How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[AC43]

I heard Victoria Hewson on Chopper's Breixit Podcast the other day. She was putting the case that new trade deals would be relatively easy to sign (the the Australia/US one too something like 15 months and the average is less than 24 months).

https://choppersbrexitpodcast.telegraph.co.uk/e/ep...

Thought I'd look her up and found this; a lawyer's view of why we should extricate ourselves from the ECJ.

http://www.cityam.com/235057/leave-the-eu-to-take-...

For those who haven't listened to Chopper he's Chris Hope, chief politico on the Telegraph and each week he interviews a wide range of pro and anti brexit politicians, commentators, analysts and so on. Genuinely interesting debate. Liam Fox put a good case for the number on this week's one.

He also played down divisions in the cabinet and made some very positive noises about the chancellor not least in terms of him continuing to reduce borrowing. Apparently when the Tories cam in we were borrowing £300,000 a minute. Osborne and Hammond have managed to get it down to £100,000 a minute....Real shame that May's campaign strategists locked Hammond out of the picture - the public need to know these things. Big mistake, actually, as it allowed the Comrades to get away with promising all sorts of ridiculous give a ways without being challenged.

Edited by AC43 on Sunday 23 July 10:10

[Coolbanana]

Troubleatmill said:

You could try answering these
How do we get rid of those 5 Presidents again?
Any Remainers - have any idea how we do this?

Why do we have to kowtow to some Walloon farmers what can block deals at the drop of a hat?
Any Remainers - have any idea how we stop a few hundred farmers holding the rest of us to ransom on trade deals?

Why must we be subservient to unelected and unaccountable people?
Any Remainers - can you explain?

5 Presidents?? Not sure I'm following on that question. Could you please elaborate?

Walloon Farmers...
Who "kowtowed" ? Are you NOT in favour of Democracy? Surely that was a wonderful proof that EVERYONE in the EU affected by ANY new Deal being proposed can have a say in the outcome? How would you react to British Farmers delaying an international Trade deal because they wanted to ensure they were protected? Would you think that stupid and undemocratic too?

It is a GOOD thing that the Walloon Farmers demonstrated that their voice could be heard. Note: the Deal was NOT scuppered by their concerns! You need to allow a process to reach an amicable conclusion for all - this is called negotiation where there will inevitably be some give and take by ALL parties involved.

Subservient to unelected and unaccountable people? Er, right

Ok, let's see...is the British Prime Minister and Cabinet directly elected? Nope...but we have a Democratic system that allows us to vote for a local MP who represents a Party that will perform those elections? Correct? The EU Commission works in a similar way except that there is a fundamental difference: the Commissioners are actually vetted and scrutinised for each position; the UK Cabinet positions are simply picked by favour.
The EU Commissioners are elected by each individual EU Member State nominating one - they are then scrutinised as mentioned above in a US Senate-style hearing.

Unaccountable? The entire EU Commission can be removed by a two thirds vote against - a censure.

You need to understand that the big, bad EU can only propose (not even enshrine) new Laws where the UK Government has allowed them to do so! Yes, the UK Government can veto! Once a proposal is agreed by ALL Member States, it then goes through various incarnations following discussions and debates and is only Law when an EU majority vote is reached. In very sensitive cases, it has to be unanimous.

You think the EU is bad but it is your OWN Government that allows each and every EU Law to proceed! You really think that once out if the EU, successive UK Governments will not follow broadly similar strategies going forward as the EU?

[s2art]

Coolbanana said:

5 Presidents?? Not sure I'm following on that question. Could you please elaborate?

Walloon Farmers...
Who "kowtowed" ? Are you NOT in favour of Democracy? Surely that was a wonderful proof that EVERYONE in the EU affected by ANY new Deal being proposed can have a say in the outcome? How would you react to British Farmers delaying an international Trade deal because they wanted to ensure they were protected? Would you think that stupid and undemocratic too?

It is a GOOD thing that the Walloon Farmers demonstrated that their voice could be heard. Note: the Deal was NOT scuppered by their concerns! You need to allow a process to reach an amicable conclusion for all - this is called negotiation where there will inevitably be some give and take by ALL parties involved.

Subservient to unelected and unaccountable people? Er, right

Ok, let's see...is the British Prime Minister and Cabinet directly elected? Nope...but we have a Democratic system that allows us to vote for a local MP who represents a Party that will perform those elections? Correct? The EU Commission works in a similar way except that there is a fundamental difference: the Commissioners are actually vetted and scrutinised for each position; the UK Cabinet positions are simply picked by favour.
The EU Commissioners are elected by each individual EU Member State nominating one - they are then scrutinised as mentioned above in a US Senate-style hearing.

Unaccountable? The entire EU Commission can be removed by a two thirds vote against - a censure.

You need to understand that the big, bad EU can only propose (not even enshrine) new Laws where the UK Government has allowed them to do so! Yes, the UK Government can veto! Once a proposal is agreed by ALL Member States, it then goes through various incarnations following discussions and debates and is only Law when an EU majority vote is reached. In very sensitive cases, it has to be unanimous.

You think the EU is bad but it is your OWN Government that allows each and every EU Law to proceed! You really think that once out if the EU, successive UK Governments will not follow broadly similar strategies going forward as the EU?

Nope.;

'The UK also has opt-outs in some areas so EU decisions in those areas do not apply to the UK, this includes decisions about the euro, the Schengen area and some areas of justice and home affairs policy.

So though the UK, and all members retain a veto over some key areas of policy, such as the accession of new members (such as Turkey) and most areas of foreign policy (such as the creation of an EU Army), in most areas of policy within the EU, covering as much as 80% of EU law, the UK does not have a veto on EU decisions.'

From http://www.eu-facts.org.uk/arguments-by-topic/can-...

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

The debate really should be about whether there are risks to UK jobs depending on how we brexit.

That's one of the reasons we disagree. Any change - in industry, technology, trading patterns, conflict - will risk (and almost certainly loose) jobs.

If your approach is to preserve those jobs at any cost, you're in a King Canute like position of trying to hold back the inevitable. Even if Brexit didn't happen, I can pretty much guarantee half of the roles you listed won't even exist in twenty years time.

When we bought our last house, we found a very old newspaper under one of the carpets. From the late sixties, the job section had page after page of jobs for typists. Imagine that! We've lost hundreds of thousands of clerical roles since computers came along.

And the point is that loosing all those jobs was ultimately absolutely fine for the economy. Positive even. We don't see bands of women roving the streets, threatening to take down some notes. A healthy economy will continue creating value, and providing employment.

So the measure of Brexit should be - can the economy grow, can we create more value - not will Joe Smith still be able to go to work at Important Bank Plc. Using jobs as a proxy for the economy is grossly misleading.

[turbobloke]

///ajd said:

The debate really should be about whether there are risks to UK jobs depending on how we brexit. And it seems there are.

Which period of time that you've lived through has seen no risks fo UK jobs, or no variation/increase in the risks - for all manner of reasons?

The argument shouldn't be about that (alone) firstly because ''no risks' is silly, secondly there can be greater benefits that follow some disbenefits, and thirdly because there's far more to it.

[Tuna]

ORD said:

That would make a lot of sense if it wasn't so blindingly obvious why there will be a substantial reduction in benefits of trade with the EU. We are, almost by definition, increasing barriers to trade.

I wouldn't disagree that barriers to trade with the EU may increase. However, we're talking percentage points here, not cessation of any trade.

What you see as 'blindingly obvious' takes you to a position where trade barriers terminally harm the UK economy. Whereas I'm watching the financial upsets we've seen over the last few years and think we can weather the storm - and even come out stronger at the end of it.

It also feels that a 'local' trading block is fantastically less relevant since global trading has genuinely transformed the landscape over the last couple of decades.

So I can agree with your start point - yes, trading conditions will change - but then I can't see your working (which you keep calling 'blindingly obvious' without much justification) that gets you from a change in conditions to a change our economy cannot absorb.

[///ajd]

There are ways to handle risk, and different types.

Yes technology and other drivers will change the shape of the job markets and we always need to adapt.

But we are also embarking on a range of changes where the objectives of the negotiation can have a varying impact on jobs, irrespective of technology and other drivers.

The question is therefore should we look to our negotiation to manage those risks and preserve our ability to trade with the EU as unimpeded as possible.

It is clear that we face such decisions.

Should the retention of passporting rights be a priority or issue for the UK, or are we happy to chuck this under the bus?

It depends on whether you believe in risk management or risk admiration. The latter is an issue in some weaker PM organisations, but that doesn't make it the good approach!

[ORD]

Decades from now, Brexit will be taught in schools as the prime example of why direct democracy is dangerous and stupid.

But we will be a 3rd world socialist nation by then, and all the Brexiteers will long have jumped ship.

We seriously have people who think reducing trade with the main economies that want we produce is a good idea because of some unspecified dynamic benefit from the job losses that will result. We are good at producing things (primarily services) that EU countries want, and we are God awful at producing things that most of the ROW wants.

[PurpleMoonlight]

ORD said:

But we will be a 3rd world socialist nation by then, and all the Brexiteers will long have jumped ship.

Hey, look on the bright side.

If 17M odd people have left the UK your grandchildren will be able to buy a home.

Or did you mean they will be dead?

[turbobloke]

ORD said:

Decades from now, Brexit will be taught in schools as the prime example of why direct democracy is dangerous and stupid.

Your crystal ball needs a service, but that remark reminds me of something.

I say I say I say...

An ardent remainer went for a haircut. As he sat in the chair, the barber noticed that the chap was wearing headphones.

"Sorry sir but to give you a quality haircut you'll need to take those headphones off"
"No way, it's vital that they stay put. Can't you work around them?"

The stylist decided that it wasn't a good idea to get into an argument with a customer and thought of a workaround - he would bore the chap to sleep with constant talk about the weather, then remove the headphones, and replace them before the customer woke up.

The plan worked well and after two minutes discussing atlantic fronts the customer was asleep, so the barber carefully removed the headphones and got to work.

After a minute or two the snoring stopped, then there was no movement at all, then the chap turned blue. It was too late...tragedy had struck. Time to dial 999.

Telling the police what happened, the barber mentioned the headphones - at which point an officer picked them up and put them on. All he could hear was a repeated phrase "the EU says breathe in, the EU says breathe out, the EU says breathe in...":

[Dr Jekyll]

ORD said:

Decades from now, Brexit will be taught in schools as the prime example of why direct democracy is dangerous and stupid.

But we will be a 3rd world socialist nation by then, and all the Brexiteers will long have jumped ship.

We seriously have people who think reducing trade with the main economies that want we produce is a good idea because of some unspecified dynamic benefit from the job losses that will result. We are good at producing things (primarily services) that EU countries want, and we are God awful at producing things that most of the ROW wants.

Nobody is arguing that.

55% of our trade is already with ROW (not counting stuff that goes via Rotterdam) and this proportion is increasing. Three of our top five export customers aren't even in the EU. That's why we want to free up trade with ROW. To increase trade not reduce it.

Bear in mind that when the single market was founded there was no WTO alternative. Despite this the single market only increased trade with the EU(according to UK treasury) by about 7% over the next 10 years. Some of which was merely redirected from ROW. Now we have WTO to fall back on the single market isn't really a big deal.

[turbobloke]

Dr Jekyll said:

ORD said:

Decades from now, Brexit will be taught in schools as the prime example of why direct democracy is dangerous and stupid.

But we will be a 3rd world socialist nation by then, and all the Brexiteers will long have jumped ship.

Nobody is arguing that.
.

Nobody is arguing those bits?

Where do I volunteer?!

[ORD]

One infuriating thing about Brexiteers is the refusal to acknowledge that they bear the burden of proof and that it is a heavy one.

Anyone calling for huge chance and saying it won't cause net harm has a heavy burden of showing how that will be the case.

Saying 'Oh well, we will just do more trade with the ROW' doesn't even come close. How is that trade going to increase so quickly? How do we know it will generate the benefits we get from EU trade? Selling cheap widgets to Africa or China (good luck) or Brazil (no chance) or Russia (no chance) or India (good luck) does not generate anything like the profits that we get from selling expensive financial and legal services to French companies.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Dr Jekyll said:

Nobody is arguing that.

55% of our trade is already with ROW (not counting stuff that goes via Rotterdam) and this proportion is increasing. Three of our top five export customers aren't even in the EU. That's why we want to free up trade with ROW. To increase trade not reduce it.

Is the ROW in a position to buy more of the stuff we produce?

Is the UK in a position to buy more of the stuff the ROW produces?

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 23 July 11:30

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

The debate really should be about whether there are risks to UK jobs depending on how we brexit...

Couple of points...

- you can only do that if you understand the context of those industries over a long period. ie you need to understand the baselines of change and risk to be able to assess whether this new feature is more or less material. As others have noted, risk is ever present. Is the Brexit one you keep panicking about worse than those that have gone before? If not worse, were you screaming previously or not?

- you can only debate if the hyperbole is parked. Have a guess who is the biggest issuer of hyperbole? (I'll give you a clue - there's a mirror over that way ->).

ORD said:

Decades from now, Brexit will be taught in schools as the prime example of why direct democracy is dangerous and stupid.

No it won't. It will be taught as the most sensible thing for any of the 28 member states to have done and people will wonder why Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland ever joined the Euro and why they didn't get out themselves. There will also be big debate on why the EU moved like it did from '92 onwards.

There you go, two entirely unprovable viewpoints posited for history. Let's see whose is the closest to reality in due course

ORD said:

...and we are God awful at producing things that most of the ROW wants.

And yet an increasingly substantial majority of our exports are with the RoW. How do you reconcile that? Especially as it's "more difficult" with RoW.

I'm starting to think you and ///ajd are the same person.

[Sway]

ORD said:

One infuriating thing about Brexiteers is the refusal to acknowledge that they bear the burden of proof and that it is a heavy one.

Anyone calling for huge chance and saying it won't cause net harm has a heavy burden of showing how that will be the case.

Saying 'Oh well, we will just do more trade with the ROW' doesn't even come close. How is that trade going to increase so quickly? How do we know it will generate the benefits we get from EU trade? Selling cheap widgets to Africa or China (good luck) or Brazil (no chance) or Russia (no chance) or India (good luck) does not generate anything like the profits that we get from selling expensive financial and legal services to French companies.

There would also be a burden of proof to demonstrate the forecasts of utter doom that is going to engulf our trade with Europe as you're suggesting...

A day or two ago you asked for clear material benefits of leaving, as you're completely incapable of thinking of any - this is apparent in your posts anyway.

Despite being told several, you've completely ignored them and carried on with a rhetoric that the sky is about to fall in and we're going to plummet down the gdp rankings to that of the third world.

C'mon fella, get some perspective.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Murph7355 said:

And yet an increasingly substantial majority of our exports are with the RoW. How do you reconcile that? Especially as it's "more difficult" with RoW.

Doesn't that prove that being in the EU is not harming our exports?

[///ajd]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Murph7355 said:

And yet an increasingly substantial majority of our exports are with the RoW. How do you reconcile that? Especially as it's "more difficult" with RoW.

Doesn't that prove that being in the EU is not harming our exports?

Of course it does. The idea our RoW markets will suddenly blossum after being held back is a Foxy fallacy.

Anyone care to name a UK export to RoW where our exports are currently strangled by EU trade conditions?

[///ajd]

ORD said:

One infuriating thing about Brexiteers is the refusal to acknowledge that they bear the burden of proof and that it is a heavy one.

Anyone calling for huge chance and saying it won't cause net harm has a heavy burden of showing how that will be the case.

Saying 'Oh well, we will just do more trade with the ROW' doesn't even come close. How is that trade going to increase so quickly? How do we know it will generate the benefits we get from EU trade? Selling cheap widgets to Africa or China (good luck) or Brazil (no chance) or Russia (no chance) or India (good luck) does not generate anything like the profits that we get from selling expensive financial and legal services to French companies.

Very good points.

It is very relevant that our high value stuff goes to EU countries. It is all very well talking about the huge untapped markets in India etc. - but with monthly salaries of $300, they are not going to be taking the FS products or Evoque sales that maybe lost to the EU under a hard brexit.

I suspect there is a reason Fox is not stage front making lots of noise. What can he crow about? Reducing tariffs on Chilean wine?

[wc98]

ORD said:

One infuriating thing about Brexiteers is the refusal to acknowledge that they bear the burden of proof and that it is a heavy one.

Anyone calling for huge chance and saying it won't cause net harm has a heavy burden of showing how that will be the case.

Saying 'Oh well, we will just do more trade with the ROW' doesn't even come close. How is that trade going to increase so quickly? How do we know it will generate the benefits we get from EU trade? Selling cheap widgets to Africa or China (good luck) or Brazil (no chance) or Russia (no chance) or India (good luck) does not generate anything like the profits that we get from selling expensive financial and legal services to French companies.

i think you need to tell people exactly how much you expect trade to drop with the eu before making claims that increased trade with the rest of the world will not be making up the difference . god forbid (for remainers anyway)there is a negligible drop in trade with the eu and r.o.w trade increases .