How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
It can be put into effect so your point is lost.
Whether it's advisable or likely are different matters.
Literally it can yes, but that would result in the EU suing us for what we owe.Whether it's advisable or likely are different matters.
How do you think that would affect the UK's credit rating.
Let's not forget that there is no obligation on the EU to agree to a trade agreement with the UK. So trying to bully and threaten them into doing so is not good for our future trade agreements with the RoW as Coolbanana points out.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Literally it can yes, but that would result in the EU suing us for what we owe.
How do you think that would affect the UK's credit rating.
Let's not forget that there is no obligation on the EU to agree to a trade agreement with the UK. So trying to bully and threaten them into doing so is not good for our future trade agreements with the RoW as Coolbanana points out.
This last bit is so obvious that you begin to doubt whether the Brexit loons have ever been involved in a negotiation.How do you think that would affect the UK's credit rating.
Let's not forget that there is no obligation on the EU to agree to a trade agreement with the UK. So trying to bully and threaten them into doing so is not good for our future trade agreements with the RoW as Coolbanana points out.
Jockman said:
B'stard Child said:
Jockman said:
Einion Yrth said:
That, I am struggling to believe; link please.
The sun was shining, the birds were singing........https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
mazing.................
lifts jaw off the floor
PurpleMoonlight said:
Garvin said:
But how is that "weakening" a negotiating position?
Really, you don't see it?Okay, you cannot bargain with what you don't have.
However, it appears to me that the £39Bn has not been fully justified and some of it appears to be nothing more than a sweetener to the EU to 'behave' during negotiations. Now if you have chapter and verse on the fully audited breakdown of the £39Bn then I'm happy to be corrected.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Coolbanana said:
Indeed and it would be an extremely stupid move for a Country seeking favourable Agreements with other Nations around the World as you correctly allude to.
In the grand scheme of things, while 39B is a very large sum for any individual, it is relatively small for a Tier 1 economy to absorb as the price to pay to demonstrate that it is a country of its word. In terms of wanting a favourable deal with the EU, it is absolutely essential to show you will not renege on any aspects of any Agreement. In terms of 'No Deal' with the EU, it is still very important for the R.O.W. to see that the UK is a Country that will not abandon it's agreed responsibilities and lie.
The threat of non-payment is Political posturing by certain individuals on the Leave side aimed directly at those they consider easily led by silly soundbites that appeal to a particular mindset. It is 'Trumpism', pure and simple. Tell a certain demographic of the Electorate what you know they will be impressed by in their ignorance and keep their support onboard. It is a tactic Trump has proven can be very successful - reality doesn't have to feature at all.
This too.In the grand scheme of things, while 39B is a very large sum for any individual, it is relatively small for a Tier 1 economy to absorb as the price to pay to demonstrate that it is a country of its word. In terms of wanting a favourable deal with the EU, it is absolutely essential to show you will not renege on any aspects of any Agreement. In terms of 'No Deal' with the EU, it is still very important for the R.O.W. to see that the UK is a Country that will not abandon it's agreed responsibilities and lie.
The threat of non-payment is Political posturing by certain individuals on the Leave side aimed directly at those they consider easily led by silly soundbites that appeal to a particular mindset. It is 'Trumpism', pure and simple. Tell a certain demographic of the Electorate what you know they will be impressed by in their ignorance and keep their support onboard. It is a tactic Trump has proven can be very successful - reality doesn't have to feature at all.
The UK should be thinking of the bigger picture.
A (very) large proportion of the "responsibilities" (39bn) are related to the transition arrangements. If there is "no deal" (and hence no transition), do you think that we should still pay that amount? Do you think the rest of the world would look at us and think "hang on, you never paid that amount that was on the back of a fag packet and hence we are really worried about you reneging on a trade deal with us"? Or do you think they'd think "you absolute plums, you paid for something you didn't get and we are going to bend you over in any trade deal with us too"?
The amounts that aren't bound up in this way are relatively small.
If the end result of the exit agreement includes detail on the future relationship with the EU that basically say "we may as well never have been friends, screw you" (from both sides), I'm not convinced it will get signed. And if it does, it will be quite significantly different from how it looks now, especially in terms of the money involved.
If there is a decent formal structure for that future relationship written into the agreement, then we are good to go, it gets signed and we can work through the detail over the next couple of years. If the EU were to break that agreement by not carrying through on that detail, then as with any agreement we would be well within our rights to reconsider it. And vice versa.
amusingduck said:
How would they do that?
Citing that we've broken what law/treaty/agreement?
I posted this yesterday.Citing that we've broken what law/treaty/agreement?
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-brexit-bill-and-the-l...
Garvin said:
Why not? The threat of dragging it out through years and years of legal machinations, even if it eventually goes against you, can be quite a powerful incentive for the other side to compromise, particularly if they will be in accute difficulty whilst the legal machinations drag on.
However, it appears to me that the £39Bn has not been fully justified and some of it appears to be nothing more than a sweetener to the EU to 'behave' during negotiations. Now if you have chapter and verse on the fully audited breakdown of the £39Bn then I'm happy to be corrected.
If you want an audited figure write to the government they agreed the figure.However, it appears to me that the £39Bn has not been fully justified and some of it appears to be nothing more than a sweetener to the EU to 'behave' during negotiations. Now if you have chapter and verse on the fully audited breakdown of the £39Bn then I'm happy to be corrected.
As for not paying enjoy the power cuts.
Setting all the Tory / Labour / UK internal strife and stupidity to one side for a moment, it seems to my admittedly biased view that the UK has to some extent tried to take the let's be honourable and reasonable about this approach, of course we will pay what we genuinely owe and maybe a bit more in support of a future reasonable relationship. That has been seen as a position of weakness and the other party feels wronged and is out to screw for every little thing. Bit like some divorces between married couples.
There comes a time when being reasonable has to turn into just standing up for yourself. I suspect the EU don't understand the British. That's not in any way suggesting or promoting the "feck you" <>"No feck you!" approach as the desirable way to go, but there does need to be consideration of less appeasement for a time.
There comes a time when being reasonable has to turn into just standing up for yourself. I suspect the EU don't understand the British. That's not in any way suggesting or promoting the "feck you" <>"No feck you!" approach as the desirable way to go, but there does need to be consideration of less appeasement for a time.
Mrr T said:
When most of us refer the FTA we would also include trade agreement. Fully free trade agreements such as the one the EU has with Korea are rare.
So rare Australia has 10 of them, a country with 25 million people. and they are with countries such as Japan, the USA and China...with 6 more in the pipeline including India. It would suggest that as far as FTAs are concerned being part of a big block such as the EU is a positive disadvantage when trying to negotiate FTAs. Strangely none of the Aussie agreements have a FMOL element but all seem to have a services element to them which would make sense as the Aussie economy is similar to ours being 70% services.
PurpleMoonlight said:
amusingduck said:
How would they do that?
Citing that we've broken what law/treaty/agreement?
I posted this yesterday.Citing that we've broken what law/treaty/agreement?
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-brexit-bill-and-the-l...
Mrr T said:
Garvin said:
Why not? The threat of dragging it out through years and years of legal machinations, even if it eventually goes against you, can be quite a powerful incentive for the other side to compromise, particularly if they will be in accute difficulty whilst the legal machinations drag on.
However, it appears to me that the £39Bn has not been fully justified and some of it appears to be nothing more than a sweetener to the EU to 'behave' during negotiations. Now if you have chapter and verse on the fully audited breakdown of the £39Bn then I'm happy to be corrected.
If you want an audited figure write to the government they agreed the figure.However, it appears to me that the £39Bn has not been fully justified and some of it appears to be nothing more than a sweetener to the EU to 'behave' during negotiations. Now if you have chapter and verse on the fully audited breakdown of the £39Bn then I'm happy to be corrected.
As for not paying enjoy the power cuts.
Power cuts? What has that got to do with negotiation position and strategy - apart from the approach of negotiating with oneself and losing!
FiF said:
Setting all the Tory / Labour / UK internal strife and stupidity to one side for a moment, it seems to my admittedly biased view that the UK has to some extent tried to take the let's be honourable and reasonable about this approach, of course we will pay what we genuinely owe and maybe a bit more in support of a future reasonable relationship. That has been seen as a position of weakness and the other party feels wronged and is out to screw for every little thing. Bit like some divorces between married couples.
There comes a time when being reasonable has to turn into just standing up for yourself. I suspect the EU don't understand the British. That's not in any way suggesting or promoting the "feck you" <>"No feck you!" approach as the desirable way to go, but there does need to be consideration of less appeasement for a time.
It depends whether or not you think May's proposals are reasonable or cherry picking, or just GB being made to suffer because of May's demand for NI/Ireland.There comes a time when being reasonable has to turn into just standing up for yourself. I suspect the EU don't understand the British. That's not in any way suggesting or promoting the "feck you" <>"No feck you!" approach as the desirable way to go, but there does need to be consideration of less appeasement for a time.
We had an offer of a Canada style FTA from the EU, we should have grabbed it with both hands and told NI/Ireland to make the best of it that they can.
Mrr T said:
Garvin said:
Why not? The threat of dragging it out through years and years of legal machinations, even if it eventually goes against you, can be quite a powerful incentive for the other side to compromise, particularly if they will be in accute difficulty whilst the legal machinations drag on.
However, it appears to me that the £39Bn has not been fully justified and some of it appears to be nothing more than a sweetener to the EU to 'behave' during negotiations. Now if you have chapter and verse on the fully audited breakdown of the £39Bn then I'm happy to be corrected.
If you want an audited figure write to the government they agreed the figure.However, it appears to me that the £39Bn has not been fully justified and some of it appears to be nothing more than a sweetener to the EU to 'behave' during negotiations. Now if you have chapter and verse on the fully audited breakdown of the £39Bn then I'm happy to be corrected.
As for not paying enjoy the power cuts.
Is that all we have to worry about!
No food, so nothing to cook, if we had any there would be no power to cook it.
No medication, so illness would be rife.
The fact there was no power for many would be an irrelevance, what many would worry about would be what got them first, their illness or starvation.
That 3rd World War just around the corner would for many be a godsend.
Vanden Saab said:
So rare Australia has 10 of them, a country with 25 million people. and they are with countries such as Japan, the USA and China...with 6 more in the pipeline including India. It would suggest that as far as FTAs are concerned being part of a big block such as the EU is a positive disadvantage when trying to negotiate FTAs.
Strangely none of the Aussie agreements have a FMOL element but all seem to have a services element to them which would make sense as the Aussie economy is similar to ours being 70% services.
Last response because you are not listening. The EU refers to the Korea agreement as a FTA because it covers everything. The EU also has 30 other FTA which they refer to as trade agreements. They cover many but not all products.Strangely none of the Aussie agreements have a FMOL element but all seem to have a services element to them which would make sense as the Aussie economy is similar to ours being 70% services.
Australia refer to 10 FTA but are they FTA or just Trade Agreements?
PurpleMoonlight said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
Will stick with reality thanks
That's good.Reality is we owe it, so threatening not to pay is ridiculous and weakens our position.
As such there is a figure. It is a carrot for the UK to pay - in return for something else. The UK actually has to present the "something else" to the EU. So far - we haven't! I have said several times: I actually have some sympathy for Barnier, how on earth can you negotiate or deal with an incoherent shower of donkey poop?
So far there is literally nothing, zero, zip on the table. Nada. Threatening not to pay is absolutely fine - there is no mechanism to force it so beyond application of pressure (military, economic, political) and the EU is actually quite weak in their ability to apply that outside of its boundaries. When you threaten not to pay though, you have to present something to the other side for them to sign up to and the Uk hasnt presented didly squat of anything of any coherent use yet.
Ghibli said:
Did the UK vote for a state of emergency?
Apparently that's what some members of parliament want.
I'm guessing that PH team leave want whatever they want.
As it stands the British Parliament is one of the success stories so far of this mess. The deal needs to be done by October so I would assume that unless the EU softens it stance on Ireland during the recess what we have now is indeed a no deal scenario and we end up on WTO rules.Apparently that's what some members of parliament want.
I'm guessing that PH team leave want whatever they want.
Executive orders aside, British Parliament can debate and pass legislation quicker than any other G7 nation never-mind the EU as a whole so thats why I feel that this the last chance saloon.
The Germans won't like that and so i suspect they will quietly re-educate Barnier on some sort of Italian holiday jaunt in August and replace him with a clone which is more amenable to German<>U.K goods trade interests.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff