Brexit: Now What? Part II

[ceptimus]

The sensible default position for all those things would be to keep them exactly the same as they are now.

We're currently, as a fully paid-up member, compliant with all the necessary regulations and rules. We're not going to suddenly stop being compliant with all those rules one second after leaving. After we've left and we want to change things we will need to renegotiate things that are affected as a result of the changes we wish to make - that doesn't mean renegotiating everything all at the same time.

Of course, I don't expect the EU will accept this sensible default. It's the inability of the EU to accomplish anything in a sensible manner and timescale that is one of the main reasons why a member country would want to leave in the first place.

 

[Strawberry]

The sensible default position for all those things would be to keep them exactly the same as they are now.

We're currently, as a fully paid-up member, compliant with all the necessary regulations and rules. We're not going to suddenly stop being compliant with all those rules one second after leaving. After we've left and we want to change things we will need to renegotiate things that are affected as a result of the changes we wish to make - that doesn't mean renegotiating everything all at the same time.

Of course, I don't expect the EU will accept this sensible default. It's the inability of the EU to accomplish anything in a sensible manner and timescale that is one of the main reasons why a member country would want to leave in the first place.

You really don't have a clue. Brexit is like watching the Dunning-Kruger effect on a nationwide scale.

Why do you think FTAs take years to negotiate? How long do you think the queue is for countries wanting to negotiate a FTA with the EU? Because in two and a half years time, the UK will be joining the back of that queue, and it could take years to reach the front never mind get a deal.

 

[ceptimus]

How long do you think the queue is for countries wanting to negotiate a FTA with the EU? Because in two and a half years time, the UK will be joining the back of that queue, and it could take years to reach the front never mind get a deal.

Exactly. It's the inability of the EU to negotiate anything in a timely manner that means we're better off ignoring them as far as is possible and concentrating our negotiating efforts on other countries who can negotiate meaningfully.

You're all so eager to ridicule my suggestions, but none of you have put forward your own ideas on how negotiations with the EU should be done.

The first thing is to accept that Britain IS leaving the EU. The next thing is to acknowledge that the EU is a lumbering bureaucratic nightmare and suggest ways of how to deal with that reality in the most sensible way.

No deals with the EU will ever be simple or quick - that's the nature of the EU. How do you suggest we should proceed?

 

[abaddon]

The sensible default position for all those things would be to keep them exactly the same as they are now.

We're currently, as a fully paid-up member, compliant with all the necessary regulations and rules. We're not going to suddenly stop being compliant with all those rules one second after leaving. After we've left and we want to change things we will need to renegotiate things that are affected as a result of the changes we wish to make - that doesn't mean renegotiating everything all at the same time.

Of course, I don't expect the EU will accept this sensible default. It's the inability of the EU to accomplish anything in a sensible manner and timescale that is one of the main reasons why a member country would want to leave in the first place.

What a load of old bollocks.

 

[Strawberry]

Exactly. It's the inability of the EU to negotiate anything in a timely manner that means we're better off ignoring them as far as is possible and concentrating our negotiating efforts on other countries who can negotiate meaningfully.

You're all so eager to ridicule my suggestions, but none of you have put forward your own ideas on how negotiations with the EU should be done.

The first thing is to accept that Britain IS leaving the EU. The next thing is to acknowledge that the EU is a lumbering bureaucratic nightmare and suggest ways of how to deal with that reality in the most sensible way.

No deals with the EU will ever be simple or quick - that's the nature of the EU. How do you suggest we should proceed?

Newsflash for you - trade deals with anyone take years to negotiate. Its nothing to do with the EU being at fault, its the nature of international trade deals. Does that not give you a slight pause for thought that it might just be a tad more complicated than you thought?

And the lengthy queue for FTAs with the EU just shows how many countries are desperate to trade with them on something better than WTO terms. Even the mighty USA wanted a FTA. Does that not give you pause for thought either?

 

[ceptimus]

Newsflash for you - trade deals with anyone take years to negotiate. Its nothing to do with the EU being at fault, its the nature of international trade deals. Does that not give you a slight pause for thought that it might just be a tad more complicated than you thought?

And the lengthy queue for FTAs with the EU just shows how many countries are desperate to trade with them on something better than WTO terms. Even the mighty USA wanted a FTA. Does that not give you pause for thought either?

You're not suggesting how we should proceed. Just pointing out how difficult things may be achieves nothing.

We're leaving the EU and we have to start somewhere. Where do you suggest?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The sensible default position for all those things would be to keep them exactly the same as they are now.

We're currently, as a fully paid-up member, compliant with all the necessary regulations and rules. We're not going to suddenly stop being compliant with all those rules one second after leaving.

Some of them we will be. Others we shortly will be. And others in not too long a term. The rules and regulations are constantly being updated and the only option will be to either follow them slavishly without any route to influence them or be non-compliant.

 

[Strawberry]

You're not suggesting how we should proceed. Just pointing out how difficult things may be achieves nothing.

We're leaving the EU and we have to start somewhere. Where do you suggest?

I suggest you face this reality - Britain, at the end of the Article 50 negotiations, has two choices. 1) Join the queue for EEA membership and hope Norway doesn't veto us, and 2) Join the even longer queue for trade negotiations and hope none of the EU member states veto it after lengthy negotiations.

Whichever one of those we choose, we either get an interim trade deal which means keeping temporarily to FoM and contributing to the EU budget, or we crash out with no deal and trade under WTO rules for an indefinite period, possibly a decade or more.

Those are the options facing Britain, and that's that.

 

[ceptimus]

I suggest you face this reality - Britain, at the end of the Article 50 negotiations, has two choices. 1) Join the queue for EEA membership and hope Norway doesn't veto us, and 2) Join the even longer queue for trade negotiations and hope none of the EU member states veto it after lengthy negotiations.

Whichever one of those we choose, we either get an interim trade deal which means keeping temporarily to FoM and contributing to the EU budget, or we crash out with no deal and trade under WTO rules for an indefinite period, possibly a decade or more.

Those are the options facing Britain, and that's that.

Tell me what you think will happen once we abolish freedom of movement and stop making EU payments. 'Crashing out' with WTO rules is what I'm advocating as the most realistic option.

 

[Strawberry]

Tell me what you think will happen once we abolish freedom of movement and stop making EU payments. 'Crashing out' with WTO rules is what I'm advocating as the most realistic option.

Once we do those things, we're out of the single market. The only reason you think WTO rules are 'realistic' is because you don't understand them. Between the services sector and the food and JIT exports that would destroy it could potentially cost millions of jobs while playing havoc with food imports simultaneously pushes up inflation.

 

[ceptimus]

Some of them we will be. Others we shortly will be. And others in not too long a term. The rules and regulations are constantly being updated and the only option will be to either follow them slavishly without any route to influence them or be non-compliant.

Yes. I agree with this.

When the EU changes its rules we can decide whether or not we think it's sensible for us to adopt them - and if we decide not to we'll be non-compliant.

Some of the changes we want to make ourselves (e.g. to enhance animal wellfare) will still be compliant with EU rules - it's just that we'll chose to exceed their minimum standards.

And we may chose to make other changes ourselves that will make us non-compliant. I assume we'll consider the implications concerning EU standards before we make any such changes and only make them if and when we think it's worth the hassle.

It will take a long time for us to fully disentangle ourselves from the EU octopus - we'll have to take it one tentacle at a time.

 

[ceptimus]

Once we do those things, we're out of the single market. The only reason you think WTO rules are 'realistic' is because you don't understand them. Between the services sector and the food and JIT exports that would destroy it could potentially cost millions of jobs while playing havoc with food imports simultaneously pushes up inflation.

Well now you're just back to pointing out obstacles.

Remember that we ARE leaving. It's more positive to try to suggest the best path through that difficult process. Crying over spilt milk benefits no one.

 

[Strawberry]

Well now you're just back to pointing out obstacles.

Remember that we ARE leaving. It's more positive to try to suggest the best path through that difficult process. Crying over spilt milk benefits no one.

I've already suggested the best path - an interim deal while we decide which queue to join and get to the front of it. You apparently see WTO rules as the 'most realistic' option, and when the consequences of that are pointed out to you, that's not crying over spilt milk its just telling the truth.

 

[ceptimus]

Your path means effectively staying in the EU (making payments, accepting free movement, being subservient to EU law) for an indefinite period - and possibly forever if the EU can't agree to any alternative. But we'll lose all political representation in the EU after the first two years.

I don't think that will be acceptable to the UK voter. We've voted to leave can't have that leaving postponed indefinitely. If we're put in some half-in-half-out limbo state with all the existing rules but loss of representation that's even worse.

 

[abaddon]

You're not suggesting how we should proceed. Just pointing out how difficult things may be achieves nothing.

We're leaving the EU and we have to start somewhere. Where do you suggest?

Perhaps you should acknowledge that you have no leverage, independent agreement do no happen overnight, and brexit is a farce.

The british empire died long ago. Britain has nothing in terms of influence. Brittania rules the waves? That was once true. It has not been true for decades. Britannia is unable to field an aircraft carrier these days and is in the process of scrapping their submarines.

I will put up my hand. Once upon a time, the UK actually rocked. Sure. Now they do not. Not my problem. A matter of regret for a fallen icon perhaps, but that was their choice.

 

[Strawberry]

Your path means effectively staying in the EU (making payments, accepting free movement, being subservient to EU law) for an indefinite period - and possibly forever if the EU can't agree to any alternative. But we'll lose all political representation in the EU after the first two years.

I don't think that will be acceptable to the UK voter. We've voted to leave can't have that leaving postponed indefinitely. If we're put in some half-in-half-out limbo state with all the existing rules but loss of representation that's even worse.

Worse than mass unemployment and stagflation, really? At least you won't need to worry about immigration, I suppose, people will be flooding out of the country, not in.

 

[Aepervius]

Exactly. It's the inability of the EU to negotiate anything in a timely manner that means we're better off ignoring them as far as is possible and concentrating our negotiating efforts on other countries who can negotiate meaningfully.

You're all so eager to ridicule my suggestions, but none of you have put forward your own ideas on how negotiations with the EU should be done.

The first thing is to accept that Britain IS leaving the EU. The next thing is to acknowledge that the EU is a lumbering bureaucratic nightmare and suggest ways of how to deal with that reality in the most sensible way.

No deals with the EU will ever be simple or quick - that's the nature of the EU. How do you suggest we should proceed?

Yeah well in the real world trade agreement take a LONG time to draft. The reason is simple once you signed you can't do a take-backsy because you forgot a point.

What sort of trade agreement are you speaking of who took so quick as to be done in mere month ? I see none on that scale.

 

[Aepervius]

Your path means effectively staying in the EU (making payments, accepting free movement, being subservient to EU law) for an indefinite period - and possibly forever if the EU can't agree to any alternative. But we'll lose all political representation in the EU after the first two years.

I don't think that will be acceptable to the UK voter. We've voted to leave can't have that leaving postponed indefinitely. If we're put in some half-in-half-out limbo state with all the existing rules but loss of representation that's even worse.

Firstly it was voted by a VERY small majority, so the "we" voted, is not as strong as you think. Furthermore as pointed out by poll that you ignored, some of those regretted their vote afterward, enough to revert the majority. But even ignoring that, and accepting to do a bone headed move if the people vote for it, as recent poll showed, even the brexiter would rather NOT have a brexit, than lose money or lose a job.

By all standard of reason (unless you throw out expert out and jsut rely on chicken bone and fish gut to guide your economic politics - which would not surprise me at that point), everybody will lose out. EU will lose some UK will lose some. There is no positive point, opening of new market, for neither UK nor EU. Well maybe a new market for administrator of the brexit that's it and not really something you can export readily.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-trade-with-the-eu-and-beyond/
"UK exports to the EU were valued at £223.3 billion"

You know what that mean ? That mean ever single of those export suddenly get a trade tarif even if it is the WTO bound rate. DO you know what happens when something get an additional cost ? People buy less of it.

You better hope that the pound get a pounding and the tarif disappear under the pound crashing, because otherwise all those export ? Well they get crashing down.

And that is not even counting the administrative cost of having again to check goods going over to EU and back from EU, frontier / douane cost and I pass many others. And that is not even counting service which were exported from UK to EU (I know a firm which loan worker for example from UK to Germany. After Brexit ? No way it can be done easily at cost competitive price - or possibly even not legally).

You keep harping about WTO tarif, do you even know what that means ? I doubt it.

ETA: and before you harp about France Germany losing some export, yes, yes, they will. But guess what ? Calculate for each country how much they export to UK. Every single country has less to lose as a whole than UK does. France export for example roughly 32 billion pound of stuff around to UK Germany around 80 billion pound. Again, painful, but compare to 220 ? Not as much.

 

[ceptimus]

No need to sneer over whether or not I understand WTO tariffs. I do understand them thank you.

We need to get out of the EU before the whole rotten edifice topples. Italy and Greece will crash out of the Euro when? Maybe 2019? Maybe sooner?

 

[Strawberry]

No need to sneer over whether or not I understand WTO tariffs. I do understand them thank you.

We need to get out of the EU before the whole rotten edifice topples. Italy and Greece will crash out of the Euro when? Maybe 2019? Maybe sooner?

You don't understand the problem at all if you think its about tariffs. That's the least important part of international trade. Its the non tariff barriers you need to worry about, and WTO rules don't protect countries from those. Trading under WTO rules means UK exports lose certification that they conform to EU standards, (even if they still are manufactured to EU standards). That makes them subject to confiscation by any customs official between here and the country of destination where they can be impounded and/or sent to a lab for testing. So kiss goodbye to food exports, and all exporting done on a JIT basis.

WTO rules also don't cover services, so kiss goodbye to a good chunk of those too.

Meanwhile the tariff and non tariff barriers to trade will also play havoc with our food imports, pushing up prices and inflation at a time when masses of people are losing their jobs and businesses are going bust.

That's the reality of trading under WTO rules alone.