eyes member and being someone you share nuclear secrets with imo; there's different levels of "trusted ally" and Australia has just made the jump into a very small circle.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Panto_Villan

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think you might have misunderstood. I wasn't saying that AUKUS was a trade deal - I was saying that it was a deepening of the existing defence relationship between the three countries.

Sure, Australia already would have been near the top of the list in terms of trusted allies (it already flies the F-35s etc) but nuclear cooperation is a whole new ballgame. The US / UK nuclear subs are the main pillar of the nuclear deterrent of both countries, and remember that the UK is the only other country that the US shares its nuclear technology with - the Trident missiles we use are actually American made and maintained, and the nuclear warheads are "British" but basically the same as the US ones. It's probably the most heavily classified military technology we have.

I'm fairly sure a big part of AUKUS would have been some very in depth discussions about exactly how Australia is going to operate its nuclear subs, and stop Chinese or Russian hackers accessing important data on them. Without that they wouldn't be getting the submarines. There's quite a big difference between being a Five Eyes member and being someone you share nuclear secrets with imo; there's different levels of "trusted ally" and Australia has just made the jump into a very small circle.

We need to be careful here. Nuclear powered subs are not the same thing as subs with nuclear weapons. Aus is buying nuclear powered subs, not Nuclear warheads. I'm sure you know that, I'm just emphasising for other readers. @LondonLax post is a good one, reflecting the situation.

But ultimately this has knob all to do with Brexit.

[Enda]

I think colhint and others are tripped up by the language the media and politicians use to describe “trade deals”.

EU trade deals don’t involve any exchange of cash. It’s a set of laws allowing companies in different countries to trade. Companies in China would like access to European consumers, and the Chinese government will bend over backwards if the EU allows Chinese goods and services in with fewer checks. Including passing domestic laws on environmental protection, child labour, product standards, etc.

Of course the EU gets more from these countries in terms of changes than the UK could reasonably demand.

These deals are a million miles from the nuclear submarine transaction, which is a military purchase rather than a change in laws.

[Enda]

2 minutes ago, Enda said:

I think colhint and others are tripped up by the language the media and politicians use to describe “trade deals”.

EU trade deals don’t involve any exchange of cash. It’s a set of laws allowing companies in different countries to trade. Companies in China would like access to European consumers, and the Chinese government will bend over backwards if the EU allows Chinese goods and services in with fewer checks. Including passing domestic laws on environmental protection, child labour, product standards, etc.

Of course the EU gets more from these countries in terms of changes than the UK could reasonably demand.

These deals are a million miles from the nuclear submarine transaction, which is a military purchase rather than a change in laws.

Of course the minute Britain signs a trade deal with China, allowing seamless integration of cheap Chinese shite into British supply chains, then the EU responds by banning UK goods into Europe, so those pesky Belgian farmers will still matter in UK politics.

[Panto_Villan]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

We need to be careful here. Nuclear powered subs are not the same thing as subs with nuclear weapons. Aus is buying nuclear powered subs, not Nuclear warheads. I'm sure you know that, I'm just emphasising for other readers. @LondonLax post is a good one, reflecting the situation.

But ultimately this has knob all to do with Brexit.

Yeah, we're agreeing with each other. But just to make the pedantry crystal clear - sharing our nuclear sub technology is a genuine threat to our nuclear deterrent if handled badly.

Our deterrent works on the principle that we always have at least one sub at sea carrying forty or so nukes, so even if a country managed to drop enough nuclear bombs on the UK in a surprise attack to totally cripple our ability to retaliate, that sub will surface somewhere in the world and destroy our attackers in return. It allows us to remain a credible nuclear power despite having way less bombs than say the Russians.

If we give our tech to the Australians and it gets leaked to rival powers, it potentially makes it easier for them to track our subs. And if they know where our sub is, suddenly our nuclear deterrent doesn't work so well any more.

Again, I imagine you already know that - but my posts won't make much sense to anyone that doesn't.

[colhint]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

I think colhint and others are tripped up by the language the media and politicians use to describe “trade deals”.

EU trade deals don’t involve any exchange of cash. It’s a set of laws allowing companies in different countries to trade. Companies in China would like access to European consumers, and the Chinese government will bend over backwards if the EU allows Chinese goods and services in with fewer checks. Including passing domestic laws on environmental protection, child labour, product standards, etc.

Of course the EU gets more from these countries in terms of changes than the UK could reasonably demand.

These deals are a million miles from the nuclear submarine transaction, which is a military purchase rather than a change in laws.

Are we sure about this. We got pretty much the same deal as the same deal as the EU did from Japan according  to fullfact. So how could we not expect pretty much the Same.  As I mentioned earlier the Murcasur deal with South America was kicked into touch because the Austrian dairy farmers didn't like it.  26 countries wanted that deal and worked on it for 20 years. But it's gone. We don't have those restrictions any more. 

[StefanAVFC]

18 minutes ago, colhint said:

Are we sure about this. We got pretty much the same deal as the same deal as the EU did from Japan according  to fullfact. So how could we not expect pretty much the Same.  As I mentioned earlier the Murcasur deal with South America was kicked into touch because the Austrian dairy farmers didn't like it.  26 countries wanted that deal and worked on it for 20 years. But it's gone. We don't have those restrictions any more. 

We do though.

Scenario: We want a trade deal with the States. They say 'only if you allow goods of a certain (lower) standard'. We say ok. In response to that, the EU stop all imports of goods in and out of the UK not to risk lowering of standards. 

We are bound by our location. We could get cheaper goods from elsewhere but why would we import things from China when we can getg them quicker and cheaper hundreds of miles away?

[colhint]

Scenario 2  We want a deal with south America, we want to sell them machinery and technology the want to sell more livestock and coffee. We say, ok 25 other countries say ok, but one says no. deal off for everyone.

[Enda]

27 minutes ago, colhint said:

Are we sure about this. We got pretty much the same deal as the same deal as the EU did from Japan according  to fullfact. So how could we not expect pretty much the Same.  As I mentioned earlier the Murcasur deal with South America was kicked into touch because the Austrian dairy farmers didn't like it.  26 countries wanted that deal and worked on it for 20 years. But it's gone. We don't have those restrictions any more. 

We're both right.

UK went to Japan and asked for replication of existing deal. Japan said no problem, we're already in compliance with that, this just opens more doors for us, cool. So the UK was largely the second-mover after the EU.

You're 100% right that the UK can now sign deals with the likes of Brazil without the EU blocking them. Remains to be seen whether the deal would be as good as what the EU could extract, and whether that deal would jeopardise access to EU markets. If the UK starts importing mad cows from Brazil (just for example), expect the EU to limit burgers from the UK.

27 minutes ago, colhint said:

Are we sure about this.

Yes, you might not know this but I'm always right