Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Norfolkit said:
B'stard Child said:
Never understood the catnip thing myself as I've never had a car that has been remotely attracted to it......
Only works with cats I think, cars are attracted by bollards, gate posts and other parked cars, according to my wife anyway.Mrr T said:
B'stard Child said:
Never understood the catnip thing myself as I've never had a car that has been remotely attracted to it......
However I see your point and he is being a little quiet but I'm enjoying the break from him rubbishing all my points to leave
Like you I have never had a car interested However I see your point and he is being a little quiet but I'm enjoying the break from him rubbishing all my points to leave
I have had cats. One was so wild for it when we orders some which came by post we came home to find the padded envelope and the plastic bag shredded where the cat had ripped it apart to get its fix.
p1stonhead said:
paulrockliffe said:
Mrr T said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Has the EU published its negotiating strategy for dealing with Brexit yet? We are constantly bombarded with complaints about TM not revealing details of her negotiating strategy, but never complaints about how the EU has not revealed what it is going to do. Why is that?
Who is this EU you are referring to? I know of no such person? Do you mean the Council, the Commission, the Parliament?
FN2TypeR said:
Norfolkit said:
B'stard Child said:
Never understood the catnip thing myself as I've never had a car that has been remotely attracted to it......
Only works with cats I think, cars are attracted by bollards, gate posts and other parked cars, according to my wife anyway.If you can answer yes to
Edited by Norfolkit on Wednesday 18th January 13:20
wiggy001 said:
p1stonhead said:
paulrockliffe said:
Mrr T said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Has the EU published its negotiating strategy for dealing with Brexit yet? We are constantly bombarded with complaints about TM not revealing details of her negotiating strategy, but never complaints about how the EU has not revealed what it is going to do. Why is that?
Who is this EU you are referring to? I know of no such person? Do you mean the Council, the Commission, the Parliament?1) All 4 freedoms or none of them
2) the UK must have a worse (i.e. more costly) trading relationship with EU when it is outside of it than it has now in.
Not that the UK deserves special treatment, but I find it a very "special" combination of stupid/cowardly that TM isn't going to even try to fight (1). You can understand it politically (which is basically all that appears to matter for Brexit) as you can't be seen to try and fail after what happened to Cameron, but in terms of what's best for the UK it's a cop out to not even try. And the threat to take no deal rather than one they don't like very much, while being political porn to the hard Brexiters, is in reality completely daft. Using that logic we're never going to end up with a trade deal with either the US or China or any other bigger market than us as the smaller guy always gets shafted to a greater or lesser extent e.g. Switzerland/China deal.
Still, at least we've got a basic idea of what the give is going to try to do even if it is a bit s
t, so small mercies I guess.Can anyone explain how the UK can have a good deal with Europe?
Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
Not intended as a leading question but it just seems that looking at it from their perspective, they have almost a duty to ensure we come out of this badly. Surely the EU will influence businesses in their member states to back their position?
Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
Not intended as a leading question but it just seems that looking at it from their perspective, they have almost a duty to ensure we come out of this badly. Surely the EU will influence businesses in their member states to back their position?
It hinges around balance of trade, access to the City of London and the confidence of the EU to say, "We can solve our problems, we don't need to bully everyone else into not leaving."
There's no genuine reason not to protect trade as much as possible for both sides.
A punitive deal, while a nice sound-bite for some, is politically very damaging for the EU. European countries are already going to have to have less EU or stump up a shed load more cash for the EU as a result of their mismanagement of the project and our resulting exit. They don't want to have to stump up more due to loss of access to London's financial services or have less to spend because exports have fallen as well.
And the message to others isn't actually "It's st out there." it's, "It's st out there because we've made it st out there, because we don't have confidence in our project."
Then if it's not actually all that st out there where does that leave confidence in the EU? It's not exactly high as it is.
There's no genuine reason not to protect trade as much as possible for both sides.
A punitive deal, while a nice sound-bite for some, is politically very damaging for the EU. European countries are already going to have to have less EU or stump up a shed load more cash for the EU as a result of their mismanagement of the project and our resulting exit. They don't want to have to stump up more due to loss of access to London's financial services or have less to spend because exports have fallen as well.
And the message to others isn't actually "It's s
t out there." it's, "It's st out there because we've made it st out there, because we don't have confidence in our project."Then if it's not actually all that s
t out there where does that leave confidence in the EU? It's not exactly high as it is.Disastrous said:
Can anyone explain how the UK can have a good deal with Europe?
Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
Not intended as a leading question but it just seems that looking at it from their perspective, they have almost a duty to ensure we come out of this badly. Surely the EU will influence businesses in their member states to back their position?
I think if we were attempting to cherry pick from the "four freedoms" and "have our cake and eat it" there would be problemsSurely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
Not intended as a leading question but it just seems that looking at it from their perspective, they have almost a duty to ensure we come out of this badly. Surely the EU will influence businesses in their member states to back their position?
What have the EU got to lose for a "win win" trade deal for both sides - we won't get tariff free access for all - that will be their win
#reasontoleave 57
Junkers said:
I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries."
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
"There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU's powers, there is Charter of Fundamental Rights.
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
"There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU's powers, there is Charter of Fundamental Rights.
CaptainSlow said:
I guess that if the UK's demands are fairly limited the EU has less leverage to try and pass off some the legacy costs, pensions etc to the UK as part the leaving deal?
Oh I'm sure they will lever that into the negotiations and I hope we will seek to get compensation for the 1/58 th* share of assets paid for by our contributions* Or 1/5 th share depending on if you view net contributors as the funders of the EU assets..........
Norfolkit said:
FN2TypeR said:
Norfolkit said:
B'stard Child said:
Never understood the catnip thing myself as I've never had a car that has been remotely attracted to it......
Only works with cats I think, cars are attracted by bollards, gate posts and other parked cars, according to my wife anyway.If you can answer yes to
Edited by Norfolkit on Wednesday 18th January 13:20
I wear the skirts in this household.Disastrous said:
Can anyone explain how the UK can have a good deal with Europe?
Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
Not intended as a leading question but it just seems that looking at it from their perspective, they have almost a duty to ensure we come out of this badly. Surely the EU will influence businesses in their member states to back their position?
The UK can have a good deal with Europe, it just can't be as good as what we have while we're in the EU. The problem is that the UK gov does't appear to quite get the European mentality. We think that if we can show them the economic benefits of giving us a great deal it'll be enough, but it won't, because for the EU27 (or at least the big hitters in it like France and Germany), the EU is about more than economics in a way that it never was for Britain. And personally I think that's why this isn't going to end particularly well for us. Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
Not intended as a leading question but it just seems that looking at it from their perspective, they have almost a duty to ensure we come out of this badly. Surely the EU will influence businesses in their member states to back their position?
Mario149 said:
... but I find it a very "special" combination of stupid/cowardly that TM isn't going to even try to fight (1)...
This is an opening salvo in a negotiation. The EU's was "no way are you getting access without toeing our line". By saying what she has it has disarmed that line of argument. It needed to be said otherwise we are the ones being disarmed.
Time will tell what the end result will be. My bet is that we will have access (in the way people seem to be using it) in all but name for some trade sectors. In others we'll have nowt.
Disastrous said:
...
Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
...
Thing is, any deal with the EU is not the only determining factor in whether we flourish or not. Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
...
For the project, I think this is a dangerous game for the EU elite.
- the %age of our trade with the EU is 43% and dropping steadily. And only 30% of our GDP is exports. So if they totally kick us in the balls (and I mean 100% stop us trading with them) it hits about 13% of GDP. But no one is suggesting that... The impact will be a fraction of it. Probably a small one.
- good trade deals with non-EU States are only likely to accelerate that degradation
- moreover, good trade deals could start to offset any hit
, especially with full control wrested back
- flourishing isn't just about the economy either.
If we flourish after exit (as I expect) despite the EU elite doing their utmost to prevent it, wouldn't that be a far worse message for the project? Than being seen to be "sensible"/fair in dealings...
Let's also face the fact that our position in the EU historically cannot be compared to anyone else. There's only 1 country whose net contributions are higher. And not many more who materially contribute on a net basis.
If the EU elite cannot make a sound argument for staying without the need for Pyrrhic stupidity, then again that just underscores that the right decision was made.
Murph7355 said:
Mario149 said:
... but I find it a very "special" combination of stupid/cowardly that TM isn't going to even try to fight (1)...
This is an opening salvo in a negotiation. The EU's was "no way are you getting access without toeing our line". Murph7355 said:
Disastrous said:
...
Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
...
Thing is, any deal with the EU is not the only determining factor in whether we flourish or not. Surely tactically, the EU MUST NOT allow the UK to flourish on the outside, without opening the floodgates and destroying the whole project?
...
For the project, I think this is a dangerous game for the EU elite.
- the %age of our trade with the EU is 43% and dropping steadily. And only 30% of our GDP is exports. So if they totally kick us in the balls (and I mean 100% stop us trading with them) it hits about 13% of GDP. But no one is suggesting that... The impact will be a fraction of it. Probably a small one.
- good trade deals with non-EU States are only likely to accelerate that degradation
- moreover, good trade deals could start to offset any hit
, especially with full control wrested back
Mario149 said:
The problem with that as far as I can tell anyone who has been involved in negotiating trade deals says those deals are 5, 10 or even more years away. And even then they won't be as comprehensive as what we have with the EU. The crux of it is, can we negotiate good deals with other countries? I personally suspect we can. Can we do enough of them of sufficient quality in the amount of time we need to? Not a chance.
Agreed, however at the moment much of our trade with the wider world (and I'm talking imports here as virtually all our non-EU exports are under WTO tariffs) will be cheaper under WTO compared to the EU import tariff regime. We also currently receive very little of any import duties levied at our ports, this will default to 100%.Further, moving to a tariffed trade approach with the EU is actually pretty low risk. Yes, they'll charge us for our exports. Fine, we'll match the tariff. Ah, but then our volume of exports will decrease is often the cry. I can see that, but in this scenario we have an option - balance is net negative, so we'd be levying a greater sum than rEU will. So our government can use some of those funds to give a rebate to our exporters to the EU.
Maintaining our firm's competitiveness on the continent, making EU imports less attractive to our own produce, and reducing the costs of non-EU imports. Sounds decent to me, even if I would prefer a broadly zero tariff trading regime.
Interesting points raised.
Firstly, thanks all for the food for thought and not just screaming that I'm a lefty traitor. It was a genuine question so the civil answers are appreciated.
I'm mulling over the point about a flourishing UK despite EU punishment. It's a good point and my immediate reaction is that if the UK flies despite heavy EU measures, then the jig is absolutely up for the EU, and Brexit will be proven to have been the correct choice. I'd predict dominoes at that point.
Given that, I can't really see any upside for the EU in Britain doing well beyond a bit of trade. Surely the logical play by them at this point is then to make Brexit as tortuous as possible and hope we don't make it via trade with other nations?
If we were to analogise it with a card game, they're pretty committed at this point so now have stay in regardless and bully us out of the pot. Just how it looks to me - I can't see what's in for them to go easy on us.
Firstly, thanks all for the food for thought and not just screaming that I'm a lefty traitor. It was a genuine question so the civil answers are appreciated.
I'm mulling over the point about a flourishing UK despite EU punishment. It's a good point and my immediate reaction is that if the UK flies despite heavy EU measures, then the jig is absolutely up for the EU, and Brexit will be proven to have been the correct choice. I'd predict dominoes at that point.
Given that, I can't really see any upside for the EU in Britain doing well beyond a bit of trade. Surely the logical play by them at this point is then to make Brexit as tortuous as possible and hope we don't make it via trade with other nations?
If we were to analogise it with a card game, they're pretty committed at this point so now have stay in regardless and bully us out of the pot. Just how it looks to me - I can't see what's in for them to go easy on us.
You go in high but if you "know" that your counterpart has what they think is a strong lever, you do what you can to remove it. (Unless of course you are OK with it, in which case you milk the kind concession you are making).
The EU don't seem to be helping themselves at all on this front, especially now that lever has been torpedoed. Eg they seem to still be pushing for us to conclude negotiations ahead of the 2yr limit. Not clever, no matter what they think not doing so impacts.
The EU don't seem to be helping themselves at all on this front, especially now that lever has been torpedoed. Eg they seem to still be pushing for us to conclude negotiations ahead of the 2yr limit. Not clever, no matter what they think not doing so impacts.
Disastrous said:
If we were to analogise it with a card game, they're pretty committed at this point so now have stay in regardless and bully us out of the pot. Just how it looks to me - I can't see what's in for them to go easy on us.
If the EU was one body then I'd agree. The issue for the EU however is that it's made up of 27(+1!
) countries, none of which will want to suffer a significant loss in trade. So while it might be in the EU's best interest it's not for those countries and so it's more likely that we'll get a better deal than the EU might like. Although obviously not as good as being "in" the Single Market.Then there is the real risk that by punishing us they could cause all sorts of issues in the Eurozone which could be disastrous.
Obviously some are more pro-EU than others hence Merkel asking German business to "take one for the team" but overall the EU cannot afford to punish us like they would want to.
Sway said:
Agreed, however at the moment much of our trade with the wider world (and I'm talking imports here as virtually all our non-EU exports are under WTO tariffs) will be cheaper under WTO compared to the EU import tariff regime. We also currently receive very little of any import duties levied at our ports, this will default to 100%.
Further, moving to a tariffed trade approach with the EU is actually pretty low risk. Yes, they'll charge us for our exports. Fine, we'll match the tariff. Ah, but then our volume of exports will decrease is often the cry. I can see that, but in this scenario we have an option - balance is net negative, so we'd be levying a greater sum than rEU will. So our government can use some of those funds to give a rebate to our exporters to the EU.
Maintaining our firm's competitiveness on the continent, making EU imports less attractive to our own produce, and reducing the costs of non-EU imports. Sounds decent to me, even if I would prefer a broadly zero tariff trading regime.
You have to love brixeter such as the above. He thinks its fine to post advice and viewed based, I assume, on a dream he had last week.Further, moving to a tariffed trade approach with the EU is actually pretty low risk. Yes, they'll charge us for our exports. Fine, we'll match the tariff. Ah, but then our volume of exports will decrease is often the cry. I can see that, but in this scenario we have an option - balance is net negative, so we'd be levying a greater sum than rEU will. So our government can use some of those funds to give a rebate to our exporters to the EU.
Maintaining our firm's competitiveness on the continent, making EU imports less attractive to our own produce, and reducing the costs of non-EU imports. Sounds decent to me, even if I would prefer a broadly zero tariff trading regime.
So where is he wrong:
1. Much of the UK trade outside the EU is covered by some form of agreement.
2. Tariffs are much less important in trade than non tariff barriers. Particularly mutual recognition of standards.
3. Giving subsidies to exporters is illegal under WTO rules.
4. The tariffs are paid by UK tax payers so they are a tax increase in the UK.
If you want some real facts and research I direct everyone again to Richard North and the Eureferendum.com site.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff