How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[///ajd]

jsf said:

ORD said:

What evidence of medium term disbenefits would you need? Consensus between pretty much everyone who earns money from projecting economic conditions isn't enough? The implied projections based on the devaluation of the pound?

If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.

I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.

I'll try again.

Have you ever invested in yourself or something else that cost you more than not doing so short term, but which benefitted you longer term?

I’m sure lots of us have - a university education being a case in point.

Building on the consensus that GDP will take a hit, there is also no real consensus that we’ll eventually be better off.

There is still an argument to say our place in the frictionless Single Market enables trade, one I buy into. It also seems clear we may well be heading for at least more friction which may hit trade. There is scant evidence that any new trade deals will offset this at all, and of course the recent bombardier issue suggests wider trade deals could be more difficult, not easier, pulling again on the argument that the EU as a trading bloc has more clout than the UK on its own. Again simple logic suggests there is truth to this, even if you don’t agree with the trade deals the EU does, and the speed with which it does them.

Had to smile at the description of france as being insular, and fully agree with the way observation that many see brexit the same way. No matter how much people protest it isn’t an inward looking change, it certainly appears that way from many perspectives.

ORD touches on a very valid point over what the lack of an economic argument means. Indeed as I recall the referendum, the economic case was pretty clear, but then immigration was forced front and centre and remain did almost nothing to counter the rhetoric. Thats how I recall it, and some mortem TV shows too I seem to remember.

MrTT - thank you for trying to help get an answer to the Euro clearing question, to be frank I’m still not sure who to believe (no offence, I just don’t have the technical understanding of the issues) - do the Feds care or not, is Euro clearing a big deal or not, will it move or not? The one thing that is clear is I can’t find a clear consensus, and there is at least considerable uncertainty. I’d also be interested to know which of my arguments you disagree with, genuinely, as I find myself agreeing with nearly all your points from memory.

There have been some good points on here, I think it is better when all refrain from “all remoaners/brexiteers think this”.

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

I’m sure lots of us have - a university education being a case in point.

Building on the consensus that GDP will take a hit, there is also no real consensus that we’ll eventually be better off.

There is still an argument to say our place in the frictionless Single Market enables trade, one I buy into. It also seems clear we may well be heading for at least more friction which may hit trade. There is scant evidence that any new trade deals will offset this at all, and of course the recent bombardier issue suggests wider trade deals could be more difficult, not easier, pulling again on the argument that the EU as a trading bloc has more clout than the UK on its own. Again simple logic suggests there is truth to this, even if you don’t agree with the trade deals the EU does, and the speed with which it does them.

Had to smile at the description of france as being insular, and fully agree with the way observation that many see brexit the same way. No matter how much people protest it isn’t an inward looking change, it certainly appears that way from many perspectives.

ORD touches on a very valid point over what the lack of an economic argument means. Indeed as I recall the referendum, the economic case was pretty clear, but then immigration was forced front and centre and remain did almost nothing to counter the rhetoric. Thats how I recall it, and some mortem TV shows too I seem to remember.

MrTT - thank you for trying to help get an answer to the Euro clearing question, to be frank I’m still not sure who to believe (no offence, I just don’t have the technical understanding of the issues) - do the Feds care or not, is Euro clearing a big deal or not, will it move or not? The one thing that is clear is I can’t find a clear consensus, and there is at least considerable uncertainty. I’d also be interested to know which of my arguments you disagree with, genuinely, as I find myself agreeing with nearly all your points from memory.

There have been some good points on here, I think it is better when all refrain from “all remoaners/brexiteers think this”.

Finally something we can agree on.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Bipartisan break! While fear of the jurisdiction itself is indeed irrational and sometimes seems to be based on nothing more than "it's not a UK Court", there is a rational basis for concern about the CJEU. It's a weak Court because it's too big, and also because it does not allow dissenting judgments and all decisions must be unanimous. This makes the Court more political than it should be, and leads to fudged decisions that often fail to resolve questions referred by national courts.

Interesting.

I don’t have so much of an issue with the government wanting to break from everything ECJ (even if it’s not exclusively EU) but the fact that it wants to end everything immediately seems short sighted to me.

A common theme amongst the leavers on here is that they think that there may be some short term pain but long term gain economically and it is about playing the longer game.

However do you not think the government is chasing a short term political ‘gain’ over everything else ei th the sudden removal of the uk from everything ECJ, rather than playing a longer game?

[Garvin]

Mrr T said:

There is a negotiating strategy called the Russian roulette technique. You point a gun at your opponents head and say give us what we want or I shoot. The UK government strategy is a variation where we point a gun at our own head and say give us what we want or we shoot ourselves. Now it’s an unusual strategy and I am not sure disagreeing is wobbling, maybe just pointing out its a bloody stupid strategy.

It is your view that it is UK alone that will suffer. It is other's view, including my own, that both will suffer so your approach doesn't hold water with me.

[anonymous-user]

Zod said:

This is simple blind optimism. How many years of lower growth or recession are you prepared to put up with for the hope (that's all it is) of higher growth in the medium- or longer-term? How long before the gdp growth puts the country ahead of where it would have been if not for Brexit? You have no idea whatsoever.

I wasn't asking you, but as you have answered anyway and ORD appears not to want to, I'll continue the discussion.

I'm old enough to have lived through the entire EEC/EU experience, I was 7 when we joined the EEC and remember my penny suddenly buying fook all.

I've lived through countless recessions, including a bailout by the IMF whilst we have been members of the EEC/EU, we have just lived through 10 years of real terms stagnation and the bailout of the world banking system by the taxpayer whilst being members of the EU. I've lived through continual watering down of workers rights under the EU, with lack of sick pay and short term contracts becoming the norm for a large proportion of the labour force. I've seen the continual decline in workers ability to exercise their value in the employment market for increasingly large percentages of people, to the point its now the traditional middle classes that have woken up to their future stagnated lifestyles which is driving a massive debt bubble and creating anti establishment politics.

In the big scheme of things, what matters is the fundamentals of our economy, what matters most IMHO for the future is the ability to react quickly to world events, because Globalisation is not going away. My view is that long term the continual integration of the political project of the EU will be detrimental to this and its likely to lead to a political and financial collapse event. It could well happen before this whole process is over if Italy goes the way I think it will next year.

There is no forecast of a recession when we leave the EU, the worst case is lower growth initially with higher growth by 2030 if you use figures that are not massaged by an agenda driven Osborne. But even if there were a recession, it wouldn't be the first time and it wont be the last. World events could and will drive the future prospects in or out of the EU.

I see Brexit as an insurance policy against the inevitable, it's worth paying the premium to enable the future to be less damaging than it otherwise would be. I see lots of positives not just financially, but socially, when the UK citizen has the ability to hold its elected representatives to account more directly and they have to take account of the views of the less fortunate in our society.

The effect on GDP will be minor, because UK economy is not export based, even if we managed to lower our export trade to the EU it would make very little difference to our GDP as a whole. The growth for the UK is not in the EU, its ROW, A bonus of Brexit is the ability to tailor our economy to be more biased towards where the growth is whilst having the ability to benefit from world priced markets on our imports.

You could argue that staying inside the EU and waiting for it to go bang would have been easier, and that's probably true short term, but there are just as many unknowns in doing so, it could have led to ever more nasty politics in the UK, I think it would hobble us more when that EU killing event happens. If the EU survives next years Italian elections, its only a matter of time before the next crisis comes around, it's going to go bang eventually if the politics in the EU continue in the direction they are heading.

This was a once in a lifetime opportunity to affect the future of the UK, I had many reasons voting the way I did, we will see as time passes how that decision plays out, as we do with every decision in life, none of us know the real outcome of anything, no matter how smart we think we are.

[ORD]

You obviously feel strongly, but a lot of what you say makes no sense whatsoever. The EU is the source of most employee protections in the UK. The EU is very pro-employee indeed.

[Garvin]

Breadvan72 said:

So it is OK to trot out nationality based stereotypes, but that ain't Xenophobic?

What about the haughty Bulldog Brits who fancy themselves inheritors of the Empire? Arrogance and pride are not limited by nationality.

Are they stereotypes and Xenophobic? I speak as I find and I work with the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish on a daily basis and many more nationalities on a regular basis and have done for over 25 years and it has been immensely enjoyable and rewarding. Your attempted slur at being Xenophobic is crass and very wide of the mark.

It took me a fair while to understand how my French and German (and many other continental colleagues) approach things. Indeed, my view is not the accepted stereotypical view of them at all which is why, I believe, a lot of Brits fail to make headway with them. When I had the lightbulb moment trying to understand my French colleagues approach to business I asked them outright if it was true. They looked at me and said of course, as if everyone thought that way! Since then I have discussed very openly with all my international colleagues their approaches (and the Brits approach) to all things including business and family etc. some of it is surprising and some of it very enviable.

There are many haughty Bulldog Brits and I make no paricular judgement on such limiting factors of any nationality only to recognise that it exists. I offer an approach to the Brexit negotiations which I think will be successful. Now, if the major protagonists on the EU side were, say, the Italians or Spanish then I would suggest a different approach entirely.

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

You obviously feel strongly, but a lot of what you say makes no sense whatsoever. The EU is the source of most employee protections in the UK. The EU is very pro-employee indeed.

It really isn't in practice ORD. UK legislation has driven worker rights far more, we have seen a massive increase in instability for a large percentage of the workforce under EU membership.

[ORD]

jsf said:

ORD said:

You obviously feel strongly, but a lot of what you say makes no sense whatsoever. The EU is the source of most employee protections in the UK. The EU is very pro-employee indeed.

It really isn't in practice ORD. UK legislation has driven worker rights far more, we have seen a massive increase in instability for a large percentage of the workforce under EU membership.

Does your use of "UK legislation" include legislation that is require to implement EU Directives?

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

ORD said:

You obviously feel strongly, but a lot of what you say makes no sense whatsoever. The EU is the source of most employee protections in the UK. The EU is very pro-employee indeed.

It really isn't in practice ORD. UK legislation has driven worker rights far more, we have seen a massive increase in instability for a large percentage of the workforce under EU membership.

Doing a fair chunk of employment law my observation is that employee un-protection and employment instability relate mainly to domestic policies and not to EU policies. The UK developed dismissal and discrimination protection before EU moves in those fields, but the EU enhanced discrimination law, introduced acquired rights protection, working time protection and so on. Recent UK Governments have promoted the gig economy and downgraded employment rights , by for example requiring two years service for most forms of dismissal protection, and by the (now judicially overturned) access fees for employment tribunals. The tribunal fees regime was struck down partly on EU law grounds.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

jsf said:

ORD said:

You obviously feel strongly, but a lot of what you say makes no sense whatsoever. The EU is the source of most employee protections in the UK. The EU is very pro-employee indeed.

It really isn't in practice ORD. UK legislation has driven worker rights far more, we have seen a massive increase in instability for a large percentage of the workforce under EU membership.

Doing a fair chunk of employment law my observation is that employee un-protection and employment instability relate mainly to domestic policies and not to EU policies. The UK developed dismissal and discrimination protection before EU moves in those fields, but the EU enhanced discrimination law, introduced acquired rights protection, working time protection and so on. Recent UK Governments have promoted the gig economy and downgraded employment rights , by for example requiring two years service for most forms of dismissal protection, and by the (now judicially overturned) access fees for employment tribunals. The tribunal fees regime was struck down partly on EU law grounds.

Its an area where both the EU and UK have had a part to play, of course, that's the very nature of the current arrangement.

What will improve post Brexit is the ability of people affected by the law to hold their law makers to account, which could drive change.

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

Are they stereotypes and Xenophobic? I speak as I find and I work with the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish on a daily basis and many more nationalities on a regular basis and have done for over 25 years and it has been immensely enjoyable and rewarding. Your attempted slur at being Xenophobic is crass and very wide of the mark.

"I speak as I find" makes you sound like a comedy Yorkshireman in a sketch. People often seek to justify stereotyping attitudes by using such terminology. "Me, I tell it like I is, me", and so on. You categorise people by reference to national characteristics, lumping French, Germans, Spaniards, Italians and so on in stereotype boxes. That is the essence of prejudice. It can be hard to face up to the fact that what you may consider your plain speaking is a cover for prejudice, but that, I suggest, is what it is.

[Mrr T]

///ajd said:

MrTT - thank you for trying to help get an answer to the Euro clearing question, to be frank I’m still not sure who to believe (no offence, I just don’t have the technical understanding of the issues) - do the Feds care or not, is Euro clearing a big deal or not, will it move or not? The one thing that is clear is I can’t find a clear consensus, and there is at least considerable uncertainty. I’d also be interested to know which of my arguments you disagree with, genuinely, as I find myself agreeing with nearly all your points from memory.

No offence taken. In the world of FS derivative clearing is at the more complex end. You really need to start with central bank money and why it’s used as one way of avoiding systemic risk in the financial systems. At the other end you have derivatives in local currency products all being novated to a central counterparty (CCP). This means if there is market stress and the CCP looks like failing the central bank and the government might need to take action to avoid systemic risk. If euro derivatives are cleared in the UK the euro countries are dependent on the actions of the UK government and the BOE. There was nothing they can do when the UK was in the SM, when we leave they can take action and will.

As for disagreements with you. I am not sure I have actively disagreed with you but often you post items of economic bad news which you claim is all brexit related. I tend to disagree with those assumption partly because it’s rarely that simple, and well we have not left yet.

As I have said many times I have no problems with leaving the EU so long as it’s done properly.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

Its an area where both the EU and UK have had a part to play, of course, that's the very nature of the current arrangement.

What will improve post Brexit is the ability of people affected by the law to hold their law makers to account, which could drive change.

So before you were saying "the UK drives most of it" and now you are saying "it's a shared thing".

Holding law makers to account: that's a standard Brexit mantra, but how will that change? Most of the negative things that have happened in employment law recently have come from Westminster. How have workers been able to hold law makers to account? Not through elections recently, as Governments opposed to employment rights have been elected. In the tribunal fees litigation, workers were able to hold Government to account, by invoking EU law.

Which is more accountable: a body that legislates through an elected Parliament (in Strasbourg), or a body that legislates through Ministerial decision (in London)?

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

So before you were saying "the UK drives most of it" and now you are saying "it's a shared thing".

Holding law makers to account: that's a standard Brexit mantra, but how will that change? Most of the negative things that have happened in employment law recently have come from Westminster. How have workers been able to hold law makers to account? Not through elections recently, as Governments opposed to employment rights have been elected. In the tribunal fees litigation, workers were able to hold Government to account, by invoking EU law.

Which is more accountable: a body that legislates through an elected Parliament (in Strasbourg), or a body that legislates through Ministerial decision (in London)?

Historically, before the UK joined the EEC, UK was the major driver of improving worker rights, we took a lot into the EEC with us in this respect. Since being a member, its been a shared area. I don't think there is anything controversial there.

UK being out of the EU removes the excuse that government can use regarding who makes the law. I'd find it far more productive persuading my MP than my MEP in this matter.

[Garvin]

Breadvan72 said:

Garvin said:

Are they stereotypes and Xenophobic? I speak as I find and I work with the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish on a daily basis and many more nationalities on a regular basis and have done for over 25 years and it has been immensely enjoyable and rewarding. Your attempted slur at being Xenophobic is crass and very wide of the mark.

"I speak as I find" makes you sound like a comedy Yorkshireman in a sketch. People often seek to justify stereotyping attitudes by using such terminology. "Me, I tell it like I is, me", and so on. You categorise people by reference to national characteristics, lumping French, Germans, Spaniards, Italians and so on in stereotype boxes. That is the essence of prejudice. It can be hard to face up to the fact that what you may consider your plain speaking is a cover for prejudice, but that, I suggest, is what it is.

Interesting. So you think that no national traits exist at all. As I say, interesting! Particularly as you, yourself mention Bulldog when referring to Brits! Suggest all you like but you seem to share the stereotyping so, by your own admission, must be wrapped up in prejudice.

[anonymous-user]

Governments can't blame the EU now when the policy is plainly not an EU policy. For example the two year service requirement for unfair dismissal claims - no Government can blame the EU for that. I haven't seen much evidence of Governments hiding behind the EU to defend bad decisions. There are some duds such as tampon tax, but most rubbish policies can be laid firmly at the door of Westminster or Whitehall.

As for shaping employment protection policy, of course the UK was influential in that sphere as in others, although it also argued against some changes.

More generally, there is a good list somewhere of how many of the things that Brexiteers most object to about the EU were in fact UK ideas, but right now I CBA to go hunting for it. Maybe after dinner, if I CBA.

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

Interesting. So you think that no national traits exist at all. As I say, interesting! Particularly as you, yourself mention Bulldog when referring to Brits! Suggest all you like but you seem to share the stereotyping so, by your own admission, must be wrapped up in prejudice.

Bulldog was, er irony. See also comedy Yorkshireman - that's a stereotype too. There can be cultural characteristics, but nationality is not innate, and broad national characteristics skew quickly into stereotyping. All French people are lazy and drink at lunchtime, and so on. All Germans are humourless and efficient, etc. A Spanish person, or whatever, is no more predetermined to behave in a certain way than, say, a black person or a Jewish person. Replace [nationality] with [colour or ethnicity] and things may feel a tad uncomfortable.

[Murph7355]

ORD said:

What evidence of medium term disbenefits would you need? Consensus between pretty much everyone who earns money from projecting economic conditions isn't enough? The implied projections based on the devaluation of the pound?

If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.

I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.

Your "disbenefits" are effectively money we never had. Even your most gloomy economists are/were still saying we're growing. So we'll be wealthier. Just not as wealthier as we might have been had we taken a different path. According to economists who were wholeheartedly wrong after the election and, professional or not, don't have that great a track record over the last 10yrs.

(Before I get the "experts" accusation levelled, I believe in listening to them. But understanding what they are are and are not saying is important, and they aren't always right).

I won' t physically feel poorer in 5yrs' unless.... Well, unless I'm having a bit of a mard on about what I might have had if only this, that or the other thing hadn't happened.

That sort of thought process is futile though, and applies to everything we do.

If ifs and buts were pots and pans etc.

The economic arguments BOTH ways never stacked up. They were utterly unprovable then, they are utterly unprovable now and they ain't changing in 5, 10 or 100 years.

In some ways I wish this wasn't so as it would have made some people's choices much easier.

Agility in a global marketplace will be a seriously valuable commodity IMO. The EU is the very opposite of agile and has taken some seriously wrong turns in the last 25yrs. I'm not one that wishes to see it blow up. But at present I can see little else happening.

Will our government be better at this? The current shower of ineptitude makes me doubtful. I'm hoping dropping the EU veil will see better quality raise to the top. Probably naive, but continuing with EU shoddiness wasn't the answer either.

[Murph7355]

Zod said:

This is simple blind optimism. How many years of lower growth or recession are you prepared to put up with for the hope (that's all it is) of higher growth in the medium- or longer-term? How long before the gdp growth puts the country ahead of where it would have been if not for Brexit? You have no idea whatsoever.

Nor do you Zod. You have no idea what growth would have been inside, and sadly we never will.

Staying in was an equal amount of blind optimism as leaving was.