How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 2)
Discussion
wisbech said:
Actually it does between NZ and Australia and between NZ and some of the Pacific Island countries
It came into force in early 1973 as a way to help cushion the shock of losing the UK market, which happened when UK joined the EEC in Jan 73.FM can work where you have countries that are closely aligned in terms of economy and skills, when you have a large difference, as happened with the EU8 expansion, it drives large migration movements that impact both countries.
UK's big mistake was not putting restrictions on EU8 citizens when it joined the EU, only UK, Sweden and Ireland didn't, Germany was a closed market, so the majority headed for UK with its much higher wage economy. The prediction sold to the UK population was 15,000 per year over a 10 year period from the EU8, we got 250,000 a year and over 2,200,000 over 10 years. That changed everything for UK politics.
jsf said:
It came into force in early 1973 as a way to help cushion the shock of losing the UK market, which happened when UK joined the EEC in Jan 73.
FM can work where you have countries that are closely aligned in terms of economy and skills, when you have a large difference, as happened with the EU8 expansion, it drives large migration movements that impact both countries.
UK's big mistake was not putting restrictions on EU8 citizens when it joined the EU, only UK, Sweden and Ireland didn't, Germany was a closed market, so the majority headed for UK with its much higher wage economy. The prediction sold to the UK population was 15,000 per year over a 10 year period from the EU8, we got 250,000 a year and over 2,200,000 over 10 years. That changed everything for UK politics.
The fascinating thing about this whole situation is that in 1992 Maastricht nearly split the Tory party but the general public was largely detached. But Blair/Brown, in their ever cavalier manner, with a combination of the decision around the EU8 and the ludicrous shenanigans around Lisbon, essentially turbo boosted the anti EU movement. FM can work where you have countries that are closely aligned in terms of economy and skills, when you have a large difference, as happened with the EU8 expansion, it drives large migration movements that impact both countries.
UK's big mistake was not putting restrictions on EU8 citizens when it joined the EU, only UK, Sweden and Ireland didn't, Germany was a closed market, so the majority headed for UK with its much higher wage economy. The prediction sold to the UK population was 15,000 per year over a 10 year period from the EU8, we got 250,000 a year and over 2,200,000 over 10 years. That changed everything for UK politics.
But this largely underwrites the entire point of Brexit and the absolute key issue: the problem with the EU was never really the EU, apart from its manifestation as a form of interlocutor with global trends, and the mess the U.K. Found itself by locking itself into that, and an obsession with Beethoven and a s
t flag. It is overwhelmingly the fault of our governing class. From the early 60s onwards the British political establishment has pursued a path across many areas that the voting populace has increasingly been uncomfortable with because it was never properly articulated. That was there before the EU but was aggravated by membership of it. How does anyone articulate discomfort with the direction of travel if the options at Westminster are Henry Fordesque 'any colour you like as long as its black'.
Brexit will not be functioning correctly in my view unless it seriously results in a substantial constitutional upheaval to prevent politicians from committing to policy that is not genuinely subject to popular scrutiny, I.e. the end result of the disastrous EU8 immigration policy, and the opt into Lisbon. The nadir of the last labour governments and decisions opted into by *British* governments.
Edited by Ridgemont on Monday 18th December 01:54
PurpleMoonlight said:
Ridgemont said:
It will be Canada plus specific arrangements for a U.K. Deal. This is news?
It is to May & Davis.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/...
Ridgemont said:
Except there will be no plus plus plus.PurpleMoonlight said:
Ridgemont said:
Except there will be no plus plus plus.Given everything that we learned from phase 1 what makes you think there isn't a likelihood of a deal? Needs must and the club med is f
ked unless London leveraging continues uninterrupted. Either way it's a negotiation. My preference has always been for EEA but a reasonable FTA with proper preparedness by the UK gov is an option as well.
Ridgemont said:
Why? Plus plus whatever refers to financial services. I don't understand why that is non negotiable. Especially given the possible impact on Euro core funding?
Given everything that we learned from phase 1 what makes you think there isn't a likelihood of a deal? Needs must and the club med is fked unless London leveraging continues uninterrupted.
Either way it's a negotiation. My preference has always been for EEA but a reasonable FTA with proper preparedness by the UK gov is an option as well.
The 'why wouldn't they' argument hasn't worked well in the past.Given everything that we learned from phase 1 what makes you think there isn't a likelihood of a deal? Needs must and the club med is f
ked unless London leveraging continues uninterrupted. Either way it's a negotiation. My preference has always been for EEA but a reasonable FTA with proper preparedness by the UK gov is an option as well.
I thought we learned the UK is crap at negotiating from phase 1, but maybe that's just me.
zbc said:
hyphen said:
If we 'manage' migration then people will not need to be poorer as you assert, frankly if we end open borders and are stricter on quality, then future academic studies will actually show large net contributions by migrants.
So who will do all the "low paid, unskilled" jobs when the East Europeans leave. I work in a warehouse and probably more than 80% of my colleagues are not native British but the local unemployment rate is about 5% I believe. There's no point saying "pay more" as the only place they could come from is other local employers unless you fancy implementing mass forced migration from other parts of the UK.Edited by hyphen on Sunday 17th December 23:47
No first world economy can build prosperity from ever increasing inputs of unskilled labour.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Back on topic.
Barnier has confirmed no cake, no deep and special partnership. We can have a Canada or Norway style arrangement.
Back on topic, but hardly news as it is what he has been saying for a while and indeed what a number of German officials were saying months ago.Barnier has confirmed no cake, no deep and special partnership. We can have a Canada or Norway style arrangement.
Given that "no deal" is off the table, and the constant efforts of some to sabotage the process, then we will just have to take what we are given. If May achieves anything in the negotiations to safeguard our service exports (while of course actually leaving the EU) I will applaud her given the constraints under which she is operating.
hyphen said:
Research by Oxford and so on have shown that Eu migration has a tiny net benefit, if any.
The reason for this is that with 'open borders' you get a variety of quality, the doctors and bankers being offset by the large amount of min hourly wage, part time people.
So take the sector of migrants that are the controversial ones - low paid, unskilled. With the UK being a wealthy country, we have pretty much unlimited supply of willing migrants wanting to come in from across the world, so why take in an EU national with 3 kids? Yes he will work hard, but will need top up benefit to make up his income, kids educations costs of thousands per year and so on. Why take in a labourer who is 45 instead of one who is 25? His working life is near the end and he will add to an already struggling elderly care service, as a lifetime of ling hours of tough labouring will have taken its toll on his body.
If we 'manage' migration then people will not need to be poorer as you assert, frankly if we end open borders and are stricter on quality, then future academic studies will actually show large net contributions by migrants.
I wasn’t talking about giving up on benefits that flow from immigration itself. The problem with Brexit is that you buy immigration restrictions by shooting yourself in the face on trade. The reason for this is that with 'open borders' you get a variety of quality, the doctors and bankers being offset by the large amount of min hourly wage, part time people.
So take the sector of migrants that are the controversial ones - low paid, unskilled. With the UK being a wealthy country, we have pretty much unlimited supply of willing migrants wanting to come in from across the world, so why take in an EU national with 3 kids? Yes he will work hard, but will need top up benefit to make up his income, kids educations costs of thousands per year and so on. Why take in a labourer who is 45 instead of one who is 25? His working life is near the end and he will add to an already struggling elderly care service, as a lifetime of ling hours of tough labouring will have taken its toll on his body.
If we 'manage' migration then people will not need to be poorer as you assert, frankly if we end open borders and are stricter on quality, then future academic studies will actually show large net contributions by migrants.
Edited by hyphen on Sunday 17th December 23:47
You want to end FOM? Fine, but it will cost you billions per year in less favourable trade conditions.
JagLover said:
Back on topic, but hardly news as it is what he has been saying for a while and indeed what a number of German officials were saying months ago.
Given that "no deal" is off the table, and the constant efforts of some to sabotage the process, then we will just have to take what we are given. If May achieves anything in the negotiations to safeguard our service exports (while of course actually leaving the EU) I will applaud her given the constraints under which she is operating.
No deal is not off the table. It’s probably the most likely outcome!Given that "no deal" is off the table, and the constant efforts of some to sabotage the process, then we will just have to take what we are given. If May achieves anything in the negotiations to safeguard our service exports (while of course actually leaving the EU) I will applaud her given the constraints under which she is operating.
The EU is offering two things we don’t want as the only options,, and we are represented by idiots. It must be at least very possible that they won’t be able to come to any trade deal.
ORD said:
No deal is not off the table. It’s probably the most likely outcome!
The EU is offering two things we don’t want as the only options,, and we are represented by idiots. It must be at least very possible that they won’t be able to come to any trade deal.
You are looking at this as a rational process of negotiation, which is a mistake I have also made.The EU is offering two things we don’t want as the only options,, and we are represented by idiots. It must be at least very possible that they won’t be able to come to any trade deal.
The reality is there aren't the parliamentary votes for a "no deal" outcome. Jeremy Hunt's warning is rather apt that the only Brexit deal on offer is the one May negotiates.
"No Deal" remains a possibility, just as requesting the withdrawal of A50 remains a possibility. What is most likely however is the outcome that parliament will vote for that also doesn't destroy the Tory party.
Labour's position on FOM as clear as ever I see
They committed to ending it in their manifesto but are trying to avoid questions of whether numbers should fall and also refuse to commit to whether they would need VISAs to live and work in the UK.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/sunday-shows...
They committed to ending it in their manifesto but are trying to avoid questions of whether numbers should fall and also refuse to commit to whether they would need VISAs to live and work in the UK.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/sunday-shows...
FT gets the last bit wrong -
https://www.ft.com/content/e3b29230-db5f-11e7-a039...
PS: a graphic. NB - a forecast.
FT said:
Economists for Brexit, a forecasting group, predicted that after a leave vote growth in GDP would expand 2.7 per cent in 2017. The Treasury expected a mild recession. Neither proved correct. The 2017 growth rate appears likely to slow to 1.5 per cent at a time when the global economy is strengthening.
According to economists such as Robert Chote, chairman of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which produces the official government forecasts, a more pressing question is to assess the impact compared with what would have happened had the vote gone the other way. “Many PhDs are going to be written on the impact of Brexit over the years to come,” he says.
This work has started, and includes a range of estimates calculated by the Financial Times suggesting that the value of Britain’s output is now around 0.9 per cent lower than was possible if the country had voted to stay in the EU. That equates to almost exactly £350m a week lost to the British economy — an irony that will not be lost on those who may have backed Leave because of the claim made on the side of the bus.
I disagree. The irony will be completely lost on those who voted leave because of the claim made on the bus.According to economists such as Robert Chote, chairman of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which produces the official government forecasts, a more pressing question is to assess the impact compared with what would have happened had the vote gone the other way. “Many PhDs are going to be written on the impact of Brexit over the years to come,” he says.
This work has started, and includes a range of estimates calculated by the Financial Times suggesting that the value of Britain’s output is now around 0.9 per cent lower than was possible if the country had voted to stay in the EU. That equates to almost exactly £350m a week lost to the British economy — an irony that will not be lost on those who may have backed Leave because of the claim made on the side of the bus.
https://www.ft.com/content/e3b29230-db5f-11e7-a039...
PS: a graphic. NB - a forecast.
In other news, UKIP's ever charming Godfrey Bloom (Google him, but hold your nose) describes Goldman Sachs as a "Jewish Bank".
#1930s
https://twitter.com/goddersbloom/status/9426645079...
#1930s
https://twitter.com/goddersbloom/status/9426645079...
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th December 09:05
Tuna said:
Why do you guys find it so hard to understand that (1) we're having real problems with infrastructure - housing, NHS, transport (2) some people feel that they want to get our house in order and (3) the last few decades of EU membership has shown very little sympathy in particular for regions that are struggling.
I logged on this morning to see that yesterday was yet another sermon according to slasher (and team) on how we're still doing it all wrong and predictably he's managed to move the topic from "how will the negotiations go ?" to his favourite topic of immigration into the UK. (even though he doesn't live here).Frankly Tuna, you're wasting your time trying to argue with logic or facts, they are just not listening (or reading). //ajd is someone who stridently advocates uncontrolled EU immigration into the UK but then, rather than hang around to welcome all those immigrants, he clears off to live somewhere else where he presumably considers a more pleasant lifestyle.
"do what I say, not what I do" comes to mind. credibility zero I'm afraid.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff