Brexit discussion thread II

sondagefaux · 22-07-2017 11:17PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If sterling has dropped so much and the UK economy is falling back doesn't that mean they'd have to pay less into the UK for a good few years ?
That and actually exercising the existing EU laws allowing them to deport EU citizens would address some of the issues that led to Brexit.

I think GDP would have to shrink before their net annual contributions to the EU would fall.

And yes, there's ample evidence that a majority of British would happily stay in the Single Market, with freedom of movement for EU/EEA citizens if they were restricted and subject to deportation weren't able to support themselves several months after arriving in the UK.

EU law (and UK law) already permits this - the UK has regulations, in line with EU law, in place since 2006 which permit EEA citizens who can't support themselves to be expelled:

Initial right of residence
13.—(1) An EEA national is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom for a period not exceeding three months beginning on the date on which he is admitted to the United Kingdom provided that he holds a valid national identity card or passport issued by an EEA State.
(2) A family member of an EEA national residing in the United Kingdom under paragraph (1) who is not himself an EEA national is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom provided that he
holds a valid passport.
(3) But—
(a) this regulation is subject to regulation 19(3)(b); and
(b) an EEA national or his family member who becomes an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom shall cease to have the right to reside under this regulation.

The UK regulation, again in line with EU law, permits the UK to refuse admission to EU citizens for stated reasons:

REFUSAL OF ADMISSION AND REMOVAL ETC
Exclusion and removal from the United Kingdom
19.—(1) A person is not entitled to be admitted to the United Kingdom by virtue of regulation 11 if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health in accordance with regulation 21.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1003/pdfs/uksi_20061003_en.pdf

It's a bit of a myth that EU freedom of movement laws are a free for all - EU states can refuse admission to EEA citizens in the first place on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health, and they can expel EEA citizens (and their families) after three months if they become an unreasonable burden on the social security (welfare) system of their host country.

Even tougher restrictions were to be introduced under the deal David Cameron negotiated in February 2016 but only if the vote had been to Remain in the EU.

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-limiting-residence-rights/

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-emergency-brake/

Jim2007 · 23-07-2017 05:47AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Professor Moriarty - I'm hardly blind for presenting facts about London's place in a global financial world and the EU's need to have continued access to it. A small proportion of jobs are moving to small subsidiaries I accept this, but let's not overblow it.

Without full access to the EU, London looses it's advantage over NY and Singapore. If I'm going to have to work with a subsidiary inside the EU in any case I may as well using the one owned by my NY or Singapore bank rather than add an extra hop that does not add value by going via the UK. Likewise if I'm seeking services out of the EU, London overs me nothing I can't get in NY or Singapore.

NY offer me a gateway to the Americas, Singapore Asia and London will offer a gateway to ????? Decline is enviable in the long run.

solodeogloria · 23-07-2017 09:36AM

Good morning!

It's worth saying that claiming that the EU doesn't need access to the City doesn't mean that it doesn't.

You need to substantiate your claim as I have done by citing numerous people including Schäuble and even Barnier themselves saying they will need access to it. Never mind Carney at the Bank of England showing how crucial London is to EU member states.

You claim that I'm imagining things for assessing the facts. The UK has a very good negotiating position with the EU, there's no point watering that down. Yes, the UK needs a good deal with the EU but it is manifest that the EU needs a good deal with the UK.

There's no point claiming otherwise. There's also no point claiming that there aren't opportunities from Brexit when there are.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 23-07-2017 10:00AM

Solo, do you think the banks won't find ways to ensure the EU continues to access their money? It's money belonging to private banks we're talking about. It doesn't belong to the City of London! The money will find a way to where it's wanted, believe me.

The EU can continue to use London but then introduce legislation which forces more and more of that business to the EU. And why shouldn't we when we are competing?

Jim2007 · 23-07-2017 10:07AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You need to substantiate your claim as I have done by citing numerous people including Schle and even Barnier themselves saying they will need access to it. Never mind Carney at the Bank of England showing how crucial London is to EU member states.

I'm looking at it as a customer. If London is no longer the gateway to the EU, then I have no reason to keep them in the mix as they provide no advantage over NY or Singapore, that is unless they compete on a cost basis. And when it comes time to issue corporate bonds, what can London offer me that NY or Singapore... no special access to EU investors!

solodeogloria · 23-07-2017 10:30AM

murphaph wrote: »

Solo, do you think the banks won't find ways to ensure the EU continues to access their money? It's money belonging to private banks we're talking about. It doesn't belong to the City of London! The money will find a way to where it's wanted, believe me.

The EU can continue to use London but then introduce legislation which forces more and more of that business to the EU. And why shouldn't we when we are competing?

Good morning!

My point is the EU will make a way for clients to access the services they need in London.

I mean, do you not realise that you're talking about the EU taking a knife to itself and making rather heavy wounds to itself for the sake of politics?

New York and Singapore are options, but are we suggesting that the EU would give favourable terms to the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong for nothing in return just to punish Britain (sorry, that is what it is) for the sake of politics.

I doubt it. But, if you want to cheer on while the EU gives itself a bloody nose, by all means do so.

Britain's priority is a good deal that benefits both. If the EU wants to beat itself up over politics, it can do so. I doubt it will ultimately.

The EU won't be able to force business into the EU. If anything they'll reward all of the non-EU cities on the top 20 instead of any of their own.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 23-07-2017 10:37AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My point is the EU will make a way for clients to access the services they need in London.

I mean, do you not realise that you're talking about the EU taking a knife to itself and making rather heavy wounds to itself for the sake of politics?

New York and Singapore are options, but are we suggesting that the EU would give favourable terms to the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong for nothing in return just to punish Britain (sorry, that is what it is) for the sake of politics.

I doubt it. But, if you want to cheer on while the EU gives itself a bloody nose, by all means do so.

Britain's priority is a good deal that benefits both. If the EU wants to beat itself up over politics, it can do so. I doubt it will ultimately.

The EU won't be able to force business into the EU. If anything they'll reward all of the non-EU cities on the top 20 instead of any of their own.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

They can force an awful lot of business into the EU if they want (and they do...they were already trying to force business into the Eurozone from London and the only thing that stopped them was the UK's membership of the EU!

Sorry solo, you're not being realistic. Long term London is going to leak business to European centres and indeed New York.

By the way, Britain's priority is a good deal for itself. That's the whole point of Brexit! They don't give a tinker's curse for the EU.

Enzokk · 23-07-2017 10:39AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is the EU will make a way for clients to access the services they need in London.

I mean, do you not realise that you're talking about the EU taking a knife to itself and making rather heavy wounds to itself for the sake of politics?

New York and Singapore are options, but are we suggesting that the EU would give favourable terms to the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong for nothing in return just to punish Britain (sorry, that is what it is) for the sake of politics.

I doubt it. But, if you want to cheer on while the EU gives itself a bloody nose, by all means do so.

Britain's priority is a good deal that benefits both. If the EU wants to beat itself up over politics, it can do so. I doubt it will ultimately.

The EU won't be able to force business into the EU. If anything you'll reward all of the non-EU cities on the top 20!

First off, Britain's priority will be a good deal for the UK. If it means the EU burns they will not think twice about it. They have already shown this by voting to leave the EU. You yourself has said it makes economic sense to stay in the EU, but it seems even this isn't enough for some.

Secondly, you are looking at the situation as if it will be static after the UK exits the EU. I agree with you that the EU still need London in the short term, but it is exactly this that will cause problems for the UK and London. Why should the EU be so beholden to a city that is not part of the EU?

Would you agree it makes no sense for the EU to have itself to reliant on a city outside of the EU? Do you think that this reliance will stay like that forever or will the EU repatriate some of the reliance to cities inside the EU that will benefit their own countries?

solodeogloria · 23-07-2017 10:42AM

murphaph wrote: »

They can force an awful lot of business into the EU if they want (and they do...they were already trying to force business into the Eurozone from London and the only thing that stopped them was the UK's membership of the EU!

Sorry solo, you're not being realistic. Long term London is going to leak business to European centres and indeed New York.

By the way, Britain's priority is a good deal for itself. That's the whole point of Brexit! They don't give a tinker's curse for the EU.

Good morning!

I'm not being unrealistic. The Financial Times is highly sceptical of Euro clearing moving after Brexit and sees it as largely French posturing.

Moving one piece of infrastructure to a place without other forms of infrastructure won't help you get banking business. The reason why London is key is because it is the only city in Europe with clearing for yen, dollar, euro, yuan, zloty etc clearing amongst other things.

It will take a long time to build up a global trading centre in Europe. The only other city in Europe on the list is Zürich at number 9.

I think the more the discussion goes on, it's amazing to see how so many posters are willing for the EU to take a knife to itself, rather than look for a progressive relationship with the UK.

If that's your ideological bent, it's your ideological bent, I can't stop a masochist when I see one!

Edit:

First off, Britain's priority will be a good deal for the UK. If it means the EU burns they will not think twice about it. They have already shown this by voting to leave the EU. You yourself has said it makes economic sense to stay in the EU, but it seems even this isn't enough for some.

No it hasn't. Saying you want to leave the EU to pursue a more appropriate relationship is not the same as saying that they want the EU to burn. It's in Britain's interest to have a strong European Union on it's doorstep, and it's in Britain's interest to make sure that it's trading partners grow.

This kind of hyperbole is not helpful and it isn't an accurate depiction of what Brexit is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight · 23-07-2017 10:49AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is the EU will make a way for clients to access the services they need in London.

This is what we are all saying.

But we've been saying that some of those services are already moving from London. Obviously all services won't move. But what will replace those that do ?

If the mountain won't come to Muhammad, Muhammad must go to the mountain

Enzokk · 23-07-2017 11:01AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

No it hasn't. Saying you want to leave the EU to pursue a more appropriate relationship is not the same as saying that they want the EU to burn. It's in Britain's interest to have a strong European Union on it's doorstep, and it's in Britain's interest to make sure that it's trading partners grow.

This kind of hyperbole is not helpful and it isn't an accurate depiction of what Brexit is.

Look what I posted. You said it is in both the EU and UK interest for a fair deal. I disagree and think if the UK is given the opportunity to have a deal at the detriment of the EU it will take it. At the same time if the EU gets a deal that is good for its members and has the UK worse off I would be apoplectic if they don't take it. This is not because I want to see the UK suffer, but I want the EU to prosper as it will most likely mean Ireland will prosper as well.

I am not saying the UK is out to hurt the EU, which you are reading.

solodeogloria · 23-07-2017 11:31AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Look what I posted. You said it is in both the EU and UK interest for a fair deal. I disagree and think if the UK is given the opportunity to have a deal at the detriment of the EU it will take it. At the same time if the EU gets a deal that is good for its members and has the UK worse off I would be apoplectic if they don't take it. This is not because I want to see the UK suffer, but I want the EU to prosper as it will most likely mean Ireland will prosper as well.

I am not saying the UK is out to hurt the EU, which you are reading.

Good morning,

Such a deal doesn't exist. Surely you should be acutely aware of that from an Irish perspective.

A punitive deal for the UK will not be good for the EU and vice versa. There's no point pretending otherwise.

Perhaps we're referring to two concepts. Politically good, versus economically good. It might be politically good for a season, but it would be certainly economically harmful.

That's why I suggest that we should be supporting a good deal for both parties rather than cheerleading for the EU to self-harm.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight · 23-07-2017 11:41AM

Enzokk wrote: »

I am not saying the UK is out to hurt the EU, which you are reading.

Brexit is non a zero sum game.

It's one in which both sides will loose.

And because of that the UK for it's own selfish reasons is on a path that will hurt the EU. So yes the UK is out the hurt the EU.

As I've said from the EU point of view the negotiations are damage limitation. If the UK gets too good a deal it might risk the integrity of the EU. Conversely if the UK economy tanks completely it might end up costing the EU. So there are some hard limits to the deal.

As the UK will no longer be a member and is rebelling against the core principles of the EU, the EU has no more obligation to be nice than the UK has displayed so far in the negotiations.

Look at this from an EU point of view.
What would the EU version of "having your cake and eating it look like"

embraer170 · 23-07-2017 01:02PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm not being unrealistic. The Financial Times is highly sceptical of Euro clearing moving after Brexit and sees it as largely French posturing.

That FT article you linked to is more than a year old (29 June 2016). Things have evolved quite a little bit since that time with the EC publishing a proposal that would require Euro denominated clearing to take place inside the EU. Even the Telegraph has recently reported on the real threat to Euro clearing in London:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/23/ecb-bids-control-euro-clearing-threat-city/

This is more recent FT article on the issue:
https://www.ft.com/content/8888e560-57e5-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

embraer170 · 23-07-2017 01:10PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

A punitive deal for the UK will not be good for the EU and vice versa. There's no point pretending otherwise.

It is true that a punitive deal for the UK may not be good for the EU. At the same time, a good or very good deal for the UK is not going to be good for the EU. The UK will become a third country so I am not exactly sure why people think the EU needs to be charitable or consider anything but the combined best interests of its Member States.

ancapailldorcha · 23-07-2017 01:36PM

Interesting snippet from this week's issue of The Economist. It seems that while most people are happy to accept the referendum result, they also prefer a softer Brexit with single market access.

murphaph · 23-07-2017 01:46PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Perhaps we're referring to two concepts. Politically good, versus economically good. It might be politically good for a season, but it would be certainly economically harmful

Like Brexit?

Water John · 23-07-2017 05:06PM

Very clear graph, Anca.
Liam Fox getting upset with BBC for not putting out positive Brexit stories.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/bbc-is-ignoring-positive-brexit-stories-says-liam-fox-799098.html

Simple problem,Liam, there aren't any.

Enzokk · 23-07-2017 06:06PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Look at this from an EU point of view.
What would the EU version of "having your cake and eating it look like"

I am not sure as I have never thought about it. I have been hoping that the damage will not be too bad, but aware that there will be damage. I think the EU negotiators have been talking this way as well, its going to be bad because its a crazy decision, but we will make the best of it. Some attitudes from the UK seem to be, it will be fine and we will be GREAT Britain again because the EU has screwed us for years.

Nody · 23-07-2017 08:35PM

Can anyone explain why EU would agree to an extended grace period period or transition periods on rules (i.e. UK remaining for X years in a hybrid version)? I see it flaunted in articles by various UK sources how many months of cross over rules etc. should be in place but from an EU perspective why bother? Brexit means Brexit and simply let UK go and do their own thing; why would they allow a 2 to 4 year carry over period? What's the benefit for EU that I'm missing beyond "EU needs UK so will bend over for them" argument?

Nate--IRL-- · 23-07-2017 08:47PM

I find it highly unlikely that there would be the political will to accommodate the UK in this fashion, unless their overall engagement with the process improves.

Economically it might be prudent for both sides, however politically is another matter. UK politics makes agreement on the first phase difficult. If not overcome it makes the EUs ability to agree on any potential Second phase almost impossible. The end result being Brexit really does mean Brexit.

Nate

Zubeneschamali · 23-07-2017 09:24PM

Nody wrote: »

Can anyone explain why EU would agree to an extended grace period period or transition periods on rules (i.e. UK remaining for X years in a hybrid version)?

Money.

murphaph · 23-07-2017 10:13PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Money.

Yip and the EU can expect full payment from the UK (no rebate) if the UK needs a transitional phase (ie being allowed remain in the union in some shape or form after their official exit date in 2019).

The UK has really painted itself into a corner on every respect and all because nobody had enough courage to challenge the Euromyths.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-07-2017 10:26PM

Enzokk wrote: »

I am not sure as I have never thought about it. I have been hoping that the damage will not be too bad, but aware that there will be damage. I think the EU negotiators have been talking this way as well, its going to be bad because its a crazy decision, but we will make the best of it. Some attitudes from the UK seem to be, it will be fine and we will be GREAT Britain again because the EU has screwed us for years.

The EU have already said they could stonewall on key issues until the clock runs out.

As a third country the UK could have access to some EU markets via various schemes but they have NO automatic right to. And besides any legal challenge would have to via the ECJ.

If there was a tit for tat expulsion of citizens then the UK would end up with a million extra pensioners, but the UK can't afford to expel three million workers without gutting their own economy.

Like I've previously said UK and EU data protection laws are diverging so would be very easy for the EU to make life very difficult for UK companies without a substantial EU presence by insisting no offshoring of EU data or data processing.

By not reciprocating safety standards things like pharma and food exports get more difficult. Pharma is production is easy to move due to the high value of the product and small production volume. And electricals, and livestock.

Yes the UK will control fishing but a lot of the existing quota is held by EU companies.

If the EU doesn't get a good deal on the UK paying for EU obligations and assets then it could get really messy if they try to collect the monies with things like import levies or freezing UK assets.

And of course the EU could lean on some of the countries it has trade deals with, which could delay or even undermine the UK's attempts to get trade deals. Nothing official because that would be illegal but lots of ways to impose soft pressure.

The EU has plenty of scope to be belligerent if it wanted to be.

Peregrinus · 24-07-2017 02:45AM

Nody wrote: »

Can anyone explain why EU would agree to an extended grace period period or transition periods on rules (i.e. UK remaining for X years in a hybrid version)? . . .

For the same reason as the UK would want a transition period; to avoid the dislocation of a "cliff edge".

(Plus, a consideration that might influence the EU; if the transition period goes beyond the next election then the UK may get a new government, with different ideas about Brexit, at a time before the break is final, and this could alter the course of events. But that's extremely speculative, and I doubt that it's a hope that the EU would place too much reliance on.)

solodeogloria · 24-07-2017 07:54AM

murphaph wrote: »

Yip and the EU can expect full payment from the UK (no rebate) if the UK needs a transitional phase (ie being allowed remain in the union in some shape or form after their official exit date in 2019).

The UK has really painted itself into a corner on every respect and all because nobody had enough courage to challenge the Euromyths.

Good morning!

Myths or no myths - and I'm sure there were many over the years but you can't deny that a basic underlying reason why people voted to leave is because they felt that Brussels had too much a say over British affairs. They were disappointed at what David Cameron brought to the table after going to Brussels in 2016.

That's a valid objection there. And the objection hits to the core of what the European Union is. I've now come to the conclusion that the EU just wasn't right for Britain and vice versa. Maybe Charles de Gaulle was right in the 60's.

Moreover if the UK had another referendum and it meant joining Schengen and the euro to stay then I would definitely say the UK should stay out. The independent decision making of the Bank of England was a key factor behind how Britain weathered the economic crisis. Freedom of movement was also a key reason as to why Britain decided to leave.

The Prime Minister has a responsibility to address these concerns - and they are valid.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As a third country the UK could have access to some EU markets via various schemes but they have NO automatic right to. And besides any legal challnge would have to via the ECJ.

This isn't true. Again - CETA has a joint court of arbitration. The UK should not agree to any less. There are two parties to the agreement. There should be equal representation of both parties.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If there was a tit for tat expulsion of citizens then the UK would end up with a million extra pensioners, but the UK can't afford to expel three million workers without gutting their own economy.

Speaking of Euromyths. There isn't a possibility of this happening. The UK and the EU are clear that they want to give citizens the right to stay.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Like I've previously said UK and EU data protection laws are diverging so would be very easy for the EU to make life very difficult for UK companies without a substantial EU presence by insisting no offshoring of EU data or data processing.

How could UK and EU data protection laws diverge while the UK is still a member state?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

By not reciprocating safety standards things like pharma and food exports get more difficult. Pharma is production is easy to move due to the high value of the product and small production volume. And electricals, and livestock.

Why do you feel this is a risk?

The UK conforms to US safety standards when trading with the US, there is no reason why it won't do the same for trade with the EU after Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the EU doesn't get a good deal on the UK paying for EU obligations and assets then it could get really messy if they try to collect the monies with things like import levies or freezing UK assets.

WTO rules prohibit this. You have to apply NFN status to all other members. The only option is through The Hague. This is why it's in the EU's interest to negotiate a good deal.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And of course the EU could lean on some of the countries it has trade deals with, which could delay or even undermine the UK's attempts to get trade deals. Nothing official because that would be illegal but lots of ways to impose soft pressure.

Why would these countries listen to the EU?

A large number have expressed an interest in free trade arrangements with the UK. They should be fairly straight forward to agree given they are already in place. It should be simply a matter of agreeing new quotas and a new dispute mechanism.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The EU has plenty of scope to be belligerent if it wanted to be.

You are highly overstating what the EU can do. This is why we need to bring things down to earth and seek a mutually beneficial deal for both parties.

The UK has a very strong hand even if you can't see that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody · 24-07-2017 08:56AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't true. Again - CETA has a joint court of arbitration. The UK should not agree to any less. There are two parties to the agreement. There should be equal representation of both parties.

Or EU simply tells UK to go stuff it seeing the trade balance difference.

Speaking of Euromyths. There isn't a possibility of this happening. The UK and the EU are clear that they want to give citizens the right to stay.

No; EU is clear on it but UK wants to downgrade those rights. If UK does not go up to EU standards don't be surprised if this does not happen and of course no trade deal will be put in place either.

How could UK and EU data protection laws diverge while the UK is still a member state?

Data has to be stored on EU soil; I know of multiple companies that will most likely need to move their data over to an EU server to be compliant for VAT, salaries etc.

The UK conforms to US safety standards when trading with the US, there is no reason why it won't do the same for trade with the EU after Brexit.

Except with your third party trade deals and acknowledged lack of vets to do inspections both domestically and internationally the UK are highly improbable to be able to meet the EU requirements any more.

Why would these countries listen to the EU?

10 times the market size for starters...

A large number have expressed an interest in free trade arrangements with the UK. They should be fairly straight forward to agree given they are already in place. It should be simply a matter of agreeing new quotas and a new dispute mechanism.

Except that minor part where 80% of all UK trade is already going on a FTA via EU so that needs to be recreated there's also the "minor" fact that no FTA will be signed by any country until UK's share of EU's quotas etc. are sorted out. That's the part that people seems to forget; EU negotiated WTO quotas on behalf of EU inc. UK. With UK leaving the exact split of said quotas now needs to be sorted out before UK can sign another FTA or they risk getting very high quotas unforeseen...

The UK has a very strong hand even if you can't see that.

Funny how only you seem to see this as even the UK government is bending over on every point step by step so far...

solodeogloria · 24-07-2017 09:14AM

Good morning!

Nody wrote: »

Or EU simply tells UK to go stuff it seeing the trade balance difference.

You mean the trade deficit the UK runs with the EU? That is an argument for good trade terms.

Edit - also Canada - 16 million, UK - 65 million. It's obviously in Europe's interests to have a good FTA.

Again - I have no idea as to why posters on this thread are so interested in being "belligerent" towards the UK. The UK is looking positively to a good relationship with the EU in the future.

Nody wrote: »

No; EU is clear on it but UK wants to downgrade those rights. If UK does not go up to EU standards don't be surprised if this does not happen and of course no trade deal will be put in place either.

By insisting that EU citizens are equal to British citizens in law? Or by insisting that criminals should be deported?

Nody wrote: »

Data has to be stored on EU soil; I know of multiple companies that will most likely need to move their data over to an EU server to be compliant for VAT, salaries etc.

That isn't what I was responding to. Capt'n Midnight claims there is a discrepancy in British data protection laws in comparison to EU protection laws today.

Nody wrote: »

Except with your third party trade deals and acknowledged lack of vets to do inspections both domestically and internationally the UK are highly improbable to be able to meet the EU requirements any more.

If this is true - it isn't an argument for EU membership but an argument against it. It is because the EU has taken this competence that the UK lacks these skills. Brexit is a good opportunity to get these competences built up again.

I have no doubt that these positions will be created. If jobs are created through these free trade deals that is good for Britain.

Nody wrote: »

10 times the market size for starters...

Are you serious? The EU would threaten to pull out of trade deals that are beneficial both to them and the other countries if they wanted to trade with the UK also?

If they would that would harm EU economies massively. If they wouldn't - why wouldn't these countries want both UK access and EU access.

Nody wrote: »

Except that minor part where 80% of all UK trade is already going on a FTA via EU so that needs to be recreated there's also the "minor" fact that no FTA will be signed by any country until UK's share of EU's quotas etc. are sorted out. That's the part that people seems to forget; EU negotiated WTO quotas on behalf of EU inc. UK. With UK leaving the exact split of said quotas now needs to be sorted out before UK can sign another FTA or they risk getting very high quotas unforeseen...

Where do you get 80% from? The US and China make up about 20% on their own without considering other countries without an FTA with the UK today.

Edit: determining the quotas shouldn't be a lengthy exercise. One can calculate the UK's share of these quotas relatively easily. My point is that the will of these countries for UK trade is there and unless the EU will pull out of trade deals with other countries there's very little the EU can do to stop this.

Nody wrote: »

Funny how only you seem to see this as even the UK government is bending over on every point step by step so far...

Not really. They are making compromise where it is reasonable to do so because they want a good deal. This is the right thing to do. The UK want a positive relationship with the EU.

The sticking points are ECJ oversight and the size of the financial settlement. There will be issues resolving the Irish border until the EU clarifies it's position on trading arrangements.

It only takes the most strident advocates of Euro-federalism to be unable to see what Britain has to bring to the table.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Roanmore · 24-07-2017 09:35AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Myths or no myths - and I'm sure there were many over the years but you can't deny that a basic underlying reason why people voted to leave is because they felt that Brussels had too much a say over British affairs. They were disappointed at what David Cameron brought to the table after going to Brussels in 2016.

This keeps being said over and over but there are never any specifics given, genuine question can you give some examples where Brussels had too much of a say in British affairs?

Water John · 24-07-2017 09:35AM

This is what Liam Fox wants for UK citizens. Hormone beef, chlorinated chicken, that's the reality of Brexit for the UK consumer.
This is from The Telegraph!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/23/us-trade-deal-could-hinge-chickens/

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments