Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[Samson]

You don't understand English. 'Best available terms' means the best available terms agreed between the UK and the EU. If the EU are too stubborn about their red lines, then 'best available terms' could mean anything - including down to the worst case of 'no deal'.

There's no sensible reason for a 'no deal' though. The EU ought to be able to offer us a trade deal at least as good as the one they've done with Canada, given that the UK is nearer, does a lot more trade with them, and starts out 100% compliant with current EU regulations.

100% compliant looks like a good idea to not change anything.
The youth voted remain because they are on average closed out of raising a family in a house they nominally call their own. They feel a belonging in Europe with a renting paradigm.
I see a parade of these 20 somethings just through New Zealand.

LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE!

 

[Wudang]

You don't understand English. 'Best available terms' means the best available terms agreed between the UK and the EU. If the EU are too stubborn about their red lines, then 'best available terms' could mean anything - including down to the worst case of 'no deal'.

There's no sensible reason for a 'no deal' though. The EU ought to be able to offer us a trade deal at least as good as the one they've done with Canada, given that the UK is nearer, does a lot more trade with them, and starts out 100% compliant with current EU regulations.

Ironically one of the few groups to understand this issue at all was Leave HQ. From their explanation of why trading on WTO terms is a bad thing

We are at this point entering serious nerd territory. If your eyes are beginning to glaze over, all we can say is welcome to the world as it really is. It has taken years of mind-numbing, tedious study to understand this amount of detail, and either you know it, or you don't. If you don't, you are going to make serious mistakes.
.....
Such is the importance of agreements such as the MRAs that the UK would have no option but to seek a deal with the EU, for which there is a facility within Article 50. But, the moment it sought such deals, it would no longer be relying exclusively on WTO rules. It would now be seeking bilateral agreements along the lines of the so-called "Swiss option". This comes with as many problems as the WTO Option, if not more, not least the length of time it would take to agree a Swiss-type arrangement (10 years or more?)…And that's assuming the EU wants another complex Swiss-type arrangement, which it doesn't.

Source http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128

 

[Lothian]

You don't understand English. 'Best available terms' means the best available terms agreed between the UK and the EU. If the EU are too stubborn about their red lines, then 'best available terms' could mean anything - including down to the worst case of 'no deal'.

There's no sensible reason for a 'no deal' though. The EU ought to be able to offer us a trade deal at least as good as the one they've done with Canada, given that the UK is nearer, does a lot more trade with them, and starts out 100% compliant with current EU regulations.

The EU had offered some great deals but the UK red lines means we have not accepted them. You are quite right however. There is no sensible reason for a no deal. The fact brexit supporters contemplate such a scenario says a lot about their sanity. Welcome on board.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You don't understand English. 'Best available terms' means the best available terms agreed between the UK and the EU. If the EU are too stubborn about their red lines, then 'best available terms' could mean anything - including down to the worst case of 'no deal'.

There's no sensible reason for a 'no deal' though. The EU ought to be able to offer us a trade deal at least as good as the one they've done with Canada, given that the UK is nearer, does a lot more trade with them, and starts out 100% compliant with current EU regulations.

The best available terms come from staying in the EU. The second best come from EEA membership.

So let's agree the best available terms then?

 

[Darat]

You don't understand English. 'Best available terms' means the best available terms agreed between the UK and the EU. If the EU are too stubborn about their red lines, then 'best available terms' could mean anything - including down to the worst case of 'no deal'.

There's no sensible reason for a 'no deal' though. The EU ought to be able to offer us a trade deal at least as good as the one they've done with Canada, given that the UK is nearer, does a lot more trade with them, and starts out 100% compliant with current EU regulations.

So why didn't Johnson negotiate that when he was in a position to do so?

 

[Information Analyst]

If you continue to believe that economic forecasts (nearly always wrong) are more important than democracy, that's fine.

Prove it.

 

[Nessie]

You don't understand English. 'Best available terms' means the best available terms agreed between the UK and the EU. If the EU are too stubborn about their red lines, then 'best available terms' could mean anything - including down to the worst case of 'no deal'.

There's no sensible reason for a 'no deal' though. The EU ought to be able to offer us a trade deal at least as good as the one they've done with Canada, given that the UK is nearer, does a lot more trade with them, and starts out 100% compliant with current EU regulations.

Can Brexiteers face remaining 100% compliant with EU regulations, so as to continue trading? We will have to comply with the EU, without having any say whatsoever in the regulations. That is handing over sovereignty.

 

[The Don]

Prove it.

I guess it comes down to what counts as a "hit"

If a forecast says that the economy is going to grow by 2% next year and it grows by 1.9% or 2.1% instead then those people who wish to continue to promote the idea that experts are useless would put those down as a failed forecast.

Those people typically also don't take into account any conditions that accompany the forecast. For example, a few months after the referendum, Brexiteers were keen to point out that prior to the referendum, the Remain campaign had produced forecasts which said that, post-Brexit, the UK economy would contract and yet it had not done so and so all Remain forecasts could be safely ignored. This failed to take into account a couple of key things:

• The forecasts assumed that austerity would continue, instead Phil Hammond had turned on the spending pumps - giving a significant boost to the economy
• We hadn't actually left the EU yet

 

[Information Analyst]

They came up with a plan. The plan was to continue trading with the EU on the best available terms, while not allowing the EU any control over our money, laws, and borders.
Remainers frustrated the plan by offering the EU the hope that they might be able to reverse the result of the referendum, or at least water it down the point where it had no real effect. That's why we're in the current mess. It's the height of hypocrisy by remain MPs to then attempt to blame the mess on leave MPs.

The EU did not need Remain supports to "frustrate" anything, when what the Leaver delusionists wanted was undeliverable.

 

[The Don]

The EU did not need Remain supports to "frustrate" anything, when what the Leaver delusionists wanted was undeliverable.

Yup, sorta like blaming the doctors, dietitians and trainers when you say that you want to lose weight but then refuse to change your diet or (lack of) exercise regimen.

 

[Information Analyst]

The Australian PM who was a Monarchist had to put up a referendum for a Republic. So put up three options.

1. Stay a monarchy.
2. Vote for a president in the republic.
3. Make the president appointed by parliament in the republic.

He split the Republican vote and stay a monarchy won easily. Cynical but effective.

As far as I can see, that never happened.

 

[Tolls]

That seems to be a slightly confused take on the 1999 referendum.

But that was a decision against a single specific method of picking a President, and not a three way vote as portrayed.

The Republican vote was split, but between those who were OK with the method put forward and those opposed, who then proceeded to vote against the change.

There were lots of flavours of Republicanism, and a general pro-Republican view in Oz, but no one flavour has (or had) enough support. A bit like Brexit in fact.

 

[lomiller]

And if the majority of the people you were locked in a house with voted to set it on fire would you meekly accept that democratic decision, sit there quietly and burn, ceptimus? Or would you do everything you could to persuade them to change their minds before that decision was implemented?

I know we promised to keep the AC running so the temperature would stay a comfortable 20 deg C but it turns out that defective European air conditioners won’t cool a house that is burning down. We tried to arrange a backstop agreement to have the fire department drop by and lend some assistance. Can you believe they wanted to spray the place with water? Can you imagine the water damage?

No, we must lige the fire now whether the fire department is coming to save us or not. Another vote would betray everyone who believed our story about the AC so we have no choice.

 

[lomiller]

They came up with a plan. The plan was to continue trading with the EU on the best available terms, while not allowing the EU any control over our money, laws, and borders.

The current Brexit "plan" is to not to enforce the only border with the EU. How is this “taking ownership of laws or borders”? Whatever is legal in the EU could simply walk/drive into the UK with no checkpoint or control whatsoever.

 

[ceptimus]

Information Analyst asked me to prove that economic forecasts are nearly always wrong. I think this is widely accepted by many leading economists - but, as they rightly say, you have to make your plans based on some forecasts, and then adjust those plans in light of reality.

Many of the project fear forecasts haven't been just inaccurate - they've been forecasts that got the direction wrong. So they forecast that unemployment would rise, but it fell; forecast that house prices would fall but they rose; forecast a recession immediately following a vote to leave, but we have now had three years of continuing growth, and so on.

If economists were like real scientists, they would provide error bars for their forecasts - they would say something like, "We expect inflation to be between 2% and 3.5% for the next year - and we'll stand up and admit we got it wrong if it falls outside that band." Fat chance of that happening - you have to treat most economic forecasts with the same scepticism that you'd apply to horoscopes.

 

[The Don]

The current Brexit "plan" is to not to enforce the only border with the EU. How is this “taking ownership of laws or borders”? Whatever is legal in the EU could simply walk/drive into the UK with no checkpoint or control whatsoever.

Yeah, but it's our choice to leave an open border, it wasn't foisted upon us by foreigners.

 

[lomiller]

You don't understand English. 'Best available terms' means the best available terms agreed between the UK and the EU. If the EU are too stubborn about their red lines, then 'best available terms' could mean anything - including down to the worst case of 'no deal'.

I think you’ll find that everyone is going to be “to stubborn” to agree to trade deals that sets a lower standard for your exports than what is applied to their own local producers. The EU isn’t insisting on anything any independent country with somewhat competent leadership would demand.

There's no sensible reason for a 'no deal' though. The EU ought to be able to offer us a trade deal at least as good as the one they've done with Canada

Trade deals need to be individually crafted. You can’t just copy one to another because the core issues will be different in each case. This takes a long time and a lot of effort. For example, negotiations for the Canada/EU trade deal started in 2009, concluded in 2014, was provisionally signed in 2017, and still awaits full ratification a decade later.

and starts out 100% compliant with current EU regulations.

If the UK would agree to remain 100% complaint with all EU regulations, it could speed up a trade agreement. If the UK doesn’t accept adopting all EU regulations as it’s own you still need to go through every sector and negotiate what future regulations will be allowed.

 

[ceptimus]

Canada isn't 100% compliant with EU regulations, and would never agree to become so.

Canada, very sensibly, wishes to be able to negotiate independent trade deals with countries outside the EU. That's what the UK wants too.

 

[lomiller]

Canada isn't 100% compliant with EU regulations, and would never agree to become so.

Canada, very sensibly, wishes to be able to negotiate independent trade deals with countries outside the EU.

Therefor Canada needed a decade plus of good faith negotiations to come to a trade agreement that met the requirements of both parties.

Note that “whaaaaa they won’t give me everything I want without asking anything in return!” isn’t good faith negotiations and certainly is not how Canada and the EU reached a trade deal.

 

[ceptimus]

So be it. We do need to get out quickly though - can't have the uncertainty dragging on any longer - too long already.

So we'll have to leave with whatever deal the EU are prepared to agree - even if that's no deal - and then negotiate afterwards. In fact the EU's own rules are that it's impossible to negotiate a trade deal until after we've left.

If the EU want to take ten years over the negotiations there's nothing we can do to stop them. It's a shame that this will harm the EU as well as the UK, but of course it's up to the EU to do whatever they think is in their own best interests.

The EU may judge that it's in their own best interests to be intransigent with the UK - this may be the best way to discourage other countries from wanting to leave.