Is Boris sh*tting himself?

[London424]

You know those EU rules that many countries sort of ignore. I suggest the 'no negotiating with other until you leave' one is ignored by the UK.

[MarshPhantom]

boxxob said:

MarshPhantom said:

Obviously, but your average Leave voter wouldn't be.

Likewise, I would say that your average Remainer doesn't understand the EU whatsoever.

Doesn't have a problem with the EU.

[B'stard Child]

London424 said:

You know those EU rules that many countries sort of ignore. I suggest the 'no negotiating with other until you leave' one is ignored by the UK.

Or at least until after the "red button" has been pushed

Right now we are still in the EU......

[turbobloke]

MarshPhantom said:

turbobloke said:

MarshPhantom said:

Kermit power said:

One of the main reasons people voted Leave was because they believe the EU to be an undemocratic, unelected autocracy over which the people have absolutely no control.

Odd that these types almost never get their knickers in a twist about the House of Lords.

Intelligent folks who might be expected to be aware and take an interest, especially those in London, are likely to be aware of the Parliament Acts.

Obviously, but your average Leave voter wouldn't be.

OK but in terms of the HoL they may be aware at one level but I doubt it's on their knickertwist list, whether they voted Leave or Remain.

[jjlynn27]

London424 said:

But the EU countries aren't going to literally stop buying anything/everything from the UK, it could/will reduce though. You are therefore hoping that the new deals with the rest of the world outstrips the loss incurred from the EU.

With a market of 6.5 billion people (with lots of growing, developing economies in there) vs 500 million (mainly stagnating economies) it should be seen as a pretty significant opportunity that needs to be exploited!

Sensible reply, thanks.

If we end up on WTO I'm afraid that we'll just not be competitive enough. Whole point of paying for access is that it removes obstacles. Those new deals, will take years to conclude, EU-CAN took 7 years? And that's EU with 500odd negotiators.

What I don't get is people (general musings, not directed at you), is who are saying why wait, why do we need two years. Two years sounds to me too optimistic just to untangle UK from EU. Let alone to establish trade deals.

[jjlynn27]

WestyCarl said:

jjlynn27 said:

You are right about preparation and stronger hand, even disregarding 80%, I just don't see how we have stronger hand at all.

I agree, which is why we need to start working now to strengthen our hand.

Imagine if we could go into the EU negotiations knowing that we have enough interest from the rest of the world to replace our EU exports (of course we could also enter knowing we have nothing.........)

I don't think that anyone would be happier than me to say; I was wrong. (hopefully with keeping passporting, City and FI).

[jjlynn27]

B'stard Child said:

London424 said:

You know those EU rules that many countries sort of ignore. I suggest the 'no negotiating with other until you leave' one is ignored by the UK.

Or at least until after the "red button" has been pushed

Right now we are still in the EU......

And will be in EU after "red button" is pressed. That's the part that I didn't even think about, but when you do think about it's quite logical.

You are free to negotiate with EU/RoW after A50 negotiations are concluded (or 2yrs after 'red button').

[mph1977]

jjlynn27 said:

B'stard Child said:

London424 said:

You know those EU rules that many countries sort of ignore. I suggest the 'no negotiating with other until you leave' one is ignored by the UK.

Or at least until after the "red button" has been pushed

Right now we are still in the EU......

And will be in EU after "red button" is pressed. That's the part that I didn't even think about, but when you do think about it's quite logical.

You are free to negotiate with EU/RoW after A50 negotiations are concluded (or 2yrs after 'red button').

after 2 years the other 27 members can pull the trapdoor lever regardless - and that is the issue ...

[Kermit power]

Tuna said:

Kermit power said:

Well no, of course, nobody knows with certainty that it can't be done, but given that it would effectively be the death knell for Free Movement in the EU, what chance do you think there is of it happening?

Did you just say "Yes, we don't know what's going to happen, but given that it's going to be a disaster, how do you feel?"

You may be right (I don't personally believe that), but your questions are coming from an assumed starting point that will give only the answer you expect.

No, my assumed starting point isn't necessarily that it's going to be a disaster.

My assumed starting point is that the EU will deliberately try to screw us whilst wearing a conciliatory smile so that they can discourage others from leaving.

My other assumed starting point is that if they give us access to the Single Market without Freedom of Movement, then they'll never persuade anyone else to agree to it, and half the countries that give it now will immediately want to back out of it, so they won't let it happen.

ETA - Meant to say "discourage others from leaving", not us.

Edited by Kermit power on Friday 1st July 14:45

[London424]

jjlynn27 said:

London424 said:

But the EU countries aren't going to literally stop buying anything/everything from the UK, it could/will reduce though. You are therefore hoping that the new deals with the rest of the world outstrips the loss incurred from the EU.

With a market of 6.5 billion people (with lots of growing, developing economies in there) vs 500 million (mainly stagnating economies) it should be seen as a pretty significant opportunity that needs to be exploited!

Sensible reply, thanks.

If we end up on WTO I'm afraid that we'll just not be competitive enough. Whole point of paying for access is that it removes obstacles. Those new deals, will take years to conclude, EU-CAN took 7 years? And that's EU with 500odd negotiators.

What I don't get is people (general musings, not directed at you), is who are saying why wait, why do we need two years. Two years sounds to me too optimistic just to untangle UK from EU. Let alone to establish trade deals.

The EU and Canada, and same with EU and US takes so long because the EU are trying to get an agreement that 27 member countries agree to. The problem is that everyone is protectionist of their own specialist area. So the French want to protect their farmers and their film industry etc. So the negotiations drag on and on and on while the proposals get more and more watered down etc.

When 1 country is negotiating with 1 other country these things go much faster as you only have to think about and agree on where each of you are happy to concede ground.

[sirtyro]

London424 said:

You know those EU rules that many countries sort of ignore. I suggest the 'no negotiating with other until you leave' one is ignored by the UK.

I think Nicola Sturgeon feels the same way. She is already trying to do a deal for Scotland, completely undermining the UK

[s2art]

mph1977 said:

s2art said:

Robertj21a said:

Sam All said:

You don't know what has gone on behind the scenes

So what's wrong with May as PM, Boris as FM, Osborne as Chancellor & Gove at the Home Office.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Osborne a chancellor?? He exposed himself as clueless when he proposed that punishment budget. Personally I would prefer Redwood.

depends if you consider the 'punishment' budget a punishment or a reaction to the loss of value of sterling, the reluctance of outside investors to invest, the potential / actual flight of various businesses ...

Dont be daft. He was proposing increasing taxes and interest rates. The exact opposite of what would needed to be done. It was economically illiterate and his party told him they would vote that sort of budget down.

[sealtt]

s2art said:

Dont be daft. He was proposing increasing taxes and interest rates. The exact opposite of what would needed to be done. It was economically illiterate and his party told him they would vote that sort of budget down.

Same as allowing big banks to fail, moral hazard... If public know that voting for worse economy forces govt to spend more, not good!

[Dr Jekyll]

mph1977 said:

s2art said:

Robertj21a said:

Sam All said:

You don't know what has gone on behind the scenes

So what's wrong with May as PM, Boris as FM, Osborne as Chancellor & Gove at the Home Office.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Osborne a chancellor?? He exposed himself as clueless when he proposed that punishment budget. Personally I would prefer Redwood.

depends if you consider the 'punishment' budget a punishment or a reaction to the loss of value of sterling, the reluctance of outside investors to invest, the potential / actual flight of various businesses ...

In what possible universe do you respond to an economic downturn by fiscal tightening?

[mph1977]

Dr Jekyll said:

mph1977 said:

s2art said:

Robertj21a said:

Sam All said:

You don't know what has gone on behind the scenes

So what's wrong with May as PM, Boris as FM, Osborne as Chancellor & Gove at the Home Office.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Osborne a chancellor?? He exposed himself as clueless when he proposed that punishment budget. Personally I would prefer Redwood.

depends if you consider the 'punishment' budget a punishment or a reaction to the loss of value of sterling, the reluctance of outside investors to invest, the potential / actual flight of various businesses ...

In what possible universe do you respond to an economic downturn by fiscal tightening?

one where you have all ready cut to the bone if not beyond and the crises in the actual services are manufactured by middle management and/or the Unions ?

[s2art]

mph1977 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

mph1977 said:

s2art said:

Robertj21a said:

Sam All said:

You don't know what has gone on behind the scenes

So what's wrong with May as PM, Boris as FM, Osborne as Chancellor & Gove at the Home Office.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Osborne a chancellor?? He exposed himself as clueless when he proposed that punishment budget. Personally I would prefer Redwood.

depends if you consider the 'punishment' budget a punishment or a reaction to the loss of value of sterling, the reluctance of outside investors to invest, the potential / actual flight of various businesses ...

In what possible universe do you respond to an economic downturn by fiscal tightening?

one where you have all ready cut to the bone if not beyond and the crises in the actual services are manufactured by middle management and/or the Unions ?

So your solution is to actually cut into the bone? Bonkers.

