Brexit: Now What? Part III

[ceptimus]

It would be more correct to say that leave believed that the EU would be operating in their own self interest if they give us a good deal. And that the EU would be insane to harm themselves by offering a poor deal or no deal.

And that's still what they're saying.

 

[Craig B]

It would be more correct to say that leave believed that the EU would be operating in their own self interest if they give us a good deal. And that the EU would be insane to harm themselves by offering a poor deal or no deal.

And that's still what they're saying.

Therefore, we'll get a good deal. I see. What will this good deal be? Lots of profitable trade, but no foreigners wandering about and taking our jobs. And no UK having to accept the decisions of foreign courts. Is that the deal that the EU would be insane not to agree to?

 

[ceptimus]

Yes.

 

[Amazer]

Yes.

Why do you expect the EU to act rationally while you (Brexiteers) do not?

 

[MCel58]

No - for the simple fact that we won't pay for most of them. The EU is flying a kite and trying to get us to agree to pay for the moon. Obviously we'll pay what's really owed - and the EU can pay us what they owe us too. After we leave we won't be making any further payments.

This is just not true but on one thing I agree we should not make any further payments that cover any UKIP MEPs pensions. The largest of which will be Nigel Farage who has been an MEP for 19 years.

 

[Craig B]

Yes.

Then I'm afraid they've all gone barking mad. This is from RTÉ 7 Feb.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has finally spelled out via two speeches (London and Davos) and a White Paper that Britain will be out of the single market and probably the customs union (although she left an unexplained caveat that there could be some future customs association between the UK and the EU).

The second is the testimony of Michael Lux, the former head of the European Commission's customs procedures unit, to a House of Commons committee.

He made it clear in sobering terms that Mrs May's idea of a "seamless" or "frictionless" border was a fantasy.

"If you define seamless as no border controls then the answer is no, at least for Ireland, because it is obliged to apply EU law," he told the committee.​

When will Johnnie Foreigner come to his senses, eh?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It would be more correct to say that leave believed that the EU would be operating in their own self interest if they give us a good deal. And that the EU would be insane to harm themselves by offering a poor deal or no deal.

And that's still what they're saying.

They sound like idiots.

 

[The Don]

I've spent a week skiing with a group that included an enthusiastic Brexiteer. I asked him to outline in broad terms what the economic benefits wold be to the UK of being outside the EU.

He freely admitted that trade terms with the EU would be no better but was confident that things would turn out to be much better overall but was unable to identify an industry or industry sector that would benefit. He was clear that in his opinion, Trump would make sure that the UK had a great trade deal with the US to pick up any slack from any drop-off in EU trade.

It merely reinforced my prejudiced view that for many, Brexit is founded on magical thinking.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump hasn't a clue. For example he was complaining about Japan not buying American cars and implying it was because of some kind of trade restriction.
There isn't any kind of tariff on foreign car imports in to Japan. Mercedes, BMW, VW, Mini and Jaguar have no problems. Japan doesn’t buy American cars because thry are too big for a lot of streets and parking spaces, have the wheel on the wrong side, have half the fuel economy and aren't of the quality they like.
If Trump thinks it's because of trade deals and tariffs what else doesn’t he understand about international trade and what is he going to insist on when negotiations start with the UK?

 

[jimbob]

Trump hasn't a clue. For example he was complaining about Japan not buying American cars and implying it was because of some kind of trade restriction.
There isn't any kind of tariff on foreign car imports in to Japan. Mercedes, BMW, VW, Mini and Jaguar have no problems. Japan doesn’t buy American cars because thry are too big for a lot of streets and parking spaces, have the wheel on the wrong side, have half the fuel economy and aren't of the quality they like.
If Trump thinks it's because of trade deals and tariffs what else doesn’t he understand about international trade and what is he going to insist on when negotiations start with the UK?

Given his statements and even his behaviour, I guess any trade deal would involve the UK accepting what the US wants - standards etc. We know he's willing to use the fact that the US is a larger market than any other individual country to try putting the squeeze on - look at Mexico.

But even so it would take a long time to sort everything out.

 

[Darat]

Given his statements and even his behaviour, I guess any trade deal would involve the UK accepting what the US wants - standards etc. We know he's willing to use the fact that the US is a larger market than any other individual country to try putting the squeeze on - look at Mexico.

But even so it would take a long time to sort everything out.

Pretty sure that he won't insist on such, they are just impediments to making more money great customer experience.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't think so. There was one previous referendum in 1975 (and it's at least one 'generation' since that date) but that referendum was on whether Britain should remain in the EEC (aka 'common market') which was a very different entity compared to the EU it's evolved into.

I've no objection at all to future referendums to rejoin the EU after we've left - providing the EU indicates that it would be prepared to have us back and there is majority support in Britain to hold a referendum.

I've no fears that we would ever rejoin as 1) The EU may collapse in the near future anyway and 2) Even if the EU survives there is no chance that Britain would vote to rejoin once the British have had the opportunity to see how much better things are once they're outside it.

Wishfull thinking. You have no way to know whether it will be better ir not , or much worst, as you are no economist. And yhe crushing majority if economist see it as most probably not a good deal for either uk or eu, but probably worst for uk.

If the uk want again in, i say only if they drop pounds, and utterly convert to SI and drive to the right. And a bit of crow also would be nice.

 

[Aepervius]

All the EU talk of the UK making payments to the EU in order to leave is nonsense on stilts. They want €60 billion so they can pay pensions to retired EU officials after we've left. Hahaha!

No one pays to leave a club. When you leave a club you just walk away and if the club asks you for money you tell the club to get stuffed.

Leaving a club still leave you on the hook for past contractual fulfillment. That you think it does not says a lot on the vslidity of what you say.

 

[ceptimus]

Wishfull thinking. You have no way to know whether it will be better ir not , or much worst, as you are no economist. And yhe crushing majority if economist see it as most probably not a good deal for either uk or eu, but probably worst for uk.

If the uk want again in, i say only if they drop pounds, and utterly convert to SI and drive to the right. And a bit of crow also would be nice.

Economists don't seem to have a clue about predicting the future - no better than flipping a coin. They're very good at explaining the reasons things happened after the event though.

I agree with all your conditions for rejoining - of course they make it even more vanishingly unlikely that we ever would rejoin, so crow doesn't enter into it.

 

[ceptimus]

Leaving a club still leave you on the hook for past contractual fulfillment. That you think it does not says a lot on the vslidity of what you say.

Well, if there are actual contracts, then maybe. But like most things EU, everything is vague and open to interpretation - a tempting feast for lawyers who will be able to argue over and string out the process for ages while lining their pockets at taxpayer's expense.

 

[Aepervius]

I think this is likely to be the truth. It is difficult to make nations pay debts. If the EU want UK cash, this will be a negotiating issue. The UK could walk away, the EU then could undertake prolonged legal action at the ICJ to enforce the debt, the problem is any enforcement is done via the UN security council on which the UK is a permanent member with a veto. So effectively the EU will be unable to enforce any decision against the UK. Equally there will have to be negotiations over a lump sum payment vs. staged payments, currency, interest.

So since this is effectively an unenforceable debt to get payment the EU will have to offer incentives to the UK. The EU does itself no favours by bigging up the debt, as any smaller amount agreed at the end of the negotiations looks like a loss for the EU and gain for the UK.

Firstly that would be a sign to ALL trading oartner to shy away because the uk can tell you to **** off if they wish. Secondly it would mist probably land before the inf and wto and has no reason to go to the frigging un. Uk has no veto in those.

 

[ceptimus]

The contracts, where there are any, were most likely written assuming that all the parties involved would remain EU members. Any time that the EU is mentioned in such contracts it allows post-Brexit UK to argue, "those rules don't apply to us as we are no longer EU members."

As for other trading countries, they will be happy to deal with us on the basis of trade. If they think we have given money to the EU that we need not have done, that will diminish us in their eyes.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The contracts, where there are any, were most likely written assuming that all the parties involved would remain EU members. Any time that the EU is mentioned in such contracts it allows post-Brexit UK to argue, "those rules don't apply to us as we are no longer EU members."

As for other trading countries, they will be happy to deal with us on the basis of trade. If they think we have given money to the EU that we need not have done, that will diminish us in their eyes.

The only annoying thing about this wrap yourself in the Butcher's Apron and deny reality claptrap is that it is everyone else who will foot the bill when reality hits. If it was only the Brexiteers who would suffer it would be amusing to watch them choke on their hubris.

 

[Planigale]

Firstly that would be a sign to ALL trading oartner to shy away because the uk can tell you to **** off if they wish. Secondly it would mist probably land before the inf and wto and has no reason to go to the frigging un. Uk has no veto in those.

No, because in this situation there is no agreed debt. There will be what the EU claim that the UK owes, consequent on the Brexit process, and quite possibly a counter claim from the UK for a proportion of EU assets. Sometime way down the line there may be a ICJ ruling, but even then this will be subject to negotiation. If you really think that trade deals will suddenly collapse because of one dispute then you live in a fantasy land. There are lots of defaults, disputes and things carry on pretty much the same, the interest rates on debt might rise, but given the poor economic state of the EU, it is more likely the EU that will find trouble with the international financial markets.

 

[dudalb]

The only annoying thing about this wrap yourself in the Butcher's Apron and deny reality claptrap is that it is everyone else who will foot the bill when reality hits. If it was only the Brexiteers who would suffer it would be amusing to watch them choke on their hubris.

Or when Brexit happens all those brown and black people in the UK don't magically dissapeare