How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[anonymous-user]

Hit the translate button for this one if your German is a bit schrecklich -


http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/brexit-...

[mx5nut]

Breadvan72 said:

By the way, that crack is not a jibe against democracy, as I am big up for that. It is a jibe about people being ignorant about the issues that they vote on, but that problem dates back at least to the fifth century BC (ask a bunch of Athenians if they think it would be cool to invade Sicily. Whoops).

Many of the electorate had, I suspect, little or no idea what they might be getting when they voted in the Eurovote.

We should devise a system where we elect representatives to consider and vote on these issues on our behalf.

[anonymous-user]

That would never catch on. Next you will be suggesting that the representatives should consult with experts, and other far fetched ideas.

[Murph7355]

ORD said:

The other two big reasons in that poll are thinly veiled moans about immigration, too.

Oh, seriously? Are you seriously going to say that the Brexiteer obsession with immigration amounts to a desire for MORE of it? That's rank dishonesty.

"Controlled" immigration is very different to stopping it altogether.

Will there be some Leave voters who want it stopped altogether? Almost certainly. The majority? I seriously doubt it.

I would wager there are plenty of Remain voters who are also concerned about immigration (plenty voted Remain but wanted to change the EU from within. Not sure we have an Ashcroft equivalent for what they wanted to change? Largely moot now anyway). And that if you looked hard enough you could probably find some who would like it stopped altogether.

The other reasons the poll flags are much wider issues than just immigration. You only want to see it that way because it suits your beliefs.

[Zod]

Murph7355 said:

SunsetZed said:

...
Also I don't agree on the dropping in the chart point. We could drop without losing a penny if India over performed versus the projection by $42.4bn...

France has already slid down the chart on that prediction....

In theory it's inevitable that we'll drop down the league table as we're nowhere near as populous as some countries we are currently above....But hey ho. A chart's a chart

As I said, dropping because emerging economies outstrip us on growth is acceptable. Dropping because our GDP declines either in its growth or in absolute terms is not.

hyphen's point was that it would be acceptable for Brexit to cause us to drop in the GDP league. That would have nothing to do with growth by India or Brazil, but everything to do with our decline.

[Deptford Draylons]

sidicks said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Who has said that line ?

No-one. Mx5nut is basically Mr Strawman.

It's more a case of it just being a bit fun to ask and watch it being ignored as he moves on to the next claim, which you don't get a response to.

[Zod]

Breadvan72 said:

Hit the translate button for this one if your German is a bit schrecklich -


http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/brexit-...

One thing that article illustrates (apart from the perfidy of whoever - Selmayr - leaked) is the lack of examination of the positions of the parties in much of the continental press. I'd have hoped that the FAZ would actually do some analysis on the basis for the payment demand and its amount.

[Murph7355]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The divorce bill has nothing to do with future trade.

It would seem large chunks of the different amounts being touted are little to do with anything substantive, only moral obligations at best. I'd therefore agree with our govt's consistent (thus far) position that it all gets dealt with in the round.

Even Art50 notes taking account of the future relationship.

[hyphen]

Zod said:

hyphen said:

Zod said:

hyphen said:

What would be your strategy to achieve the best possible agreement with the EU?

Starting from a position based on realism would be good:

1. We are not the stronger party here. Our exports to the EU are 7.5% of GDP. Their exports to us are 2.5% of GDP. Their economy is six times bigger;

2. We need a deal. They do not. It will be painful and inconvenient for them if there is no deal. For us it risks being catastrophic.

In every negotiation I have been involved in, perception of relative negotiating strength and relative need to conclude a deal have been key initial strategy points before engagement.

What would you define as catastrophic?

As the 5th largest economy, say we drop to 6 or 7 or 8. Wouldn't the general effect of that just to be less eating out/holidays/new cars as opposed to starving children.

That would be catastrophic - far worse that any recession the country has ever suffered. That you can even post this just underlines the monumental ignorance of Leave supporters.

Here's a lesson:

Projected 2017 GDP according to the IMF



If we drop to sixth, we lose $42.3bn of GDP. If we drop to 8th, we lose $355.8bn of GDP.

For context, the magical £350m per week is $23.9bn per year.

I know some of the Brexiteers think a decline in the economy is an acceptable price for "taking back control", but there would be no public acceptance of depression on this scale.

Now I appreciate you are some city hot shot that newspapers queue up for hours to get a quote from but bear with me.

Let us agree that the very worse case if everything goes horribly wrong the the position is 8th, and we lose $355.8bn (£11 or so a day per person).

I ask again the same question, what will be the real effect of this on the average person seeing as we will be spreading Brazil's GDP over 3 times less a population and a rough guess of 6 times smaller a physical area?

I am asking in real terms what this 'catastrophe' will mean to the average person - will the Average Family be starving on the streets, will they be taking 1 holiday a year instead of the 3 they are accustomed to, will they be buying a mobile phone every 3 years as they do now and so on.

Edited by hyphen on Monday 23 October 14:36

[wisbech]

Yes. Because that is 4000 pounds per person per year.

How many families of four can cope with losing 16000 pounds a year?

[Funkycoldribena]

Deptford Draylons said:

sidicks said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Who has said that line ?

No-one. Mx5nut is basically Mr Strawman.

It's more a case of it just being a bit fun to ask and watch it being ignored as he moves on to the next claim, which you don't get a response to.

I'm more inclined to think MX is the bot, not SB.

[Zod]

hyphen said:

Now I appreciate you are some city hot shot that newspapers queue up for hours to get a quote from but bear with me.

Let us agree that the very worse case if everything goes horribly wrong the the position is 8th, and we lose $355.8bn (£11 or so a day per person).

I ask again the same question, what will be the real effect of this on the average person seeing as we will be spreading Brazil's GDP over 3 times less a population and a rough guess of 6 times smaller a physical area?

I am asking in real terms what this 'catastrophe' will mean to the average person - will the Average Family be starving on the streets, will they be taking 1 holiday a year instead of the 3 they are accustomed to, will they be buying a mobile phone every 3 years as they do now and so on.

Edited by hyphen on Monday 23 October 14:36

$355bn is not much, eh? It is 37.6% of the government's total forecast 2016-17 tax receipts. It is four to five times the UK's annual budget deficit. It is more than twice the total annual funding of the NHS.

I could go on. It is a very large amount and would have a devastating effect upon the country, not just a reduction in the frequency of mobile phone upgrades.

[handpaper]

jsf said:

Third party countries citizens rights and immigration rules are not an EU competence. Once the UK leaves the EU, each country in the EU is able to set its own rules on immigration from the UK. If Spain wants to have an open door policy to UK citizens it can, without any input from the EU.

What the negotiations are trying to do is come up with an EU wide agreement as part of the exit agreement to make the transition simpler, if they don't do that then each country in the EU can do whatever they want anyway, for Spain that means still allowing UK citizens to live there and spend their retirement, plus have reciprocal health care.

It's just a good example of how the EU isn't often needed to be involved at all, citizens rights could be handled by each individual country with no input from these negotiations at all.

It makes the first stage negotiations look more important than they really are, to include citizens rights, as most people don't realise that as far as the UK dealing with the EU is concerned, its a bullst negotiation area, it can be handled outside any EU negotiation with no real impact on anyone. The reality is countries that benefit from UK citizens having access to their work and retirement residency status, are going to keep that open, with or without any EU agreement.

It's far more important for the EU to have citizens rights covered in this negotiation than it is for the UK, for simple political reasons. It makes them appear to be more required than they really are. Spain just happens to be the first to go on record to say, irrespective of the outcome, UK citizens will be welcome in Spain.

I raised this a few months ago, apparently M. Barnier has been delegated this authority as part of his Brexit negotiation mandate.

[Mrr T]

Sway said:

Mrr T said:

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

I'd like you to explain it, with specifics as to how a move to clearing to the EU would affect various activities, e.g. pensions, so we can all understand what it might mean, and what mitigation maybe appropriate.

Put a new thread in the Finance forum then.

I assume that means you do not know what it means either!

The facts are the clearing of euro derivatives is not a big part of the UK FS sector, and it will end up in the EU after Brexit. This is perfectly logical the BOE would be very unhappy if a majority of GBP derivatives being cleared in a different jurisdiction.

How do the Fed feel about it? No one running a decent currency traded globally requires all clearing to be completed within it's jurisdiction, and they'd be subject to dozens of anti-trust lawsuits from banks around the globe...

The amount of USD derivatives, both currency, bond and interest rates, cleared in the UK is small therefore the Fed do not mind. The position of the euro is different with a vast amount cleared with a CCP not regulated in euro country and soon not an EU country. I am sure LCH have plans to solve the problem.

[Dr Jekyll]

Nobody is predicting a long term decline in GDP, at worst slower growth. If we end up 8th in the table it will be because other countries economies have grown faster, but we'll still be richer than we are now.

[Funkycoldribena]

Dr Jekyll said:

Nobody is predicting a long term decline in GDP, at worst slower growth. If we end up 8th in the table it will be because other countries economies have grown faster, but we'll still be richer than we are now.

Were just onto the next category of doom.
There's been so many I've lost count.

[hyphen]

wisbech said:

Yes. Because that is 4000 pounds per person per year.

How many families of four can cope with losing 16000 pounds a year?

Yes? So as it related to my post, you are saying yes they will starve on the streets, and they will go on holiday once a year...

Thanks for the reply.

Edited by hyphen on Monday 23 October 15:18

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

Sway said:

Mrr T said:

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

I'd like you to explain it, with specifics as to how a move to clearing to the EU would affect various activities, e.g. pensions, so we can all understand what it might mean, and what mitigation maybe appropriate.

Put a new thread in the Finance forum then.

I assume that means you do not know what it means either!

The facts are the clearing of euro derivatives is not a big part of the UK FS sector, and it will end up in the EU after Brexit. This is perfectly logical the BOE would be very unhappy if a majority of GBP derivatives being cleared in a different jurisdiction.

How do the Fed feel about it? No one running a decent currency traded globally requires all clearing to be completed within it's jurisdiction, and they'd be subject to dozens of anti-trust lawsuits from banks around the globe...

The amount of USD derivatives, both currency, bond and interest rates, cleared in the UK is small therefore the Fed do not mind. The position of the euro is different with a vast amount cleared with a CCP not regulated in euro country and soon not an EU country. I am sure LCH have plans to solve the problem.

The UK's percentage of USD clearing may be fairly small, however the overall percentage cleared outside the US is huge.

The Euro has been working to become a global reserve currency in competition with the dollar. In order to do so, it must permit clearing outside it's jurisdiction. Restricting it within the EU alone is unprecedented - which you failed to comment on...

[Zod]

hyphen said:

wisbech said:

Yes. Because that is 4000 pounds per person per year.

How many families of four can cope with losing 16000 pounds a year?

Yes? So as it related to my post, you are saying yes they will starve on the streets, and they will go on holiday once a year...

Thanks for the reply.

Edited by hyphen on Monday 23 October 15:18

You are making a fool of yourself here.

[amusingduck]

Zod said:

You are making a fool of yourself here.

And by extension, all Leave voters.

Stop it hyphen!