Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Brexit discussion thread II

1…3435373940…305

Comments

  • #1082
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,531 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    No, Brexit was about fishing rights.

    What you spectacularly fail to realise, is that the diverse ethnic groups of the UK would, generally speaking, have had a vote in the referendum and a second generation Pakistani immigrant would have been just as likely to vote leave as someone whose ancestors fought King Richard III.

    That's true.

    I do feel that there is a lot of blaming the English when as you rightly point of a lot of older immigrants also voted leave - because of too much immigration!

    Wales also voted to leave yet we often hear of Brexit as being an 'English' thing - which helps nobody and is Anglophobia really. Yes England voted leave but so did Wales.

    The fact that plenty of the minorities, who very much benefited from immigration voted to leave really makes my blood boil. At least the natives have some excuse, they may feel that their country is changing too fast (and let's be honest, there are parts of the UK where there are not very many natives living in) - I don't necessarily agree with them, but at least I understand where they're coming from.


  • #1083
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    captainspeed wrote: »
    The fact that plenty of the minorities, who very much benefited from immigration voted to leave really makes my blood boil.

    If you think your angry, just imagine how Asians like myself feel about my English "cousins". I think it best I hold my tongue.


  • #1084
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    As Leo said the UK will have to ask for compromises, assuming they have an idea what they could realistically expect.

    The UK still hasn't accepted Realpolitik.

    Good morning!

    Do you remember what I said about the crown jewels a few posts ago? The talks go on for several months. The UK needs to push it's interests hard so the European Commission side understand their position. Movement (on both sides) can and will be made later.

    I think compromise is possible within the red lines.

    The UK won't be subject to the ECJ and it will not be a member of the customs union and the single market. Those seem to be the UK red lines. Some of the European Commission's current demands are obviously a bit outrageous and that needs to be said early on in the talks.

    The UK have already made a number of concessions in the talks. They've compromised on things they can compromise on. For example, the ordering of the talks, or being willing to talk about a sizeable enough divorce bill or being willing to subject all disputes to a court of arbitration or an ombudsman's office with EU representation rather than British courts alone. The UK have agreed to be subject to ECJ rulings for a transitional period and to adopt ECJ prior case law into common law precedent. The UK have offered EU citizens the same rights as British citizens provided they've been in the country for five years.

    Leo firstly needs to understand that the UK are leaving the EU instead of hoping they don't leave. Significant moves have been made since Article 50 was invoked. The European side need to clearly understand that the UK is looking for a third country bilateral arrangement. This is possible and it's in the interests of both countries.

    I'm not particularly worried. The discussions will continue for another number of months. The key thing for the UK to hammer down is a favourable transition.

    As someone who is a true friend of the UK. I hope they get the best possible deal.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #1085
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,130 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Just so long as you accept that it's Barnier's job to push hard for the EU side (much harder job actually).


  • #1086
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    The UK is putting forward their exit bill proposal of 40 billion. At least it's a start. The EU should at least offer a breakdown if they think it's more.

    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/08/06/530866/UK-EU-Brexit-bill


  • Advertisement
  • #1087
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The UK is putting forward their exit bill proposal of 40 billion. At least it's a start. The EU should at least offer a breakdown if they think it's more.

    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/08/06/530866/UK-EU-Brexit-bill

    Good morning!

    It's worth adding that the UK will only pay if trade terms are on the table. This is reported in the Telegraph which seems to be the original source of the story.

    It's probably €40bn net after the UK's share of European investment is returned. So the gross figure is probably higher. That's my assumption anyway.

    I agree with the principle that not a penny should be paid from the UK side until trade terms are agreed. This is good progress and this is precisely why I don't believe the fear mongering that is going on at present. I'm confident a good deal will be reached come March 2019.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #1088
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    It's worth adding that the UK will only pay if trade terms are on the table. This is reported in the Telegraph which seems to be the original source of the story.

    It's probably €40bn net after the UK's share of European investment is returned. So the gross figure is probably higher. That's my assumption anyway.

    I agree with the principle that not a penny should be paid from the UK side until trade terms are agreed. This is good progress and this is precisely why I don't believe the fear mongering that is going on at present. I'm confident a good deal will be reached come March 2019.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    That also means the inverse in that no trade terms will be agreed in the absense of payment. They should have left this out of their proposal.


  • #1089
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    That also means the inverse in that no trade terms will be agreed in the absense of payment. They should have left this out of their proposal.

    Good morning!

    I think most people agree with that in principle. I think it is fair that the UK contribute something to the European Union budget as it exits. I think the figure of €40 billion is acceptable. At the moment it is paying €13bn a year which would account for about 3 years contribution. That's with the amount of it's investments into the European Union and it's institutions being returned taken into account probably.

    Although I'm positive about the prospect of Brexit, I think I would say that it is fair that if no payment is made that the European Union wouldn't and indeed probably shouldn't be willing to offer the UK benevolent trade terms.

    This is a good concession from the UK side, and I think it counts as "sufficient progress" at least in my eyes.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #1090
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,130 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The UK needs to be careful about overplaying this hand. In the grand scheme of things €100bn is not going to break the EU and the UK desperately needs very favourable trade terms with the EU (and fast, really fast) or their service sector will be badly damaged (no WTO coverage) and we know the UK economy is dominated by services.

    The exit bill is not a bill at all. It is just a calculation of the UK's agreed liabilities and commitments already made.

    The UK owes what it owes. I would not expect them to pay a penny more but I would expect them to pay every penny of what they owe.

    Anything else is dishonourable and unbecoming of such a country and would call the UK's integrity as a trade partner into question. After all, of the UK is prepared to walk away from agreed commitments with a bloc as large as the EU, then less powerful trading blocs will be very wary of entering into agreements with the UK.


  • #1091
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    murphaph wrote: »
    The UK needs to be careful about overplaying this hand. In the grand scheme of things €100bn is not going to break the EU and the UK desperately needs very favourable trade terms with the EU (and fast, really fast) or their service sector will be badly damaged (no WTO coverage) and we know the UK economy is dominated by services.

    The exit bill is not a bill at all. It is just a calculation of the UK's agreed liabilities and commitments already made.

    The UK owes what it owes. I would not expect them to pay a penny more but I would expect them to pay every penny of what they owe.

    Anything else is dishonourable and unbecoming of such a country and would call the UK's integrity as a trade partner into question. After all, of the UK is prepared to walk away from agreed commitments with a bloc as large as the EU, then less powerful trading blocs will be very wary of entering into agreements with the UK.

    Good morning!

    Probably my last post for today, but I think it's unreasonable to say that the UK is "overplaying" it's hand by offering a reasonable amount.

    If the €40bn isn't inclusive of the proceeds from the investments that it has in the European Investment Bank and in other institutions we're talking about another €13bn on top (Edit: If not more).

    The UK is wise to insist that this has to come with trade terms. The UK needs to protect it's own interests.

    If €100bn is what the EU is after, then I agree with Boris Johnson saying "go whistle". I also think you'd need to prove how the UK's commitments until 2022 could be much more than 3 times it's membership fee to the EU (plus at least €13bn from the European Investment Bank and other investment the UK has made to EU institutions).

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • #1092
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    I suppose that's a bit of good news, there's now a number £36Bn so there's a starting position on the financial stuff that needs to be settled before the real negotiations can begin.

    But right at the bottom of this piece is this crazy bit.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40824818
    No more friendly drinks

    In Brussels, officials from member states complain about a lack of briefings from the UK's equivalent of an embassy to the EU, known as UKREP.

    An insider added that UK civil servants no longer join their foreign colleagues for drinks or to watch football matches, depriving them of a crucial diplomatic back-channel.


  • #1093
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Not really news at this stage

    Older people who voted for Brexit have "comprehensively shafted the young", Sir Vince Cable has said.
    Sir Vince also criticised cabinet ministers, who he claimed were "waging civil war, rather than working out what they want from Brexit."

    He says former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith called for trade envoys to be sacked as a result of them "talking down our country".

    "At this rate, we will have Brexit thought crimes before long," said Sir Vince.



    If you remember the comment from Lord Heseltine that 2% of their voters were dying every year (from old age) a new Brexit referendum might be different even if everyone voted exactly the same, simply because of the change in demographics.


    Something to remember when talking about "the will of the people", dead people no longer have a say ...

    ... mostly
    Psychic Simone Simmons say that Diana, in ‘the only political thing she’s ever said’, told her she must support Brexit


  • #1094
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,176 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    No, Brexit was about fishing rights.

    I didn't see fishing rights on the ballot paper Fred. How can you claim Brexit was about fishing rights?
    What you spectacularly fail to realise, is that the diverse ethnic groups of the UK would, generally speaking, have had a vote in the referendum and a second generation Pakistani immigrant would have been just as likely to vote leave as someone whose ancestors fought King Richard III.

    You mean like the ethnic Indian & Pakistani resterauters who were promised that Brexit would mean more visas for them, their workers, and their families because there wouldn't be any EU nationals coming into the country? :pac:


    Edit: as an aside to Murphaph and Solo; the €100b figure was arrived at by a British newspaper for senationalist headlines. The EU has never mentioned such a sum so why people keep talking about it as if its cold hard fact is beyond me.


  • #1095
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,704 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The best thing for the UK and the EU is a high divorce payment accompanied by favorable trading terms. The high divorce bill is a once off payment that can be added to the national debt and nobody will really notice it, but the favorable trading terms would be much more valuable in the long term to both the EU and the UK.

    The EU would like a high divorce payment because this would discourage other nations from leaving, and a large figure like 100 billion would be something their politicians can use in a political campaign that is worth a lot more votes than the mundane details of taxes and tariffs.

    Unfortunately, a lot of craven politicians on the pro-brexit side are focused on the divorce bill and would rather shoot themselves in the foot than concede on this issue.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #1096
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    Lemming wrote: »
    Edit: as an aside to Murpaph and Solo; the €100b figure was arrived at by a British newspaper for senationalist headlines. The EU has never mentioned such a sum so why people keep talking about it as if its cold hard fact is beyond me.

    Very true. Indeed the objective has been made very clear, agree the method of calculation. There may very well be some kite flying out of Whitehall on this in the hope that they can get talks going on the figure, but like most of the other stuff they come up with it will fail.


  • #1097
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The best thing for the UK and the EU is a high divorce payment accompanied by favorable trading terms.

    It has never been about a big divorce payment... it is about ensuring that the UK honours it's commitments. The negotiations are about agreeing the method of calculation on the EU not the amount.

    Second, a trade agreement would probably not be very difficult to agree and although it would secure 48% of their exports, it does nothing for their financial services sector. And is the real issue for a services based economy. London loosing it's preferential access to the EU markets levels the playing field for both NY and Singapore.


  • #1098
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    I suppose that's a bit of good news, there's now a number £36Bn so there's a starting position on the financial stuff that needs to be settled before the real negotiations can begin.

    The requirement is to agree the method of calculation and then see what it comes to. The Brits pick a figure and then we argue over it is not how it works.


  • #1099
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    No, Brexit was about fishing rights.
    If you read between the lines Grove has already said that the fishing rights would be handed back to the EU companies that already own most of the UK quota.
    Because in the Tory world one big business boat is more important than 5,000 traditional fishing family boats.

    Like I said before if the foreign trawlers catch fish in UK waters can they beat tariffs, and UK costs, by landing it in the EU ?

    Then again the European Big Business model in Africa has been to harvest the fish there and then take back to Europe , process it and send it back to Africa at a profit. And local fishermen loose their jobs.



    The UK has fewer fisheries patrol vessels than it used to have.
    And a reminder to the " let's make Great Britain grate again" crowd. During the First Cod War Iceland had 100 Coast Guards, the UK had 144 major warships. Guess who won ? Guess who also won the other Cod Wars ?



    From my earlier post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104286568&postcount=1045
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40814377
    Mr Gove, the UK environment secretary, said British fishermen would not have the capacity to land all of the fish in British territorial waters.

    And he said that some access would therefore be granted to vessels from other countries.

    Sounds like it's business as usual for the big boats and with the local fishermen being denied a chance to increase their share.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/half-of-english-fishing-quotas-controlled-by-overseas-firms-9836970.html
    A single Dutch vessel, the Cornelis Vrolijk, accounts for almost a quarter of the entire English catch and about 6 per cent of the total UK quota.
    ...

    And second, that the 5,000 small boats operated by the traditional UK fishing families are increasingly marginalised – holding just 4 per cent of the entire UK quota between them.


  • #1100
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    If €100bn is what the EU is after, then I agree with Boris Johnson saying "go whistle". I also think you'd need to prove how the UK's commitments until 2022 could be much more than 3 times it's membership fee to the EU (plus at least €13bn from the European Investment Bank and other investment the UK has made to EU institutions).

    The EU has never set a figure, the objective was and is, to agree the method of calculation not the amount.
    BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union does not want a blank cheque from Britain for leaving the EU, but hopes to agree by November on a formula to calculate what London owes when it leaves the bloc, chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier said on Wednesday.

    Applying the principles proposed by the EU the figure is expected to be around €60b. I believe the €100b figure you mentioned come from the Financial Times.


  • #1101
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,130 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    Probably my last post for today, but I think it's unreasonable to say that the UK is "overplaying" it's hand by offering a reasonable amount.

    If the €40bn isn't inclusive of the proceeds from the investments that it has in the European Investment Bank and in other institutions we're talking about another €13bn on top (Edit: If not more).

    The UK is wise to insist that this has to come with trade terms. The UK needs to protect it's own interests.

    If €100bn is what the EU is after, then I agree with Boris Johnson saying "go whistle". I also think you'd need to prove how the UK's commitments until 2022 could be much more than 3 times it's membership fee to the EU (plus at least €13bn from the European Investment Bank and other investment the UK has made to EU institutions).

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria
    They need to agree the methodology for calculating the amount. If it falls out at the end that the UK owes 10bn then they should pay 10bn. If it falls out at the end that they should pay 110bn then they should pay that. The methodology should be agreed before random numbers come into play. I don't want to see the UK "charged" for a trade deal. I just want them to pay what's due and as a country has never left the EU, we need to establish these parameters through negotiation.

    To be frank, the EU could just present a bill for some huge figure and the with the threat of no deal for UK services, the UK would be under immense pressure to just pay it. In fairness to the EU it is not suggesting this. It wishes to establish the methodology first and do the sums later.


  • Advertisement
  • #1102
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    No, Brexit was about fishing rights.

    What you spectacularly fail to realise, is that the diverse ethnic groups of the UK would, generally speaking, have had a vote in the referendum and a second generation Pakistani immigrant would have been just as likely to vote leave as someone whose ancestors fought King Richard III.

    Could you back up that claim? That the majority of Brexiters were concerned about fishing rights?


  • #1103
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    steddyeddy wrote:
    Could you back up that claim? That the majority of Brexiters were concerned about fishing rights?


    The second generation Pakistanis I know speak of little else.


  • #1104
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,276 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    The second generation Pakistanis I know speak of little else.
    . . . in the long nights after Samhain.


  • #1105
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good morning!
    Akrasia wrote: »
    The best thing for the UK and the EU is a high divorce payment accompanied by favorable trading terms. The high divorce bill is a once off payment that can be added to the national debt and nobody will really notice it, but the favorable trading terms would be much more valuable in the long term to both the EU and the UK.

    The EU would like a high divorce payment because this would discourage other nations from leaving, and a large figure like 100 billion would be something their politicians can use in a political campaign that is worth a lot more votes than the mundane details of taxes and tariffs.

    Unfortunately, a lot of craven politicians on the pro-brexit side are focused on the divorce bill and would rather shoot themselves in the foot than concede on this issue.

    The claim that the UK is going to pay whatever the EU asks for is laughable. Obviously the UK is only going to pay as much as it feels it has to.

    As for tariff free trade access. This is as much in the EU's interests as in the UK's. Just look to Ireland's agricultural and services sectors to start off with. Or indeed to other regions in Europe like Flanders. There are already underreported calls from German businesses to show a more amicable tone in the Brexit negotiations.

    Obviously the UK isn't going to pay an extortionate bill.
    murphaph wrote: »
    They need to agree the methodology for calculating the amount. If it falls out at the end that the UK owes 10bn then they should pay 10bn. If it falls out at the end that they should pay 110bn then they should pay that. The methodology should be agreed before random numbers come into play. I don't want to see the UK "charged" for a trade deal. I just want them to pay what's due and as a country has never left the EU, we need to establish these parameters through negotiation.

    To be frank, the EU could just present a bill for some huge figure and the with the threat of no deal for UK services, the UK would be under immense pressure to just pay it. In fairness to the EU it is not suggesting this. It wishes to establish the methodology first and do the sums later.

    This just proves an underlying point to me. If Britain aren't offering a generous concession it is that they won't compromise. When they do the complaint is that they've not fully bent to the European Commission's point of view.

    Obviously they haven't. The UK are willing to pay what they believe is a reasonable assessment of their commitments. It's worth pointing out that the UK don't "owe" anything to the EU but rather they have committed funds to the EU.

    They should give what they committed to and not a penny more. Now, what they have committed can't be much more than three years of membership fees. Anything extremely far from that and the EU can go whistle.

    If the UK are going to put this forward and Number 10 are vigorously denying it as we speak (I think the report is accurate it's just going to be revealed later) then it's a hugely generous amount given some of the people in the Tory backbench (for example Jacob Rees-Mogg MP of North East Somerset or Andrew Rosindell MP for Romford and co-chair of the British Irish Parliamentary Council).

    The idea that the UK will pay whatever the EU ask for is absolutely laughable. It shows how biased both the German and the Irish media are on the issue.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #1106
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,130 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    A deal encompassing services is much more important to the UK than the EU. The UK relies heavily on services sold into the EU. The EU in contrast sells mostly manufactured goods into the UK, which are covered by WTO rules and of course the relationship is asymmetric. The EU is simply much larger so can absorb the blow of lost trade more easily.

    It's complete folly to claim that both sides need a deal as much as the other. I don't understand why you keep repeating that.

    It is bad for everyone if no deal is reached but much worse for the UK.


  • #1107
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    murphaph wrote: »
    A deal encompassing services is much more important to the UK than the EU. The UK relies heavily on services sold into the EU. The EU in contrast sells mostly manufactured goods into the UK, which are covered by WTO rules and of course the relationship is asymmetric. The EU is simply much larger so can absorb the blow of lost trade more easily.

    It's complete folly to claim that both sides need a deal as much as the other. I don't understand why you keep repeating that.

    It is bad for everyone if no deal is reached but much worse for the UK.

    Good morning!

    Again, more nonsense.

    Different countries have different levels of exposure to the UK. The EU isn't a superstate yet. That obviously needs to be taken into account. Moreover the UK imports far more from EU member states that exports. That's before we talk about security, intelligence and the need for EU clients to have access to the City of London.

    The more you post, the more you demonstrate that Euro-federalists like you will never be happy. No matter how reasonable or how generous Britain is you'll never be happy.

    Britain has a very strong hand. It won't be bending to everything the EU says. It has proven itself willing to compromise and now the EU should do the same.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #1108
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,575 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    There are already underreported calls from German businesses to show a more amicable tone in the Brexit negotiations.
    Except 50% want a hard brexit over giving up freedom of movement
    From article above wrote:
    The survey conducted by the Deloitte audit and consulting group and released Tuesday in Munich showed 49 percent of firms rejected any trade deal if the U.K. remains determined to control immigration on its terms.
    Obviously the UK isn't going to pay an extortionate bill.
    Well seeing how some politicians think paying anything this is a empty argument as it all falls under what's defined as extortionate.
    Obviously they haven't. The UK are willing to pay what they believe is a reasonable assessment of their commitments. It's worth pointing out that the UK don't "owe" anything to the EU but rather they have committed funds to the EU.
    And the EU owes nothing to the UK inc. tariff free access to its markets and seeing how EU will have 59 trade deals going forward to UKs zero it's also very clear which market is going to grow faster over the next decade.
    They should give what they committed to and not a penny more. Now, what they have committed can't be much more than three years of membership fees. Anything extremely far from that and the EU can go whistle.
    And the pension payments for all the civil services that they used for the last 20 odd years; or did you forget that costs are accumulated beyond the immediate yearly payments as well in the budget?
    The idea that the UK will pay whatever the EU ask for is absolutely laughable. It shows how biased both the German and the Irish media are on the issue.
    If the UK politicians had any brains (and seeing how they are flailing around failing to even deliver position papers on Brexit or be aligned at something basic as even a general direction on government level to policy) they would pay up what ever EU asks. Why? Because it will dwarf the benefits from tariff free access to the EU market esp. in the most vulnerable years directly after Brexit when they will have ZERO trade deals to fall back on. Even with a full fledged EU deal on everything (which is highly unlikely to ever happen) they still have 50% of trade suddenly falling outside trade deals as they lost access to all the EU once which will take optimistically over a decade to get back up and running again.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Different countries have different levels of exposure to the UK. The EU isn't a superstate yet. That obviously needs to be taken into account. Moreover the UK imports far more from EU member states that exports. That's before we talk about security, intelligence and the need for EU clients to have access to the City of London.
    Who got a bigger security engine; EU or UK? What side had to write a special deal to get the access back in 2015? UK. Who has added the 500k people into the Europol DB of people blocked from entry to EU? Not UK for sure. UK has 40% of the people in there having interest in going to the UK; UK has the interest to get security deal with EU but quite frankly EU generates a lot more intelligence than UK does so once again EU and UK will need to get a special deal to see the data under ECJ of course. But don't take my word for it:
    The calls – from senior figures including Sir Hugh Orde, former chief constable of the police service of Northern Ireland and former head of Europol Max-Peter Ratzel – were reinforced on Saturday night by Dominic Grieve, the Tory chair of the Commons intelligence and security committee.

    Grieve said full participation, even if it meant accepting EU rules and judicial oversight for the European Court of Justice (ECJ), could not be more crucial. He said he believed May was committed to remaining closely involved in EU security but believed that doing so would require compromise that would be hard for some in May’s party to accept.

    As for London; if EU so desperately needed that access how come all the banks are moving offices over to EU countries instead and seek to follow EU rules to get access to the market? Could that be because they actually know the lay of the land compared to your dreaming up things of what EU requires?
    The City of London is exploring alternative ways to access EU markets after Brexit, should a political deal prove elusive or only apply to certain financial sectors.

    Lawyers are combing through existing agreements that could allow UK-based firms to strike trading deals on a firm-by-firm basis or even for individual lines of business.

    Jonathan Herbst, the global head of financial services at the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said companies could volunteer to be subject to EU rules in order to gain market access.
    Britain has a very strong hand. It won't be bending to everything the EU says. It has proven itself willing to compromise and now the EU should do the same.
    Britain has a loaded gun pointed at it's own head claiming if they don't get what they want they will shot themselves and confuses that with a strong hand. Britain has two options; a hard brexit with no deal (which they will end up paying a certain amount after a long court case), no access to Europol, no access to EU wide arrest warrants etc. or a softer hard brexit where they will get at least some sort of trade deal, security deal etc. in place with the possibility to use EU functions for a cost in a transition deal.

    Both deals will hurt but it's a question if UK will cut of their arm or only their hand in the end.


  • #1109
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,276 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    No, murphaph is correct. On trade matters, most observers reckon that the EU has the stronger hand. While the EU-27 export more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU-27, the exports matter much more to the UK than to the EU

    UK exports to the EU account for about 46% of the UK's total exports. But EU-27 exports to the UK account for only about 8% of the EU's total exports.

    Suppose the UK dropped out of the EU without any kind of a deal, and the resulting barriers to trade resulted in a 15% drop in trade in both directions.

    For the UK, this would mean a drop in total exports of (0.46 x 0.15 =) 7%. For the EU-27, the corresponding figure would be (0.08 x 0.15 =) 1.2%.

    (Obviously, the 1.2% wouldn't be evenly spread. Some parts of the EU would suffer more than others. But that's equally true of the UK, obviousy. The UK as a whole would suffer a 7% drop in its export trade, but some regions within the UK would suffer a much greater drop.)

    Neither side would welcome this, but it would obviously be a much bigger deal for the UK than for the EU-27.

    To illustrate the point another way, to make up for the loss of its exports to the UK, the EU would have to increase its exports to the rest of the world by 1.21%. But to make up for the loss of its exports to the EU, the UK would have to increase its exports to the rest of the world by 13% - and this in a situation where it has just withdrawn from the EU's network of trading agreements with the rest of the world.

    Obviously, I've plucked the 15%-drop-in-trade figure out of the air. But that doesn't matter; you can plug in any figure you like there, and the disparity in impact as between the UK and the EU-27 remains. The UK's exports to the EU are between five and six times more important to the UK than the EU's exports are to the EU.

    The bottom line is that both sides are better off with a trade agreement, but this is a much, much bigger deal for the UK than it is for the EU, and the EU is therefore in the stronger bargaining position. And both sides know this.


  • #1110
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,130 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    And the concept isn't that hard to grasp. Add in the fact that the percentage drop in trade would not be equal because the UK exports more services as a fraction of their total exports to the EU and these are not covered by WTO rules and you can really see the cards are stacked against the UK.


  • Advertisement
  • #1111
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    The bottom line is that both sides are better off with a trade agreement, but this is a much, much bigger deal for the UK than it is for the EU, and the EU is therefore in the stronger bargaining position. And both sides know this.


    The EU side have known this all along but it is only slowly seeping into the British conciousness, because the CBI and captains of industry are bellowing it into Davis' and other ears.

    In trade with the EU, exclusion from the single market will devastate supply chains that UK companies spent the last 30+ years building themselves into.

    In trade with third countries, the UK has to replace the EU's trade agreements, with approx 10% of the EU's bargaining power.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement