How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)

[DeepEnd]

amusingduck said:

gooner1 said:

DeepEnd said:

amusingduck said:

Focusing on RoW exports after we leave with worse trading terms, which are already growing faster than EU exports whilst we're members, is a nonsense argument? You'll have to explain that one.

Clapham has made the surely obvious point - who in their right mind would threaten the growing 45% with no deal?

You want to make out the EU portion is dwindling to nothing and can be dismissed. It’s daft.

Has AD edited his post? I only ask as I see no mention of dismissal or making out that the EU portion is dwindling.

Nope. It's business as usual in here

He actually said "don't cling to the blue" - i.e. sod the EU trade 45% not important.

What did you think "don't cling to" means? Something like "Retain the exact same benefits" (Brexit Err promise, DDavis, c 2017)

Why post it and say "don't cling to this" if you really don't mean "don't cling to EU trade".

It's not a strawman, it's setting fire to such a daft argument.

[gooner1]

amusingduck said:

Nope. It's business as usual in here

There's a. Lot of them about this time of year.

[Leins]

jsf said:

Mrr T said:

The EU have asked BJ to come up with concrete and workable plan for the Irish border.

BJ has said technology, wibble, technology, wibble.

If BJ had a plan there would be negotiation but he does not.

I guess you are preparing for no deal then.

For RoI yes, that is what we're trying to do now as best as possible. I'm of the mindset that Boris has no new ideas to bring to the table

I will miss the pork pies though if you have to stop sending them over

[amusingduck]

DeepEnd said:

He actually said "don't cling to the blue"

What did you think "don't cling to" means?

Why post it and say "don't cling to this"

amusingduck said:

Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue?

Even your quotes are strawmen

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Elysium said:

Who said we would be an inconsequential minnow?

One the reasons we have stayed in the eu is the single market. It’s useful to business and the economy.

If we leave, and we want to continue to benefit from things like mutual recognition, we end up tied to EU regulations anyway. If we step away from those, we lose the benefits of membership.

Which ever way you cut it, we are likely to reduce the potential for future growth in our economy by leaving.

Leavers say that’s a price worth paying, but I don’t see what we are going to get in return?

The idea that we are too small to be of influence outside the EU appears to be a persistent theme of those saying we should stay in to influence it. Essentially the equation is the same. If we have enough clout to be a significant influence as a member then we should have enough clout to be a significant influence as a trading partner. If we don't then we don't either way.

[amusingduck]

Leins said:

jsf said:

Mrr T said:

The EU have asked BJ to come up with concrete and workable plan for the Irish border.

BJ has said technology, wibble, technology, wibble.

If BJ had a plan there would be negotiation but he does not.

I guess you are preparing for no deal then.

For RoI yes, that is what we're trying to do now as best as possible. I'm of the mindset that Boris has no new ideas to bring to the table

I will miss the pork pies though if you have to stop sending them over

Don't worry, there'll be a roaring black market for pork pies at the border

[Lost ranger]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Here’s an even better idea; focus on the y axis - the one that shows us that +/- 45% of our outbound trade is with the EU. Remember them? The guys we may not have a trade deal with on 31st October?

Then ask yourself how many of the manufacturers contributing to the +/-55% non EU trade are going to continue manufacturing in the UK once those goods don’t have access to the UK market.

Then tell me that you can honestly defend a no deal outcome as being in the national interest.

Why would they no longer have access to the EU market?

[gooner1]

DeepEnd said:

He actually said "don't cling to the blue" - i.e. sod the EU trade 45% not important.

What did you think "don't cling to" means? Something like "Retain the exact same benefits" (Brexit Err promise, DDavis, c 2017)

Why post it and say "don't cling to this" if you really don't mean "don't cling to EU trade".

It's not a strawman, it's setting fire to such a daft argument.

And that my slippery friend is nothing but a downright lie.
Someone, like yourself, would report that in an effort to get the poster of such a blatant lie banned.
Not to mention the deliberate act of altering a posters actual words.

[ClaphamGT3]

amusingduck said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

amusingduck said:

Elysium said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

The trouble with the idea that we'll be an inconsequential minnow outside the EU is that we would still be the same size inside it. The only difference being that outside we would have less need to influence it.

Who said we would be an inconsequential minnow?

One the reasons we have stayed in the eu is the single market. It’s useful to business and the economy.

If we leave, and we want to continue to benefit from things like mutual recognition, we end up tied to EU regulations anyway. If we step away from those, we lose the benefits of membership.

Which ever way you cut it, we are likely to reduce the potential for future growth in our economy by leaving.

Leavers say that’s a price worth paying, but I don’t see what we are going to get in return?

Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities

Here’s an even better idea; focus on the y axis - the one that shows us that +/- 45% of our outbound trade is with the EU. Remember them? The guys we may not have a trade deal with on 31st October?

Then ask yourself how many of the manufacturers contributing to the +/-55% non EU trade are going to continue manufacturing in the UK once those goods don’t have access to the UK market.

Then tell me that you can honestly defend a no deal outcome as being in the national interest.

I have no idea, how many manufacturers are going to cease manufacturing 'once they don't have access to the EU market'? (I assume that's what you meant).

BTW, you never did answer how you square the concept that people fell for a pack of fear-driven lies with Remain's ineffectiveness using the same strategy with far more advantages/resources.

I have heard, behind closed doors, a significant number of large global businesses with UK manufactiring footprints are planning to do so

[gooner1]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I have heard, behind closed doors, a significant number of large global businesses with UK manufactiring footprints are planning to do so

J


I've heard some pretty alarming things behind closed doors too.

Trap 3 on a Monday morning was frightening at times.

[Vanden Saab]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I have heard, behind closed doors, a significant number of large global businesses with UK manufactiring footprints are planning to do so

Were these the same people who told you in private that there was absolutely no way that the EU withdrawal act would ever be voted through and yet you still believe them...

[ClaphamGT3]

Vanden Saab said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I have heard, behind closed doors, a significant number of large global businesses with UK manufactiring footprints are planning to do so

Were these the same people who told you in private that there was absolutely no way that the EU withdrawal act would ever be voted through and yet you still believe them...

I think you’re thinking of someone else.....

[crankedup]

ClaphamGT3 said:

amusingduck said:

Elysium said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

The trouble with the idea that we'll be an inconsequential minnow outside the EU is that we would still be the same size inside it. The only difference being that outside we would have less need to influence it.

Who said we would be an inconsequential minnow?

One the reasons we have stayed in the eu is the single market. It’s useful to business and the economy.

If we leave, and we want to continue to benefit from things like mutual recognition, we end up tied to EU regulations anyway. If we step away from those, we lose the benefits of membership.

Which ever way you cut it, we are likely to reduce the potential for future growth in our economy by leaving.

Leavers say that’s a price worth paying, but I don’t see what we are going to get in return?

Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities

Here’s an even better idea; focus on the y axis - the one that shows us that +/- 45% of our outbound trade is with the EU. Remember them? The guys we may not have a trade deal with on 31st October?

Then ask yourself how many of the manufacturers contributing to the +/-55% non EU trade are going to continue manufacturing in the UK once those goods don’t have access to the UK market.

Then tell me that you can honestly defend a no deal outcome as being in the national interest.

WTO trading for the interim period until the E.U. trade block and U.K. agree otherwise?

[S1KRR]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Here’s an even better idea; focus on the y axis - the one that shows us that +/- 45% of our outbound trade is with the EU. Remember them? The guys we may not have a trade deal with on 31st October?

In terms of NON-EU countries. We don't currently have a trade deal with the USA or China. That's whilst we are in the EU. Id like to see a break down of the 55% to see where our exports go and imports come from. I daresay we trade more with those 2 than the bottom 20odd EU states

The Japan-EU deal only started February this year. And as we have seen negates the need for Japanese manufacturers to have factories inside EU territory. Hence the scaling back of these factories since the deal was announced with the loss of thousands of EU citizen jobs across the bloc. Good for the EU citizens?

Yet we still export 55% of our goods to the RoW. Despite it making our goods slightly more expensive? It's almost like people want our products due to their quality and are prepared to pay a little more. Imagine if we could cut ths costs of those exports. Should increase sales

ClaphamGT3 said:

Then ask yourself how many of the manufacturers contributing to the +/-55% non EU trade are going to continue manufacturing in the UK once those goods don’t have access to the UK market.

This is a fallacy. Our goods will STILL be sold into the EU. However, with no fta in place. The prices will rise, IIRC the average across all sectors is ~10% or so. Just like we will still be able to buy EU goods after 1 NOvemeber. Under WTO any tariffs the EU set we are allowed to match or undercut depending on requirements. WTO only sets maximum tariffs.

ClaphamGT3 said:

Then tell me that you can honestly defend a no deal outcome as being in the national interest.

The key problem here is that the WA "Deal" is not the future deal. Its by very nature a can kicking exercise for the next 2 years which we "try" to set out a mutually beneficial long term arrangement with the EU. It doesn't set out with tariffs if any will be set. all it does is tie us to the Eu for ANOTHER 2 years, we pay £39bn and they "MIGHT" do a deal. Which tbh, I don't hang too much hope on. The problem is that May binned "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" early on, and no one picked up on it!


In other news. Rather amusing pic from Biarritz



When Tusk realises the 3 on the left make ALL the important decision.

In fact what G7 nation does Tusk represent? If you allow that he's there because Germany, Italy and France are members, then why is Merkel, Conte and Macron there if the EU can decide what it wants its members to do

[ClaphamGT3]

crankedup said:

WTO trading for the interim period until the E.U. trade block and U.K. agree otherwise?

The touching faith in the applicability of WTO rules by those who clearly haven't fully grasped how they work would be touching if the situation wasn't so serious.

[DeepEnd]

gooner1 said:

DeepEnd said:

He actually said "don't cling to the blue" - i.e. sod the EU trade 45% not important.

What did you think "don't cling to" means? Something like "Retain the exact same benefits" (Brexit Err promise, DDavis, c 2017)

Why post it and say "don't cling to this" if you really don't mean "don't cling to EU trade".

It's not a strawman, it's setting fire to such a daft argument.

And that my slippery friend is nothing but a downright lie.
Someone, like yourself, would report that in an effort to get the poster of such a blatant lie banned.
Not to mention the deliberate act of altering a posters actual words.

I’m trying to make sense of his post.

The context is around the impact of no deal and the damage it may do to our trade with the EU.

ADuck then posts his graph saying “don’t cling to the blue” - which is EU trade.

It implies he is saying don’t worry about damaging the blue it doesn’t matter. Is there another explanation?

It’s a daft argument given EU trade is still huge and growing.

If you can’t understand why it’s daft, then it helps explain why you don’t fear no deal - perhaps you don’t understand the consequences or chose to ignore the risks.

PS I certainly haven’t reported you, did you not get an email saying why you were banned from the Nigel thread? My guess would be it is linked to the ethnicity attack. Learn from it.

Edited by DeepEnd on Monday 26th August 14:22

[amusingduck]

DeepEnd said:

I’m trying to make sense of his post.

The context is around the impact of no deal and the damage it may do to our trade with the EU.

ADuck then posts his graph saying “don’t cling to the blue” - which is EU trade.

It implies he is saying don’t worry about damaging the blue it doesn’t matter. Is there another explanation?

It’s a daft argument given EU trade is still huge and growing.

If you can’t understand why it’s daft, then it helps explain why you don’t fear no deal - perhaps you don’t understand the consequences or chose to ignore the risks.

PS I certainly haven’t reported you, did you not get an email saying why you were banned from the Nigel thread? My guess would be it is linked to the ethnicity attack. Learn from it.

So you admit that you rubbish posts without understanding them?

A good faith actor would give the benefit of the doubt, and ask for clarification before going on the attack - don't you think?

DeepEnd said:

amusingduck said:

Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities

EU still at 45%.

That is a shed load.

EU exports are still growing, just not as fast as non-EU, which I'm not sure you understand having posted that.

Ignoring or dismissing a growing market with huge GDP?

Under analysis this argument crumbles to nonsense.

Still with the strawman too! It's an endless source of amusement watching you play a game by yourself, under the delusion that you're debating with other people

#prayfordeepend

[Otis Criblecoblis]

DeepEnd said:

Otis Criblecoblis said:

The 'no' was in relation to dropping it as a misunderstanding. There are two separate questions being blurred in to one. Banjo's claim is bullst and you would do a favour to yourself to acknowledge it.

Elysium's claim of the only mandate being to leave with a decent deal, is I feel misleading, but a different question and his interpretation.
The is a clear factual answer as to if no deal was some how blocked as a possibility from the way the referendum was set up.

I would agree with you with you pretty much. Key Leave campaigners directly answered that question and to fulfill much of what Leave campaigned on, it would mean leaving both. The only thing the referendum mandates is leave. That blunt answer is why leaving with no deal is a possibility that might be the last resort.

Lets not blur key points here again to try and excuse Banjo persisting with a total lie.

And in bold there is the cherry pick.

You say you must have some things that were said but not on the ballot paper, but not others such as a great deal, when it suits you.

That is rather dishonest.

You seem more motivated in attacking banjo than understanding where he is coming from.

His point is that the promises should count - as you chose to set out above on leaving CU, SM etc. as key objectives. It’s clear that failing those objectives has leavers apoplectic with rage, so why not a great deal too, as promised?

You assume all leavers think “out any any cost”. I think we agreed they don’t which to bring full circle means that some leavers will agree with Banjo’s point of view.

Boris is playing a very dangerous game saying “UK will be fine under no deal”. He is doing it to pressure the EU but they see through it. Sadly his supporters and “at any costers” don’t.

You are being deliberately thick and evasive to make excuses.

When you voted that day, what blocked no deal ? Answer is nothing did. Banjo's claim was something did. He wont say what. Stop time wasting please.

[crankedup]

ClaphamGT3 said:

crankedup said:

WTO trading for the interim period until the E.U. trade block and U.K. agree otherwise?

The touching faith in the applicability of WTO rules by those who clearly haven't fully grasped how they work would be touching if the situation wasn't so serious.

Please educate me, I thought this is what we would drop onto on the event of our ‘no deal’ exit?

[DeepEnd]

amusingduck said:

DeepEnd said:

I’m trying to make sense of his post.

The context is around the impact of no deal and the damage it may do to our trade with the EU.

ADuck then posts his graph saying “don’t cling to the blue” - which is EU trade.

It implies he is saying don’t worry about damaging the blue it doesn’t matter. Is there another explanation?

It’s a daft argument given EU trade is still huge and growing.

If you can’t understand why it’s daft, then it helps explain why you don’t fear no deal - perhaps you don’t understand the consequences or chose to ignore the risks.

PS I certainly haven’t reported you, did you not get an email saying why you were banned from the Nigel thread? My guess would be it is linked to the ethnicity attack. Learn from it.

So you admit that you rubbish posts without understanding them?

A good faith actor would give the benefit of the doubt, and ask for clarification before going on the attack - don't you think?

DeepEnd said:

amusingduck said:

Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities

EU still at 45%.

That is a shed load.

EU exports are still growing, just not as fast as non-EU, which I'm not sure you understand having posted that.

Ignoring or dismissing a growing market with huge GDP?

Under analysis this argument crumbles to nonsense.

Still with the strawman too! It's an endless source of amusement watching you play a game by yourself, under the delusion that you're debating with other people

#prayfordeepend

You are quite right.

Please clarify what point you were making with respect to “don’t cling to” re EU trade.

I think we’ve all judged your analysis correctly anyway but have a go.