How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
wc98 said:
Brooking10 said:
I think that irrespective of one’s assessment of the benefits or otherwise of EU membership and the attendant cost the base logic of “you can’t have the benefits without the commitment” is hard to argue against.
This therefore does put the EU in something of a difficult position.
But ....
To drive that through to a sense of “ punishment” and to over index on exclusion would be very foolish.
I hope they don’t get to that position - that would be a political conclusion to a commercial problem
Similarly I hope that UK.gov doesn’t take a position where Boris says “no, never” on certain matters because he fears pressure from within the party ranks, never mind the electorate - that too would be a political conclusion to a commercial problem
whilst i generally agree with what you say,do you really mean there can be absolutely no red lines ?This therefore does put the EU in something of a difficult position.
But ....
To drive that through to a sense of “ punishment” and to over index on exclusion would be very foolish.
I hope they don’t get to that position - that would be a political conclusion to a commercial problem
Similarly I hope that UK.gov doesn’t take a position where Boris says “no, never” on certain matters because he fears pressure from within the party ranks, never mind the electorate - that too would be a political conclusion to a commercial problem
Point I was trying to make is that as and when concessions have to be made and given I hope that they are done so with an eye on long term economic consequences as opposed to short term political ones.
Brooking10 said:
wc98 said:
Brooking10 said:
I think that irrespective of one’s assessment of the benefits or otherwise of EU membership and the attendant cost the base logic of “you can’t have the benefits without the commitment” is hard to argue against.
This therefore does put the EU in something of a difficult position.
But ....
To drive that through to a sense of “ punishment” and to over index on exclusion would be very foolish.
I hope they don’t get to that position - that would be a political conclusion to a commercial problem
Similarly I hope that UK.gov doesn’t take a position where Boris says “no, never” on certain matters because he fears pressure from within the party ranks, never mind the electorate - that too would be a political conclusion to a commercial problem
whilst i generally agree with what you say,do you really mean there can be absolutely no red lines ?This therefore does put the EU in something of a difficult position.
But ....
To drive that through to a sense of “ punishment” and to over index on exclusion would be very foolish.
I hope they don’t get to that position - that would be a political conclusion to a commercial problem
Similarly I hope that UK.gov doesn’t take a position where Boris says “no, never” on certain matters because he fears pressure from within the party ranks, never mind the electorate - that too would be a political conclusion to a commercial problem
Point I was trying to make is that as and when concessions have to be made and given I hope that they are done so with an eye on long term economic consequences as opposed to short term political ones.
Rumours, and that's all they are, especially as still in the pre match grandstanding stage, that Boris is intending to accuse the EU of not being serious about a deal based on certain of their demands, and if no movement then political declaration to be, literally, torn up.
If even half true, tighten seat belts, make sure airbags not deactivated.
If even half true, tighten seat belts, make sure airbags not deactivated.
FiF said:
Rumours, and that's all they are, especially as still in the pre match grandstanding stage, that Boris is intending to accuse the EU of not being serious about a deal based on certain of their demands, and if no movement then political declaration to be, literally, torn up.
If even half true, tighten seat belts, make sure airbags not deactivated.
The PD is a worthless piece of toilet paper, always was.If even half true, tighten seat belts, make sure airbags not deactivated.
Why people think its anything else is bizarre.
Brooking10 said:
Indeed, hence the onus on Boris needing to think long term for the good of UK plc and being prepared to make and stand by concessions should the need arise.
The issue here, as ever, is that what constitutes as the 'long term good of the UK' is open to wildly different interpretations. DeepEnd will tell you we need to protect existing trade with the EU at any cost. Crankedup will tell you we need to gain independent control over who we trade with at any cost. Each will throw things the other thinks indispensable under the bus in the process. Thinking long or short term doesn't change that dichotomy.jsf said:
FiF said:
Rumours, and that's all they are, especially as still in the pre match grandstanding stage, that Boris is intending to accuse the EU of not being serious about a deal based on certain of their demands, and if no movement then political declaration to be, literally, torn up.
If even half true, tighten seat belts, make sure airbags not deactivated.
The PD is a worthless piece of toilet paper, always was.If even half true, tighten seat belts, make sure airbags not deactivated.
Why people think its anything else is bizarre.
Tuna said:
Brooking10 said:
Indeed, hence the onus on Boris needing to think long term for the good of UK plc and being prepared to make and stand by concessions should the need arise.
The issue here, as ever, is that what constitutes as the 'long term good of the UK' is open to wildly different interpretations. DeepEnd will tell you we need to protect existing trade with the EU at any cost. Crankedup will tell you we need to gain independent control over who we trade with at any cost. Each will throw things the other thinks indispensable under the bus in the process. Thinking long or short term doesn't change that dichotomy.Putting 0.2% GDP boost ahead of corresponding 4% GDP damage is “at significant cost” for literally negative benefit.
Once someone can put a tangible benefit in exchange for damaging EU trade that puts us literally better off, then sure why not, lets do it. Just damaging EU trade and hoping something good might happen on the off chance is not really the considered approach.
All this talk of seatbelts and airbags - is there really going to be a crash with people (economically) hurt? Why on earth is anyone cheering that on?
DeepEnd said:
Tuna said:
Brooking10 said:
Indeed, hence the onus on Boris needing to think long term for the good of UK plc and being prepared to make and stand by concessions should the need arise.
The issue here, as ever, is that what constitutes as the 'long term good of the UK' is open to wildly different interpretations. DeepEnd will tell you we need to protect existing trade with the EU at any cost. Crankedup will tell you we need to gain independent control over who we trade with at any cost. Each will throw things the other thinks indispensable under the bus in the process. Thinking long or short term doesn't change that dichotomy.Putting 0.2% GDP boost ahead of corresponding 4% GDP damage is “at significant cost” for literally negative benefit.
Once someone can put a tangible benefit in exchange for damaging EU trade that puts us literally better off, then sure why not, lets do it. Just damaging EU trade and hoping something good might happen on the off chance is not really the considered approach.
All this talk of seatbelts and airbags - is there really going to be a crash with people (economically) hurt? Why on earth is anyone cheering that on?
the EU telling the UK that the couldn't possibly give the same deal as Canada because we could potentially become an economic threat to them, I don't remember you objecting to that premis DP.
DeepEnd said:
It is not a matter of “at any cost” - I’ve never said or claimed that. It is a case of weighing up what is best for the country based on analysis. Short and long term.
Putting 0.2% GDP boost ahead of corresponding 4% GDP damage is “at significant cost” for literally negative benefit.
Once someone can put a tangible benefit in exchange for damaging EU trade that puts us literally better off, then sure why not, lets do it. Just damaging EU trade and hoping something good might happen on the off chance is not really the considered approach.
All this talk of seatbelts and airbags - is there really going to be a crash with people (economically) hurt? Why on earth is anyone cheering that on?
No country has ever become worse off as a result of becoming more free, so I doubt we'll be the first.Putting 0.2% GDP boost ahead of corresponding 4% GDP damage is “at significant cost” for literally negative benefit.
Once someone can put a tangible benefit in exchange for damaging EU trade that puts us literally better off, then sure why not, lets do it. Just damaging EU trade and hoping something good might happen on the off chance is not really the considered approach.
All this talk of seatbelts and airbags - is there really going to be a crash with people (economically) hurt? Why on earth is anyone cheering that on?
Brooking10 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
No country has ever become worse off as a result of becoming more free, so I doubt we'll be the first.
Exhibit ARhodesia/Zimbabwe.
There are plenty others which could be posited
This is why the “Freedom” angle is the preserve of jingoistic stupidity
Dr Jekyll said:
Brooking10 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
No country has ever become worse off as a result of becoming more free, so I doubt we'll be the first.
Exhibit ARhodesia/Zimbabwe.
There are plenty others which could be posited
This is why the “Freedom” angle is the preserve of jingoistic stupidity
Murph7355 said:
Tuna said:
Whoosh parrot for DeepEnd
I think he tries to prove your posts for the benefit of the younger reader. It's an admirable public service. Brooking10 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
No country has ever become worse off as a result of becoming more free, so I doubt we'll be the first.
Exhibit ARhodesia/Zimbabwe.
There are plenty others which could be posited
This is why the “Freedom” angle is the preserve of jingoistic stupidity
Like the ‘no country ever...’ - Norway? Oh yeah them.
If you don’t have an argument, just say “it’s open to widely different interpretations”. Just a guess then on gut feeling, done.
I see Duncan Smith wants to use experts now.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.indy100.com/art...
FiF said:
It's just a continuation of several years of deliberately twisting words in order to put spin that provides him with a comfort blanket woven with things that others have never actually said nor implied. Nothing more than obvious baiting, ignore it.
It’s the buckle up/seatbelts and airbags poster.What sort of crash are you bracing for?
DeepEnd said:
FiF said:
It's just a continuation of several years of deliberately twisting words in order to put spin that provides him with a comfort blanket woven with things that others have never actually said nor implied. Nothing more than obvious baiting, ignore it.
It’s the buckle up/seatbelts and airbags poster.What sort of crash are you bracing for?
Fyi, absolutely the only crash I'm actively hoping for is you being crashed out of PH permanently. Hope that helps.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff