Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[///ajd]

jsf said:

Mrr T said:

confused_buyer said:

///ajd said:

So it seems the horsest no deal bluff was indeed a horsest no deal bluff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/b...

That makes Davis look slick and in control. Oh dear.

These Brexiteers are making Thatchers handling of the Polltax look smooth with wide & comprehensive stakeholder buy in.....

In private, both the UK and EU recognise that a crash out would be bad for both of them. Before any negotiation, either side usually postures and bluffs, why should this be any different?

They all want a deal, who will be perceived as having got the best deal will be down to who blinks first.

If you are going to play a game of bluff and bluster its best to do some fact checking. The governments “no deal is better than a bad deal” statement looks a bit stupid when DD has to admitted his department has done no work on the economics of no deal.

It's a question that cant be answered. The principle is absolutely correct, you have to be prepared to walk away if you have any chance of making a fair deal.

You should be just as concerned that your cheerleader for the last 9 months, Clegg, doesn't even understand the difference between membership of and access to, the SM. Really, 9 months and he doesn't understand that, how low is that guys IQ? And he is one of your top men.

The principle of walking away is fine in an open competition.

In the build up to what is in effect a single source procurement, it makes you look a bit naive, being generous.

[Dr Jekyll]

///ajd said:

The principle of walking away is fine in an open competition.

In the build up to what is in effect a single source procurement, it makes you look a bit naive, being generous.

Only if it's single source procurement for something indispensable. Trade deals are simply nice to have.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

Mrr T said:

confused_buyer said:

///ajd said:

So it seems the horsest no deal bluff was indeed a horsest no deal bluff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/b...

That makes Davis look slick and in control. Oh dear.

These Brexiteers are making Thatchers handling of the Polltax look smooth with wide & comprehensive stakeholder buy in.....

In private, both the UK and EU recognise that a crash out would be bad for both of them. Before any negotiation, either side usually postures and bluffs, why should this be any different?

They all want a deal, who will be perceived as having got the best deal will be down to who blinks first.

If you are going to play a game of bluff and bluster its best to do some fact checking. The governments “no deal is better than a bad deal” statement looks a bit stupid when DD has to admitted his department has done no work on the economics of no deal.

It's a question that cant be answered. The principle is absolutely correct, you have to be prepared to walk away if you have any chance of making a fair deal.

You should be just as concerned that your cheerleader for the last 9 months, Clegg, doesn't even understand the difference between membership of and access to, the SM. Really, 9 months and he doesn't understand that, how low is that guys IQ? And he is one of your top men.

The principle of walking away is fine in an open competition.

In the build up to what is in effect a single source procurement, it makes you look a bit naive, being generous.

And here in lies your mental block slasher.

The EU doesn't have something we cant get elsewhere, often on better terms even without a Trade Agreement.
The EU is not where the world begins or ends, its just a small part of what is out there.

The whole world is in open competition, always has been, some of us have spent the last 45 years with the blinkers on while the rest of the planet has surged ahead.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

///ajd said:

jsf said:

Mrr T said:

confused_buyer said:

///ajd said:

So it seems the horsest no deal bluff was indeed a horsest no deal bluff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/b...

That makes Davis look slick and in control. Oh dear.

These Brexiteers are making Thatchers handling of the Polltax look smooth with wide & comprehensive stakeholder buy in.....

In private, both the UK and EU recognise that a crash out would be bad for both of them. Before any negotiation, either side usually postures and bluffs, why should this be any different?

They all want a deal, who will be perceived as having got the best deal will be down to who blinks first.

If you are going to play a game of bluff and bluster its best to do some fact checking. The governments “no deal is better than a bad deal” statement looks a bit stupid when DD has to admitted his department has done no work on the economics of no deal.

It's a question that cant be answered. The principle is absolutely correct, you have to be prepared to walk away if you have any chance of making a fair deal.

You should be just as concerned that your cheerleader for the last 9 months, Clegg, doesn't even understand the difference between membership of and access to, the SM. Really, 9 months and he doesn't understand that, how low is that guys IQ? And he is one of your top men.

The principle of walking away is fine in an open competition.

In the build up to what is in effect a single source procurement, it makes you look a bit naive, being generous.

And here in lies your mental block slasher.

The EU doesn't have something we cant get elsewhere, often on better terms even without a Trade Agreement.
The EU is not where the world begins or ends, its just a small part of what is out there.

The whole world is in open competition, always has been, some of us have spent the last 45 years with the blinkers on while the rest of the planet has surged ahead.

If you are in the hardcore hard brexit camp, you might have a point.

The discussion above is about how that is a fake bluff that even the UK has admitted is guff

[Mrr T]

jsf said:

Mrr T said:

confused_buyer said:

///ajd said:

So it seems the horsest no deal bluff was indeed a horsest no deal bluff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/b...

That makes Davis look slick and in control. Oh dear.

These Brexiteers are making Thatchers handling of the Polltax look smooth with wide & comprehensive stakeholder buy in.....

In private, both the UK and EU recognise that a crash out would be bad for both of them. Before any negotiation, either side usually postures and bluffs, why should this be any different?

They all want a deal, who will be perceived as having got the best deal will be down to who blinks first.

If you are going to play a game of bluff and bluster its best to do some fact checking. The governments “no deal is better than a bad deal” statement looks a bit stupid when DD has to admitted his department has done no work on the economics of no deal.

It's a question that cant be answered. The principle is absolutely correct, you have to be prepared to walk away if you have any chance of making a fair deal.

You should be just as concerned that your cheerleader for the last 9 months, Clegg, doesn't even understand the difference between membership of and access to, the SM. Really, 9 months and he doesn't understand that, how low is that guys IQ? And he is one of your top men.

I cannot understand why you say the you cannot answer the questions of “what would happen if you walk away with no agreement?”

That is actually the easiest question to answer. If you do not get a deal you know exactly what the impact will be. The rules on trading with the EU from outside the EU are the rules the UK operates at the moment. So it’s not hard to answer.

Clegg is certainly not one of my top men.

[confused_buyer]

On the subject of Clegg, it is incredible that he is apparently the best they can find to trot out and put a pro-EU case.

His record is terrible. He was completely wrong about the Euro (stating not joining would wreck the economy). He led his party to an inferior election result than an alcoholic managed at the previous election. He lost a debate with Farage when challenged. He was on the losing side on the EU referendum. Finally, he managed to lead his party to almost total electoral annihilation.

The only single reason for having him on TV is that he is not Paddy Ashdown.

[Mrr T]

Fastdruid said:

Mrr T said:

confused_buyer said:

///ajd said:

So it seems the horsest no deal bluff was indeed a horsest no deal bluff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/b...

That makes Davis look slick and in control. Oh dear.

These Brexiteers are making Thatchers handling of the Polltax look smooth with wide & comprehensive stakeholder buy in.....

In private, both the UK and EU recognise that a crash out would be bad for both of them. Before any negotiation, either side usually postures and bluffs, why should this be any different?

They all want a deal, who will be perceived as having got the best deal will be down to who blinks first.

If you are going to play a game of bluff and bluster its best to do some fact checking. The governments “no deal is better than a bad deal” statement looks a bit stupid when DD has to admitted his department has done no work on the economics of no deal.

Love the wording there Mrr T. I believe the words should actually be "DD has to admitted his department has done no work on a forecast of the economics of no deal

What DD actually said was that they're working on how best to mitigate the effects of no deal along with what would be best from a deal PoV and when they have that *then* they will be able to provide a forecast.

So after 9 months, a white paper, and a clear statement “no deal is better than a bad deal” DD and the dream leave team are still working out what no deal means!!!!!!!!!!!

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

...
That is actually the easiest question to answer. If you do not get a deal you know exactly what the impact will be. The rules on trading with the EU from outside the EU are the rules the UK operates at the moment. So it’s not hard to answer....

I must need some Sanatogen as I can't understand this sentence of yours either. Help me out a bit please.

The UK isn't outside the EU at present, so the UK isn't operating rules in trading with the EU as if it were outside.

If we fell back to WTO ("no deal") the UK would be free to set its own tariff structure. Which it also does not at present and which we may or may not know how we want to set right now.

In everything I've heard direct from Davis's lips (and not therefore subject to interpretation from the media or other commentators) he's always been consistent on the "no deal" aspects and that he has people working on outcomes (it would be totally insane to let any "official" view/details on that out in the open at this stage in proceedings. INSANE). Equally I think everyone and his dog would prefer a "good deal". No one has ever said otherwise. As the negotiating parties progress, opening lines will soften. But those hard backstops are essential (no matter what others note on here). We know where our backstop is, and we are accepting of it. This instantly gives the EU a position that we can all then work in from.

[anonymous-user]

The other laugh in all this Rhetoric is that the EU, 9 months after knowing we voted to leave, haven't yet decided on how they will negotiate. They are going to meet a month after we trigger Art 50 to decide on the basic framework, they will then spend another month working through that to come to a negotiating position. So nothing is going to happen until the end of May.

[Mrr T]

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

...
That is actually the easiest question to answer. If you do not get a deal you know exactly what the impact will be. The rules on trading with the EU from outside the EU are the rules the UK operates at the moment. So it’s not hard to answer....

I must need some Sanatogen as I can't understand this sentence of yours either. Help me out a bit please.

The UK isn't outside the EU at present, so the UK isn't operating rules in trading with the EU as if it were outside.

If we fell back to WTO ("no deal") the UK would be free to set its own tariff structure. Which it also does not at present and which we may or may not know how we want to set right now.

In everything I've heard direct from Davis's lips (and not therefore subject to interpretation from the media or other commentators) he's always been consistent on the "no deal" aspects and that he has people working on outcomes (it would be totally insane to let any "official" view/details on that out in the open at this stage in proceedings. INSANE). Equally I think everyone and his dog would prefer a "good deal". No one has ever said otherwise. As the negotiating parties progress, opening lines will soften. But those hard backstops are essential (no matter what others note on here). We know where our backstop is, and we are accepting of it. This instantly gives the EU a position that we can all then work in from.

Of cause.

The UK is current in the EU and trades with countries outside the EU. This is covered by EU rules on tariffs, processing, recognition of standards, etc, etc. Let’s refer to these as third country rules.

If the UK leave with no deal then the rUK will deal with the UK under the same rules the UK currently deals with non EU countries.

So when a poster suggests we do not know what will happen under a hard brexit, in terms of UK exports to the rEU they are wrong we know all the rules.

[jesusbuiltmycar]

Mrr T said:

If the UK leave with no deal then the rUK will deal with the UK under the same rules the UK ....

Wow!

Are you John Prescott?

Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Tuesday 28th March 12:37

[///ajd]

Dr Jekyll said:

///ajd said:

The principle of walking away is fine in an open competition.

In the build up to what is in effect a single source procurement, it makes you look a bit naive, being generous.

Only if it's single source procurement for something indispensable. Trade deals are simply nice to have.

I suspect you are in a tiny minority who think a trade deal is "nice to have". You are joining the ranks of Don4l etc.

Avoiding queues at Dover, 10% tariffs on car imports etc. are not exactly "nice to have" issues in many peoples book.

Staring at such an outcome might be the best way to trigger a rethink - perhaps that is Mays ploy and she is being underestimated. Perhaps she plans a public shooting of Fox, Davis and Boris as the deal looks increasingly poor, and they are finally vilified as national liabilites to be ridiculed and discarded.

[FN2TypeR]

Where has the mighty Don4l gone, by the by?

[///ajd]

skahigh said:

Mrr T said:

If the UK leave with no deal then the rEU will deal with the UK under the same rules the UK currently deals with non EU countries.

I think the above is what you intended to write?

In which case, yes, you would be correct however, that would only cover the duties applied by the EU nations on our exports.

The unknown in this is the duties that we (the UK) would choose to apply on our imports whether they be from the EU or anywhere else.

Consequently, the affect of us trading under WTO rules is somewhere between difficult and impossible to calculate at the current time.

You are right, but if our UK car exports were carrying 10% tariffs, would you expect our car industry to lobby for 10% on BMWs for example?

[johnxjsc1985]

Will this Topic be closed tomorrow?

[skahigh]

///ajd said:

skahigh said:

Mrr T said:

If the UK leave with no deal then the rEU will deal with the UK under the same rules the UK currently deals with non EU countries.

I think the above is what you intended to write?

In which case, yes, you would be correct however, that would only cover the duties applied by the EU nations on our exports.

The unknown in this is the duties that we (the UK) would choose to apply on our imports whether they be from the EU or anywhere else.

Consequently, the affect of us trading under WTO rules is somewhere between difficult and impossible to calculate at the current time.

You are right, but if our UK car exports were carrying 10% tariffs, would you expect our car industry to lobby for 10% on BMWs for example?

I deleted this post as I was unsure if I had misunderstood our ability to set tariffs under WTO terms but I think I had it correct.

The point is, you are presenting a scenario about car imports whereby you are making an assumption about the tariff that would be imposed.

That is conjecture (whether it turns out to be correct or not) and when multiplied by every import industry becomes completely useless in presenting known economic outcome of trading under WTO terms.

[///ajd]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Will this Topic be closed tomorrow?

No, it will really get going as the full stupidity is unveiled by the negotiations.

Good to see May backing down from "no deal" nonsense. Small but important steps!

[WinstonWolf]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Will this Topic be closed tomorrow?

///ajd will be beside himself

[Andy Zarse]

confused_buyer said:

On the subject of Clegg, it is incredible that he is apparently the best they can find to trot out and put a pro-EU case.

His record is terrible. He was completely wrong about the Euro (stating not joining would wreck the economy). He led his party to an inferior election result than an alcoholic managed at the previous election. He lost a debate with Farage when challenged. He was on the losing side on the EU referendum. Finally, he managed to lead his party to almost total electoral annihilation.

The only single reason for having him on TV is that he is not Paddy Ashdown.

You forgot to mention nice Mr Clogg also got a proper walloping in the AV+ referendum too. I recall he became very very angry about it, blaming the Tories and the Tory controlled media because they were against any change to the current FPtP system. Not once did it appear to occur to him that people simply didn't like the idea of proportional representation or that he might simply have been wrong about everything.

He really is an absolute duffer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo

Edited by Andy Zarse on Tuesday 28th March 13:01

[///ajd]

I swerved the guardian link but I'm sure the express link will chime with the Faragettes (as the express is designed to do).

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/n...

Cue lots of "they can't do that to US, don't they know we won the war!" etc.