Is Boris sh*tting himself?

[ralphrj]

bosshog said:

ralphrj said:

Meanwhile in the real world, the EU say we can't even discuss what our options are with them (EEA, EFTA, Norway deal etc.) until we invoke article 50 i.e. only after we commit to leaving will they then tell us if we can have any sort of a deal at all.

Actually thats not correct. Trade deals negations cannot be started until after the Uk has exited the EU .Ie after 2 years after article 50. So it will be many many years before we have any trade deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36637232

Effectively they are saying we can't discuss the possibility of remaining within the EEA until we commit to leaving the EU.

If we can't remain in the EEA there is an increased chance we won't invoke article 50 but they are saying that we can't find out if that is possible until after invoking article 50.

i.e. we have to put the gun to our head and pull the trigger before they will tell us if the gun is loaded or not.

[405dogvan]

ralphrj said:

i.e. we have to put the gun to our head and pull the trigger before they will tell us if the gun is loaded or not.

That would be have been a better thing to write on the battle bus instead of a blatant lie about NHS funding...

But Leave voters won't mind - they told the Govt to Leave so it needs to Leave

It had a plan - right?

No problems...

[Tuna]

Kermit power said:

Tuna said:

Leins said:

Would Matthias be quite so adamant on that if VAG, BMW, Mercedes, etc were UK companies?

Genuinely I think he would. From a trade perspective, whichever side you're on adding artificial barriers makes your life harder. Restricting trade by any means harms the economy - it's as simple as that. Protectionist policies belong in the 19th Century.

Naivete is alive and well, I see.

I did say from a trade perspective. Politicians can still choose to do all sorts of silly things, but the EU really can't afford to look unreasonable right now when a nation has left due to it being unreasonable. We'll see.

[405dogvan]

Kermit power said:

Tuna said:

Leins said:

Would Matthias be quite so adamant on that if VAG, BMW, Mercedes, etc were UK companies?

Genuinely I think he would. From a trade perspective, whichever side you're on adding artificial barriers makes your life harder. Restricting trade by any means harms the economy - it's as simple as that. Protectionist policies belong in the 19th Century.

Naivete is alive and well, I see.

Whatever else you think, the EU is the most comprehensive and successful Trade Agreement in human history - if we choose to abandon it entirely, the result would be decades of negotiation and legal reform WAY beyond the ability of our current Parliament to handle.

It's existence enables trade which would otherwise be virtually impossible within the member countries - what happens when you remove it NO-ONE knows and I really doub anyone wants to put their neck on finding out!?

[mattmurdock]

Tuna said:

I did say from a trade perspective. Politicians can still choose to do all sorts of silly things, but the EU really can't afford to look unreasonable right now when a nation has left due to it being unreasonable. We'll see.

It also can't be seen to be reasonable to a nation who has left it, lest other nations think they can do the same thing, surely?

[Tuna]

405dogvan said:

Whatever else you think, the EU is the most comprehensive and successful Trade Agreement in human history - if we choose to abandon it entirely, the result would be decades of negotiation and legal reform WAY beyond the ability of our current Parliament to handle.

The core of EU trading is that it is easier with little or no barriers. The original trade agreement was about the economic benefit of not being idiots.

[405dogvan]

Not sure we've had this one yet???

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-ba...

WAY over my paygrade and out of my bullst alarm range but these people seem to believe that the PM cannot unilaterally activate Article 50 without some sort of Parliamentary approval!?

Which I cannot imagine they could get??

Of course piddling things like law didn't stop us invading another country so leaving the EU is ezsauce?

[coanda_2013]

Off topic slightly, but, I can't believe it's only week since the House of Commons sat to pay those fond tributes to Jo Cox, with a real sense of unity across all parties and ending with the round of applause.

A week's along time in politics... Sigh.

[Kermit power]

Tuna said:

Kermit power said:

Tuna said:

Leins said:

Would Matthias be quite so adamant on that if VAG, BMW, Mercedes, etc were UK companies?

Genuinely I think he would. From a trade perspective, whichever side you're on adding artificial barriers makes your life harder. Restricting trade by any means harms the economy - it's as simple as that. Protectionist policies belong in the 19th Century.

Naivete is alive and well, I see.

I did say from a trade perspective. Politicians can still choose to do all sorts of silly things, but the EU really can't afford to look unreasonable right now when a nation has left due to it being unreasonable. We'll see.

Even from a trade perspective, if we were selling three times as many cars to the Germans as they sell to us, I'm pretty certain that Matthias would be staying rather quiet right now!

As for who is being unreasonable, Junckers and co are already trotting out a position that the UK was never truly one of us, and was unreasonable right the way from the offset.

Which side of the coin the populace of Europe will believe remains to be seen, but I don't think it bodes particularly well for us that Spain - the first country to have a General Election since the referendum - has looked at what we've done and then moved quite sharply back towards the establishment, rather than towards the exit door.

If the EU can keep that up, and it stays just right wing extremists calling for referenda, then they've got a very strong position when we do get to the negotiating table.

[bosshog]

ralphrj said:

bosshog said:

ralphrj said:

Meanwhile in the real world, the EU say we can't even discuss what our options are with them (EEA, EFTA, Norway deal etc.) until we invoke article 50 i.e. only after we commit to leaving will they then tell us if we can have any sort of a deal at all.

Actually thats not correct. Trade deals negations cannot be started until after the Uk has exited the EU .Ie after 2 years after article 50. So it will be many many years before we have any trade deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36637232

Effectively they are saying we can't discuss the possibility of remaining within the EEA until we commit to leaving the EU.

If we can't remain in the EEA there is an increased chance we won't invoke article 50 but they are saying that we can't find out if that is possible until after invoking article 50.

i.e. we have to put the gun to our head and pull the trigger before they will tell us if the gun is loaded or not.

But thats nothing to do with how a trade deal might look like, that is just discussions on how we are going to exit. Trade deal discussions won't start until we are no longer a part of EU. See https://next.ft.com/content/7badcbe2-3a0b-11e6-9a0...

[e8_pack]

Kermit power said:

Which side of the coin the populace of Europe will believe remains to be seen, but I don't think it bodes particularly well for us that Spain - the first country to have a General Election since the referendum - has looked at what we've done and then moved quite sharply back towards the establishment, rather than towards the exit door.

If the EU can keep that up, and it stays just right wing extremists calling for referenda, then they've got a very strong position when we do get to the negotiating table.

Eh? they still don't have a majority and are busy running around trying to form coalitions, just as they did 6 months ago. Exactly what influence did brexit have on that outcome?

[Murph7355]

Einion Yrth said:

The Dutch have a team.

marshalla said:

Les Français, aussi. http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/123/icc-members/a...
und ze Germans : http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/124/icc-members/a...
http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/121/icc-members/a...
http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/116/icc-members/a...

They just don't play it terribly well.

There's always two!

It's no wonder they don't play it very well if they weren't out playing at the weekend. Merkel would make a good wicket keeper. Or tea lady.

[Murph7355]

mattmurdock said:

Tuna said:

I did say from a trade perspective. Politicians can still choose to do all sorts of silly things, but the EU really can't afford to look unreasonable right now when a nation has left due to it being unreasonable. We'll see.

It also can't be seen to be reasonable to a nation who has left it, lest other nations think they can do the same thing, surely?

I'm not sure trying to shaft the UK sends out an especially good message either to other member states...having to try and damage a nation you've allegedly been friends with for 40yrs in order to show other member states what will happen if they dare do the same doesn't strike me as an especially constructive way of promoting unity. Sounds more dictatorial to me, and dictatorial blocks do not last. Clinging on to political and fiscal unification will be the death of the EU. If it took a few steps back, I doubt anyone else would be even remotely inclined to leave. Perhaps not even us!

All parties involved have a very delicate balancing act to play out IMO. I think that was part of the reason Merkel came out saying it needs full consideration etc.

[Kermit power]

e8_pack said:

Kermit power said:

Which side of the coin the populace of Europe will believe remains to be seen, but I don't think it bodes particularly well for us that Spain - the first country to have a General Election since the referendum - has looked at what we've done and then moved quite sharply back towards the establishment, rather than towards the exit door.

If the EU can keep that up, and it stays just right wing extremists calling for referenda, then they've got a very strong position when we do get to the negotiating table.

Eh? they still don't have a majority and are busy running around trying to form coalitions, just as they did 6 months ago. Exactly what influence did brexit have on that outcome?

The PP - who are committed to staying in - were the only party to increase their number of seats or share of the vote to any notable degree. Sure, there are plenty of other things at play there, but they certainly haven't thought "if Britain can do it, so can we!" and bolted for the exit door, have they?

[Kermit power]

Getting back to the OP's original question, if the Wail are to be believed, he hasn't shown up in parliament for Cameron's statement today...

[ralphrj]

bosshog said:

But thats nothing to do with how a trade deal might look like, that is just discussions on how we are going to exit. Trade deal discussions won't start until we are no longer a part of EU. See https://next.ft.com/content/7badcbe2-3a0b-11e6-9a0...

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am aware that the EU won't begin to discuss a trade deal until after we have exited. However, if we remain in the EEA we don't need a trade deal as we are still in the Single Market but out of the EU. The point I was making is that the EU won't even discuss the possibility of us being able to stay in the EEA until we invoke article 50.

So we find ourselves in this situation:

UK: we've voted to leave
EU: shame
UK: before I invoke article 50 what options are you prepared to consider?
EU: invoke article 50 and we'll tell you
UK: but I might not want to invoke article 50 if all the options are bad
EU: you will have to take that risk
UK: but if I invoke article 50 and all the options are bad there is no way of backing out!
EU: we know
UK: OK, OK, I invoke article 50
EU: OK
UK: can we stay in the EEA a bit like Norway and Switzerland?
EU: no
UK: f**K! Well what about a trade deal?
EU: OK, it shouldn't take any more than 30 years to sort out...

[FredClogs]

Kermit power said:

Getting back to the OP's original question, if the Wail are to be believed, he hasn't shown up in parliament for Cameron's statement today...

He's playing cricket with some minor royals today mate. Sorry couldn't make it. I'm sure everyone understands.

[Kermit power]

Is anyone counting how many times Cameron has said "that'll be for the next PM to decide" in today's parliamentary session? He's really cranking it up!

[don4l]

Kermit power said:

We take something like 8% of Germany's exports, and they take something like 10% of ours, so already there, we've got negotiating parity at best, but what you're failing to take into account is the whole reason why so many people voted to leave the EU in the first place.

It's a bloody great big collective!

We might be roughly at parity with some individual countries in the EU when it comes to negotiating, but we don't negotiate with individual countries, we negotiate with the whole group. They take 45% of our exports, whereas we take less than 10% of ours.

How on earth do you think that puts us in the stronger negotiating position????

That's before you consider the possibility of the EU negotiators deliberately taking a bit of a hit on their own side to give us a really crap deal, just to encourage other member states' populations to think twice about having their own leave campaigns.

I've no idea where your figures come from.

We have a huge trade imbalance with Germany. We take £20Bn of their cars, or a fifth of total car production. We export £10Bn to them.

BMW shares are down 12% since Friday morning. Volkswagen are down 11%.

The CAC40 in Paris is also down 11%. The Spanist stock market is down 13%.

The FTSE 100 is down 5%.

The markets are saying very clearly that the consequences are much more severe for the rest of Europe.

It is fantastic that Cameron isn't going too quickly, because negotiations cannot start until his successor is in place. Meanwhile, Junker et al have time to reflect on their position.

I was reading the Spanish newspaper earlier. They are desperate for a compromise.

There is a very real fear in Europe at the moment. We should use this to our advantage.

For the moment, my strategy would be to suggest that no negotiations were necessary. WTO option would suit us very nicely indeed.

Another 10% wiped off their stock markets would bring them to their senses.

So, we do not need to even consider the Norway option.

We need to play hardball. We have a £65Bn upper hand.

[don4l]

Kermit power said:

Is anyone counting how many times Cameron has said "that'll be for the next PM to decide" in today's parliamentary session? He's really cranking it up!

That is aimed fair and square at Junker, Schulz and Tusk.