[mph1977]

s2art said:

mph1977 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

mph1977 said:

s2art said:

Robertj21a said:

Sam All said:

You don't know what has gone on behind the scenes

So what's wrong with May as PM, Boris as FM, Osborne as Chancellor & Gove at the Home Office.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Osborne a chancellor?? He exposed himself as clueless when he proposed that punishment budget. Personally I would prefer Redwood.

depends if you consider the 'punishment' budget a punishment or a reaction to the loss of value of sterling, the reluctance of outside investors to invest, the potential / actual flight of various businesses ...

In what possible universe do you respond to an economic downturn by fiscal tightening?

one where you have all ready cut to the bone if not beyond and the crises in the actual services are manufactured by middle management and/or the Unions ?

So your solution is to actually cut into the bone? Bonkers.

no , i don;t think you quite understood the point -

my solution to the services issue would be a night of long knives among the middle management and sacrifical lambs to senior management ( who think they are senior management) in the first place , but in some cases yes you need to look at meeting the current income levels ...

[kurt535]

WestyCarl said:

Everybody is focusing on the EU, it's a bit of a red herring.

Now we are out of the EU, we can negotiate deals independently with the rest of the world. In fact if I was in Westminster at the moment this is exactly what I'd be tackling first. If it goes well then the UK dependency on EU negotiations will be much less.

I am SO, SO, SO bored hearing this line. Any trade delegations flown into London in the last week? Um, no.

Australia has expressed deep concern us leaving. the £5bn we currently do with them has a lot of european access feathered into it.

Ditto Jap car manufacturers based in UK.

I can see the behind closed doors EU meetings right now:

-OK, who wants Airbus wing manufacturing? Greece/Portugal? OK
-Finance? OK 75% Franfurt, 25% Paris
-R/D? everyone a little bit? ok.
-Nissan cars? Portugal and Spain? OK

and so on....

[Mrr T]

kurt535 said:

-Finance? OK 75% Franfurt, 25% Paris

Not sure about that. For traders French taxes are far to high. Frankfurt is an option but Barfin are not the most helpful. I would say Ireland and Luxembourg will be high on the lists. However, expect some surprises. A lot of banks already have service centres in eastern Europe. So some will go there as well. I am sure the leave team will be happy not only will they drive financial service job out of the UK but it will mean more jobs for any eastern European immigrant to go back to.

[don4l]

Kermit power said:

don4l said:

Kermit power said:

If you know that Britain really does have the upper hand in the negotiations, how come you haven't addressed the fact that we currently export over 3 times as much to the EU per capita as they export to us?

I'm sure you can explain exactly how having three times as much to lose as them for every man, woman and child in the country means that we've got the upper hand. I know these threads have been growing very quickly, so you may not have seen the question. I wouldn't like you to miss the opportunity to tell us why it puts us in such a strong position though, so here's another chance!

Because it is utterly irrelevant.

The EU has a huge trade surplus with us. That is all that matters.
There are far more German and French jobs at risk than British ones.

Volkswagen shares are down 12% since last Thursday.

The FTSE100 is up 2.9%.

The Spanish stock market is in meltdown http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/06/24/inenglish/1466...

El Pais said:

The Ibex sustained the greatest losses of its entire 24-year history on Friday, when news of a Brexit victory pushed Spain’s benchmark stock market index down 12.35% at closing time.

You're utterly convinced that this is all going to be looked at in a perfect vacuum, aren't you!

One of the main reasons people voted Leave was because they believe the EU to be an undemocratic, unelected autocracy over which the people of Europe have absolutely no control, to whom absolutely NOTHING matters except the furtherance of the European Superstate.

Now either that's completely untrue, in which case why on earth did we vote to leave (??) or it's true, in which case what on earth makes you think that they're going to negotiate rationally, rather than purely with a view to demonstrating to the citizens of other member states that leaving the EU is the worst fate imaginable?

Add to that the highly relevant fact that in a Mexican stand-off, we've got far, far more to lose per capita, and you're deluded if you think the EU is going to view a fair and equitable trade deal as being the best strategic outcome for them.

My main reason, which I have stated many times is that I feel that the EU makes our businesses uncompetitive in a global economy.

The share of our exports that go to the EU has decreased from 56% to 44% in 10 years.

We need to be out there dealing with India and China, not Greece and Portugal.

Asking me how we would negotiate with them is puutting up a strawman.

I've said many time that I would give 6 months notice. Apparently, we only have 40 trained negotiators. They will be needed to do deals with growing economies.

I would absolutely play hardball. They have have more to lose than we do.