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

[Darat]

You've been consistent.

Consistent in your lack of knowledge how the real world actually works.



Your inability to understand why trade agreements take so long to sign.

Your inability to understand that WTO terms would be crippling to the UK economy.

Your inability to understand that we already trade with all the countries you want to trade with, and have agreements with all these countries already.



So yes, you've been consistent.

To be fair ceptimus has consistently held that he doesn't care about the economic impact.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A hub is either the centre of a wheel or a shelf in a kitchen.

That's a hob.

Do we have your permission to use the word "hub" for a centralised connnecction point for wireless communications too, given that there's no other non-ambiguous word for it? Unfortunately, there are only a limited number of euphonious arrangements of letters short enough to be easily recollected, and clever people keep inventing new things. I'd ask them to stop because we've run out of words, but some of them are quite useful.

Dave

 

[catsmate]

The difference is that May would have asked for another extension. Boris won't. The EU would perhaps eventually tire of granting further extensions: at least under Boris we'll be better prepared for no deal.

No.

 

[Tolls]

To be fair ceptimus has consistently held that he doesn't care about the economic impact.

Except that hasn't stopped him trying to explain the problems away.
Things like trade agreements should be really easy.
WTO won't be a problem.

If he just said "yeah, it'll be an economic ******** but I don't care" then fine. I'd call him a fool, but at least not someone who has drunk the Brexit KoolAid.

 

[lomiller]

Something I've always advocated since the first stage of this now eight stage thread, is walking away from the fruitless and time wasting 'negotiations', telling the EU to come see us in London if and when they want to negotiate a free trade deal

Why would that happen? Brexit is going to be far more destructive to the UK than it is to the EU. In many cases the short term result of Brexit is likely going to be an economic boom for a number of EU nations as they grow to fill the sectors formerly occupied by the UK. This, BTW, is the best case scenario for a competently managed Brexit, but it seems competence is something the UK no longer seems capable of.

The EU isn’t going to offer the UK the special privileges you think you are owed under any circumstances. If the UK leaves the EU expect it to be treated as any other country, unless the UK defaults on it’s debts in which case expect some penalties targeting UK firms to “encourage” them the relocate to Dublin, Amsterdam or Paris.

So I've been consistent throughout. It's others who have been very slow to realize the realities of leaving.

Consistently repeating nonsense is still repeating nonsense.

 

[ceptimus]

You've been consistent.
Consistent in your lack of knowledge how the real world actually works.

Your inability to understand why trade agreements take so long to sign.
Your inability to understand that WTO terms would be crippling to the UK economy.
Your inability to understand that we already trade with all the countries you want to trade with, and have agreements with all these countries already.

So yes, you've been consistent.

More insults.

 

[lomiller]

May would have asked for another extension.

May would have asked for an extension because she seems to have some semblance of understanding of what not being part of the EU means and realize the more time the UK has to prepare the better

The difference is that May would have asked for another extension. Boris won't. The EU would perhaps eventually tire of granting further extensions: at least under Boris we'll be better prepared for no deal.

BJ has no idea what being outside of the EU actually entails, so how could he possibly prepare for it? My expectation is that he does nothing to actually prepare for life outside the EU.

 

[ceptimus]

Couple of questions (assuming you don't have me on ignore).

A trade deal involves some give and some take.

What do you think the UK is prepared to give, in order to secure a trade deal with the EU?

And second. Assuming a trade deal is agreed upon. What assurance does the EU, or any other country, have that it will be approved by parliament at all? Or whther it will be binned by the next government some few years in the future?

A trade deal benefits both sides - both sides benefit from reduced tariffs and perhaps reduced non-tariff barriers on goods that fall in the various categories negotiated.

The deal should be symmetrical with neither side having to 'give' more than the other. To emphasize this point I reflect your question back at you and ask, "What do you think the EU is prepared to give, in order to secure a trade deal with the UK?"

If the deal benefits both parties, why would you expect one party to have to 'give' something in order to agree it?

As to your second question, there's never a guarantee that future events or a future government won't change an agreed deal. The EU could also change its mind after a few years and 'bin' any agreed deal. One can only hope that as long as the deal remains beneficial for both sides, then future rulers on both sides will continue to honour the deal.

 

[ceptimus]

In other words, what Dave Rogers said? We'll have 3 months to gird our mental loins, because those 3 months certainly won't be much use for anything that will make significant practical difference.

Even then, at what point will we know for sure we'll crash out on Oct 31st? Is there a legal way to prevent Johnson seeking an extension, for example?

Time is short but at least the current government is making greater efforts to prepare than the previous one did. So if we leave on Halloween, the situation will probably still be chaotic, but less chaotic than it would have been under May if we left on the same date.

Commentators are still divided on what can and will happen - we'll have to wait and see. 'Crash out' is an emotive phrase designed by remainers. 'Leave without an agreed withdrawal agreement' is a less loaded way of saying the same thing.

 

[erwinl]

A trade deal benefits both sides - both sides benefit from reduced tariffs and perhaps reduced non-tariff barriers on goods that fall in the various categories negotiated.

The deal should be symmetrical with neither side having to 'give' more than the other. To emphasize this point I reflect your question back at you and ask, "What do you think the EU is prepared to give, in order to secure a trade deal with the UK?"

If the deal benefits both parties, why would you expect one party to have to 'give' something in order to agree it?

As to your second question, there's never a guarantee that future events or a future government won't change an agreed deal. The EU could also change its mind after a few years and 'bin' any agreed deal. One can only hope that as long as the deal remains beneficial for both sides, then future rulers on both sides will continue to honour the deal.

'A trade deal benefits both sides'. Totally agree.
I never said the UK was the only one that had to give something. Of course it goes both ways. Both give something, both take something, both benefit.

What is the UK prepared to give in your opinion?

As for the EU? I would think retaining of free movement between the EU countries for all the Ukians (is that a word) who are living in the EU right now would be a possibility. (in case of a no deal, you could stay in the country you're living in at that moment, but can't move to another EU country).

 

[catsmate]

Thanks for the assertion and the insult. In future, try to debate rather than insult - it's more productive, makes you look smarter, and is more in keeping with the aims of this forum.

Please feel free to present us with a list of actually useful measures taken by BoJo and his cronies.

 

[The Don]

A trade deal benefits both sides - both sides benefit from reduced tariffs and perhaps reduced non-tariff barriers on goods that fall in the various categories negotiated.

Yes, that's true about a trade deal but remember that the relationship that the UK currently has with the EU (and the relationship repeatedly promised by the Leave campaign) goes far beyond a trade deal.

The focus to date in the media has been on fishing, agriculture and manufacturing - goods in other words. This accounts for around 20% of the UK economy.

The deal should be symmetrical with neither side having to 'give' more than the other. To emphasize this point I reflect your question back at you and ask, "What do you think the EU is prepared to give, in order to secure a trade deal with the UK?"

So far the position adopted by the hard Brexiteers - and now seemingly endorsed by Boris Johnson is that the UK should get all of the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities.

The EU has shown that it has various compromise positions:

• The UK could have most of the benefits of EU membership if it's willing to accept most of the responsibilities - EEA membership
• The UK can have many of the benefits, if it's willing to have many of the responsibilities - Customs Union membership
• The UK can have a few of the benefits of EU membership if it has a few of the responsibilities - Theresa May's or any other trade deal

The problem appears to be that the UK is unwilling to accept any of the responsibilities and thinks that reducing its demands a little represents compromise.

If the deal benefits both parties, why would you expect one party to have to 'give' something in order to agree it

I suppose it depends on what your starting point is.

If the UK and EU were currently trading on WTO terms then a basic trade deal would indeed be an economic benefit to both parties and, after a decade or so of wrangling would probably come up with something which covers most of the trade in goods.

That same trade deal compared to the current relationship between the UK and EU would be a significantly worse deal.

Boris Johnson't current negotiating position is that he wants more benefits for less in the way of responsibilities - sounds like hes asking the EU to make all the compromises.

As to your second question, there's never a guarantee that future events or a future government won't change an agreed deal. The EU could also change its mind after a few years and 'bin' any agreed deal. One can only hope that as long as the deal remains beneficial for both sides, then future rulers on both sides will continue to honour the deal.

The difference in this case is that Boris Johnson and his party are on record suggesting that reneging on the deal is a good idea. Hardly a recipe for good faith negotiation.

 

[Darat]

A trade deal benefits both sides - both sides benefit from reduced tariffs and perhaps reduced non-tariff barriers on goods that fall in the various categories negotiated.

The deal should be symmetrical with neither side having to 'give' more than the other. To emphasize this point I reflect your question back at you and ask, "What do you think the EU is prepared to give, in order to secure a trade deal with the UK?"

If the deal benefits both parties, why would you expect one party to have to 'give' something in order to agree it?

As to your second question, there's never a guarantee that future events or a future government won't change an agreed deal. The EU could also change its mind after a few years and 'bin' any agreed deal. One can only hope that as long as the deal remains beneficial for both sides, then future rulers on both sides will continue to honour the deal.

But that doesn't mean both sides benefit equally. The UK is an important market for EU countries but the EU is a more important market for the UK. So the EU holds better cards.

Whatever we can negotiate will of course be worse than our current trading agreement with the EU.

 

[catsmate]

Shades of 2011. All it needs is cops to shoot dead some gun-wielding gangster and it will all kick off again.

Oh it'll happen. One UK FinServ client has an internal lottery going on the number of fatalities between Halloween and the end of the year.

 

[Darat]

Please feel free to present us with a list of actually useful measures taken by BoJo and his cronies.

1.8 billion extra for NHS building work in England?

 

[ceptimus]

'A trade deal benefits both sides'. Totally agree.
I never said the UK was the only one that had to give something. Of course it goes both ways. Both give something, both take something, both benefit.

What is the UK prepared to give in your opinion?

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.

 

[lomiller]

A trade deal benefits both sides - both sides benefit from reduced tariffs and perhaps reduced non-tariff barriers on goods that fall in the various categories negotiated.

The deal should be symmetrical with neither side having to 'give' more than the other. To emphasize this point I reflect your question back at you and ask, "What do you think the EU is prepared to give, in order to secure a trade deal with the UK?"

If the deal benefits both parties, why would you expect one party to have to 'give' something in order to agree it?

As to your second question, there's never a guarantee that future events or a future government won't change an agreed deal. The EU could also change its mind after a few years and 'bin' any agreed deal. One can only hope that as long as the deal remains beneficial for both sides, then future rulers on both sides will continue to honour the deal.

Thus far Brexiters have demanded EU do all the giving and the UK does all the taking so no trade is possible at this time.

Regardless of trade deals there are certain industries that no country can afford not to hold tightly, unfortunately for the UK one of these, financial services, is it’s highest value export. This is enough to ensure that it’s not possible to negotiate a trade deal that is anywhere near as good as being in the common market.

 

[The Don]

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.

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

 

[The Don]

1.8 billion extra for NHS building work in England?

Apparently this may not be new money - or at least not all of it.

Experts have said more than half of the £1.8bn cash injection announced for NHS capital spending and facilities this week is not "new money".

Boris Johnson announced this week that 20 hospitals would share £850m of extra cash to improve facilities and equipment, while a further tranche of around £1bn would be used for capital spending across the country. The prime minister said the commitment was "new money" on top of a five-year settlement for the NHS announced last year.

However, experts have said around £1bn of the total is money that hospitals had already earned by making efficiencies, but had been blocked from spending over concerns it could lead to the health department breaching its capital spending limits.

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/a...18bn-nhs-cash-boost-not-new-money-experts-say

 

[ceptimus]

But that doesn't mean both sides benefit equally. The UK is an important market for EU countries but the EU is a more important market for the UK. So the EU holds better cards.

Whatever we can negotiate will of course be worse than our current trading agreement with the EU.

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.

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.

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