Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[ceptimus]

I've resigned from the golf club but a sensible option would be for them to let me continue to play golf but not have to pay an annual subscription or green fee and as I'm no longer a member I don't have to abide by the dress codes and can wear my spikes in the lounge bar

I don't think the golf club analogy is a good match for the Brexit situation. I know it's liked by remain supporters though. If you want to make it more accurate, you could at least have the resigning member being the person that supplies the golf club with its whisky, lamb, etc.

 

[The Don]

On your first point, in money spent terms, they sell us more than we sell them. But yes, expressed as a fraction of total trade, we sell a greater proportion to the EU than they sell to us.

.....a little under 10% of EU countries' exports go to the UK

....around 50% of UK exports go to the EU

The UK is far more dependent on the EU than vice versa.

If the trade deal benefits both sides, it needn't benefit the larger party more than the smaller one - unless the larger party insists on bullying the smaller one.

Brexiteers like to use emotive language like the highlighted, presumably because it plays to some kind of persecution complex.

Typically the party with the upper hand tends to be able to skew the terms of the deal in their favour. It isn't bullying, it's basic economics. It's why Mrs Don and I have been "lucky" with our two property purchases to date, we had motivated sellers on a tight moving deadline and were cash buyers. In both cases the agreed price was far closer it was to our opening price than theirs.

It's the same in the negotiations with the EU. Right now the UK needs food produced by the EU and access to the EU markets whilst on the other hand the EU wold very much like UK lamb and seafood and access to the UK market.

Yes to your last point. The EU has to make certain of that so as to discourage other countries from wanting to leave.

If you allow non-members to play the course for free then how do you pay for upkeep and what's the point of being a member ?

 

[The Don]

I don't think the golf club analogy is a good match for the Brexit situation. I know it's liked by remain supporters though. If you want to make it more accurate, you could at least have the resigning member being the person that supplies the golf club with its whisky, lamb, etc.

You don't like it because it succinctly encapsulates the fundamental unreasonableness of the Brexiteer position.

They don't want to pay a subscription or green fee
As a non-member they don't feel bound by the club rules
But they still want to play the course as if they were a member

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't think the golf club analogy is a good match for the Brexit situation. I know it's liked by remain supporters though. If you want to make it more accurate, you could at least have the resigning member being the person that supplies the golf club with its whisky, lamb, etc.

In which case you're suggesting that the club shouldn't appoint a different, current member to go down to Morrison's with a carrier bag, even though several of them would be happy to do it.

Dave

 

[Tolls]

1.8 billion extra for NHS building work in England?

Which isn't anything to do with preparing for a No Deal Brexit.
Which is what the chain of posts catsmate's was part of was talking about.

i asked ceptimus to tell us what actual preparations Johnson has started, compared to how much he's decided to pour into other things (like the NHS, questionable though that is, or high speed broadband, or rail).

 

[lomiller]

Most things will be on the table for negotiation - sharing of security information, allowing EU vessels to fish in our waters providing our fisherman can also fish in EU waters,

As I understand it the UK sold fishing quotas to EU fishermen. You can’t sell something then make it part of a trade as if you still own it. If the UK were to buy back those rights first, then fine

A sensible option would be to continue to trade exactly as if we were a full EU member during, say, the first two years after leaving. That would eliminate all this 'cliff edge' nonsense, and give both sides an incentive to agree a trade deal before the period expired. But as I said, that's a sensible option, so I don't expect the EU to agree to it for one moment.

The existing trade deal was tied to other agreements when it was formed. You can’t opt out just the parts you don’t like. I’d love it if I could opt out of my mortgage payments but still keep my house, but the bank is never going to agree to that no matter how much I argue that foreclosing would be inconvenient for them.
You could of course agree to extend all the associated deals and continue to trade under current terms. This was the core of May’s deal which you rejected.

 

[lomiller]

On your first point, in money spent terms, they sell us more than we sell them.

Which means the UK will be the one suffering from shortages and price increases after Brexit.

 

[Tolls]

The existing trade deal was tied to other agreements when it was formed. You can’t opt out just the parts you don’t like.

And ceptimus highlights exactly the sort of thinking that shows willful lack of understanding of how this all works...
It's not as if we haven't tried to explain this all to him.

 

[Darat]

Most things will be on the table for negotiation - sharing of security information, allowing EU vessels to fish in our waters providing our fisherman can also fish in EU waters, mutual recognition of driving licences, etc., etc. It's impossible to specify everything until negotiations begin - that's what negotiation is all about. The UK want, and have offered, to maintain the current tariff levels (i.e. zero) but the EU won't even talk about it until after we've left.

A sensible option would be to continue to trade exactly as if we were a full EU member during, say, the first two years after leaving. That would eliminate all this 'cliff edge' nonsense, and give both sides an incentive to agree a trade deal before the period expired. But as I said, that's a sensible option, so I don't expect the EU to agree to it for one moment.

Then why haven't the UK delivered such a document to the EU?

 

[ceptimus]

Then why haven't the UK delivered such a document to the EU?

Because the EU insist that their rules mean they can't even talk to us about trade until after we've left. It's one of their most effective red lines.

May did negotiate a transition period, or whatever you want to call it - which is what I'm suggesting. But the EU only agreed it providing the ludicrous anti-democratic backstop was also included - which is why the current 'deal' (treaty really) has failed to pass the house of commons.

 

[ceptimus]

nm

 

[erwinl]

Most things will be on the table for negotiation - sharing of security information, allowing EU vessels to fish in our waters providing our fisherman can also fish in EU waters, mutual recognition of driving licences, etc., etc. It's impossible to specify everything until negotiations begin - that's what negotiation is all about. The UK want, and have offered, to maintain the current tariff levels (i.e. zero) but the EU won't even talk about it until after we've left.

A sensible option would be to continue to trade exactly as if we were a full EU member during, say, the first two years after leaving. That would eliminate all this 'cliff edge' nonsense, and give both sides an incentive to agree a trade deal before the period expired. But as I said, that's a sensible option, so I don't expect the EU to agree to it for one moment.

This is roughly what the present deal meant. Only it wasn’t for two years, but untill a final deal was negotiated.

 

[ceptimus]

And ceptimus highlights exactly the sort of thinking that shows willful lack of understanding of how this all works...
It's not as if we haven't tried to explain this all to him.

I understand it perfectly thank you. And as I've repeatedly explained, I'm quite content for the EU to agree no trade deal with us whatsoever, if that's what they decide is best for them. It's their decision.

 

[ceptimus]

This is roughly what the present deal meant. Only it wasn’t for two years, but untill a final deal was negotiated.

Yes, and it would most likely have been accepted if the EU hadn't tagged on the ludicrous anti-democratic backstop: that would keep us tied into EU rules and unable to negotiate independent trade deals for perpetuity, unless and until they decreed otherwise.

 

[jimbob]

This is roughly what the present deal meant. Only it wasn’t for two years, but untill a final deal was negotiated.

And had the advantage of not violating the GFA - although it might still have rekindled the Troubles.

 

[Lothian]

A sensible option would be to continue to trade exactly as if we were a full EU member during, say, the first two years after leaving. That would eliminate all this 'cliff edge' nonsense, and give both sides an incentive to agree a trade deal before the period expired. But as I said, that's a sensible option, so I don't expect the EU to agree to it for one moment.

Funnily enough the EU agreed to continue to trade exactly as if we were a full EU member during, the first two years (til Dec 2020) after leaving. That eliminated all this 'cliff edge' nonsense, and would give both sides an incentive to agree a trade deal before the period expired. It also had a sensible continuation should a new deal not be agreed in time.

But as you said, that's a sensible option. While the EU agreed and Mrs May agreed, the UK parliament lead by brexiteers refused to ratify it.

 

[catsmate]

1.8 billion extra for NHS building work in England?

Possibly... However I'll wait and see how much of this actually happens, and how much ends up in the pockets of Tory donors and BoJo's cronies.

 

[ceptimus]

Funnily enough the EU agreed to continue to trade exactly as if we were a full EU member during, the first two years (til Dec 2020) after leaving. That eliminated all this 'cliff edge' nonsense, and would give both sides an incentive to agree a trade deal before the period expired. It also had a sensible continuation should a new deal not be agreed in time.

But as you said, that's a sensible option. While the EU agreed and Mrs May agreed, the UK parliament lead by brexiteers refused to ratify it.

Only with the poisonous backstop. That made the option completely nonsensical.

 

[catsmate]

.....a little under 10% of EU countries' exports go to the UK

....around 50% of UK exports go to the EU

The UK is far more dependent on the EU than vice versa.

This uncomfortable fact for Brexiteers has been pointed out and ignored or glossed over.

Brexiteers like to use emotive language like the highlighted, presumably because it plays to some kind of persecution complex.

The psychology of Brexitism is interesting.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, and it would most likely have been accepted if the EU hadn't tagged on the ludicrous anti-democratic backstop: that would keep us tied into EU rules and unable to negotiate independent trade deals for perpetuity, unless and until they decreed otherwise.

Or dear jeebus, the delusions and sense of entitlement...