How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)

[Tuna]

braddo said:

Tuna seems to have joined the ERG Land Of Delusion.

The idea that there is some sort of Brexit deal to be had at the 11th hour, which will pass through UK Parliament AND get unanimous agreement from 27 EU states - well - place your bets.

Not my position at all. I've said more than once that May panicked at Chequers, and that people desperately wanting to offer concessions early have not learned a thing from the way similar negotiations with the EU have always gone.

As for what I think should happen - well I don't want parliament to be hurried into rushing through badly thought out concessions for the sake of an arbitrary deadline.

Against that there's increasing evidence that we are prepared for a WTO exit on March 29th. It would put us in the same position as any deal that might be pushed through now - going on to negotiate the details of a new relationship with the EU. Except that we wouldn't have tied our hands behind our backs before doing so.

In those terms, I can't see the benefit of a panic deal now. It doesn't deliver any more of a relationship with the EU, or improve our negotiating position for our future relationship. I'd like to get on with that rather than perpetuating the current uncertainties with fantasy elections, referendums and other nonsense.

[The Dangerous Elk]

braddo said:

A little reminder:

A Canada deal doesn't include services. The UK's economy is 80% services.

Anyone worried about the UK's trade deficits? Well, something is helping to reduce them but which is fundamentally
threatened by Brexit:

"A surplus of £28 billion on trade in services"

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBr...

What might happen to that surplus if there is no deal?

More than 2.5 years after the Brexit referendum and this thread still likes to ignore facts. Heaven forbid that facts might be the product of.... .... experts....

Please inform me of the effects within the EuroZone if we leave on-date and London is stopped/stops service supply on-date ?

[wc98]

Nickgnome said:

To a point I agree. I think Iraq was a complete disasater but that should not undo some of the previous good stuff.

I suspect like Thatcher before there becomes a self belief by successful politicians that overcomes pragmatic decision making.

We elected the labour governments together with the current one. What does that say about us?

agree on all points though i believe blair truly believes his own hype these days. he is so disconnected from reality due to that small bubble he lives in he truly doesn't understand the level of ill feeling many people in this country have toward him. i think if he did he might at least show some genuine contrition.

it's not a subject for anecdotes (imo) and mine would pale into insignificance compared to those from many members on here, but there really are very good reasons for the dislike many have for the man.this is coming from someone that voted labour at the time as well, so i do genuinely understand your point.

[Tuna]

braddo said:

A little reminder:

A Canada deal doesn't include services. The UK's economy is 80% services.

None of the options being put forward, including rescinding A50, protect our services. We've made it clear to the EU that it is dangerously reliant on a financial centre that is on the edge of the continent. Whatever happens, there will be an ongoing and concerted attempt to move services out of London and to Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

The extent to which we tie ourselves to external rules and regulations will decide how well we can resist those attempts.

[braddo]

Tuna said:

Not my position at all. I've said more than once that May panicked at Chequers, and that people desperately wanting to offer concessions early have not learned a thing from the way similar negotiations with the EU have always gone.

As for what I think should happen - well I don't want parliament to be hurried into rushing through badly thought out concessions for the sake of an arbitrary deadline.

Against that there's increasing evidence that we are prepared for a WTO exit on March 29th. It would put us in the same position as any deal that might be pushed through now - going on to negotiate the details of a new relationship with the EU. Except that we wouldn't have tied our hands behind our backs before doing so.

In those terms, I can't see the benefit of a panic deal now. It doesn't deliver any more of a relationship with the EU, or improve our negotiating position for our future relationship. I'd like to get on with that rather than perpetuating the current uncertainties with fantasy elections, referendums and other nonsense.

The bolded bit - that is what you think is the actual situation today, and that leaving with no deal won't have an impact compared to having a transition agreement in place.

I'm sorry but you have gone off with the fairies.

[davepoth]

braddo said:

A little reminder:

A Canada deal doesn't include services.

Are you sure about that?

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/cet...

Chapters 9 and 13 are the relevant ones.

[Leicester Loyal]

REALIST123 said:

steve_k said:

kurt535 said:

Banging day for Brexit jobs - again.....ah well Suffolk voted to leave I suppose....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/p...

From the link above

The Dutch multinational said the decision was part of a plan to reduce its number of manufacturing sites around the world and was not not directly related to the UK's departure from the EU.

Not only that:

“Neil Mesher, chief executive of Philips UK & Ireland said the decision had been made "after careful consideration" and that the firm would work with the staff affected.
He said the decision to close Glemsford was made towards the end of 2018, but that the UK's exit from the European Union was not a deciding factor.
"Clearly the timing was very difficult, but regardless of the Brexit outcome we would still be making this announcement," he said.”


But let’s not let the truth get in the way of project fear.

It's like they don't even read the article or research, just the headline. It is genuinely hilarious.

[braddo]

davepoth said:

Are you sure about that?

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/cet...

Chapters 9 and 13 are the relevant ones.

Do they cover the services the UK provides to the EU today? Please do make it easy for everyone who is reading this thread to understand. Do chapters 9 and 13 cover our £28 billion services trade surplus with the EU?

Because as far as I know, a Canadian bank can only serve its EU clients properly from a location inside the EU. But do please clarify.

[braddo]

Tuna said:

None of the options being put forward, including rescinding A50, protect our services. We've made it clear to the EU that it is dangerously reliant on a financial centre that is on the edge of the continent. Whatever happens, there will be an ongoing and concerted attempt to move services out of London and to Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

The extent to which we tie ourselves to external rules and regulations will decide how well we can resist those attempts.

Quoted for posterity.

[Tuna]

Nickgnome said:

So we would have to compare all of those reports of failure with current ones and those before and after. Do you not agree?

Knock yourself out.

However, you mentioned waiting times as though this was some significant achievement of Blair, when the picture outside of glossy political pamphlets is certainly not quite as clear cut as you might have us believe. Like his immigration policies, the intention was certainly good, but the unintended consequences quite serious.

[Murph7355]

braddo said:

A little reminder:

A Canada deal doesn't include services. The UK's economy is 80% services. ....

A little reminder - people who have been touting the idea have been saying "Canada+".

I imagine they have ideas on the '+' bit of that which may include a wider deal on services

[Tuna]

braddo said:

Tuna said:

None of the options being put forward, including rescinding A50, protect our services. We've made it clear to the EU that it is dangerously reliant on a financial centre that is on the edge of the continent. Whatever happens, there will be an ongoing and concerted attempt to move services out of London and to Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

The extent to which we tie ourselves to external rules and regulations will decide how well we can resist those attempts.

Quoted for posterity.

Go on?

[gooner1]

Nickgnome said:

I think Gooner stated he left school at 14 which means he was born before 1933 or his parents pulled him out unofficially.

You think wrong . On both counts mate.

[The Dangerous Elk]

The Dangerous Elk said:

braddo said:

A little reminder:

A Canada deal doesn't include services. The UK's economy is 80% services.

Anyone worried about the UK's trade deficits? Well, something is helping to reduce them but which is fundamentally
threatened by Brexit:

"A surplus of £28 billion on trade in services"

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBr...

What might happen to that surplus if there is no deal?

More than 2.5 years after the Brexit referendum and this thread still likes to ignore facts. Heaven forbid that facts might be the product of.... .... experts....

Please inform me of the effects within the EuroZone if we leave on-date and London is stopped/stops service supply on-date ?

Waiting....

[braddo]

davepoth said:

There's a good argument to say that a lot of our trade with the EU is because it's so easy to trade with the EU

YOU DON'T SAY!

"The negative effect of distance on trade has been evident for decades"

"The standard analysis for goods is that each doubling of distance with a trading partner halves trade between them."

"The International Monetary Fund found that the effect of distances on services trade was even higher than for goods."

Full article from the FT is here if the cheapskate Brexit experts on this thread can be bothered.
https://www.ft.com/content/964afa06-8f0b-11e6-8df8...

[gooner1]

Nickgnome said:

I don’t think it is within labour’s behest.

I think there is a good chance of cross party support with Kier Starmer on the labour side and the likes of Rudd for the Tories will ensure legislation gets proposed and passed.

I never stated it was. I was referring to the Labour whipping up support statement.

[braddo]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Please inform me of the effects within the EuroZone if we leave on-date and London is stopped/stops service supply on-date ?

In case you are still waiting...

You might have missed the bit about the UK Parliament preventing no-deal?

[The Dangerous Elk]

braddo said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

Please inform me of the effects within the EuroZone if we leave on-date and London is stopped/stops service supply on-date ?

In case you are still waiting...

You might have missed the bit about the UK Parliament preventing no-deal?

Not what I asked, why are you avoiding another question, does your Spider-sence smell a trap ?

Did you notice any leaflets via your letter box in 2016 ?

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Friday 18th January 00:10

[Elysium]

davepoth said:

There's a good argument to say that a lot of our trade with the EU is because it's so easy to trade with the EU - significant numbers of SMEs only trade with the UK and EU, finding the ROW too complex (it is a bit more complicated). It's a fair assumption therefore that making it harder to trade with the EU will result in a reduction of trade at least by those smaller businesses, and at least in the short term.

In addition, while the EU doesn't have a full FTA with the US there are a number of smaller agreements on boring technical stuff that flies under the radar and eases trade pretty significantly, and those evaporate when we leave. The bits of government I speak with from time to time are working hard to get those deals replicated but it's likely they won't be done in time.

No deal won't be a walk in the park by any stretch of the imagination, and there will be costs to it in the short term. But I still believe that the long term opportunities of a clean break from the EU will outweigh the short term losses. Ultimately we'll end up with a Canada type deal with the EU a few years down the line, and it's a crying shame that the EU won't agree to that now rather than later.

You begin by confirming that the single market works. There is a lot of trade with the EU because it is easy.

So why leave it? What makes you think the unknown is better than something that demonstrably works for us?

[dasigty]

braddo said:

A little reminder:

A Canada deal doesn't include services. The UK's economy is 80% services.

Anyone worried about the UK's trade deficits? Well, something is helping to reduce them but which is fundamentally
threatened by Brexit:

"A surplus of £28 billion on trade in services"

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBr...

What might happen to that surplus if there is no deal?

More than 2.5 years after the Brexit referendum and this thread still likes to ignore facts. Heaven forbid that facts might be the product of.... .... experts....

There is a reason services produce surplus £28 billion in trade, we are the best in the world at it by a country mile. just get that fixed in your head, its not something the EU can do anything about, and they have tried for years by any and every means possible to no avail. Brexit will make little difference, in the world of finance we ARE the big dog.