How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[alfie2244]

p1stonhead said:

I wouldn't worry he will be too busy begging them not to take £80k personally from him

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage...

Will he be able to take them to the ECJ?

[davey68]

So the only way to get the EU to agree to a mutually beneficial trading agreement is to bung them many billions of pounds (or euros)? A trade deal that benefits the UK and many economies across the channel. The fact people believe the EU would rather negatively impact many countries industries to make sure the UK is 'punished' pretty much sums up why people voted leave.

[Sway]

VolvoT5 said:

Tuna said:

It's an interesting point, that regardless of Brexit, both sides would benefit hugely from a good trading and service arrangement. We've had a lot of discussion about who has the most to loose, but the bottom line is we all benefit from being able to trade and travel. After all, that is why we joined the EU in the first place.

The question is how far the EU feel they can ignore the economic concerns of their member states and a certain desire for pragmatism from the people on the ground. No one has actually called for the UK and Europe to severe ties, just for the nature of the relationship to change.

But that is my point... For the EU technocrats their primary concern is not economic, it is about holding the union together at all costs - I mean just look the Greek financial crisis, they have crushed a whole country just to keep the show on the road. The last thing they want is for us to get, or to have the appearance of getting, a good deal. A good deal would send out totally the wrong message to other member states, encouraging them to get uppity and demand lots of things for or even consider leaving.

On our side May has pinned everything on the 'taking back control' narrative, especially in regards to free movement of people. Again this goes totally against what the EU want - no membership with all that entails means no 'friction free' access to the single market. Simple as that.

Since A50 we have spent nearly 4 months just talking about how the talks will be conducted... and we have already conceded to give them everything they want before we even move on to discussing what we want. These talks will go nowhere.

I think we will either leave on WTO rules, have a 'transition period' that never ends or be offered a second referendum on the deal in order to get the result reversed.

Edited by VolvoT5 on Friday 21st July 20:17

There are no other EU states that are likely to consider leaving.

Those that may wish to owe Germany a figure that makes the squabbling over a potential bill of £70Bn look like chicken feed - and most would struggle to raise the cash.

Those that aren't in massive hock to Germany have become Germany's cheap supply chain, so are getting loads of work and investment whilst also pocketing a ton of cash direct from the EU - although I admit Poland's stance alone on the distribution of migrants could be interesting.

In terms of the negotiations, it's standard fare. Behind the scenes there'll be tons of work going on by the respective civil services. On the face of it, the politicians will bicker and posture, knowing that when the centre ground needs to be found it can be quite quickly due to the groundwork that's hidden.

[ORD]

Tuna said:

ORD said:

I am yet to hear 1 concrete benefit of leaving the EU. It doesn't have to be certain. Something likely would do.

Tuna said:

To add to the list - the replacement of CAP with a system that doesn't simply reward land ownership.

ORD said:

.... silence....

A fair point. There is lots of dross in the EU, and CAP is certainly dogst.

[ORD]

VolvoT5 said:

But that is my point... For the EU technocrats their primary concern is not economic, it is about holding the union together at all costs - I mean just look the Greek financial crisis, they have crushed a whole country just to keep the show on the road. The last thing they want is for us to get, or to have the appearance of getting, a good deal. A good deal would send out totally the wrong message to other member states, encouraging them to get uppity and demand lots of things for or even consider leaving.

On our side May has pinned everything on the 'taking back control' narrative, especially in regards to free movement of people. Again this goes totally against what the EU want - no membership with all that entails means no 'friction free' access to the single market. Simple as that.

Since A50 we have spent nearly 4 months just talking about how the talks will be conducted... and we have already conceded to give them everything they want before we even move on to discussing what we want. These talks will go nowhere.

I think we will either leave on WTO rules, have a 'transition period' that never ends or be offered a second referendum on the deal in order to get the result reversed.

Edited by VolvoT5 on Friday 21st July 20:17

I agree entirely with your last para. So does the widest-read and smartest man that I know. He's been saying for months and months that 'No deal' is by far the most likely outcome.

[///ajd]

ORD said:

I agree entirely with your last para. So does the widest-read and smartest man that I know. He's been saying for months and months that 'No deal' is by far the most likely outcome.

Does you/he think a no deal scenario will be accompanied by a "err, are we sure?" vote in parliament/back to the public?

I don't think there is really any appetite for a no deal solution (other than for Foxy, but he is certifiable). I don't think any of the other brexiteers, and certainly not May, really have the balls for no deal.

[s2art]

ORD said:

I agree entirely with your last para. So does the widest-read and smartest man that I know. He's been saying for months and months that 'No deal' is by far the most likely outcome.

There wont be 'no deal'. There will just be a deal that both sides can claim a win.

[Troubleatmill]

///ajd said:

ORD said:

I agree entirely with your last para. So does the widest-read and smartest man that I know. He's been saying for months and months that 'No deal' is by far the most likely outcome.

Does you/he think a no deal scenario will be accompanied by a "err, are we sure?" vote in parliament/back to the public?

I don't think there is really any appetite for a no deal solution (other than for Foxy, but he is certifiable). I don't think any of the other brexiteers, and certainly not May, really have the balls for no deal.

It is simple.

1/ We leave with a deal
2/ We leave with no deal

Either way - we leave.

Anyone who wants to backtrack on the democratic result of the referendum .... It's sausages in the lawn for them

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

Does you/he think a no deal scenario will be accompanied by a "err, are we sure?" vote in parliament/back to the public?

I don't think there is really any appetite for a no deal solution (other than for Foxy, but he is certifiable). I don't think any of the other brexiteers, and certainly not May, really have the balls for no deal.

I'm not a 'brexiteer', but I'm increasingly sanguine about a no-deal solution. Partly because the same people who said there would be an immediate recession are treating it like the end of the world (yes, reverse psychology works on me), and partly because none of the other commentators have really articulated how it would be worse than being dragged through the mud by an EU that doesn't want us.

My understanding of the WTO terms puts the effect as being less than the currency fluctuations that we have recently been weathering. And whilst some are referring to that as a 'collapse', all of the economic measures remain boyant. Perhaps someone could explain how WTO would actually harm us when we're living through a demonstration of just how flexible our economy is?

If we do get to that point, I'd expect we'd at least see some proper analysis of what our 'no deal' world would look like from the people running the negotiations. To be clear, I'm not expecting it now because the current discussions may end up solving (or highlighting) some areas of contention independently of the final signed agreement. If we do get to the point of no return, a 'budget report' telling us how trade and services will be affected by WTO rules would be a good thing. I would be quite happy for parliament to vote on the final outcome though - I've no stomach for another referendum.

An extended transition period however would really, really boil my **ss. I'm sick of people in this country telling us that we're incapable of getting the job done when the best characteristic of this country is an ability to muck in and fix things when pushed. Conversely I'm certain that an indefinite deadline way off in the future is a recipe for complete inaction.

[skahigh]

Found this article moderately interesting so others may too.

It's obviously very pro-brexit but, if you can look past some of the hammed up rhetoric I think it makes a good point about the current media spin on the negotiations, none of us in the public can really know just how much is real and how much is spin and we should be wary of drawing any conclusions until the whole thing is resolved.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/just-really-messing...

[PurpleMoonlight]

VolvoT5 said:

But that is my point... For the EU technocrats their primary concern is not economic, it is about holding the union together at all costs

Neither was the vote to leave, and was about leaving at any cost.

[Du1point8]

PurpleMoonlight said:

VolvoT5 said:

But that is my point... For the EU technocrats their primary concern is not economic, it is about holding the union together at all costs

Neither was the vote to leave, and was about leaving at any cost.

Think you will find the vote to leave was more about levels of immigration that joe public didnt want, than your simple idea of just wanting to leave at any cost.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Du1point8 said:

Think you will find the vote to leave was more about levels of immigration that joe public didnt want, than your simple idea of just wanting to leave at any cost.

Okay, controlling immigration at any cost.

The point is neither the UK or the EU have or are acting on purely economic grounds.

[babatunde]

jsf said:

That would be the British public. Why people think we need a foreign body that has no skin in the game to protect us is beyond me, it's bonkers. If we don't like the bunch doing horrific things, we chuck them out.

Mainland Europe has a very poor record in this respect, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar to name just 4 in the last century.

Brexit, because Hitler, is the most Godwin argument ever, pray tell which recess of your mind thinks that is a good negotiating point

[///ajd]

Tuna said:

I'm not a 'brexiteer', but I'm increasingly sanguine about a no-deal solution. Partly because the same people who said there would be an immediate recession are treating it like the end of the world (yes, reverse psychology works on me), and partly because none of the other commentators have really articulated how it would be worse than being dragged through the mud by an EU that doesn't want us.

My understanding of the WTO terms puts the effect as being less than the currency fluctuations that we have recently been weathering. And whilst some are referring to that as a 'collapse', all of the economic measures remain boyant. Perhaps someone could explain how WTO would actually harm us when we're living through a demonstration of just how flexible our economy is?

If we do get to that point, I'd expect we'd at least see some proper analysis of what our 'no deal' world would look like from the people running the negotiations. To be clear, I'm not expecting it now because the current discussions may end up solving (or highlighting) some areas of contention independently of the final signed agreement. If we do get to the point of no return, a 'budget report' telling us how trade and services will be affected by WTO rules would be a good thing. I would be quite happy for parliament to vote on the final outcome though - I've no stomach for another referendum.

An extended transition period however would really, really boil my **ss. I'm sick of people in this country telling us that we're incapable of getting the job done when the best characteristic of this country is an ability to muck in and fix things when pushed. Conversely I'm certain that an indefinite deadline way off in the future is a recipe for complete inaction.

I'm not sure saying 'reverse physcology works on me' is a good thing. It suggests you may reject facts as you are reacting on an emotional level.

Anyway, we are not even close to seeing what WTO would mean as we are trading under the free flowing EU single market, and very successfully with the RoW already. The impact will be negative with no deal, against 40%+ of our trade.

Boris has bragged about no plan for no deal. The treasury has already produced an analysis of how WTO would impact our GDP. It would cost us billions - vastly more than our EU costs. This was laid out before the vote.

So its not people telling us we can't 'the job done' - whatever that means when we need to reach an agreement with the EU and they of course have a voice too - its people saying don't crash the economy, as WTO would cost us dear.

Everyone in the govt now seems agreed on a transition period - at least that is what Gove said I recall.

However much you might want to, flouncing out of the EU in a rushed huff won't do anyone any good.

That said, a no deal outcome would probably be best for remainers as that would be most likely to trigger a movement to reverse, being so far from vote leave promises (we'll have a super UK-EU trade deal, piece of cake etc.)

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 22 July 06:56

[PurpleMoonlight]

Cake?

Did someone mention cake?

[anonymous-user]

babatunde said:

jsf said:

That would be the British public. Why people think we need a foreign body that has no skin in the game to protect us is beyond me, it's bonkers. If we don't like the bunch doing horrific things, we chuck them out.

Mainland Europe has a very poor record in this respect, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar to name just 4 in the last century.

Brexit, because Hitler, is the most Godwin argument ever, pray tell which recess of your mind thinks that is a good negotiating point

Don't you think mainland Europe has a cheek trying to have us over on these leaving the EU negotiations? Germany was lucky it wasn't wiped off the map after their atrocities became apparent and if you look into it that option was on the table but as a decent country we were one of the countries that disagreed with that and now they along with France have decided to be awkward fkers. That's the thanks you get!!
Oh and you can quote Goodwin as much as you like, it doesn't hide the facts.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

Tuna said:

I'm not a 'brexiteer', but I'm increasingly sanguine about a no-deal solution. Partly because the same people who said there would be an immediate recession are treating it like the end of the world (yes, reverse psychology works on me), and partly because none of the other commentators have really articulated how it would be worse than being dragged through the mud by an EU that doesn't want us.

My understanding of the WTO terms puts the effect as being less than the currency fluctuations that we have recently been weathering. And whilst some are referring to that as a 'collapse', all of the economic measures remain boyant. Perhaps someone could explain how WTO would actually harm us when we're living through a demonstration of just how flexible our economy is?

If we do get to that point, I'd expect we'd at least see some proper analysis of what our 'no deal' world would look like from the people running the negotiations. To be clear, I'm not expecting it now because the current discussions may end up solving (or highlighting) some areas of contention independently of the final signed agreement. If we do get to the point of no return, a 'budget report' telling us how trade and services will be affected by WTO rules would be a good thing. I would be quite happy for parliament to vote on the final outcome though - I've no stomach for another referendum.

An extended transition period however would really, really boil my **ss. I'm sick of people in this country telling us that we're incapable of getting the job done when the best characteristic of this country is an ability to muck in and fix things when pushed. Conversely I'm certain that an indefinite deadline way off in the future is a recipe for complete inaction.

The treasury has already produced an analysis of how WTO would impact our GDP. It would cost us billions - vastly more than our EU costs. This was laid out before the vote.

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 22 July 06:56

That will be the report from April 16 if I remember correctly.

The report was by George Osborne who also promised an emergency budget within a month of a vote to leave, a marked increase in interest rates within a month of a vote to leave and of course the subsequent rise in mortgage interest rates that people would struggle to maintain and risk losing their homes as a result, again within a month of a vote to leave.

13 months later, Osborne was sacked from his position within Govt, no emergency budget, interest rates and the linked mortgage rates stay the same as when Osborne made his promise.

The recession that Osborne also promised never materialised.

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

That will be the report from April 16 if I remember correctly.

The report was by George Osborne who also promised an emergency budget within a month of a vote to leave, a marked increase in interest rates within a month of a vote to leave and of course the subsequent rise in mortgage interest rates that people would struggle to maintain and risk losing their homes as a result, again within a month of a vote to leave.

13 months later, Osborne was sacked from his position within Govt, no emergency budget, interest rates and the linked mortgage rates stay the same as when Osborne made his promise.

The recession that Osborne also promised never materialised.

There has been another one, under May's time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

It says "relying on WTO tariffs would have serious consequences for companies, jobs and food prices".

The report uses language "far stronger than that employed in the Treasury's published analysis of Brexit's long-term impact on the economy."

It also makes the interesting point that there are serious consequences to going WTO, and then reducing tariffs to help ensure EU trade is freed up. This would mean we'd have to lower tariffs for all countries - which might sound OK initially, but then imagine how strong a position we'd be in to do a trade deal with other nations to improve our terms of export - "err, can we have a deal to lower your import tariffs please?" "no its OK thanks we can already export to you tariff free, thanks already, cheers!"

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

That will be the report from April 16 if I remember correctly.

The report was by George Osborne who also promised an emergency budget within a month of a vote to leave, a marked increase in interest rates within a month of a vote to leave and of course the subsequent rise in mortgage interest rates that people would struggle to maintain and risk losing their homes as a result, again within a month of a vote to leave.

13 months later, Osborne was sacked from his position within Govt, no emergency budget, interest rates and the linked mortgage rates stay the same as when Osborne made his promise.

The recession that Osborne also promised never materialised.

There has been another one, under May's time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

It says "relying on WTO tariffs would have serious consequences for companies, jobs and food prices".

The report uses language "far stronger than that employed in the Treasury's published analysis of Brexit's long-term impact on the economy."

It also makes the interesting point that there are serious consequences to going WTO, and then reducing tariffs to help ensure EU trade is freed up. This would mean we'd have to lower tariffs for all countries - which might sound OK initially, but then imagine how strong a position we'd be in to do a trade deal with other nations to improve our terms of export - "err, can we have a deal to lower your import tariffs please?" "no its OK thanks we can already export to you tariff free, thanks already, cheers!"

I can find the Treasury Report from April 16 on the Govt website, it's buried in the archives, be a good chap and see if you can find the one the Independent refers to, I'm struggling to locate it.

Thanks in advance.