How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
B'stard Child said:
Slightly OT but over the last year or so there have been many links to spectator articles and whilst I haven't agreed with all of them they have all been quite good reads. I don't buy papers and I watch a few different news channels but I do miss a good read of something in print I could consider that.
I don't subscribe myself but have considered it, the articles appear frequently in my Twitter feed and I regularly find myself interested in the subject matter. When I do read one I generally find the content thought provoking if nothing else.ORD said:
Brexiteer reasoning:
'The fact that I will be £x poorer than I otherwise would be in the absence of Brexit does not mean Brexit has lost me money.'
If GDP is lower than it otherwise would have been, we are poorer as a country. That should be uncontroverial. Characterising it as merely missing out on growth is childish. It is not as though Britain has so much growth that it can afford to slow its rate!
The economy is in a bad way. It is reckless in the extreme to be entirely unconcerned about knocking 10s of billions off GDP.
The economy has been in a bad way for 9yrs. IMO we've done better than most of the rest of the member states in that period, but we are far from clear from hassles. And that is not because we were in the EU.'The fact that I will be £x poorer than I otherwise would be in the absence of Brexit does not mean Brexit has lost me money.'
If GDP is lower than it otherwise would have been, we are poorer as a country. That should be uncontroverial. Characterising it as merely missing out on growth is childish. It is not as though Britain has so much growth that it can afford to slow its rate!
The economy is in a bad way. It is reckless in the extreme to be entirely unconcerned about knocking 10s of billions off GDP.
Would we be better able to weather future storms inside the EU? I'm far from convinced. I'm not sure it'd be worse inside either tbf. But I do think other member states are in for a tough time and that will ripple out (IMO). No one is yet in the clear because fundamentally nothing material has changed since 2008.
The key thing about the "fact" that we'll be poorer than we would otherwise be is that there is not a single person on this planet that will ever be able to prove that. I don't think anyone, even the most pessimistic forecasters, have noted we'll be absolutely worse off. So the rest will either be people crying into their cornflakes about what could have been, or cracking on thanking their lucky stars they were born in a country of opportunity. And shades in-between.
I guess we all just need to decide which end of the spectrum we want to be on. But then life is always thus.
skahigh said:
This is an interesting article I thought, whether it has any real basis in the current negotiations I wouldn't like to say but, I found it an interesting idea nonetheless.
I don’t particularly like the way it very negatively portrays the French approach (‘Barnier’s arrogant inflexibility) as it is just that-a different approach, but it does make a good point and puts into a bit of context the governments frustrations.However was this not foreseeable at the start of the negotiations by the government? Barnier was designated as the negotiator long before the negotiations began.
The difference in approaches is also potentially summed up by where the negotiating conditions have come from. Barnier took his to the European Parliament, and had it voted on. Ironically making those conditions more democratic than our own but also making them less likely to change. Whereas the government has set its own conditions away from parliament which are less democratic, but more flexible.
I love Brexit , its upset most of the politicians and public figures I detest, just perfect .....
From playboy expat millionaires ,to a war criminal ex pm , politcians who got it wrong back in the day
all scowling and making wild predictions when wheeled out ...
From playboy expat millionaires ,to a war criminal ex pm , politcians who got it wrong back in the day
all scowling and making wild predictions when wheeled out ...
Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 24th October 07:21
Murph7355 said:
The economy has been in a bad way for 9yrs. IMO we've done better than most of the rest of the member states in that period, but we are far from clear from hassles. And that is not because we were in the EU.
Would we be better able to weather future storms inside the EU? I'm far from convinced. I'm not sure it'd be worse inside either tbf. But I do think other member states are in for a tough time and that will ripple out (IMO). No one is yet in the clear because fundamentally nothing material has changed since 2008.
The key thing about the "fact" that we'll be poorer than we would otherwise be is that there is not a single person on this planet that will ever be able to prove that. I don't think anyone, even the most pessimistic forecasters, have noted we'll be absolutely worse off. So the rest will either be people crying into their cornflakes about what could have been, or cracking on thanking their lucky stars they were born in a country of opportunity. And shades in-between.
I guess we all just need to decide which end of the spectrum we want to be on. But then life is always thus.
Thank you, a sensible post amongst a sea of extremes. I also doubt that we'll be absolutely worse off in the longer term and I fail to see why some posters get so wound up about statistics when comparing the UK to the rest of the world. I'm not really bothered by whether we are 5th, 8th or 17th in some artificial league table as long as we are secure, prosperous and happy. I do, however, believe that matters will be more to our liking if we take control of our destiny rather than having to comply with bureaucrats trying to get 28 countries to form an ever closer union.Would we be better able to weather future storms inside the EU? I'm far from convinced. I'm not sure it'd be worse inside either tbf. But I do think other member states are in for a tough time and that will ripple out (IMO). No one is yet in the clear because fundamentally nothing material has changed since 2008.
The key thing about the "fact" that we'll be poorer than we would otherwise be is that there is not a single person on this planet that will ever be able to prove that. I don't think anyone, even the most pessimistic forecasters, have noted we'll be absolutely worse off. So the rest will either be people crying into their cornflakes about what could have been, or cracking on thanking their lucky stars they were born in a country of opportunity. And shades in-between.
I guess we all just need to decide which end of the spectrum we want to be on. But then life is always thus.
Murph7355 said:
The economy has been in a bad way for 9yrs. IMO we've done better than most of the rest of the member states in that period, but we are far from clear from hassles. And that is not because we were in the EU.
Would we be better able to weather future storms inside the EU? I'm far from convinced. I'm not sure it'd be worse inside either tbf. But I do think other member states are in for a tough time and that will ripple out (IMO). No one is yet in the clear because fundamentally nothing material has changed since 2008.
The key thing about the "fact" that we'll be poorer than we would otherwise be is that there is not a single person on this planet that will ever be able to prove that. I don't think anyone, even the most pessimistic forecasters, have noted we'll be absolutely worse off. So the rest will either be people crying into their cornflakes about what could have been, or cracking on thanking their lucky stars they were born in a country of opportunity. And shades in-between.
I guess we all just need to decide which end of the spectrum we want to be on. But then life is always thus.
All good points.Would we be better able to weather future storms inside the EU? I'm far from convinced. I'm not sure it'd be worse inside either tbf. But I do think other member states are in for a tough time and that will ripple out (IMO). No one is yet in the clear because fundamentally nothing material has changed since 2008.
The key thing about the "fact" that we'll be poorer than we would otherwise be is that there is not a single person on this planet that will ever be able to prove that. I don't think anyone, even the most pessimistic forecasters, have noted we'll be absolutely worse off. So the rest will either be people crying into their cornflakes about what could have been, or cracking on thanking their lucky stars they were born in a country of opportunity. And shades in-between.
I guess we all just need to decide which end of the spectrum we want to be on. But then life is always thus.
But you would be very hard-pressed to find any credible economist who thinks the UK will be better off over a 5-10 year time period. Beyond that, it is pure speculation.
So, ultimately, we have a very likely substantial disbenefit in the medium term that we are asked to swallow on the promise of entirely vague and uncertain long term benefits.
That's why I say the economic case for Brexit is disingenuous. It simply does not stack up on any sensible CBA.
A further factor is this: Brexit almost guarantees us an extreme left wing government without any restrictions on its ability to do bonkers left wing things. So that rules out any supposed long term economic benefits. And it will aggravate the medium term disbenefits.
It's a no-brainer that Brexit is a bad thing for the economy.
ORD said:
All good points.
But you would be very hard-pressed to find any credible economist who thinks the UK will be better off over a 5-10 year time period. Beyond that, it is pure speculation.
How well did these ‘credible’ economists predict what would happen immediately post the referendum? And yet you give credibility to predictions up to 10 years into the future? What will happen in the Eurozone in the next 5 years?But you would be very hard-pressed to find any credible economist who thinks the UK will be better off over a 5-10 year time period. Beyond that, it is pure speculation.
Most importantly, what assumptions are being made about our future relationship with the EU, how businesses will adapt, wider relationships etc?
ORD said:
So, ultimately, we have a very likely substantial disbenefit in the medium term that we are asked to swallow on the promise of entirely vague and uncertain long term benefits.
That's why I say the economic case for Brexit is disingenuous. It simply does not stack up on any sensible CBA.
Good luck with that. What’s the economic case for the protectionist, heterogenous EU being successful in the future?That's why I say the economic case for Brexit is disingenuous. It simply does not stack up on any sensible CBA.
ORD said:
A further factor is this: Brexit almost guarantees us an extreme left wing government without any restrictions on its ability to do bonkers left wing things. So that rules out any supposed long term economic benefits. And it will aggravate the medium term disbenefits.
Wrong.ORD said:
It's a no-brainer that Brexit is a bad thing for the economy.
Still wrong.Zod said:
SunsetZed said:
Any links to previous projections versus reality so that we can see if they end to be accurate or it's finger in the air stuff?
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. Also the currency fluctuation versus the $USD plays a huge part here, it's one of the reasons I suspect the projections in the past have not been that accurate as it's ridiculously difficult to predict this with any degree of accuracy due to the huge number of variables in play.
It's not about dropping because of Indian growth, but because our GDP declines. 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. Also the currency fluctuation versus the $USD plays a huge part here, it's one of the reasons I suspect the projections in the past have not been that accurate as it's ridiculously difficult to predict this with any degree of accuracy due to the huge number of variables in play.
The point about projections is a red herring; I could just as easily have used historic 2016 figures.
There's no point trying to argue around this. The simple fact is that a decline in our GDP makes us all poorer and the drop in relative GDP that hyphen says he'd accept would make us a lot poorer.
I'm inclined to agree with the poll posted just below your post which says it will suffer short term (up to 10 years) but benefit in the medium to longer term. The elephant in the room here will be whether or not it would have performed better inside the EU than onside it and there will obviously never be an answer to this that can be proved.
cookie118 said:
skahigh said:
This is an interesting article I thought, whether it has any real basis in the current negotiations I wouldn't like to say but, I found it an interesting idea nonetheless.
I don’t particularly like the way it very negatively portrays the French approach (‘Barnier’s arrogant inflexibility) as it is just that-a different approach, but it does make a good point and puts into a bit of context the governments frustrations.However was this not foreseeable at the start of the negotiations by the government? Barnier was designated as the negotiator long before the negotiations began.
The difference in approaches is also potentially summed up by where the negotiating conditions have come from. Barnier took his to the European Parliament, and had it voted on. Ironically making those conditions more democratic than our own but also making them less likely to change. Whereas the government has set its own conditions away from parliament which are less democratic, but more flexible.
You're right, it could have been predicted that Barnier would be a difficult man to negotiate with but, I'm not sure what the British side could have done to mitigate this?
Your last point about Barnier taking his direction from the European parliament is an interesting one, as you say their position is relatively inflexible and unlikely to change. This is starting to make me come around to the view of those that say the negotiation is something of a waste of time as Barnier does not really have much of a mandate for true negotiation, only trying to beat us round the head until we submit to their will. This definitely seems to make a WTO exit much much more likely although, the domestic political situation in the UK could dramatically change this, it feels like Theresa May is just barely clinging on by her fingertips.
skahigh said:
cookie118 said:
skahigh said:
This is an interesting article I thought, whether it has any real basis in the current negotiations I wouldn't like to say but, I found it an interesting idea nonetheless.
I don’t particularly like the way it very negatively portrays the French approach (‘Barnier’s arrogant inflexibility) as it is just that-a different approach, but it does make a good point and puts into a bit of context the governments frustrations.However was this not foreseeable at the start of the negotiations by the government? Barnier was designated as the negotiator long before the negotiations began.
The difference in approaches is also potentially summed up by where the negotiating conditions have come from. Barnier took his to the European Parliament, and had it voted on. Ironically making those conditions more democratic than our own but also making them less likely to change. Whereas the government has set its own conditions away from parliament which are less democratic, but more flexible.
You're right, it could have been predicted that Barnier would be a difficult man to negotiate with but, I'm not sure what the British side could have done to mitigate this?
Your last point about Barnier taking his direction from the European parliament is an interesting one, as you say their position is relatively inflexible and unlikely to change. This is starting to make me come around to the view of those that say the negotiation is something of a waste of time as Barnier does not really have much of a mandate for true negotiation, only trying to beat us round the head until we submit to their will. This definitely seems to make a WTO exit much much more likely although, the domestic political situation in the UK could dramatically change this, it feels like Theresa May is just barely clinging on by her fingertips.
If Bernier is being inflexible it’s because he has no flexibility. The negotiating guidelines where agreed by the Council he cannot change them unless the Council agree to a change.
As for arrogance that might be because he understands the position of the UK, and that no deal is an impossible option, whereas the brexit buffoons still keep trying to convince themselves it is.
Mrr T said:
skahigh said:
cookie118 said:
skahigh said:
This is an interesting article I thought, whether it has any real basis in the current negotiations I wouldn't like to say but, I found it an interesting idea nonetheless.
I don’t particularly like the way it very negatively portrays the French approach (‘Barnier’s arrogant inflexibility) as it is just that-a different approach, but it does make a good point and puts into a bit of context the governments frustrations.However was this not foreseeable at the start of the negotiations by the government? Barnier was designated as the negotiator long before the negotiations began.
The difference in approaches is also potentially summed up by where the negotiating conditions have come from. Barnier took his to the European Parliament, and had it voted on. Ironically making those conditions more democratic than our own but also making them less likely to change. Whereas the government has set its own conditions away from parliament which are less democratic, but more flexible.
You're right, it could have been predicted that Barnier would be a difficult man to negotiate with but, I'm not sure what the British side could have done to mitigate this?
Your last point about Barnier taking his direction from the European parliament is an interesting one, as you say their position is relatively inflexible and unlikely to change. This is starting to make me come around to the view of those that say the negotiation is something of a waste of time as Barnier does not really have much of a mandate for true negotiation, only trying to beat us round the head until we submit to their will. This definitely seems to make a WTO exit much much more likely although, the domestic political situation in the UK could dramatically change this, it feels like Theresa May is just barely clinging on by her fingertips.
If Bernier is being inflexible it’s because he has no flexibility. The negotiating guidelines where agreed by the Council he cannot change them unless the Council agree to a change.
As for arrogance that might be because he understands the position of the UK, and that no deal is an impossible option, whereas the brexit buffoons still keep trying to convince themselves it is.
Angrybiker said:
So Barnier has no remit to negotiate, which is rather fundamental to the role of negotiator. I don't think that that means that we therefore have to cave in; rather it would be quite reasonable for us to demand from the EU a negotiator with the remit to so do.
If it is truly the case that Barnier has no discretion to negotiate, Davis should have demanded he be granted discretion or be replaced after the first meeting.Zod said:
Angrybiker said:
So Barnier has no remit to negotiate, which is rather fundamental to the role of negotiator. I don't think that that means that we therefore have to cave in; rather it would be quite reasonable for us to demand from the EU a negotiator with the remit to so do.
If it is truly the case that Barnier has no discretion to negotiate, Davis should have demanded he be granted discretion or be replaced after the first meeting.It does mean, I think, that:
1. We were always going to see a lot of huffing and puffing from the EU team calling the UK inflexible because 'they won't meet the demands'
2. That a 'no deal' was the most likely outcome from the start (assuming we stood our ground, like we should) and if they manage to pull off a deal, I rather suspect it'll be last minute when the people with the real decision making capability panic and get involved.
3. Given the EU lack of willingness to take the negotiation seriously, evidenced by putting a patsy in front of us, I think we are perfectly entitled to play hardball and go to WTO. I have every confidence that this may be bad for both sides at the very start but once the pain starts to bite then trade deals will be agreed with individual states at a fair rate of knots. At this point both sides will be talking to people who can actually negotiate and those people will know the exact size and shape of the pain, rather than theory.
Angrybiker said:
So Barnier has no remit to negotiate, which is rather fundamental to the role of negotiator. I don't think that that means that we therefore have to cave in; rather it would be quite reasonable for us to demand from the EU a negotiator with the remit to so do.
He does have remit within the guidelines. Which part is confusing?jjlynn27 said:
Angrybiker said:
So Barnier has no remit to negotiate, which is rather fundamental to the role of negotiator. I don't think that that means that we therefore have to cave in; rather it would be quite reasonable for us to demand from the EU a negotiator with the remit to so do.
He does have remit within the guidelines. Which part is confusing?jjlynn27 said:
Angrybiker said:
So Barnier has no remit to negotiate, which is rather fundamental to the role of negotiator. I don't think that that means that we therefore have to cave in; rather it would be quite reasonable for us to demand from the EU a negotiator with the remit to so do.
He does have remit within the guidelines. Which part is confusing?Angrybiker said:
jjlynn27 said:
Angrybiker said:
So Barnier has no remit to negotiate, which is rather fundamental to the role of negotiator. I don't think that that means that we therefore have to cave in; rather it would be quite reasonable for us to demand from the EU a negotiator with the remit to so do.
He does have remit within the guidelines. Which part is confusing?Angrybiker said:
So Barnier has no remit to negotiate, which is rather fundamental to the role of negotiator. I don't think that that means that we therefore have to cave in; rather it would be quite reasonable for us to demand from the EU a negotiator with the remit to so do.
That’s not what my post said. Bernier has a mandate from the Council to negotiate on 3 matters relating to Brexit. That is what he is doing. If you want him to negotiate on other matters the Council must change his mandate.sidicks said:
ORD said:
A further factor is this: Brexit almost guarantees us an extreme left wing government without any restrictions on its ability to do bonkers left wing things. So that rules out any supposed long term economic benefits. And it will aggravate the medium term disbenefits.
Wrong.I listened carefully to your cogent counter argument but remain unconvinced.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff