How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

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.

You know full well it's a quote from a leaked report, not published.

A reason to dismiss it as made up nonsense? In rose tinted brexiteer eyes, it seems so.

It has a more than a ring of truth about it, and the fact it is not published makes it all the more damning - i.e. Maybot doesn't that info getting out -
many may say as she thinks it'll weaken Davis' superb poker playing. As if it is not patently obvious to the EU already that WTO would be a cluster ...... its only being hidden from the brexiteer fan base she is trying to keep onside.

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 22 July 08:23

[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

Another idiot who can't read and only quotes part of what was written to try and make a dumb assertion. Just what this thread needs.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

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

Another idiot who can't read and only quotes part of what was written to try and make a dumb assertion. Just what this thread needs.

You said JSF:

"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."

Who is the "bunch" doing horrific things? Who are you proposing to "chuck out"?

It sounds like more than an individual, more like a defined group.

Hitler had a record for getting rid of a "bunch" he persuaded his nation were doing "horrific things" and who were the source of the ills of Germany.

Or were you suggesting Germany should have "chucked out" Hitler? Chucked out to where? He was elected by the people of course. Are you suggesting Germany should have somehow ignored the "democratic will of the people" in getting rid of Hitler? Perhaps had another vote? He made that quite tricky in 1933 of course; fancy that, a government bring in an act to sweep away democracy & parliamentary powers (Great Repeal Bill anyone?).

[b2hbm]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

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.

You know full well it's a quote from a leaked report, not published.

A reason to dismiss it as made up nonsense? In rose tinted brexiteer eyes, it seems so.
It has a more than a ring of truth about it, and the fact it is not published makes it all the more damning - i.e. Maybot doesn't that info getting out as she thinks it'll weak Davis' superb poker playing. As if it is not patently obvious to the EU already that WTO would be a cluster - its only being hidden from the brexiteer fan base she is trying to keep onside so she is seen as hardcore. That didn't go down as well as she expected though, did it........

Ok, perhaps it wasn't published because it contained unpalatable data or perhaps it wasn't considered a balanced report. Perhaps someone read it and thought it was complete rubbish or maybe it was penned by someone like yourself in their lunchtime with an hour to spare.

Who knows ? I don't, and neither do you. Or perhaps you do, in which case you'll no doubt post up the full content of the report and we can all make up our own minds. Otherwise it's just another unsubstantiated journalist story from several months ago which had sunk without trace until you dredged it up again.

But never mind, I'll give you 10/10 for effort .

[///ajd]

b2hbm said:

Ok, perhaps it wasn't published because it contained unpalatable data or perhaps it wasn't considered a balanced report. Perhaps someone read it and thought it was complete rubbish or maybe it was penned by someone like yourself in their lunchtime with an hour to spare.

Who knows ? I don't, and neither do you. Or perhaps you do, in which case you'll no doubt post up the full content of the report and we can all make up our own minds. Otherwise it's just another unsubstantiated journalist story from several months ago which had sunk without trace until you dredged it up again.

But never mind, I'll give you 10/10 for effort .

It's reported as a leaked treasury report.

If you take at face value it is a treasury report, then odds are it is balanced, especially if for internal use only. I'm not sure how many reports you think the treasury create that are "complete rubbish" but I'd suspect not many, if any. You may disagree or question assumptions, but they are unlikely to be the sort of breitbart/Farage utter garbage/lies that you imply. Civil servants don't tend to get away with telling whoppers, or perhaps you think they do.

I'll give you 1/10 for trying to pretend treasury concerns over WTO are complete rubbish. Hammond is saying it - where do you think he's getting his advice?

[ORD]

Time to give up, I think.

The Brexiteers won't listen to a word of sense about the economy because Hitler or British bulldog or taking back control or £350million or VAT or something or (say it quietly) they don't much like immigration or the 21st century generally.

The Govt, which is rabidly pro-Brexit and about as blinkered as can be, recognises that no deal would be disasterous. But the Brexiteers on here will deny even that.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

b2hbm said:

Ok, perhaps it wasn't published because it contained unpalatable data or perhaps it wasn't considered a balanced report. Perhaps someone read it and thought it was complete rubbish or maybe it was penned by someone like yourself in their lunchtime with an hour to spare.

Who knows ? I don't, and neither do you. Or perhaps you do, in which case you'll no doubt post up the full content of the report and we can all make up our own minds. Otherwise it's just another unsubstantiated journalist story from several months ago which had sunk without trace until you dredged it up again.

But never mind, I'll give you 10/10 for effort .

It's reported as a leaked treasury report.

If you take at face value it is a treasury report, then odds are it is balanced, especially if for internal use only. I'm not sure how many reports you think the treasury create that are "complete rubbish" but I'd suspect not many, if any. You may disagree or question assumptions, but they are unlikely to be the sort of breitbart/Farage utter garbage/lies that you imply. Civil servants don't tend to get away with telling whoppers, or perhaps you think they do.

I'll give you 1/10 for trying to pretend treasury concerns over WTO are complete rubbish. Hammond is saying it - where do you think he's getting his advice?

What as balanced as Osborne's pre-referendum promises that I listed earlier.

Every one turned out to be untrue, Osborne probably knew they would not happen, so in effect lied to the country.

I see your still as obsessed with Farage as you were 14/15 months ago, even on threads unrelated to Brexit you bring the Guy up, you do have a secret crush on the Guy.

I'll give you 10/10 for man love for Farage, did you feel the same way about Farron when you voted for him in the GE, he done good did Tim!

[Dr Jekyll]

///ajd said:

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!"

Since when has lowering tariffs been a 'serious consequence'? The original selling point of the EEC was that tariffs would be removed to free up trade. Now that it has become a protectionist racket we are leaving in order to free up trade with the rest of the world. Even if we reduced tariffs to zero and our export markets maintained WTO tariffs, we would still be better off.

[ORD]

Dr Jekyll said:

Since when has lowering tariffs been a 'serious consequence'? The original selling point of the EEC was that tariffs would be removed to free up trade. Now that it has become a protectionist racket we are leaving in order to free up trade with the rest of the world. Even if we reduced tariffs to zero and our export markets maintained WTO tariffs, we would still be better off.

Complete rubbish, but I suspect you simply don't care.

[powerstroke]

ORD said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Since when has lowering tariffs been a 'serious consequence'? The original selling point of the EEC was that tariffs would be removed to free up trade. Now that it has become a protectionist racket we are leaving in order to free up trade with the rest of the world. Even if we reduced tariffs to zero and our export markets maintained WTO tariffs, we would still be better off.

Complete rubbish, but I suspect you simply don't care.

In your stupid moronic view perhaps , are you on a wind up ORD ???

[Dr Jekyll]

ORD said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Since when has lowering tariffs been a 'serious consequence'? The original selling point of the EEC was that tariffs would be removed to free up trade. Now that it has become a protectionist racket we are leaving in order to free up trade with the rest of the world. Even if we reduced tariffs to zero and our export markets maintained WTO tariffs, we would still be better off.

Complete rubbish, but I suspect you simply don't care.

The Vatican has finally agreed that Galileo had a point.
The NHS has ditched homeopathy.

Perhaps one day, EU fans will appreciate the benefits of free trade.

[Sway]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

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

Another idiot who can't read and only quotes part of what was written to try and make a dumb assertion. Just what this thread needs.

You said JSF:

"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."

Who is the "bunch" doing horrific things? Who are you proposing to "chuck out"?

It sounds like more than an individual, more like a defined group.

Hitler had a record for getting rid of a "bunch" he persuaded his nation were doing "horrific things" and who were the source of the ills of Germany.

Or were you suggesting Germany should have "chucked out" Hitler? Chucked out to where? He was elected by the people of course. Are you suggesting Germany should have somehow ignored the "democratic will of the people" in getting rid of Hitler? Perhaps had another vote? He made that quite tricky in 1933 of course; fancy that, a government bring in an act to sweep away democracy & parliamentary powers (Great Repeal Bill anyone?).

You've completely missed the context and full thread that jsf was replying to...

The assertion was that we needed the ECJ to control our government, otherwise there would be no-one to keep them in check.

I pointed out our electorate, as did jsf - then he pointed out that Europe doesn't have a great deal of success in preventing rogue governments...

[powerstroke]

ORD said:

Time to give up, I think.

The Brexiteers won't listen to a word of sense about the economy because Hitler or British bulldog or taking back control or £350million or VAT or something or (say it quietly) they don't much like immigration or the 21st century generally.

The Govt, which is rabidly pro-Brexit and about as blinkered as can be, recognises that no deal would be disasterous. But the Brexiteers on here will deny even that.

A bad deal would be worse and that as others have said is what the EU would prefer so no one else trys to leave
we should be working on rest of world trade deals and people should be ready to ween themselves off EU products
Civic instead of stty soot chucking golfs ,new world wines ETC

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

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".

I thought it was fairly well established that the Independent were talking about the original document that Osborne's discredited report was based on?

The Independent said:

The 36-page report uses language far stronger than that employed in the Treasury's published analysis of Brexit's long-term impact on the economy.

Osborne asked for a 'doom and gloom' report, and then rephrased it to try and make it look like balanced analysis. It wasn't when he commissioned it, it still wasn't when the Independent dragged it up again. I'm slightly suspicious that the name of that newspaper is misleading.

[///ajd]

Dr Jekyll said:

///ajd said:

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!"

Since when has lowering tariffs been a 'serious consequence'? The original selling point of the EEC was that tariffs would be removed to free up trade. Now that it has become a protectionist racket we are leaving in order to free up trade with the rest of the world. Even if we reduced tariffs to zero and our export markets maintained WTO tariffs, we would still be better off.

Do you not follow the point about how it makes securing a trade deal with non-EU countries more difficult?

Can you actually follow that argument, whether you agree with it or not?

[Tuna]

ORD said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Since when has lowering tariffs been a 'serious consequence'? The original selling point of the EEC was that tariffs would be removed to free up trade. Now that it has become a protectionist racket we are leaving in order to free up trade with the rest of the world. Even if we reduced tariffs to zero and our export markets maintained WTO tariffs, we would still be better off.

Complete rubbish, but I suspect you simply don't care.

I'm seriously amazed that after we've had so many discussions on this you don't get this point because it's a really important one. How exactly do you think tariffs work?

[Tuna]

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.

///ajd said:

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.

I think most people will accept that this isn't a completely subjective area, especially not in this discussion I'm happy to admit my biases so you can draw your own conclusions about how much you care for my opinion.

In this particular case, yes, a report was produced that outright lied to the public in a purely emotional attempt to affect the vote. When shreds of that report surface again especially when couched in terms of 'secret document' and other appeals to authority I absolutely do not trust the person who is telling me to be scared. I think they're lying.

[Dr Jekyll]

///ajd said:

Do you not follow the point about how it makes securing a trade deal with non-EU countries more difficult?

Can you actually follow that argument, whether you agree with it or not?

Of course I follow it. The point is that if we reduce or even remove tariffs ourselves we get the benefit without waiting for a trade deal.

[///ajd]

Tuna said:

///ajd said:

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".

I thought it was fairly well established that the Independent were talking about the original document that Osborne's discredited report was based on?

The Independent said:

The 36-page report uses language far stronger than that employed in the Treasury's published analysis of Brexit's long-term impact on the economy.

Osborne asked for a 'doom and gloom' report, and then rephrased it to try and make it look like balanced analysis. It wasn't when he commissioned it, it still wasn't when the Independent dragged it up again. I'm slightly suspicious that the name of that newspaper is misleading.

The original report was 200+ pages, so the 36 pager appears different and more recent.

The treasury report is worth another look if you want to know what WTO means. It is focussed mainly looking at the effects once we actually leave.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

It also explains an option where we stay in the EEA and have Single Market access similar to what we have at the moment, like Norway. Funny that, I thought it was absolutely certain we were leaving the Single Market, and here is an official treasury report, commissioned by Osbourne, that says staying in like Norway is one of the main options open to us when we leave.

Some of it was bang on:

A common feature of many of the analyses in Box 3.D is a sharp sterling exchange rate depreciation. This would put upward pressure on inflation in the short term, especially in areas where there is a high import content, such as household goods.

It is interesting that it is actually quite measured in its prediction of what would happen immediately after a vote, and focuses on the impact of uncertainty - doesn't mention godzilla once, contrary to what you might think reading here. Certainly the fact that car industry investment is the lowest since records began is consistent with this report.

[///ajd]

Sway said:

///ajd said:

jsf said:

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

Another idiot who can't read and only quotes part of what was written to try and make a dumb assertion. Just what this thread needs.

You said JSF:

"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."

Who is the "bunch" doing horrific things? Who are you proposing to "chuck out"?

It sounds like more than an individual, more like a defined group.

Hitler had a record for getting rid of a "bunch" he persuaded his nation were doing "horrific things" and who were the source of the ills of Germany.

Or were you suggesting Germany should have "chucked out" Hitler? Chucked out to where? He was elected by the people of course. Are you suggesting Germany should have somehow ignored the "democratic will of the people" in getting rid of Hitler? Perhaps had another vote? He made that quite tricky in 1933 of course; fancy that, a government bring in an act to sweep away democracy & parliamentary powers (Great Repeal Bill anyone?).

You've completely missed the context and full thread that jsf was replying to...

The assertion was that we needed the ECJ to control our government, otherwise there would be no-one to keep them in check.

I pointed out our electorate, as did jsf - then he pointed out that Europe doesn't have a great deal of success in preventing rogue governments...

So which "bunch" is he wanting to "chuck out"?