Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The foreign Secretary, international Trade secretary and the, Brexit secretary were all leavers. Seems that the pathetic excuse that they had no control over what would happen post Brexit is out of the window. Can't wait for them to deliver what they promised.
They're the ones who are going to make Brexit a "success" as TM has promised.

I suppose BoJo's silver tongue will charm Johnnie Foreigner and we will get from the EU the favourable deals we've been led to anticipate.
 
The foreign Secretary, international Trade secretary and the, Brexit secretary were all leavers. Seems that the pathetic excuse that they had no control over what would happen post Brexit is out of the window. Can't wait for them to deliver what they promised.
Make your mind up. You wanted leavers shoved back in charge. Can't have cake and eat it without vomit involved.
 
David Davis gas already detailed what he will deliver
Free trade,
No free movement,
Minimal contributions,
Deals with the US, China and other large countries within 2 years of the vote.
No businesses leaving the UK
All EU funding received in the UK to continue.
I always liked him as a politician, he always makes me laugh.
 
Poor Boris. His plan to stay clear of this shambles has been thwarted. Now he gets at least partial ownership of whatever deal they manage to negotiate.
 
I am a bit surprised Gove, who everyone says is a hard worker and good on detail, is not in the Brexit ministerial mix. But perhaps he refused, or maybe, May and he just do not get on.
 
I am a bit surprised Gove, who everyone says is a hard worker and good on detail, is not in the Brexit ministerial mix. But perhaps he refused, or maybe, May and he just do not get on.

Really? Do you think any of his colleagues would trust him? Do you think that he would be able to work with the Foreign Secretary?
 
Poor Boris. His plan to stay clear of this shambles has been thwarted. Now he gets at least partial ownership of whatever deal they manage to negotiate.

He won't be involved. That's David Davies' department.
 
Question for Leavers: I would like to know your position on the statement made by a Prof. of Politics from Warwick U. on cable news today:

When asked about the view of Junker that the UK should get on with it, he stated that the EU could "no longer tell the UK what to do."

Pardon me, but that would be post Art50, number one, and once finalized the exit, 2 years later, number 2. In my view, this "gentleman's" view is that even if the colic uncle has said he'd leave the house for good, he now says no one can disturb him on the living room couch, as he is no longer a member of the household.

This will make uncle much more of a pariah, and if he so insists, I see some shoving in future.
 
David Davis gas already detailed what he will deliver
Free trade,
No free movement,
Minimal contributions,
Deals with the US, China and other large countries within 2 years of the vote.
No businesses leaving the UK
All EU funding received in the UK to continue.

What, no ponies and rainbows ?
 
52% of the population trusted him.

52% of the people who voted in the referendum were either always going to vote leave or were swayed by the arguments from the Leave campaign. There's no way of telling what proportion trusted Michael Gove at the time BUT the media narrative is that his subsequent actions towards Boris Johnson in particular showed him in a new and less attractive light.

Before it seemed that the perception was that he was a loyal and hardworking little ****. Afterwards that he is a disloyal and conniving little ****. I suspect neither is/was entirely accurate.
 
David Davis gas already detailed what he will deliver
Free trade,
No free movement,
Minimal contributions,
Deals with the US, China and other large countries within 2 years of the vote.
No businesses leaving the UK
All EU funding received in the UK to continue.

Interesting. A very long article there with lots of charts, but I assume you refer to the "Key Negotiation Aims"?

http://www.conservativehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Key-Negotiation-Aims.png

Some people have suggested that we should look to Norway, or to Switzerland, to see what terms we can expect once we have left.

The idea that we have to fit our future into some Procrustean bed created for far smaller countries is nonsense.
The conventional options are laid out in the table, with a reminder of what they involve. We do not need to disappear into the details – always a problem with discussions on Europe – but let me outline what we should take from them.

The first one, EEA membership, often called the ‘Norway option’, works well for Norway but is not really appropriate for a major power like the UK.

Sometimes pejoratively described as ‘government by fax’, the balance of power looks to be squarely on the EU side. The disparity is exaggerated – Norway is represented on 200 EU committees, it does not have the accept every ruling, half its financial contributions are voluntary, and many of the EU’s regulations are copied from other international organisations’ requests – organisations on which Norway is represented and we are not.

Nevertheless, as it stands this model would not work for us. To make it viable it would need an arbitration court (not the ECJ), a dispute resolution procedure, and a number of other institutional changes. It would be possible to design and even negotiate such a structure, but it would take much more than 2 years.

The Swiss option, EFTA membership plus a host of bilateral treaties, is the best starting place and is informative in many ways.

It is not perfect for us however. It incorporates ‘free movement of people’ for the moment, although there is a clash coming on that, after a Swiss referendum was carried in favour of applying an emergency brake – a real one this time!

However, understand the comparative negotiating position.

Switzerland is a small country surrounded by the EU. Its trade is absolutely dominated by the EU – over 62 per cent of its exports go to Europe. It runs a large trade surplus, and it is not big enough to be a critical market for any EU nation.

The negotiation between the EU and Switzerland in the 1990s was marked by some hostility after it rejected EU membership, and yet it struck a decent deal.

The optimum aim for us would be similar, but without the free movement of peoples. That would not be on the table. Essentially we would be looking for a full scale free trade agreement. And it has just been done by another country.

If you want a model of how this would look, go on the European Commission website and look at the Canadian Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that the EU has just struck.

It eliminates all customs duties, which the EU website excitedly describes as worth €470 million a year to EU business. A similar deal with Britain would save it 5 times that on cars alone.

This would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission.

At the same time these negotiations are going on Britain will need to undertake a massive programme of simultaneous negotiations to negotiate free trade agreements with target countries that will be key to a more global approach.

So I guess what he is saying is that the UK, by dint of being a large, important economic country can expect to receive better terms (or terms more to its liking) than either Norway or Switzerland and instead get a deal similar to Canada's deal with the EU.
 
Question for Leavers: I would like to know your position on the statement made by a Prof. of Politics from Warwick U. on cable news today:

When asked about the view of Junker that the UK should get on with it, he stated that the EU could "no longer tell the UK what to do."

Pardon me, but that would be post Art50, number one, and once finalized the exit, 2 years later, number 2. In my view, this "gentleman's" view is that even if the colic uncle has said he'd leave the house for good, he now says no one can disturb him on the living room couch, as he is no longer a member of the household.

This will make uncle much more of a pariah, and if he so insists, I see some shoving in future.

Apart from the 'no longer' part he's completely right. The EU could never tell the UK what to do. Nothing has changed in that respect.
 
Interesting. A very long article there with lots of charts, but I assume you refer to the "Key Negotiation Aims"?

http://www.conservativehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Key-Negotiation-Aims.png



So I guess what he is saying is that the UK, by dint of being a large, important economic country can expect to receive better terms (or terms more to its liking) than either Norway or Switzerland and instead get a deal similar to Canada's deal with the EU.

I'm glad you clarified the term 'better' there because I don't think a mere FTA is better than being a member.

Oh and unless i've missed a memo (entirely possible these days) there is one small issue here. One might say it's more Leaver lies. The EU Canada deal hasn't been agreed.

As far as I am aware (again I could be wrong on this) there are important objections being raised by countries around the movement of people - the Czechs insisted that Canada lift its visa requirements (which they agreed to do) and the Romanians and Bulgarians are doing the same I think.

It now has to be approved by every single national Parliament in the EU and apparently some regional ones too.

The latest commentary I saw is that there is a very real chance of it never happening.

Oh and it was started in 2009. 7 years and still no agreement doesn't suggest that the EU are going to grant the UK everything she wants and more in 2.
 
.......So I guess what he is saying is that the UK, by dint of being a large, important economic country can expect to receive better terms (or terms more to its liking) than either Norway or Switzerland and instead get a deal similar to Canada's deal with the EU.

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Here's a BBC report on the matter. ..............but it took 7 years to negotiate.
 
So I guess what he is saying is that the UK, by dint of being a large, important economic country can expect to receive better terms (or terms more to its liking) than either Norway or Switzerland and instead get a deal similar to Canada's deal with the EU.

As I understand it, the crucial difference for Canada is that it doesn't include services, and in particular financial services.

Given that the UK has a £20bn+ services trade surplus with the EU, and London's financial services are a big prize for the EU financial centres, then IMO it's vital that the UK's deal includes services in general and financial services in particular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom