Brexit discussion thread II

First Up · 18-07-2017 04:35PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The logic is and one that I believe has some merits, is that the UK can negotiate a deal with China (or whoever) that doesn't need to reflect the needs of the Flemish Farming community or Czech Visa requirements.

Let's explore that logic for a minute. You are saying that the UK's access to the Chinese (for example) market is constrained because it has to enforce EU tariffs or restrictions on some Chinese (for example) imports that threaten sectional or regional interest in other EU member states, causing China to retaliate with restrictions on EU exports.

The logic being that once free from the shackels of EU trade negotiations, the UK will be able to access bits of the Chinese (for example) market that are currently closed or protected.

So what will persuade China to grant greater access to UK exports than it will grant to the EU 27? Which bits of the UK market are currently off limits to China to the extent that their opening would persuade China to reciprocate?

Given that the UK has less than 13% of the EU's population and 17% of its GDP, those bits of the UK market would need to be very juicy indeed to win that argument.

The UK's starting position in its third party (non EU) trade arrangements will be to ask that it continue under the terms of the EU's trade deals until such time as new arrangements can be negotiated (and we are talking years).

This would be the ideal outcome for the UK for three reasons; (1) the UK has no trade negotiation capacity or competence as it was last needed in 1972. They are currently scrambling around trying to acquire it, (2) the EU's trade terms are likely to be better (or at least as good as) anything the UK can negotiate for itself and (3) UK exporters will have enough to worry about dealing with European customers from outside the Single Market without also having to try to hang onto customers in other parts of the world before the UK manages to conclude trade terms.

And this is just to keep their head above water. Anything as fanciful as negotiating better terms of trade with China (or Japan, or the US) is in the realm of fantasy.

Fratton Fred · 18-07-2017 05:13PM

First Up wrote: »

Let's explore that logic for a minute. You are saying that the UK's access to the Chinese (for example) market is constrained because it has to enforce EU tariffs or restrictions on some Chinese (for example) imports that threaten sectional or regional interest in other EU member states, causing China to retaliate with restrictions on EU exports.

The logic being that once free from the shackels of EU trade negotiations, the UK will be able to access bits of the Chinese (for example) market that are currently closed or protected.

So what will persuade China to grant greater access to UK exports than it will grant to the EU 27? Which bits of the UK market are currently off limits to China to the extent that their opening would persuade China to reciprocate?

Given that the UK has less than 13% of the EU's population and 17% of its GDP, those bits of the UK market would need to be very juicy indeed to win that argument.

The UK's starting position in its third party (non EU) trade arrangements will be to ask that it continue under the terms of the EU's trade deals until such time as new arrangements can be negotiated (and we are talking years).

This would be the ideal outcome for the UK for three reasons; (1) the UK has no trade negotiation capacity or competence as it was last needed in 1972. They are currently scrambling around trying to acquire it, (2) the EU's trade terms are likely to be better (or at least as good as) anything the UK can negotiate for itself and (3) UK exporters will have enough to worry about dealing with European customers from outside the Single Market without also having to try to hang onto customers in other parts of the world before the UK manages to conclude trade terms.

And this is just to keep their head above water. Anything as fanciful as negotiating better terms of trade with China (or Japan, or the US) is in the realm of fantasy.

Better is a relative term.

A deal that has zero duty on Aero engines, but 50% on dairy products is great for the UK, but **** for Ireland. An eu - China deal would have to take this into consideration. A UK - China deal wouldn't.

This is hypothetical of course and China is just an example.

solodeogloria · 18-07-2017 05:45PM

View wrote: »

That's how negotiations with all major economic players work. When "Team USA" walk in the room, they are there to maximise the deal they can get for the USA; they are not going to throw any part of the US economy under a bus so that the UK's Brexit politicians can have an easy win.

Good evening!

Please read the post. The claim was that the EU will not consider the UK's position at all in the negotiations.

That isn't what seems to have happened with Canada interestingly enough.

If that is the EU's genuine outlook towards Britain I would argue that the UK should say adiós, auf wiedersehen and au revoir out of sheer principle!

Of course that's just tripe. No access to the City and a complete reduction in EU trade is not in the EU's interest at all. I couldn't state that any more clearly. It's not good for either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up · 18-07-2017 05:50PM

Fratton Fred wrote:

A deal that has zero duty on Aero engines, but 50% on dairy products is great for the UK, but **** for Ireland. An eu - China deal would have to take this into consideration. A UK - China deal wouldn't.

If the UK negotiates duty free access to the Chinese market for its aero engines, it will be because it has granted China access to the UK market for something else.

solodeogloria · 18-07-2017 05:52PM

First Up wrote: »

Given that the UK has less than 13% of the EU's population and 17% of its GDP, those bits of the UK market would need to be very juicy indeed to win that argument.

The UK's starting position in its third party (non EU) trade arrangements will be to ask that it continue under the terms of the EU's trade deals until such time as new arrangements can be negotiated (and we are talking years).

This would be the ideal outcome for the UK for three reasons; (1) the UK has no trade negotiation capacity or competence as it was last needed in 1972. They are currently scrambling around trying to acquire it, (2) the EU's trade terms are likely to be better (or at least as good as) anything the UK can negotiate for itself and (3) UK exporters will have enough to worry about dealing with European customers from outside the Single Market without also having to try to hang onto customers in other parts of the world before the UK manages to conclude trade terms.

Good evening!

I've snipped your post. You do realise that arguing that the EU has reduced the UK's negotiating capacity is an argument against staying in the EU?

The EU is the reason why Britain hasn't had negotiating capacity. Brexit is an opportunity to build this up.

As for why China would want better trade terms with Britain - that is manifest. China has a trade surplus with the UK and less restrictive trade terms will allow Chinese businesses to grow by trading more with the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight · 18-07-2017 05:55PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Better is a relative term.

A deal that has zero duty on Aero engines, but 50% on dairy products is great for the UK, but **** for Ireland. An eu - China deal would have to take this into consideration. A UK - China deal wouldn't.

This is hypothetical of course and China is just an example.

My prediction is still that China will dump steel and shoes into the UK wiping out what's left of those industries there.

Meanwhile the EU will probably tighten up restrictions now the UK is no longer batting for China.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/12/sajid-javid-uk-blocked-higher-eu-steel-tariffs-fearing-shoe-price-rises

The UK blocked tougher EU trade rules to help the steel industry partly because it could have raised the price of shoes for British shoppers, Sajid Javid has said.

The business secretary argued the UK opposed scrapping the so-called lesser duty rule as it would have “cost British shoppers dear”, including an extra £130m a year on the price of footwear – the equivalent of about £4.80 for each household.

A number of EU countries have been trying to get the rule lifted, as it would allow higher tariffs to be imposed on cut-price Chinese steel being dumped on the world market.

Yes Rolls Royce turbines are a niche product especially if you have a 30 contract for aircraft which can't use other brands. But it's balanced by the import of a similar value of electronics from places that know they have a captive audience.

Professor Moriarty · 18-07-2017 06:05PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Please read the post. The claim was that the EU will not consider the UK's position at all in the negotiations.

That isn't what seems to have happened with Canada interestingly enough.

If that is the EU's genuine outlook towards Britain I would argue that the UK should say adiós, auf wiedersehen and au revoir out of sheer principle!

Of course that's just tripe. No access to the City and a complete reduction in EU trade is not in the EU's interest at all. I couldn't state that any more clearly. It's not good for either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Comparing Brexit and CETA negotiations doesn't work as an argument. At all.

If I have a gun and you have a knife, whose terms will we agree on? It really is as simple as this. A hard Brexit is a blow to the EU. It will be devastating to Britain. Dont take my word for it, check out what British businesses are saying. Moody's have stated that no deal will also be devastating. So the only other options are to remain under current conditions or take what the EU offers. And that cannot be be better than what Britain currently has.

Stop believing what the Tory Eurosceptics are telling you. It isn't true.

solodeogloria · 18-07-2017 06:12PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Comparing Brexit and CETA negotiations doesn't work as an argument. At all.

If I have a gun and you have a knife, whose terms will we agree on? It really is as simple as this. A hard Brexit is a blow to the EU. It will be devastating to Britain. Dont take my word for it, check out what British businesses are saying. Moody's have stated that no deal will also be devastating. So the only other options are to remain under current conditions or take what the EU offers. And that cannot be be better than what Britain currently has.

Stop believing what the Tory Eurosceptics are telling you. It isn't true.

Good evening,

What both Canada and the UK are looking for is broadly similar. A comprehensive third party free trade deal. That's the justification for comparison.

It's absolute tosh to suggest that the EU will not even listen to Britain's concerns.

If they were that obnoxious, I would say adiós, Tschüss and bonne nuit to the lot of them out of sheer principle. I would question the assumption more heavily that the EU is this all benevolent institution.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

DaniilKharms · 18-07-2017 06:18PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

What both Canada and the UK are looking for is broadly similar. A comprehensive third party free trade deal. That's the justification for comparison.

It's absolute tosh to suggest that the EU will not even listen to Britain's concerns.

If they were that obnoxious, I would say adiós, Tschüss and bonne nuit to the lot of them out of sheer principle. I would question the assumption more heavily that the EU is this all benevolent institution.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you think they will listen more NOW that the UK has essentially stuck the knife in their back than BEFORE when they repeatedly bent over backwards to give the UK special treatment.

Makes a lot of sense.

Professor Moriarty · 18-07-2017 06:22PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

What both Canada and the UK are looking for is broadly similar. A comprehensive third party free trade deal. That's the justification for comparison.

It's absolute tosh to suggest that the EU will not even listen to Britain's concerns.

If they were that obnoxious, I would say adiós, Tschüss and bon soir to the lot of them out of sheer principle. I would question the assumption more heavily that the EU is this all benevolent institution.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's nothing personal, it's business. Getting upset about a business negotiation is self-defeating. I'm sure the EU will listen politely as soon as the Tories have decided what their position is. Then they'll be told the terms. If they flounce, so be it.

Ask yourself this. Why should the EU be generous to a country that has spent decades mocking it and complain about it? A country that has constantly tried to change the rules in order to pander to Little Englanders? How much goodwill do you think Britain has left?

Ask yourself another question. Why shouldn't the EU screw every advantage it can out of an agreement with a country that will soon be a competitor?

solodeogloria · 18-07-2017 06:24PM

DaniilKharms wrote: »

So you think they will listen more NOW that the UK has essentially stuck the knife in their back than BEFORE when they repeatedly bent over backwards to give the UK special treatment.

Makes a lot of sense.

Good evening,

lol, oh dear!

Let's have a more accurate depiction. On June 23rd the UK decided to leave the European Union and seek a more appropriate relationship to it which is both in Britain's interests and Europe's interests.

Let's also remember that David Cameron went to Brussels to seek an alternative membership arrangement with the European Union on which the UK could fight the referendum. The European Union refused to give him the arrangement he sought.

This is part of the reason why Brexit won. The prime minister of Malta acknowledged this recently.

This is a less emotive and more accurate assessment of what happened.

If the EU go for a highly punitive option - I'd say leave on WTO terms. They need to understand that Britain won't accept a punitive arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria · 18-07-2017 06:26PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's nothing personal, it's business. Getting upset about a business negotiation is self-defeating. I'm sure the EU will listen politely as soon as the Tories have decided what their position is. Then they'll be told the terms. If they flounce, so be it.

Ask yourself this. Why should the EU be generous to a country that has spent decades mocking it and complain about it? A country that has constantly tried to change the rules in order to pander to Little Englanders? How much goodwill do you think Britain has left?

Ask yourself another question. Why shouldn't the EU screw every advantage it can out of an agreement with a country that will soon be a competitor?

Good evening!

Why would the EU seek a good deal with Britain?

It's in their interests to. Much as it is in Britain's interests to seek a good deal.

Offer a terrible deal and I'd encourage Davis to tell them where to go. Britain is looking for a good deal for all involved. If one isn't forthcoming then of course they should be planning for the alternative.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

DaniilKharms · 18-07-2017 06:29PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

lol, oh dear!

Let's have a more accurate depiction. On June 23rd the UK decided to leave the European Union and seek a more appropriate relationship to it which is both in Britain's interests and Europe's interests.

Let's also remember that David Cameron went to Brussels to seek an alternative membership arrangement with the European Union on which the UK could fight the referendum. The European Union refused to give him the arrangement he sought.

This is part of the reason why Brexit won. The prime minister of Malta acknowledged this recently.

This is a less emotive and more accurate assessment of what happened.

If the EU go for a highly punitive option - I'd say leave on WTO terms. They need to understand that Britain won't accept a punitive arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Not even close to what happened.

The alternative arrangement was simply more of the delusional nonsense the UK has been demanding - AND GETTING - for years.

NOW, that they've chosen to allow bigots and racists set their countries future they won't be getting these special sweeteners anymore, nor should they.

Britain won't be in any position to "not accept" anything, but will instead - due to their arrogance and incompetence - probably drive the economy off a cliff.

And - like so many say about the Trump voters - the British will get what they deserve.

BTW: not giving the UK a special deal isn't punitive. It's fair. The fact that you think something beyond normal is normal kind of illustrates how out of touch many on your side of things are.

Professor Moriarty · 18-07-2017 06:35PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Why would the EU seek a good deal with Britain?

It's in their interests to. Much as it is in Britain's interests to seek a good deal.

Offer a terrible deal and I'd encourage Davis to tell them where to go. Britain is looking for a good deal for all involved. If one isn't forthcoming then of course they should be planning for the alternative.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No. What they should be doing is begging the EU for a few trinkets to sell to the natives as they, after mature reflection, convince the natives that staying in the EU is the best plan. But jingoism will 'win' the day.

18-07-2017 06:35PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

lol, oh dear!

Let's have a more accurate depiction. On June 23rd the UK decided to leave the European Union and seek a more appropriate relationship to it which is both in Britain's interests and Europe's interests.

Let's also remember that David Cameron went to Brussels to seek an alternative membership arrangement with the European Union on which the UK could fight the referendum. The European Union refused to give him the arrangement he sought.

This is part of the reason why Brexit won. The prime minister of Malta acknowledged this recently.

This is a less emotive and more accurate assessment of what happened.

If the EU go for a highly punitive option - I'd say leave on WTO terms. They need to understand that Britain won't accept a punitive arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

How exactly is one supposed to remember things that didn't happen?

solodeogloria · 18-07-2017 06:38PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. What they should be doing is begging the EU for a few trinkets to sell to the natives as they, after mature reflection, convince the natives that staying in the EU is the best plan. But jingoism will 'win' the day.

Good evening!

If they go that route then I would say leaving regardless is the best option. I wouldn't want to be associated to a bloc like that.

I think however there'll be a more reasonable arrangement. I don't think the EU are as delusional as you point them out to be.

Julia Wailing Pedal: February 2016

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty · 18-07-2017 06:43PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If they go that route then I would say leaving regardless is the best option. I wouldn't want to be associated to a bloc like that.

I think however there'll be a more reasonable arrangement. I don't think the EU are as delusional as you point them out to be.

Julia Wailing Pedal: February 2016

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Hmmm. So you'd advise Britain to flounce because the EU isn't being nice?

Enzokk · 18-07-2017 07:12PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If they go that route then I would say leaving regardless is the best option. I wouldn't want to be associated to a bloc like that.

I think however there'll be a more reasonable arrangement. I don't think the EU are as delusional as you point them out to be.

How much should the EU accommodate the UK in getting a favourable deal though? After April 2019 the EU and UK will be competing for trade with other countries. Do you think it will help us here in Ireland if the UK gets a great FTA with the EU and is able to strike FTA deals with other countries that comes at the expense of us here?

I think you will want the UK to fight for every great deal out there, whether this comes at the expense of others or not, right?

View · 18-07-2017 07:19PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

View wrote: »

That's how negotiations with all major economic players work. When "Team USA" walk in the room, they are there to maximise the deal they can get for the USA; they are not going to throw any part of the US economy under a bus so that the UK's Brexit politicians can have an easy win.

Good evening!

Please read the post. The claim was that the EU will not consider the UK's position at all in the negotiations.

That isn't what seems to have happened with Canada interestingly enough.

If that is the EU's genuine outlook towards Britain I would argue that the UK should say adiós, auf wiedersehen and au revoir out of sheer principle!

Of course that's just tripe. No access to the City and a complete reduction in EU trade is not in the EU's interest at all. I couldn't state that any more clearly. It's not good for either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First up, about "No access to the City and a complete reduction in EU trade is not in the EU's interest at all", that's a major claim. The EU can just as easily route its financial trade through an EU financial market or even New York as through London. The EU would be no worse off doing so than it would be routing it through a non-EU UK. Nor is anyone talking about a "complete reduction", as tariff barriers don't cause that, rather they reduce trade across them and/or re-route trade to avoid them.

Lastly, to point out the obvious, no one in the EU has to care whether the UK will say Adios or not, since they are adios-ing anyway, so who cares if they're not happy?

Bushmanpm · 18-07-2017 07:39PM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

It's nothing personal, it's business. Getting upset about a business negotiation is self-defeating. I'm sure the EU will listen politely as soon as the Tories have decided what their position is. Then they'll be told the terms. If they flounce, so be it.

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most: the fact that the current UK Government is the Conservatives? Corbyn is on record as saying he would have supported Brexit as that's what the referendum decided. Or is it because the UK will be free of all the EU constraints? Ireland as well as the other 26 can trigger A50 as well if they want. Or is it the 12.3 billion euro black hole the UK will leave? Not only will it mean no more freebies with other peoples money but they will also have to pay more in!

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Ask yourself this. Why should the EU be generous to a country that has spent decades mocking it and complain about it? A country that has constantly tried to change the rules in order to pander to Little Englanders? How much goodwill do you think Britain has left?

Complaining about it? As opposed to bending over and taking whatever the EU dishes out? They're certainly not complaining about the UK being quite a large net contributor for all those years! Little Englanders or free thinkers objective enough to look behind "the curtain of the wizard of oz"?
NOBODY needs the EU (except the EU's masses of staff) the EC would be better and the EEC would be even better than that. Some form of international cooperation makes sense but the EU has just bloated itself with its own self importance, self interest and self serving, all of which has been made able by people who like being told what to do.

UsedToWait · 18-07-2017 07:39PM

I know I'll get banned for this, but would you ever give over with the 'Good evening' 'Much thanks' superfluousness.

We get it.
You're English.

DaniilKharms · 18-07-2017 07:40PM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most: the fact that the current UK Government is the Conservatives? Corbyn is on record as saying he would have supported Brexit as that's what the referendum decided. Or is it because the UK will be free of all the EU constraints? Ireland as well as the other 26 can trigger A50 as well if they want. Or is it the 12.3 billion euro black hole the UK will leave? Not only will it mean no more freebies with other peoples money but they will also have to pay more in!

Complaining about it? As opposed to bending over and taking whatever the EU dishes out? They're certainly not complaining about the UK being quite a large net contributor for all those years! Little Englanders or free thinkers objective enough to look behind "the curtain of the wizard of oz"?
NOBODY needs the EU (except the EU's masses of staff) the EC would be better and the EEC would be even better than that. Some form of international cooperation makes sense but the EU has just bloated itself with its own self importance, self interest and self serving, all of which has been made able by people who like being told what to do.

Sure what's not to like about a bunch of racists and bigots voting for an idea that'll kill thousands of jobs in our country and strip untold millions from our budget?

Bushmanpm · 18-07-2017 08:03PM

DaniilKharms wrote:

Sure what's not to like about a bunch of racists and bigots voting for an idea that'll kill thousands of jobs in our country and strip untold millions from our budget?

So all 17 million are fascists and bigots?
Hahahahahahahaha, bit of an all sweeping generalisation there. How about people who want to support their own country's various industries? Or people who want their own courts having the final say in legal matters in their own country? Or people who are sick and tired of paying taxes AND watching their country's debt and deficit rise so as to pay for other countries infrastructure or prop up other countrys utter joke of an economy?
Yes, immigration is a factor, and free movement in and of itself is wrong, especially when generous welfare is available. CONTROLLED immigration makes far more sense: get in those you want and need, on your terms, not a free for all that you have no control over.
And why are you so sure it will cost THOUSANDS of Irish jobs?

Professor Moriarty · 18-07-2017 08:20PM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most:

It's because of the damage that Brexit will do to the Irish economy and to the EU. It's a pity that the ordinary Brit will suffer but that's their own look out. They chose to believe the lies.

the fact that the current UK Government is the Conservatives?

I don't like the Little Englander wing of the Tory party and I don't like what they stand for.

Corbyn is on record as saying he would have supported Brexit as that's what the referendum decided.

Corbyn is an idealist. Better than May but blinded by ideology.

Or is it because the UK will be free of all the EU constraints?

No.

Ireland as well as the other 26 can trigger A50 as well if they want. Or is it the 12.3 billion euro black hole the UK will leave? Not only will it mean no more freebies with other peoples money but they will also have to pay more in!

Ireland isn't that stupid. And has been repeatedly pointed out, it isn't anywhere near 12 billion and it's not a big deal.

Complaining about it? As opposed to bending over and taking whatever the EU dishes out? They're certainly not complaining about the UK being quite a large net contributor for all those years! Little Englanders or free thinkers objective enough to look behind "the curtain of the wizard of oz"?

Well, Britain knows where the door is. Nobody is stopping it leaving. Why doesn't it just go?

NOBODY needs the EU (except the EU's masses of staff) the EC would be better and the EEC would be even better than that. Some form of international cooperation makes sense but the EU has just bloated itself with its own self importance, self interest and self serving, all of which has been made able by people who like being told what to do

If you knew anything at all about Ireland you would know how beneficial the EU has been for Ireland.

DaniilKharms · 18-07-2017 08:22PM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

So all 17 million are fascists and bigots?
Hahahahahahahaha, bit of an all sweeping generalisation there. How about people who want to support their own country's various industries? Or people who want their own courts having the final say in legal matters in their own country? Or people who are sick and tired of paying taxes AND watching their country's debt and deficit rise so as to pay for other countries infrastructure or prop up other countrys utter joke of an economy?
Yes, immigration is a factor, and free movement in and of itself is wrong, especially when generous welfare is available. CONTROLLED immigration makes far more sense: get in those you want and need, on your terms, not a free for all that you have no control over.
And why are you so sure it will cost THOUSANDS of Irish jobs?

1 in 3 UK citizens are self-described racists. The UK has 60K hate crimes a year.

The Brexit campaign featured billboards of scary looking refugees, implying that you could keep "them" out if you voted for Brexit, and the the NHS would get more money if it weren't for refugees.

You can say that that means something else, that's fine, and we'll agree to disagree.

And every single estimate made says it will costs thousands of jobs.

A government report says a hard Brexit would cost tens of thousands of Irish jobs

https://fora.ie/brexit-hard-could-cost-irish-jobs-2-3067969-Nov2016/

Brexit could cost Ireland 40,000 jobs, says Central Bank

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/brexit-could-cost-ireland-40-000-jobs-says-central-bank-1.3071259

How a hard Brexit could cost Ireland 49,000 jobs and €200m a year
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/how-a-hard-brexit-could-cost-ireland-49000-jobs-and-200m-a-year-35853844.html

Oh and hey:

Brexit likely to cost Irish Government €3.2bn
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/brexit-likely-to-cost-irish-government-32bn-406956.html

Hard Brexit could add €20bn to national debt
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0119/846176-hard-brexit-could-cost-irish-economy-20-billion/

And guess what, that money is going to hurt schools and hospitals and workers.

Should I be overjoyed?

First Up · 18-07-2017 08:26PM

Bushmanpm wrote:

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most:

That's easy to answer;

Stupidity.

Water John · 18-07-2017 08:28PM

So this, Legatum Institute, is doing a lot of the thinking for the UK negotiators.
This is news to me, but then some here are clued in a lot more than me. They seem to have a bit of a daft utopia plan.

'The main idea of the institute, though, seems to be the creation of a “prosperity zone” between the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, eventually extended to the US, Canada and Mexico.'

The carrot they are holding out, (excusing the pun) is the feeding of the UK population in return for financial services.

Good analysis here by Miriam Conzalez Durantez, a UK citizen who has negotiated on behalf on the EU before.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/18/brexit-british-business-leaders-legatum-eu

Brexiteers, don't get apoplexy, but she is also known as Mrs. Clegg.

Fratton Fred · 18-07-2017 08:29PM

DaniilKharms wrote: »

1 in 3 UK citizens are self-described racists.

I'd love to see you back that one up.

murphaph · 18-07-2017 08:43PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

lol, oh dear!

Let's have a more accurate depiction. On June 23rd the UK decided to leave the European Union and seek a more appropriate relationship to it which is both in Britain's interests and Europe's interests.

Let's also remember that David Cameron went to Brussels to seek an alternative membership arrangement with the European Union on which the UK could fight the referendum. The European Union refused to give him the arrangement he sought.

This is part of the reason why Brexit won. The prime minister of Malta acknowledged this recently.

This is a less emotive and more accurate assessment of what happened.

If the EU go for a highly punitive option - I'd say leave on WTO terms. They need to understand that Britain won't accept a punitive arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

WTO terms would be a complete disaster for the UK's service dominated economy. You do know that WTO terms don't cover services?

DaniilKharms · 18-07-2017 08:47PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd love to see you back that one up.

Would you?

How about this, if I can back it up will you not post for 24 hours?

That would be my price, as you have google and the data is wildly easy to find, not vaguely controversial, and has been covered by every major media outlet repeatedly.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments