How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
///ajd said:
So you just abandon the £300Bn EU market until they get someone you like? Like waiting for a pitate memory game thats a little less piratey. Do you stick your bottom lip out while you're waiting?
The sophistication of the leave argument is laid particularly bare of late.
Yep & their blonde-haired saviour has had a moment of clarity & said "bugger this".The sophistication of the leave argument is laid particularly bare of late.
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
They've not decided, fair enough - a couple of the other PMs are in support.
There's the same lack of downsides for Norway as there was when we both helped form EFTA, we complement not compete with each other internally (we're never going to export fish to them, nor them to us), but as a united front have serious specialisms to offer global trade.
You do this with most of your posts. You put your opinion as fact and go from there without any evidence whatsoever. There's the same lack of downsides for Norway as there was when we both helped form EFTA, we complement not compete with each other internally (we're never going to export fish to them, nor them to us), but as a united front have serious specialisms to offer global trade.
Read the link. Her priority is, quite rightly, Norway.
Norway PM said:
An EFTA agreement will give us a good relationship with the UK. We can also get [a good relationship with the UK] through other agreements as well. And do we want Britain to be involved in dictating what the EFTA negotiates with third countries? Will our key national interests being benefited by that? That is the discussion we need to have,” Solberg said, pointing out that the dynamics of the EFTA negotiations with other countries will change.
If you want to read that as ; EFTA happy for UK to join, you go ahead.Edited by jjlynn27 on Thursday 30th June 22:48
Here's Iceland's PM's view: http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_soc...
Norway's fear is that we make it harder for EFTA to achieve more trade deals. That we'd shift the balance to making EFTA look a lot more competitive with large trading nations, and so they may be more reluctant to risk open access to our industries.
We can alleviate that.
It's by no means a foregone conclusion - first we'd need the desire to join...
PurpleMoonlight said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the US ban all imports from Cuba unless specifically permitted?
In contravention of WTO rules yes. But the EU have obeyed WTO rules (through gritted teeth) up to now, and if they are going to ignore them in future that's hardly an argument for being a memberSway said:
Of course, if most of my posts are in that vein, you'd be able to point out several - after all I've not beem shy in giving my opinion...
First one that springs to mind is claim of being able to save '30-50%' of (parts?) of NHS Budget. I'm sorry, that's just on another planet. Sway said:
Here's Iceland's PM's view: http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_soc...
Norway's fear is that we make it harder for EFTA to achieve more trade deals. That we'd shift the balance to making EFTA look a lot more competitive with large trading nations, and so they may be more reluctant to risk open access to our industries.
We can alleviate that.
It's by no means a foregone conclusion - first we'd need the desire to join...
Not sure what that link says about UK chances to join EFTA? Norway's fear is that we make it harder for EFTA to achieve more trade deals. That we'd shift the balance to making EFTA look a lot more competitive with large trading nations, and so they may be more reluctant to risk open access to our industries.
We can alleviate that.
It's by no means a foregone conclusion - first we'd need the desire to join...
His position will be strengthened. That's cool.
As for Norwegian PM, I read that that her first priority, quite rightly is relations with EU, not UK. Again, perfectly understandable.
To go into all this, without any plan, any talks, any preparation whatsover, was beyond stupid. Doing stupid things tends to cost a lot.
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
Of course, if most of my posts are in that vein, you'd be able to point out several - after all I've not beem shy in giving my opinion...
First one that springs to mind is claim of being able to save '30-50%' of (parts?) of NHS Budget. I'm sorry, that's just on another planet. Sway said:
Here's Iceland's PM's view: http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_soc...
Norway's fear is that we make it harder for EFTA to achieve more trade deals. That we'd shift the balance to making EFTA look a lot more competitive with large trading nations, and so they may be more reluctant to risk open access to our industries.
We can alleviate that.
It's by no means a foregone conclusion - first we'd need the desire to join...
Not sure what that link says about UK chances to join EFTA? Norway's fear is that we make it harder for EFTA to achieve more trade deals. That we'd shift the balance to making EFTA look a lot more competitive with large trading nations, and so they may be more reluctant to risk open access to our industries.
We can alleviate that.
It's by no means a foregone conclusion - first we'd need the desire to join...
His position will be strengthened. That's cool.
As for Norwegian PM, I read that that her first priority, quite rightly is relations with EU, not UK. Again, perfectly understandable.
To go into all this, without a ny plan, any talks, any preparation whatsover, was beyond stupid. Doing stupid things tends to cost a lot.
Seddon gave up with the NHS, but the Kiwi's are loving his work...
Here's more regarding failure demand in the public sector, with verified results of implementing effective change: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&a...
Of course, that's 'most' of my posts... Or of course you're stating an opinion as fact, without evidence - some could say that's a display of hypocrisy.
As for Norway, they're talking about increased challenges of future deals - explicit in the quote. That links with my statements that a strong, competitive nation is a bigger risk for a potential competitor to sign a FTA with. We can alleviate that - very few nations really compete with our export industries, we tend to fill niches.
ash73 said:
ash73 said:
At least compare apples and apples; if you want to chuck some figures about have a read of this:
https://www.thecityuk.com/assets/2016/Reports-PDF/...
There seems to be a lot of financial services experts on here, I'd be interested in their (your?) views on whether the forecast £7-12 billion reduction is (a) realistic and (b) able to be mitigated by an appropriate trade deal or passporting arrangement.
No comments from the experts? Or no experts?https://www.thecityuk.com/assets/2016/Reports-PDF/...
There seems to be a lot of financial services experts on here, I'd be interested in their (your?) views on whether the forecast £7-12 billion reduction is (a) realistic and (b) able to be mitigated by an appropriate trade deal or passporting arrangement.
What did Gove tell us?
That's right, citizens of the U.K. have had enough of experts!
(While he sat in the trenches with his head down, waving his flag and shouting 'over the top, men!', not knowing what we were charging headlong into.)
Dr Jekyll said:
Yes, I'm sure.
Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
Australia banned NZ apples for decades despite many rulings against it , only last year they started importing them again. Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
Just because the rules say so doesnt mean you follow them, thats what being a sovereign state means , and lets face it EU rules only seemed to be followed by UK..
RobDickinson said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Yes, I'm sure.
Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
Australia banned NZ apples for decades despite many rulings against it , only last year they started importing them again. Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
Just because the rules say so doesnt mean you follow them, thats what being a sovereign state means , and lets face it EU rules only seemed to be followed by UK..
k all about WTO as shown on number of threads. B) So, if you don't have to follow the rules that means you are independent. Are other countries in EU sovereign? They don't seem to follow the rules, right?
StevieBee said:
The EU currently funds numerous development projects around the world in low and middle income regions. Some in Europe and some in key strategic locations for the EU elsewhere in the world. These cover things such as transport, hospitals, schools, highways, waste management and other social development projects.
These projects all have two distinct phases: Development and Implementation. Implementation draws money from donor institutions such as the World Bank to fund construction and the tenders for these construction projects go first to EU based companies. Only if no suitable EU company can be found do these tenders go global. The value of these projects is often vast and requires consortium bids but again, the aim is for those consortiums to comprise EU companies.
Being outside of the EU, UK companies would thus no longer get first dibs on these tenders and if they did go global, those UK companies would then have to compete against similar companies from Korea, China, etc' who can do just a good a job but for considerably less money. So, we'd simply not be able to compete.
The UK negotiations would thus need to argue that having contributed to the development of these projects over the past years, we should be included in the first round tender opportunities for several years yet, with this tapering off in time.
I am currently working on three such projects (at development stages), all via German project leadership. One is about to move to implementation stage with a budget over two years of something like $200m. My German clients said that politically, it would be unlikely that any UK company would be selected as politically, questions would be asked at home as to why a company from the UK which has chosen to leave the EU has been selected over one comparable from another country that hasn't.
The solution is for those UK companies to relocate to Europe - but this can't simply be opening an office somewhere, you have to pay the majority of corporate tax to the country in which you are HQ'ed so the UK would end up loosing considerable tax revenue.
This will be a difficult one to negotiate.
The more of these stories you hear, the more the absolute stupity of brexit hits home.These projects all have two distinct phases: Development and Implementation. Implementation draws money from donor institutions such as the World Bank to fund construction and the tenders for these construction projects go first to EU based companies. Only if no suitable EU company can be found do these tenders go global. The value of these projects is often vast and requires consortium bids but again, the aim is for those consortiums to comprise EU companies.
Being outside of the EU, UK companies would thus no longer get first dibs on these tenders and if they did go global, those UK companies would then have to compete against similar companies from Korea, China, etc' who can do just a good a job but for considerably less money. So, we'd simply not be able to compete.
The UK negotiations would thus need to argue that having contributed to the development of these projects over the past years, we should be included in the first round tender opportunities for several years yet, with this tapering off in time.
I am currently working on three such projects (at development stages), all via German project leadership. One is about to move to implementation stage with a budget over two years of something like $200m. My German clients said that politically, it would be unlikely that any UK company would be selected as politically, questions would be asked at home as to why a company from the UK which has chosen to leave the EU has been selected over one comparable from another country that hasn't.
The solution is for those UK companies to relocate to Europe - but this can't simply be opening an office somewhere, you have to pay the majority of corporate tax to the country in which you are HQ'ed so the UK would end up loosing considerable tax revenue.
This will be a difficult one to negotiate.
Come on May, save the UK.
Keep spinning the brexit is brexit little falsehood. After all, its fashionable to lie your arse off to win votes these days - if its good enough to secure a brexit vote, its fair play to kick it into touch.
RobDickinson said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Yes, I'm sure.
Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
Australia banned NZ apples for decades despite many rulings against it , only last year they started importing them again. Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
Just because the rules say so doesnt mean you follow them, thats what being a sovereign state means , and lets face it EU rules only seemed to be followed by UK..
s2art said:
Apples is one thing. Banning stuff like the wings for airbus is another.....(or MINIs, Rolls Royce, Bentley etc all German owned). Or Rolls Royce jet engines. It is beyond stupid.
They were all for remain.Thats because they didn't want to have to move to the EU if UK brexited.
So it was stupid to vote brexit if you valued these companies & their jobs/GDP being in the UK.
Yay though for sovereignty, eh! That'll make up for their departure.....
Dr Jekyll said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Dr Jekyll said:
You do realise that we can still trade without a trade agreement don't you?
Are you sure?What is stopping a country, or the EU in this case, simply banning all imports from the UK?
Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
The Lisbon Treaty said:
The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
I mean sure, the businesses mentioned could move production back to the EU, but given the costs involved, and how long it would take them to develop the necessary skills to build something complex like, say the wing for an Airbus, I really doubt it would be worth their while...bodhi said:
Dr Jekyll said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Dr Jekyll said:
You do realise that we can still trade without a trade agreement don't you?
Are you sure?What is stopping a country, or the EU in this case, simply banning all imports from the UK?
Stopping imports would be A) against WTO rules and B) incredibly stupid even by EU standards.
The Lisbon Treaty said:
The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
I mean sure, the businesses mentioned could move production back to the EU, but given the costs involved, and how long it would take them to develop the necessary skills to build something complex like, say the wing for an Airbus, I really doubt it would be worth their while...None of that was good neighbourliness, it penalised the UK and supported france instead.
trickywoo said:
Whats nothing? We never buy an Audi or BMW or French wine again?
Laughable.
- WTO tarriffs Laughable.
- no customs agreements ( except perhaps le touquet)
- no reciprocity of health and social security
- freeze of pensions for UK immigrants to EU states
- potential difficulties for UK nationals owning properties etc in the EU
///ajd said:
s2art said:
Apples is one thing. Banning stuff like the wings for airbus is another.....(or MINIs, Rolls Royce, Bentley etc all German owned). Or Rolls Royce jet engines. It is beyond stupid.
They were all for remain.Thats because they didn't want to have to move to the EU if UK brexited.
So it was stupid to vote brexit if you valued these companies & their jobs/GDP being in the UK.
Yay though for sovereignty, eh! That'll make up for their departure.....
From Airbus website
"Headquartered in Toulouse, France, Airbus is owned by the Airbus Group. It is a truly global enterprise with an active workforce of approximately 55,000 around the world, fully-owned subsidiaries in the United States, China, Japan, India and the Middle East, and spare parts centres in Hamburg, Frankfurt, Washington, Dubai, Beijing and Singapore, engineering and training centres in Toulouse, Miami, Wichita, Hamburg, Bangalore, Singapore, Beijing and more than 150 field service offices around the world.
The company’s industrial network has been expanded to include A320 Family final assembly facilities in China and the U.S., along with a regional design office in North America, a joint venture engineering centre in Russia and further engineering centres in the People’s Republic of China and India.
Airbus also relies on industrial co-operation and partnerships with major companies all over the world, and a network of some 7,700 suppliers."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff