How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
PushedDover said:
agreed.
And the pound is up on the €.
The default of no change is always easier. Opportunity brings options that would never exist otherwise (because of handcuffs)
The only handcuffs are in your perception or possibly your bedside table.And the pound is up on the €.
The default of no change is always easier. Opportunity brings options that would never exist otherwise (because of handcuffs)
The Eu never precluded us from trading globally.
In what way did we/they cause your business development problems?
Currency rates have been bouncing around and I suspect will do going forward.
As there were many brexit voting posters who considered sterling too strong. What is your view if it continues to strengthen?
Nickgnome said:
The only handcuffs are in your perception or possibly your bedside table.
The Eu never precluded us from trading globally.
In what way did we/they cause your business development problems?
Currency rates have been bouncing around and I suspect will do going forward.
As there were many brexit voting posters who considered sterling too strong. What is your view if it continues to strengthen?
The UK cannot establish free trade agreements outside the EU, unless whole EU is in agreement. This is clearly somewhat of a hurdle to global trading, no?The Eu never precluded us from trading globally.
In what way did we/they cause your business development problems?
Currency rates have been bouncing around and I suspect will do going forward.
As there were many brexit voting posters who considered sterling too strong. What is your view if it continues to strengthen?
Nickgnome said:
The only handcuffs are in your perception or possibly your bedside table.
The Eu never precluded us from trading globally.
In what way did we/they cause your business development problems?
Currency rates have been bouncing around and I suspect will do going forward.
As there were many brexit voting posters who considered sterling too strong. What is your view if it continues to strengthen?
Boris said we are unleashing the potential of the UK. That must be true then, we are currently leashed. Mustn't it ...The Eu never precluded us from trading globally.
In what way did we/they cause your business development problems?
Currency rates have been bouncing around and I suspect will do going forward.
As there were many brexit voting posters who considered sterling too strong. What is your view if it continues to strengthen?
SpeckledJim said:
The UK cannot establish free trade agreements outside the EU, unless whole EU is in agreement. This is clearly somewhat of a hurdle to global trading, no?
It does not preclude business from trading globally and did not ours. We will now be able to pursue our own agreements..
Some of the nations we currently have agreements with as set up within the Eu now want to reconsider. Do you think they want to give us more generous terms.
Other nations may now agree terms but that depends on what we have to offer
Whether our trade agreement with the Eu is as beneficial as it is now remains to be seen. It’s unlikely to be better and more likely to be worse for both parties. We will therefore be starting from a reduced trading position which will need to be made up before we are in a positive position...
It’s going to be immensely entertaining watching the next year or so.
Nickgnome said:
SpeckledJim said:
Nickgnome said:
The only handcuffs are in your perception or possibly your bedside table.
The Eu never precluded us from trading globally.
In what way did we/they cause your business development problems?
Currency rates have been bouncing around and I suspect will do going forward.
As there were many brexit voting posters who considered sterling too strong. What is your view if it continues to strengthen?
The UK cannot establish free trade agreements outside the EU, unless whole EU is in agreement. This is clearly somewhat of a hurdle to global trading, no?The Eu never precluded us from trading globally.
In what way did we/they cause your business development problems?
Currency rates have been bouncing around and I suspect will do going forward.
As there were many brexit voting posters who considered sterling too strong. What is your view if it continues to strengthen?
We will now be able to pursue our own agreements..
Some of the nations we currently have agreements with as set up within the Eu now want to reconsider. Do you think they want to give us more generous terms.
Other nations may now agree terms but that depends on what we have to offer
Whether our trade agreement with the Eu is as beneficial as it is now remains to be seen. It’s unlikely to be better and more likely to be worse for both parties. We will therefore be starting from a reduced trading position which will need to be made up before we are in a positive position...
It’s going to be immensely entertaining watching the next year or so.
"The EU has hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
SpeckledJim said:
So we could paraphrase your original sentence as:
"The has EU hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
But of course said deals would be expected to be better than any that were enjoyed, or indeed are under negotiation, in our former life as a member of the EU ?"The has EU hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
Brooking10 said:
SpeckledJim said:
So we could paraphrase your original sentence as:
"The has EU hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
But of course said deals would be expected to be better than any that were enjoyed, or indeed are under negotiation, in our former life as a member of the EU ?"The has EU hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
Was this story posted?
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-banks...
I don't think I saw any mention of jobs coming this way...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-banks...
I don't think I saw any mention of jobs coming this way...
SpeckledJim said:
So we could paraphrase your original sentence as:
"The EU has hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
Your paraphrasing is incorrect. "The EU has hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
We traded globally. It’s as simple as that.
How did We/Eu prevent you from trading globally?
SpeckledJim said:
I would expect so, for the most part, since they won't have to accommodate the requirements of countries other than the UK and individual partner country.
Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
Only time will tell and I think “better” is going to about more than volume with a whole host of underlying prices potentially (and I stress that word rather than declare any absolutes) that may need to be paid.Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
The obvious inverse of the 1 is better than 28 is that 28 is better than one. It all depends on perspective and what is trying to be achieved. Neither is a guarantee of the best outcome.
It's worth bearing in mind that the EU position when negotiating trade deals with ROW is not strengthened by the departure of the UK from the EU. Last available figures show us as 16% of EU GDP (second to Germany on 21.1%) , as opposed to 1/28th that is often referenced.
I wonder if other countries will seek to renegotiate with EU?
I wonder if other countries will seek to renegotiate with EU?
London424 said:
Was this story posted?
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-banks...
I don't think I saw any mention of jobs coming this way...
Probably just the millions of FS jobs that already left the UK returning...https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-banks...
I don't think I saw any mention of jobs coming this way...
Nickgnome said:
SpeckledJim said:
So we could paraphrase your original sentence as:
"The EU has hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
Your paraphrasing is incorrect. "The EU has hindered us from trading globally."
Since you're in agreement with me that the absence of a deal with a trading partner is a hindrance, and membership of the EU has precluded the UK from establishing deals with the majority of nations, representing the majority of the people and money in the world.
We traded globally. It’s as simple as that.
How did We/Eu prevent you from trading globally?
You need to pick a note, Nick. Either trade deals are good, in which case it's bad that the EU stops us making them in the wider world where the money is. Or, trade deals are not good, in which case it really doesn't matter that we may lose one with the EU.
At the moment you're arguing it's bad that we may lose the deal with the EU, and yet say its not material that because of the EU we don't have a deal with, say, the USA, which is a contradictory position to adopt.
SpeckledJim said:
I would expect so, for the most part, since they won't have to accommodate the requirements of countries other than the UK and individual partner country.
Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
Do you mean like trading fishing rights for U.K. fishermen against some other U.K. producer. The UK’s internal wrangling is going to be interesting. Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
Yes it should be less complicated, but presumably we now need the continued overhead of trade negotiators, contracted from wherever.
Brooking10 said:
SpeckledJim said:
I would expect so, for the most part, since they won't have to accommodate the requirements of countries other than the UK and individual partner country.
Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
Only time will tell and I think “better” is going to about more than volume with a whole host of underlying prices potentially (and I stress that word rather than declare any absolutes) that may need to be paid.Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
The obvious inverse of the 1 is better than 28 is that 28 is better than one. It all depends on perspective and what is trying to be achieved. Neither is a guarantee of the best outcome.
You and I could, I dare say, choose a holiday destination we were both happy with inside a few minutes. Trying that same exercise with a group of 28, each of whom holds a veto over the whole trip for everyone, would be a total nightmare.
Nickgnome said:
SpeckledJim said:
I would expect so, for the most part, since they won't have to accommodate the requirements of countries other than the UK and individual partner country.
Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
Do you mean like trading fishing rights for U.K. fishermen against some other U.K. producer. The UK’s internal wrangling is going to be interesting. Wouldn't you expect a better-tailored deal when it's 1:1 than 1:28?
And those deals already in place through the EU have the potential for C+P that would make sense for both sides as a starting point. Then, if it turns out that something the (for example) French insisted on actually suits neither the UK nor the other party, then we just strike it out.
Yes it should be less complicated, but presumably we now need the continued overhead of trade negotiators, contracted from wherever.
t in comparison to the prizes on offer. Especially since a UK-specific trade deal shouldn't take us the EU-style decade-long festival of coffee and biscuits in order to either get it done, or finally call the whole thing off.
SpeckledJim said:
They variously wouldn't/couldn't (doesn't matter which) do important trade deals that would aid the UK in its international trade.
You need to pick a note, Nick. Either trade deals are good, in which case it's bad that the EU stops us making them in the wider world where the money is. Or, trade deals are not good, in which case it really doesn't matter that we may lose one with the EU.
At the moment you're arguing it's bad that we may lose the deal with the EU, and yet say its not material that because of the EU we don't have a deal with, say, the USA, which is a contradictory position to adopt.
There seems to be a huge disconnect between my words and your understanding of them. I apologise if they are not clear.You need to pick a note, Nick. Either trade deals are good, in which case it's bad that the EU stops us making them in the wider world where the money is. Or, trade deals are not good, in which case it really doesn't matter that we may lose one with the EU.
At the moment you're arguing it's bad that we may lose the deal with the EU, and yet say its not material that because of the EU we don't have a deal with, say, the USA, which is a contradictory position to adopt.
Trade deals = good. Not automatically so is it?
I will reiterate. As part of the Eu we have a set of arrangements. It is highly likely that our trade relationship with the Eu, for a while at least, will be worse. Hence a trade shortfall.
Trade deals with new countries will only be agreed if both parties consider them to be advantageous, unless of course political imperative pressures a deal which is not optimal. I’m sure you can work out why that may be.
I also reiterate. Do you think those nations with whom we currently have an agreement as part of the Eu but now wish to renegotiate, do it with a view to be more generous to us, the U.K.?
I’ll ask again. Can you explain where and how the Eu prevented you from trading globally?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff