How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
Stay in Bed Instead said:
amusingduck said:
Liam Fox said:
If you think about it, y'know, the free trade agreement we'll have to come to with the EU should be one of the easiest in human history - we're already beginning with zero tarriffs, and we're already beginning at the point of maximum regulatory equivalence - as it's called - in other words, our rules and laws are exactly the same. And the only reason that we wouldn't come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Which part do you disagree with? 
Perhaps Fox didn't understand the purpose of brexit?
DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
DeepEnd said:
Ha ha! Ok to ask for cake and eat it for the rest of the negotiation but this area really triggers some. We know why.
I read the Frost speech - just as here he scornfully questions the treasury trade impact figures but declines to come up with his own to back up his “belief” that he knows better. Another “what I reckon” brexiter it seems.
That's not what he says, is it?I read the Frost speech - just as here he scornfully questions the treasury trade impact figures but declines to come up with his own to back up his “belief” that he knows better. Another “what I reckon” brexiter it seems.
His price for selling things that no nation has willing given to another is merely higher than yours.
What "cake" are we asking for?
It is indeed serious. Some it seems are willing to give away things no nation has ever done willingly, thanks to crystal ball predictions from a body who's ever other prediction on the topic were wrong and who seem to think one type of tariff has at least 15x the impact of another purely due to the nations on the tariff) declaration.
I am surprised you're so cheap. A predicted impact of 3% less growth and you're willing to sign away things the UK and other nations have gone to war over in living memory.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
amusingduck said:
Liam Fox said:
If you think about it, y'know, the free trade agreement we'll have to come to with the EU should be one of the easiest in human history - we're already beginning with zero tarriffs, and we're already beginning at the point of maximum regulatory equivalence - as it's called - in other words, our rules and laws are exactly the same. And the only reason that we wouldn't come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Which part do you disagree with? Perhaps Fox didn't understand the purpose of brexit?
No he underestimated how much the EU was about the EU !!! and these days we have a more realistic attitude to them ....
Stay in Bed Instead said:
amusingduck said:
Liam Fox said:
If you think about it, y'know, the free trade agreement we'll have to come to with the EU should be one of the easiest in human history - we're already beginning with zero tarriffs, and we're already beginning at the point of maximum regulatory equivalence - as it's called - in other words, our rules and laws are exactly the same. And the only reason that we wouldn't come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Which part do you disagree with? Perhaps Fox didn't understand the purpose of brexit?
Helicopter123 said:
Liam Fox clearly didn’t know what he was voting for, did he? Still, I’m sure it will all work out fine in the end, German car makers will see to it after all.
That will be up to you just looks like it will be 10% more expensive this time next year if you want the overrated s
te DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
DeepEnd said:
Ha ha! Ok to ask for cake and eat it for the rest of the negotiation but this area really triggers some. We know why.
I read the Frost speech - just as here he scornfully questions the treasury trade impact figures but declines to come up with his own to back up his “belief” that he knows better. Another “what I reckon” brexiter it seems.
That's not what he says, is it?I read the Frost speech - just as here he scornfully questions the treasury trade impact figures but declines to come up with his own to back up his “belief” that he knows better. Another “what I reckon” brexiter it seems.
His price for selling things that no nation has willing given to another is merely higher than yours.
What "cake" are we asking for?
He is spot on.
And if he were then to start saying "... But my prediction in 15yrs is..." wouldn't that make him a total hypocrite?
This is something you have never grasped. And seemingly never will.
He also seems to acknowledge short term headaches, but also that agility to allow for our own unique circumstances irrespective of what happens on the geopolitical/macro economic scale will be vital. You don't need a Janet and John formula to accept that logic. Or shouldn't.
Anyways, I thought you had unerring faith in experts with 20yrs experience inside the machine?
Murph7355 said:
He also seems to acknowledge short term headaches, but also that agility to allow for our own unique circumstances irrespective of what happens on the geopolitical/macro economic scale will be vital. You don't need a Janet and John formula to accept that logic. Or shouldn't.
Agility? What a joke.The UK government is woeful at doing anything quickly.
They can't even sort out a sodding flight to Japan to pick up the stranded cruise passengers.
Murph7355 said:
DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
DeepEnd said:
Ha ha! Ok to ask for cake and eat it for the rest of the negotiation but this area really triggers some. We know why.
I read the Frost speech - just as here he scornfully questions the treasury trade impact figures but declines to come up with his own to back up his “belief” that he knows better. Another “what I reckon” brexiter it seems.
That's not what he says, is it?I read the Frost speech - just as here he scornfully questions the treasury trade impact figures but declines to come up with his own to back up his “belief” that he knows better. Another “what I reckon” brexiter it seems.
His price for selling things that no nation has willing given to another is merely higher than yours.
What "cake" are we asking for?
He is spot on.
And if he were then to start saying "... But my prediction in 15yrs is..." wouldn't that make him a total hypocrite?
This is something you have never grasped. And seemingly never will.
He also seems to acknowledge short term headaches, but also that agility to allow for our own unique circumstances irrespective of what happens on the geopolitical/macro economic scale will be vital. You don't need a Janet and John formula to accept that logic. Or shouldn't.
Anyways, I thought you had unerring faith in experts with 20yrs experience inside the machine?
Can't think why.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Agility? What a joke.
The UK government is woeful at doing anything quickly.
They can't even sort out a sodding flight to Japan to pick up the stranded cruise passengers.
That's the best line you have?The UK government is woeful at doing anything quickly.
They can't even sort out a sodding flight to Japan to pick up the stranded cruise passengers.
Frankly, good. They have travel insurance. Why the hell should government (ie the taxpayer) pay to fly them home? I appreciate it's "only £xxx,000" but also frankly, I am sick and tired of that bulls
t excuse for profligate spending. Do I think our govts (of any colour) are agile? Not recently, no. We've allowed them to become fat and lazy. My personal belief is that the bigger the govt, the less agile it will ever be - my no1 reason for voting leave... The answer to no problem in the history of man has been "more politicians". So less bureaucracy is a good thing. We're making a start.
And if they f
k it up, we elect a better option in 5yrs' time. And if there is no better option, we have the option of having a go for ourselves. Alternatively we can stay in bed, not bother voting on something we evidently feel passionately about and then spend time whinging and moaning incessantly for several years about how bad it all is. Calling out govt for being hapless when taking that approach is a tad rhum though.
Sway said:
Indeed. He certainly doesn't seem to think handing over pretty vital aspects of our economy to being controlled by others is worth it.
Can't think why.
With the amount of rule bending/"interpretation" etc that goes on across member States, I'd suggest he and we are not alone in this thinking.Can't think why.
(Rumphole of the Deepend will be along in a minute to ask for the evidence...)
Digga said:
SpeckledJim said:
Thread has gone silly again. Shame we can’t just discuss what’s going on.
Afraid there are poster who we should really ignore. It's great to have discussions and debate, but the noise to signal ratio with some is off the scale.Time for the more frothy mouthed leavers to accept that we have actually now left the EU. They need to stop blaming remainers for every failing in their lives and get in with supporting a positive Brexit for us all. This will mean admitting that not everything is going to be perfect, but by finding compromise and working with the EU and others in a spirit of compromise we may be able to limit some of the worst damage from Brexit.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
It would be the easiest if it wasn't for the UK wanting to diverge from the maximum regulatory equivalence.
Perhaps Fox didn't understand the purpose of brexit?
Perhaps Fox read all the ECB publications and thought, hmmm, perhaps given the current global economic outlook (DECADES of low growth, low rate and elevated risks), allowing a political body (EC) to screw with financial stability isn't such a great idea.Perhaps Fox didn't understand the purpose of brexit?
I mean the FCA and BoE came out 100% on this position. But hang-on, our Handsome Boy Modelling school of Love Island remainers know better (than both), or are too ignorant to read the research. Easier to stick fingers in ears and scream "la la laaaa" (and some are clucking like the Banana Splits too).
And if you read what the Fed says, the EC position on Financial Stability is even more dense. But - Trump or something.....
The detailed position on divergence in Services and FS is for landing zones and increased co-operation when or if both sides need to diverge (seems totally reasonable for me - If Vestager and co want to push to opt out BASELIII then that's their prerogative). This commonsense approach is unacceptable to the EC because they cannot strong arm us on something unrelated like they did to the Swiss. And given that 3 times as many EU finance firms have applied for passporting permissions INTO the UK their services firms are looking, I dunno flighty.
Edited by stongle on Wednesday 19th February 08:23
Murph7355 said:
That's the best line you have?
Frankly, good. They have travel insurance. Why the hell should government (ie the taxpayer) pay to fly them home? I appreciate it's "only £xxx,000" but also frankly, I am sick and tired of that bullst excuse for profligate spending.
Do I think our govts (of any colour) are agile? Not recently, no. We've allowed them to become fat and lazy. My personal belief is that the bigger the govt, the less agile it will ever be - my no1 reason for voting leave... The answer to no problem in the history of man has been "more politicians". So less bureaucracy is a good thing. We're making a start.
And if they fk it up, we elect a better option in 5yrs' time. And if there is no better option, we have the option of having a go for ourselves.
Alternatively we can stay in bed, not bother voting on something we evidently feel passionately about and then spend time whinging and moaning incessantly for several years about how bad it all is. Calling out govt for being hapless when taking that approach is a tad rhum though.
It's not a line.Frankly, good. They have travel insurance. Why the hell should government (ie the taxpayer) pay to fly them home? I appreciate it's "only £xxx,000" but also frankly, I am sick and tired of that bulls
t excuse for profligate spending. Do I think our govts (of any colour) are agile? Not recently, no. We've allowed them to become fat and lazy. My personal belief is that the bigger the govt, the less agile it will ever be - my no1 reason for voting leave... The answer to no problem in the history of man has been "more politicians". So less bureaucracy is a good thing. We're making a start.
And if they f
k it up, we elect a better option in 5yrs' time. And if there is no better option, we have the option of having a go for ourselves. Alternatively we can stay in bed, not bother voting on something we evidently feel passionately about and then spend time whinging and moaning incessantly for several years about how bad it all is. Calling out govt for being hapless when taking that approach is a tad rhum though.
It's an opinion based on over 40 years of observation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff