How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 10)

[Elysium]

Garvin said:

Le Controleur Horizontal said:

He seems confused

The peer used a Sunday Times article to explain the decision. “I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for my party when it is myopically focused on forcing through the biggest act of economic self-harm ever undertaken by a democratic government,” he wrote.

Must be a typo due to age, Old remainers are rare apparently ?
He should have typed:
“I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for any party that does not try to circumvent the biggest act of democratic choice ever undertaken by Uk voters"
he claimed during an online apology.

Silly Man.

Has he quantified what the “biggest act of economic self harm ever undertaken” means? All the projections I have seen give varying degrees of lower economic growth (but still growth) none of which seem to qualify for his statement. Unlike, say, the fight to stay in the ERM of some years ago, the selling off of gold reserves at the bottom of the market and the running out of money with debt already at a monstrous level. These all seem to qualify more for his statement!

He seems to think this will be worse. I certainly agree with him that it is an act of self harm.

[djc206]

gooner1 said:

djc206 said:

I’m not sure where you got that idea. According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U., the highest number since 1983.

Strange as the EU didn't exist until a decade later.

Presumably before ‘93 people were polled on their views of the EEC. Either way his statement about Euroscepticism was incorrect.

[Murph7355]

djc206 said:

Presumably before ‘93 people were polled on their views of the EEC. Either way his statement about Euroscepticism was incorrect.

The EEC was VERY different to the EU. If it were still the EEC, the referendum would never have happened in all likelihood.

[Murph7355]

wisbech said:

As far as I know - leaving on WTO terms would still need a deal. It is just a different deal to the current WA

No Deal required. It is the only thing we can wholly control.

Of course it would be better if some matters were subject to agreement with the EU. They have outlined a number of those themselves already. But it's not a hard pre-requisite if both sides wanted to be daft about it.

[djc206]

Murph7355 said:

djc206 said:

Presumably before ‘93 people were polled on their views of the EEC. Either way his statement about Euroscepticism was incorrect.

The EEC was VERY different to the EU. If it were still the EEC, the referendum would never have happened in all likelihood.

Whilst undoubtedly true that doesn’t matter regarding this point. Someone said euroscepticism had never been more prevalent in the EU. That’s incorrect according to the polls. I’ve no doubt there is a hardcore of eurosceptics out there in other E.U. countries but we are unique in having (had) a majority that want to go our own way.

[Garvin]

Elysium said:

He seems to think this will be worse. I certainly agree with him that it is an act of self harm.

But how much worse? Is it catastrophic or a mere scratch? Short term or long term harm?

Brexiteers here all (I think the all is correct) agree that there will be short term disruption but none see it as catastrophic even accepting the worst official projection! The long term affect is a moot point and varies between Brexiteers who see overall benefits in the longer term (although unquantified) and Brexiteers who see the continued non catastrophic (lower growth) projection in the longer term being an acceptable price for other effects of leaving the EU, mainly centred around increased sovereignty.

Remainers appear to see a future that is worse than the lowest official projections but I have yet to see their quantification of the effect and the basis of their calculations for that quantification yet seem hell bent on believing the economic affect it will be somehow catastrophic! Why?

[wc98]

djc206 said:

Presumably before ‘93 people were polled on their views of the EEC. Either way his statement about Euroscepticism was incorrect.

are you sure ? iv'e seen several posts on here in recent times with stats showing the exact opposite, though maybe from a different organisation ?

[Elysium]

Garvin said:

Elysium said:

He seems to think this will be worse. I certainly agree with him that it is an act of self harm.

But how much worse? Is it catastrophic or a mere scratch? Short term or long term harm?

Brexiteers here all (I think the all is correct) agree that there will be short term disruption but none see it as catastrophic even accepting the worst official projection! The long term affect is a moot point and varies between Brexiteers who see overall benefits in the longer term (although unquantified) and Brexiteers who see the continued non catastrophic (lower growth) projection in the longer term being an acceptable price for other effects of leaving the EU, mainly centred around increased sovereignty.

Remainers appear to see a future that is worse than the lowest official projections but I have yet to see their quantification of the effect and the basis of their calculations for that quantification yet seem hell bent on believing the economic affect it will be somehow catastrophic! Why?

I don’t think anyone really knows. A no deal Brexit is uncharted territory and even a BRINO is difficult to predict. What I can’t see is how there is any possible mechanism under which either could be better than or current trading arrangements

A Brexit party MEP suggested it might be 30 years before we see any benefit of Brexit. That’s a long time!

[Sway]

Elysium said:

Garvin said:

Elysium said:

He seems to think this will be worse. I certainly agree with him that it is an act of self harm.

But how much worse? Is it catastrophic or a mere scratch? Short term or long term harm?

Brexiteers here all (I think the all is correct) agree that there will be short term disruption but none see it as catastrophic even accepting the worst official projection! The long term affect is a moot point and varies between Brexiteers who see overall benefits in the longer term (although unquantified) and Brexiteers who see the continued non catastrophic (lower growth) projection in the longer term being an acceptable price for other effects of leaving the EU, mainly centred around increased sovereignty.

Remainers appear to see a future that is worse than the lowest official projections but I have yet to see their quantification of the effect and the basis of their calculations for that quantification yet seem hell bent on believing the economic affect it will be somehow catastrophic! Why?

I don’t think anyone really knows. A no deal Brexit is uncharted territory and even a BRINO is difficult to predict. What I can’t see is how there is any possible mechanism under which either could be better than or current trading arrangements

A Brexit party MEP suggested it might be 30 years before we see any benefit of Brexit. That’s a long time!

You're only looking at our "current trading arrangements" through a myopic lens.

Yes, it would be "worse" for UK/EU trade. By how much is exceptionally difficult to quantify.

It could, for some specific elements of trade, be worse for UK/RoW trade. It could also be better for others.

For our own consumers and industries, it's almost certainly net better.

There is a reason why of the three scenarios modelled by the IFO, that the "hard but smart" option has a statistically neutral net impact, compared to remaining.

[GroundEffect]

Sway said:

Elysium said:

Garvin said:

Elysium said:

He seems to think this will be worse. I certainly agree with him that it is an act of self harm.

But how much worse? Is it catastrophic or a mere scratch? Short term or long term harm?

Brexiteers here all (I think the all is correct) agree that there will be short term disruption but none see it as catastrophic even accepting the worst official projection! The long term affect is a moot point and varies between Brexiteers who see overall benefits in the longer term (although unquantified) and Brexiteers who see the continued non catastrophic (lower growth) projection in the longer term being an acceptable price for other effects of leaving the EU, mainly centred around increased sovereignty.

Remainers appear to see a future that is worse than the lowest official projections but I have yet to see their quantification of the effect and the basis of their calculations for that quantification yet seem hell bent on believing the economic affect it will be somehow catastrophic! Why?

I don’t think anyone really knows. A no deal Brexit is uncharted territory and even a BRINO is difficult to predict. What I can’t see is how there is any possible mechanism under which either could be better than or current trading arrangements

A Brexit party MEP suggested it might be 30 years before we see any benefit of Brexit. That’s a long time!

You're only looking at our "current trading arrangements" through a myopic lens.

Yes, it would be "worse" for UK/EU trade. By how much is exceptionally difficult to quantify.

It could, for some specific elements of trade, be worse for UK/RoW trade. It could also be better for others.

For our own consumers and industries, it's almost certainly net better.

There is a reason why of the three scenarios modelled by the IFO, that the "hard but smart" option has a statistically neutral net impact, compared to remaining.

How can you say in the first part of the post that at best it's likely a wash for trade...but then a net benefit for our consumers (i.e. us, who will use the output of that trade)?

[djc206]

wc98 said:

are you sure ? iv'e seen several posts on here in recent times with stats showing the exact opposite, though maybe from a different organisation ?

Well I can’t be sure because I’ve never asked anyone but I’ve seen a few things since 2016 that suggest our feelings towards the EU are quite unusual. It would make sense that most populations within the EU view it favourably when so few actually make a net contribution. Our island geography and history undoubtedly affect our attitude towards it to.

[Sway]

GroundEffect said:

Sway said:

Elysium said:

Garvin said:

Elysium said:

He seems to think this will be worse. I certainly agree with him that it is an act of self harm.

But how much worse? Is it catastrophic or a mere scratch? Short term or long term harm?

Brexiteers here all (I think the all is correct) agree that there will be short term disruption but none see it as catastrophic even accepting the worst official projection! The long term affect is a moot point and varies between Brexiteers who see overall benefits in the longer term (although unquantified) and Brexiteers who see the continued non catastrophic (lower growth) projection in the longer term being an acceptable price for other effects of leaving the EU, mainly centred around increased sovereignty.

Remainers appear to see a future that is worse than the lowest official projections but I have yet to see their quantification of the effect and the basis of their calculations for that quantification yet seem hell bent on believing the economic affect it will be somehow catastrophic! Why?

I don’t think anyone really knows. A no deal Brexit is uncharted territory and even a BRINO is difficult to predict. What I can’t see is how there is any possible mechanism under which either could be better than or current trading arrangements

A Brexit party MEP suggested it might be 30 years before we see any benefit of Brexit. That’s a long time!

You're only looking at our "current trading arrangements" through a myopic lens.

Yes, it would be "worse" for UK/EU trade. By how much is exceptionally difficult to quantify.

It could, for some specific elements of trade, be worse for UK/RoW trade. It could also be better for others.

For our own consumers and industries, it's almost certainly net better.

There is a reason why of the three scenarios modelled by the IFO, that the "hard but smart" option has a statistically neutral net impact, compared to remaining.

How can you say in the first part of the post that at best it's likely a wash for trade...but then a net benefit for our consumers (i.e. us, who will use the output of that trade)?

I never said at best it would be a wash for trade.

Even so, that section is talking about our outward trade, ignoring the importance of ensuring we aren't imposing unnecessary costs and influencing supply chains politically for our inward and internal trade.

[Wingo]

djc206 said:

amgmcqueen said:

I can't wait for Thursdays populist spring.

EU scepticism has never been higher across Europe, hopefully the beginning of the end.

I’m not sure where you got that idea. According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U., the highest number since 1983.

Not sure where you got the idea that Euroscepticsm is at it lowest level since before the EU was formed in 1993.

If you have a source I'd be interested.

I cant find anything similar as a direct comparision but this research reported by the Beeb just before the referendum in 2016

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referend...

[GroundEffect]

Sway said:

GroundEffect said:

Sway said:

Elysium said:

Garvin said:

Elysium said:

He seems to think this will be worse. I certainly agree with him that it is an act of self harm.

But how much worse? Is it catastrophic or a mere scratch? Short term or long term harm?

Brexiteers here all (I think the all is correct) agree that there will be short term disruption but none see it as catastrophic even accepting the worst official projection! The long term affect is a moot point and varies between Brexiteers who see overall benefits in the longer term (although unquantified) and Brexiteers who see the continued non catastrophic (lower growth) projection in the longer term being an acceptable price for other effects of leaving the EU, mainly centred around increased sovereignty.

Remainers appear to see a future that is worse than the lowest official projections but I have yet to see their quantification of the effect and the basis of their calculations for that quantification yet seem hell bent on believing the economic affect it will be somehow catastrophic! Why?

I don’t think anyone really knows. A no deal Brexit is uncharted territory and even a BRINO is difficult to predict. What I can’t see is how there is any possible mechanism under which either could be better than or current trading arrangements

A Brexit party MEP suggested it might be 30 years before we see any benefit of Brexit. That’s a long time!

You're only looking at our "current trading arrangements" through a myopic lens.

Yes, it would be "worse" for UK/EU trade. By how much is exceptionally difficult to quantify.

It could, for some specific elements of trade, be worse for UK/RoW trade. It could also be better for others.

For our own consumers and industries, it's almost certainly net better.

There is a reason why of the three scenarios modelled by the IFO, that the "hard but smart" option has a statistically neutral net impact, compared to remaining.

How can you say in the first part of the post that at best it's likely a wash for trade...but then a net benefit for our consumers (i.e. us, who will use the output of that trade)?

I never said at best it would be a wash for trade.

Even so, that section is talking about our outward trade, ignoring the importance of ensuring we aren't imposing unnecessary costs and influencing supply chains politically for our inward and internal trade.

Which is implying basically free trade. Which against some very large markets like the US or China, will be damaging to UK businesses. Without the buffer of the EU, we will have a hard time.

[SeeFive]

djc206 said:

wc98 said:

are you sure ? iv'e seen several posts on here in recent times with stats showing the exact opposite, though maybe from a different organisation ?

Well I can’t be sure because I’ve never asked anyone but I’ve seen a few things since 2016 that suggest our feelings towards the EU are quite unusual. It would make sense that most populations within the EU view it favourably when so few actually make a net contribution. Our island geography and history undoubtedly affect our attitude towards it to.

I hate to go all Topstuff here, but it is a bit relevant. Prior to Maastricht and after, my job caused me to travel extensively in Northern Europe and meet senior business execs in those countries - in fact our briefing centre was in Brussels where I was at least weekly meeting and presenting to people from many different E.U. member states.

I would suggest that the views expressed to me both pre and post greater integration of these countries were very pro E.U., and there was also a level of total incredulity expressed as to why we wanted to sit on the edge and not integrate further just like them. I do not travel there any more, but in the Iberian peninsula, I still get the same noises to some extent, but my travel is rarely business focussed (thank you for the nice roads, museums and sculptures Kevin )...

From the MSM reporting of the political landscape across some of Northern Europe, if you believe that sort of thing it would appear that there is not quite the same level of love for the existing situation. Left, right, E.U. etc. Personally I don’t know but it does seem to be indicative of a general feel of dissatisfaction with the current political landscape, potentially including the E.U. Personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable trusting a poll which just happened to support my view on this.

[Sway]

GroundEffect said:

Sway said:

GroundEffect said:

Sway said:

Elysium said:

Garvin said:

Elysium said:

He seems to think this will be worse. I certainly agree with him that it is an act of self harm.

But how much worse? Is it catastrophic or a mere scratch? Short term or long term harm?

Brexiteers here all (I think the all is correct) agree that there will be short term disruption but none see it as catastrophic even accepting the worst official projection! The long term affect is a moot point and varies between Brexiteers who see overall benefits in the longer term (although unquantified) and Brexiteers who see the continued non catastrophic (lower growth) projection in the longer term being an acceptable price for other effects of leaving the EU, mainly centred around increased sovereignty.

Remainers appear to see a future that is worse than the lowest official projections but I have yet to see their quantification of the effect and the basis of their calculations for that quantification yet seem hell bent on believing the economic affect it will be somehow catastrophic! Why?

I don’t think anyone really knows. A no deal Brexit is uncharted territory and even a BRINO is difficult to predict. What I can’t see is how there is any possible mechanism under which either could be better than or current trading arrangements

A Brexit party MEP suggested it might be 30 years before we see any benefit of Brexit. That’s a long time!

You're only looking at our "current trading arrangements" through a myopic lens.

Yes, it would be "worse" for UK/EU trade. By how much is exceptionally difficult to quantify.

It could, for some specific elements of trade, be worse for UK/RoW trade. It could also be better for others.

For our own consumers and industries, it's almost certainly net better.

There is a reason why of the three scenarios modelled by the IFO, that the "hard but smart" option has a statistically neutral net impact, compared to remaining.

How can you say in the first part of the post that at best it's likely a wash for trade...but then a net benefit for our consumers (i.e. us, who will use the output of that trade)?

I never said at best it would be a wash for trade.

Even so, that section is talking about our outward trade, ignoring the importance of ensuring we aren't imposing unnecessary costs and influencing supply chains politically for our inward and internal trade.

Which is implying basically free trade. Which against some very large markets like the US or China, will be damaging to UK businesses. Without the buffer of the EU, we will have a hard time.

Far too simplistic a view - "basically free trade" is everything from unilateral removal of all tariffs, through to structured and focused tariff schedules that don't raise costs on things we cannot or don't want to produce, whilst using either tariffs or standards to "protect" British businesses.

What "buffer" does the EU provide, other than raising costs for things we don't produce in order to "protect" inefficient European businesses? After all, NTBs ensure that it's purely a cost comparison, as standards are consistent.

If you believe the Treasury "gravity model" (which I find hard to in light of the success of China globally), then British businesses have an inherent advantage.

[oyster]

SeeFive said:

oyster said:

SeeFive said:

It should be clear to anyone with reasonable thinking power that May’s deal is just another treaty which is BRINO and far worse than the treaty that we voted to leave. That does not respect the vote to leave the E.U. in principle or detail whilst aspects of it remove our ability to self determine the eventual outcome and timeframe.

May’s deal is far from BRINO. Norway would be.

Brino is defined generally as a soft version of leaving the European Union that would mean staying in the EU customs union and/or single market, with a very long or indefinite transition period. We also are not allowed to secure our own trade deals during that transition period, forced to conform to the E.U. arrangements.

Not only do we have that, but we still have no way to trigger any equivalent of A50 without the permission of the E.U., and arbitration in the case of disagreement... unfortunately for those that say this is not BRINO, that final judgement will not be passed by our sovereign law, or by an independent arbitrator, but by the ECJ, who if I remember correctly are the E.U. folks.

So basically, with May’s deal just looking at those things, we have no seat at the table, no A50, no ability to act as an autonomous country in many critical areas with the E.U. having the overriding rule all the time.

How is that not BRINO?

Because the number 1 benefit of being in the EU (Single Market membership) is removed.

I'm not defending May's deal, or the EU (which I detest), but May's deal is a pretty hard Brexit compared to many other options being floated around.

[Crackie]

djc206 said:

amgmcqueen said:

I can't wait for Thursdays populist spring.

EU scepticism has never been higher across Europe, hopefully the beginning of the end.

I’m not sure where you got that idea. According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U., the highest number since 1983.

It isn't difficult to paint a picture that confirms your own bias; there certainly are polls which show the positive views you mention. This doesn't necessarily mean that amgmcqueen is wrong does it...…...it could just be that there are fewer don't knows or don't cares in the polls. Support for Eurosceptic parties in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Poland. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

There are also polls which show two thirds of Europeans are not happy with the direction the Commission is taking the EU. https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...

There are recent polls that show the citizens of most EU countries ( all but three of them ) think the EU will be gone by 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/majo...

Posting "According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U." is all very well but I think your perspective is somewhat skewed & rose tinted; things are far from rosy in the EU garden.

[Crackie]

Elysium said:

A Brexit party MEP suggested it might be 30 years before we see any benefit of Brexit. That’s a long time!

10-20 years?

[SeeFive]

oyster said:

SeeFive said:

oyster said:

SeeFive said:

It should be clear to anyone with reasonable thinking power that May’s deal is just another treaty which is BRINO and far worse than the treaty that we voted to leave. That does not respect the vote to leave the E.U. in principle or detail whilst aspects of it remove our ability to self determine the eventual outcome and timeframe.

May’s deal is far from BRINO. Norway would be.

Brino is defined generally as a soft version of leaving the European Union that would mean staying in the EU customs union and/or single market, with a very long or indefinite transition period. We also are not allowed to secure our own trade deals during that transition period, forced to conform to the E.U. arrangements.

Not only do we have that, but we still have no way to trigger any equivalent of A50 without the permission of the E.U., and arbitration in the case of disagreement... unfortunately for those that say this is not BRINO, that final judgement will not be passed by our sovereign law, or by an independent arbitrator, but by the ECJ, who if I remember correctly are the E.U. folks.

So basically, with May’s deal just looking at those things, we have no seat at the table, no A50, no ability to act as an autonomous country in many critical areas with the E.U. having the overriding rule all the time.

How is that not BRINO?

Because the number 1 benefit of being in the EU (Single Market membership) is removed.

I'm not defending May's deal, or the EU (which I detest), but May's deal is a pretty hard Brexit compared to many other options being floated around.

I appreciate why you may detest her new treaty, it is common among both sides of the debate.

The “benefit” you suggest may well be removed, but the constraints of E.U. rules and control of our ability to make independent trade agreements is not and remains in practice as per the existing treaty in which we have executed A50.

So as per the “definition of BRINO”, which I suggest you use as a search in google, you will find that every definition is consistent, that is, if we are still constrained by the SM or CU for a long term as stated above, it is BRINO. There is no mention of irrelevant benefit statements.

This is the case with May’s new treaty and backstop for a long and potentially undefinable term. As mentioned, there is no A50 in May’s new treaty either so that new treaty is more constraining than the existing one, which should raise concern with everyone in this debate.

Edited by SeeFive on Tuesday 21st May 12:34