Brexit discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty · 08-08-2017 11:34AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

A few things. Firstly - a leak from an official isn't "the Government negotiating through the media". The British government doesn't do this, and it won't start just because the European Commission does. Remember, it was the European Commission who leaked the story of Juncker at Downing Street to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

As for quoting what someone in the European Commission thinks, there's room for scepticism here. It's in the European Commissions interest to send someone like Catherine Day out to allege something in the press. It's in their interest to influence the British public, but nearly every intervention solidifies the existing position.

The idea that everything needs to be sent to Brussels on day one in order for someone to be "prepared" is ridiculous. It is in Britain's interests to reveal only as much as it needs to at every stage in the negotiations. I don't believe the nonsense that the British government hasn't been preparing since last year. I'm fairly sure they have been and we're going to see a lot of that as the process goes on.

As for the idea that "the time for patience" is gone. That's nonsense. There's three rounds of negotiations before the European Council meeting in October. Britain has a much stronger hand than many of the Euro-federalists on this thread or elsewhere are willing to admit.

The best policy is stay calm, get it sorted, and ignore what's being said in the media. The only thing that matters for the Government is what is said around the negotiating table.

It's worth pointing out that a major reason for seeking Brexit is based on economics, and on pursuing wider trade relationships which could benefit the British economy. The UK wants to maintain as close a relationship with the EU as possible whilst seeking new opportunities elsewhere.

Edit: Remember the chatter about Gibraltar, seems like Spain are backing down. As expected.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Wrong.

The majority of Leave voters voted for Brexit because of sovereignty and immigration issues.

Only (6%) said their main reason was that Britain's trade and economy would benefit from leaving the EU.

solodeogloria · 08-08-2017 11:34AM

murphaph wrote: »

Please drop the "Euro-federalists" thing (clearly intended as some sort of slur as if it's not acceptable to wish for continued European integration). We don't accuse you of being a "British-isolationist".

Good afternoon!

Last post for today.

Please use the report post function if you've got an issue with my terms.

British-isolationalist doesn't work for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I'm not British. Secondly, Britain won't be isolated post-Brexit, if anything it will be global focused. If anything I'm pro-global rather than solely pro-European.

Edit: And yes, I think continued "integration" at the expense of national sovereignty would be a very bad thing from an Irish perspective. If anything less integration is required.

Professor Moriarty - I'm not saying that most people voted leave because of economic opportunities. But it was a key strand in the referendum campaign. It's my overriding reason for supporting Brexit, as a remain voter this side of the referendum.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Billy86 · 08-08-2017 11:37AM

Now if only the EU dealt with other economies around the globe...

murphaph · 08-08-2017 01:51PM

And whoosh, solo ignores the salient points put to him once again.

As outlined above, the UK cannot credibly claim to have any plan for the 5 years+ it will take to get trade deals agreed post Brexit, should the EU not grant (and yes it is the EU granting) the UK a deal to save their skin and allow them to keep going under the EU's wing during that period.

If the UK actually walks away from the EU with no deal and falls back to WTO terms (not clear whose quotas they expect to use and WTO doesn't cover services and OpenSkies is a whole other world of hurt) its economy will be damaged beyond repair (no exaggeration!)

Jim2007 · 08-08-2017 02:26PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the idea that "the time for patience" is gone. That's nonsense. There's three rounds of negotiations before the European Council meeting in October. Britain has a much stronger hand than many of the Euro-federalists on this thread or elsewhere are willing to admit.

At this point they are so far apart on the citizenship issue alone that they will not get that done in three sessions, never mind getting a start on the other two where UK proposals are still pending.

Perhaps it's just inexperience or perhaps the plan is to just capitulate....

Either way, time to press pause on you until then as there is noting new here.

Nody · 08-08-2017 02:36PM

murphaph wrote: »

And whoosh, solo ignores the salient points put to him once again.

As outlined above, the UK cannot credibly claim to have any plan for the 5 years+ it will take to get trade deals agreed post Brexit, should the EU not grant (and yes it is the EU granting) the UK a deal to save their skin and allow them to keep going under the EU's wing during that period.

If the UK actually walks away from the EU with no deal and falls back to WTO terms (not clear whose quotas they expect to use and WTO doesn't cover services and OpenSkies is a whole other world of hurt) its economy will be damaged beyond repair (no exaggeration!)

It's even worse than that; because EU is part of the WTO and have negotiated trade deals on behalf of EU part of the quotas belong to UK and part to the remaining 27 countries (be it imports or exports). Now how is for example Canada suppose to write a new TD with UK if EU and UK have not settled how much of the Canadian share belongs to each party? It would become a huge mess or UK would have to accept even higher qoutas (new TD + share from old one once finalized) than planned.

steddyeddy · 08-08-2017 02:54PM

murphaph wrote: »

And whoosh, solo ignores the salient points put to him once again.

As outlined above, the UK cannot credibly claim to have any plan for the 5 years+ it will take to get trade deals agreed post Brexit, should the EU not grant (and yes it is the EU granting) the UK a deal to save their skin and allow them to keep going under the EU's wing during that period.

If the UK actually walks away from the EU with no deal and falls back to WTO terms (not clear whose quotas they expect to use and WTO doesn't cover services and OpenSkies is a whole other world of hurt) its economy will be damaged beyond repair (no exaggeration!)

To be honest I don't debate Brexiters. It's easier to link them the daily facts which point to a dying economy.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-08-2017 06:05PM

So should the UK mirror new ECJ rulings after Brexit ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40855526

Britain's most senior judge has told the government it must provide more clarity about how UK law will be developed after Brexit.
...
also expressed his concerns about cuts to legal aid, which was largely removed for most family cases in 2013.
...
Opponents point out the apparent contradiction of that position, saying any British company or organisation doing business in the EU is subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

steddyeddy · 08-08-2017 06:21PM

I know it's the Express but I had to share it. This is where a lot of Brexiters seem to get their "facts" from. This particular article has the headline "EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO" in an article about the financial implications of a hard Brexit. So once again it's the EU's fault, not the UK's. From the Express.

EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO

STANDARD Life CEO Keith Skeoch warned UK companies will have to move to Ireland and Luxembourg to comply with EU-dictated law allowing them to operate in the European Union.

listermint · 08-08-2017 06:35PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know it's the Express but I had to share it. This is where a lot of Brexiters seem to get their "facts" from. This particular article has the headline "EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO" in an article about the financial implications of a hard Brexit. So once again it's the EU's fault, not the UK's. From the Express.

Designed to polarize when you put facts a certain way.

The data is accurate the way its put using terms like forced and dictated is nonsense.

Companies operating in the EU have to comply with EU laws shocker......

solodeogloria · 08-08-2017 06:42PM

Good evening!

I was going to leave it for the day, but then I saw this.

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest I don't debate Brexiters. It's easier to link them the daily facts which point to a dying economy.

I feel like I ought to defend myself. I've voted remain and I've decided to get on board with Brexit because it is what the people voted for.

The thing is, if we cut ourselves off from dissenting views, that's a problem with us rather than anyone else.

The point is that there are significant advantages to being outside of the EU. Just listening to the High Commissioner from Australia on BBC Radio 4 was interesting to hear about how Australia readjusted its economy after Britain scrapped preferential trade for the Commonwealth. His argument is that the UK is too gloomy about it's future prospects. I tend to agree with him. If Britain pulls off a good Brexit, then Britain will have new opportunities for economic growth.

The caveat to offer, is that it depends on a good trade deal with the EU. I think this is still achievable. We're in the early stage of talks. I'm confident that there will be areas of movement for the UK within the defined parameters. The UK is promoting a progressive free trade deal. It is the one offering the positive argument.

I don't say that there aren't risks. They are there, and it is important that they are mitigated. However, panic mode is premature. I don't believe the myth that the Government aren't prepared, and I don't believe the oft-repeated myth that the Government doesn't know what they want.

I'm also, not under any idea that the economy hasn't slowed. It has due to uncertainty, but this is a part and parcel of Brexit. It is still growing, and growth is expected to pick up somewhat in 2018, but things will become clear in the negotiations before long.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know it's the Express but I had to share it. This is where a lot of Brexiters seem to get their "facts" from. This particular article has the headline "EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO" in an article about the financial implications of a hard Brexit. So once again it's the EU's fault, not the UK's. From the Express.

I think you need to be more charitable. I am not getting any "facts" from the Daily Express. Caricaturing people on the opposite side of the argument isn't helpful. Arguably, it was this type of caricaturing that led to the Brexit vote in the first place.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Worse still, any suggestion that there would be any pain at all was derided as "Project Fear".

There is a lot of project fear even now. Most of the pro-EU posts here fall into this category.

There are a number of unquestioned assumptions that the Remain side of this thread have which are far from "facts".

Namely that the UK doesn't have a strong negotiating position, or that the talks are doomed to fail. There's no reason to believe this. These aren't "facts".

Article after article of if X happens then Y will happen when there is no reason to believe at this stage that X which is inevitably some calamity will happen.

Even at this early stage in the talks, progress has been made and there's no reason to think that progress won't continue to be made until the EU Council summit in October.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oppenheimer1 · 08-08-2017 07:00PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

.

There are a number of unquestioned assumptions that the Remain side of this thread have which are far from "facts".

Namely that the UK doesn't have a strong negotiating position, or that the talks are doomed to fail. There's no reason to believe this. These aren't "facts".

Article after article of if X happens then Y will happen when there is no reason to believe at this stage that X which is inevitably some calamity will happen.

Even at this early stage in the talks, progress has been made and there's no reason to think that progress won't continue to be made until the EU Council summit in October.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo, it's not fair to say that's an unquestioned assumption. I've put it to you above how the UK position is inherently weak. It's up to you to outline how it's not.

The UK position is weak because it needs a transitional deal minimum (which is entirely the gift of the EU) to give it time to transition to another type of economy. The EU does not need to have a deal. It will be hurt without one, but not fatally.

Without this gift the UK economy will go into a coma at best and the EU knows this.

Jim2007 · 08-08-2017 08:05PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know it's the Express but I had to share it. This is where a lot of Brexiters seem to get their "facts" from. This particular article has the headline "EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO" in an article about the financial implications of a hard Brexit. So once again it's the EU's fault, not the UK's. From the Express.

Here they are talking about financial services and the reality is that we cannot have players in this market that are not fully subject to the legal jurisdiction of the market. It is way service agreements are few and far between.

Later this year we (Switzerland) will start talks with the EU to obtain such an agreement. But it is already accepted that we will need to forfeit a lot to get it.

listermint · 08-08-2017 09:02PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Im struggling at this point to take some of the points you make seriously even to the point that you had voted remain.

The reasons for this are varied but some of the more obvious ones are the use of the terms project fear, sovereignty and eu federalists.

You have rolled these tired terms out so many times at this point that its clear when you have no facts to debate on you will call the other side out which such negative 'one liners' such as above that it comes straight out of the BNP playbook.

Its the EUs fault, Its the Labour partys fault, its the DNCs fault. World wide its always someone elses fault when the fact is that you become a caricature of this ignorance and complain when people call out the same ignorance. The type of facebook driven easy to digest factlits are rolled out which are simply untruths or part truths designed to put a slant on something ala the express story above.

Frankly its a testament to the viewpoint of the EU that after the brexit vote and the Trump election that this mentality was widely rejected. I think its fantastic that we have people who can read the facts digest them and say yes i dont want what they are having. i.e mistruths , isolationism, negativity, finger pointing , all the things that do nothing to further the good that we have achieved since `1945.

Alas my post will be ignored sure am i not now a caricature of the federalists that deserve so much ire.....

Professor Moriarty · 08-08-2017 09:08PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I was going to leave it for the day, but then I saw this.

I feel like I ought to defend myself. I've voted remain and I've decided to get on board with Brexit because it is what the people voted for.

The thing is, if we cut ourselves off from dissenting views, that's a problem with us rather than anyone else.

The point is that there are significant advantages to being outside of the EU. Just listening to the High Commissioner from Australia on BBC Radio 4 was interesting to hear about how Australia readjusted its economy after Britain scrapped preferential trade for the Commonwealth. His argument is that the UK is too gloomy about it's future prospects. I tend to agree with him. If Britain pulls off a good Brexit, then Britain will have new opportunities for economic growth.

The caveat to offer, is that it depends on a good trade deal with the EU. I think this is still achievable. We're in the early stage of talks. I'm confident that there will be areas of movement for the UK within the defined parameters. The UK is promoting a progressive free trade deal. It is the one offering the positive argument.

I don't say that there aren't risks. They are there, and it is important that they are mitigated. However, panic mode is premature. I don't believe the myth that the Government aren't prepared, and I don't believe the oft-repeated myth that the Government doesn't know what they want.

I'm also, not under any idea that the economy hasn't slowed. It has due to uncertainty, but this is a part and parcel of Brexit. It is still growing, and growth is expected to pick up somewhat in 2018, but things will become clear in the negotiations before long.

I think you need to be more charitable. I am not getting any "facts" from the Daily Express. Caricaturing people on the opposite side of the argument isn't helpful. Arguably, it was this type of caricaturing that led to the Brexit vote in the first place.

There is a lot of project fear even now. Most of the pro-EU posts here fall into this category.

There are a number of unquestioned assumptions that the Remain side of this thread have which are far from "facts".

Namely that the UK doesn't have a strong negotiating position, or that the talks are doomed to fail. There's no reason to believe this. These aren't "facts".

Article after article of if X happens then Y will happen when there is no reason to believe at this stage that X which is inevitably some calamity will happen.

Even at this early stage in the talks, progress has been made and there's no reason to think that progress won't continue to be made until the EU Council summit in October.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It would seem that, as the talks continue to stall and that pesky clock continues to tick, you are arguing in ever decreasing circles. A few salient and current facts:

As cold harsh economic reality seeps in, most Brits are changing their minds about the fundamentals of Brexit. A large majority of elderly Brits voted leave while a large majority of young Brits voted remain. The elderly will be dying more than the young which means that more people will vote remain instead of leave if another referendum were held. Actually, why wait? A majority would vote remain if the referendum were held today. Speaking of which, a majority do want a second referendum.

You are in a minority. Have a good look around you and see who else is in that minority.

jm08 · 08-08-2017 09:17PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

A few things. Firstly - a leak from an official isn't "the Government negotiating through the media". The British government doesn't do this, and it won't start just because the European Commission does. Remember, it was the European Commission who leaked the story of Juncker at Downing Street to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Since the leak about the meeting between Juncker & May was published in a German newspaper, it would seem obvious that the leak came from the Germans (who were shocked at how poorly prepared the British Gov. were and wanted to get their excuses in early that there was probably going to be a hard brexit). May & her Gov. Ministers have plenty of form of playing to their supporters to keep them on side).

As for quoting what someone in the European Commission thinks, there's room for scepticism here. It's in the European Commission's interest to send someone like Catherine Day out to allege something in the press. It's in their interest to influence the British public, but nearly every intervention solidifies the existing position.

From what I understand, Day (speaking at a conference in Dublin) was defending the British Civil servants (and she should know as she worked for 2 British (Tory) Commissioners in her time working for the EU.

The idea that everything needs to be sent to Brussels on day one in order for someone to be "prepared" is ridiculous. It is in Britain's interests to reveal only as much as it needs to at every stage in the negotiations. I don't believe the nonsense that the British government hasn't been preparing since last year. I'm fairly sure they have been and we're going to see a lot of that as the process goes on.

Well, the EU were prepared with position papers from Day 1 and they had to consult with 27 countries and get the approval of them all. It it very obvious at this stage that there is huge division of the kind of deal the UK should seek with the EU.

As for the idea that "the time for patience" is gone. That's nonsense. There's three rounds of negotiations before the European Council meeting in October. Britain has a much stronger hand than many of the Euro-federalists on this thread or elsewhere are willing to admit.

Well, something might happen now that the British Gov. have decided to come up with a few position papers.

The best policy is stay calm, get it sorted, and ignore what's being said in the media. The only thing that matters for the Government is what is said around the negotiating table.

I seem to recall reading in one of the British papers that the UK Negotiating team are very concerned that Barnier's hands are completely tied by the Council of Ministers and has very little room to manouvre, so its more than what is said around the negotiating table.

It's worth pointing out that a major reason for seeking Brexit is based on economics, and on pursuing wider trade relationships which could benefit the British economy. The UK wants to maintain as close a relationship with the EU as possible whilst seeking new opportunities elsewhere.

Ruling out FoM, EU Regs and the ECJ suggest that there won't be a very close relationship between the UK & the EU.

Edit: Remember the chatter about Gibraltar, seems like Spain are backing down. As expected.

All that says is that Spain won't veto a UK/EU trade deal (which I don't think they could anyway). Spain will still have a say in what kind of a trade deal Gibraltar will have with the EU though.

solodeogloria · 09-08-2017 05:58AM

Good morning!

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It would seem that, as the talks continue to stall and that pesky clock continues to tick, you are arguing in ever decreasing circles. A few salient and current facts:

I question a number of your "facts". Particularly the polling data, when there's also polling evidence to suggest that a number of the 48% want to get on with leaving.. I don't think if I'm in a minority, but if I am in a minority, it nonetheless stands on the prime minister to implement the result of the referendum delivered by a majority.

listermint wrote: »

Im struggling at this point to take some of the points you make seriously even to the point that you had voted remain.

That seems to be your problem and not mine. I'm trying to take everyone's posts seriously. I've taken up a difficult position on this thread, but I think I'll be shown to be right in the long term.

listermint wrote: »

The reasons for this are varied but some of the more obvious ones are the use of the terms project fear, sovereignty and eu federalists.

I repeated project fear from another poster. This is very true though. During the referendum the Treasury and others showed dramatic figures to show that the UK would immediately go into recession and that the housing market would collapse. Neither of those things have happened.

Now, the British public are subjected to article after article of if X happens Y will happen without giving any justification for why they believe X will happen.

The reality is that we need to let the Government get on with negotiating. I'm happy to do this. The UK has a capable team.

Sovereignty is a true concept. Regaining control is what the referendum will do. And the UK gives up a large amount of control to the EU. I've mentioned which areas are key to regain control of for me already in this thread.

My use of the term Euro-federalists are to describe those people who think that you cannot be a successful nation outside of the EU, and that the only solution to problems is further integration. That's basically what the "European project" is. An effort to consolidate more and more competences into central powers in Brussels until individual member states have little left.

I can't apologise for using terms that reflect the truth.

listermint wrote: »

You have rolled these tired terms out so many times at this point that its clear when you have no facts to debate on you will call the other side out which such negative 'one liners' such as above that it comes straight out of the BNP playbook.

It's not acceptable for you to refer to me as a fascist on this thread.

listermint wrote: »

IIts the EUs fault, Its the Labour partys fault, its the DNCs fault. World wide its always someone elses fault when the fact is that you become a caricature of this ignorance and complain when people call out the same ignorance. The type of facebook driven easy to digest factlits are rolled out which are simply untruths or part truths designed to put a slant on something ala the express story above.

Again, why are you lumping me into a demographic I don't belong to?

I wouldn't go as far as "blaming" the EU for the fact that Britain wants to take a new direction. I would say however that it is in the EU's interests to continue a trade relationship with Britain post-Brexit.

listermint wrote: »

IFrankly its a testament to the viewpoint of the EU that after the brexit vote and the Trump election that this mentality was widely rejected. I think its fantastic that we have people who can read the facts digest them and say yes i dont want what they are having. i.e mistruths , isolationism, negativity, finger pointing , all the things that do nothing to further the good that we have achieved since `1945.

Again, I don't know why you're caricaturing me into a group I obviously don't belong to.

listermint wrote: »

Alas my post will be ignored sure am i not now a caricature of the federalists that deserve so much ire.....

This is also not fair. I'm responding to a lot of different posters because I offer one of the only dissenting views on this thread. I won't accept nonsense like "my post will be ignored" from anybody.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Solo, it's not fair to say that's an unquestioned assumption. I've put it to you above how the UK position is inherently weak. It's up to you to outline how it's not.

The UK position is weak because it needs a transitional deal minimum (which is entirely the gift of the EU) to give it time to transition to another type of economy. The EU does not need to have a deal. It will be hurt without one, but not fatally.

Without this gift the UK economy will go into a coma at best and the EU knows this.

I offered several reasons as to why the UK's hand is strong from trade to military competence. You can look back on the thread for these. I'm not convinced of your assumption that the UK has nothing it can leverage in these talks.

I also think that in the worst case scenario the UK could weather WTO terms. This isn't a scenario that anybody should want, the EU included. That's why I overwhelmingly say that the UK is offering a positive option for moving forward.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 09-08-2017 07:04AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I offered several reasons as to why the UK's hand is strong from trade to military competence.

The military thing is a bit of a red herring as the UK is a (hopefully) committed member of NATO. Trade is not going to give the UK a strong hand as it needs the trade more than the EU (roughly 6 times more as the UK exports 48% to the EU and the EU only 8% to the UK).

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also think that in the worst case scenario the UK could weather WTO terms. This isn't a scenario that anybody should want, the EU included. That's why I overwhelmingly say that the UK is offering a positive option for moving forward.

Your entire argument falls apart here.

Half of all UK exports go to the EU. Another chunk goes to countries under EU FTAs!

The vast majority of these exports to the EU are services.

Services are not covered by the WTO at all. That's what the single market is for.

The UK economy will be dealt a killer blow if it cannot export its services to the EU post Brexit, which it CANNOT DO under WTO rules alone. The UK MUST get a deal.

EDIT: And don't forget that no deal = crash out of open skies, for which there is no fallback like the WTO at all!

Capt'n Midnight · 09-08-2017 07:33AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is a lot of project fear even now. Most of the pro-EU posts here fall into this category.

Here's some fear then.

The UK is not in good shape to go out on it's own yet.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40869369

That reality had the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, reaching for the history books as he recently observed that the UK hasn't seen a period of such weak income growth since the 19th Century.
...
The highest level of government debt since the war, swingeing cuts in public services and falling real incomes. The last ten years have been unique - and not in a good way.

Professor Moriarty · 09-08-2017 09:17AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I question a number of your "facts". Particularly the polling data, when there's also polling evidence to suggest that a number of the 48% want to get on with leaving.. I don't think if I'm in a minority, but if I am in a minority, it nonetheless stands on the prime minister to implement the result of the referendum delivered by a majority.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You seem to have ignored my points. I'll repeat them:

You are conflating two different poll results that ask two different questions. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate would vote Remain today

The Economist lays out why Brexit will be very damaging for Britain's economy here. As does the FT here

The fact remains that 60% of Brits want to retain their EU passport.

The fact remains that a large majority of elderly voters voted Leave while a large majority of young voters voted remain.

The fact remains that a majority of Brits want a referendum on any Brexit deal.

Rather than just saying you 'question' my facts, why not address them instead?

oppenheimer1 · 09-08-2017 10:25AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I offered several reasons as to why the UK's hand is strong from trade to military competence. You can look back on the thread for these. I'm not convinced of your assumption that the UK has nothing it can leverage in these talks.

I also think that in the worst case scenario the UK could weather WTO terms. This isn't a scenario that anybody should want, the EU included. That's why I overwhelmingly say that the UK is offering a positive option for moving forward.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

As far as we are aware, the UK is still a committed member of NATO. In fact, the went to great lengths to ensure Trump recommitted the US to the organisation. Furthermore, the EU is not a military alliance - so it's not on the table.

Imagine a world without no EU and that Ireland was trying to negotiate a trade agreement with the UK. Who would hold the whip in those circumstances? Who would dictate terms? Of course it would be the UK and the reason for it would be relative size and power and consequently the need for the deal. The same is true for the UKs negotiation with the EU today. The EU doesn't need a deal with the UK but it would desire one. The UK needs the deal.

No one is saying the UK is bringing nothing to the table. Of course it is. It is a large wealthy country, a big market for European exports. The problem for the UK is that it needs the deal more than the other side needs it. That's what makes their position weak.

If I have a water supply on my land and you don't have a drop and it would take you 5 years to organise a supply from a third party, I bet, if I waited you out, I would be able to get you to trade all your land for a single glass of water. That's the difference between needs and wants.

murphaph · 09-08-2017 10:35AM

That's what it comes down to. The UK is just hoping that the EU will be good sports about the whole thing.

Professor Moriarty · 09-08-2017 11:25AM

murphaph wrote: »

That's what it comes down to. The UK is just hoping that the EU will be good sports about the whole thing.

Exactly. The Tories have created this mess and now they don't know what to do with it. Meanwhile, the electorate is waking up to the fact that the whole Leave 'idea' was smoke and mirrors behind which there are just a few clueless Little Englanders making it up as they go along. And so they hope that the EU will bail them out with a pick and choose deal. Eh, no.

Mezcita · 09-08-2017 12:10PM

So how do people thing this is going to pan out in terms of Sterling continuing to slide in value? Is parity with the Euro likely? Or worse?

oppenheimer1 · 09-08-2017 12:19PM

Mezcita wrote: »

So how do people thing this is going to pan out in terms of Sterling continuing to slide in value? Is parity with the Euro likely? Or worse?

Trying to predict currency movements is a mugs game. That said, if it comes to October and the EU decides not to progress the talks (which is what I suspect will happen) then we will most likely see another sharp fall in the pound. This may then force the UK to finally get real where then we will see a rebound in the value.

Currency can be volatile in the summer as the volume of trades is a lot lower.

Fratton Fred · 09-08-2017 12:47PM

Mezcita wrote: »

So how do people thing this is going to pan out in terms of Sterling continuing to slide in value? Is parity with the Euro likely? Or worse?

The markets would be fearing the worst and will not want to get caught out again, so it is probably as low as it will go. It may drop a few cents, but I can't see it getting much lower than it is now.

oppenheimer1 · 09-08-2017 01:08PM

Has any brexiteer ever cared to explain why the pound has lost so much of its value since the referendum? Why have the markets lost confidence in the pound?

solodeogloria · 09-08-2017 04:00PM

Good evening!

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You seem to have ignored my points. I'll repeat them:

You are conflating two different poll results that ask two different questions. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate would vote Remain today

The Economist lays out why Brexit will be very damaging for Britain's economy here. As does the FT here

The fact remains that 60% of Brits want to retain their EU passport.

The fact remains that a large majority of elderly voters voted Leave while a large majority of young voters voted remain.

The fact remains that a majority of Brits want a referendum on any Brexit deal.

Rather than just saying you 'question' my facts, why not address them instead?

Firstly - these aren't "facts". Differing polling from YouGov suggests that most people don't want a second referendum and support respecting the result. Other polling from YouGov also suggests that a sizeable proportion of remain voters want to get on with leaving the EU. Given there is a difference in polling data wouldn't say that these are facts.

If there is a difference in how people would vote after Brexit rather than before Brexit as the YouGov figures would suggest then your argument about people dying is pointless.

Most people wanting to retain an EU passport isn't an argument against Brexit or even a case that people don't support it.

Opinion pieces are by their very nature opinion pieces. Opinion isn't generally considered "fact". The Independent is an extremely biased paper on Brexit. In fact it's the remainers equivalent of the Daily Express.

The fact that so many people liked your post just shows how much of an echo chamber this thread is.

murphaph wrote: »

The military thing is a bit of a red herring as the UK is a (hopefully) committed member of NATO. Trade is not going to give the UK a strong hand as it needs the trade more than the EU (roughly 6 times more as the UK exports 48% to the EU and the EU only 8% to the UK).

Your entire argument falls apart here.

Half of all UK exports go to the EU. Another chunk goes to countries under EU FTAs!

The vast majority of these exports to the EU are services.

Services are not covered by the WTO at all. That's what the single market is for.

The UK economy will be dealt a killer blow if it cannot export its services to the EU post Brexit, which it CANNOT DO under WTO rules alone. The UK MUST get a deal.

EDIT: And don't forget that no deal = crash out of open skies, for which there is no fallback like the WTO at all!

The UK still trades in services with a lot of other countries. This would continue even if tariffs had to be charged on them. If the UK has services that are needed elsewhere they will continue to be bought. Much in the same way that the UK imports services from outside of the EU. It would be painful for the UK economy but the idea that the UK couldn't weather it is an unfounded myth. Leaving on WTO terms is a last resort.

This isn't the desired outcome and presenting it as if it is isn't helpful. The UK are clear that they want a free trade deal with the EU and it is very much in the EU's interest to have British trade post-Brexit and it isn't in the EU's interest to lock themselves out of financial markets. MiFID II is still something to watch. The European Commission are still deciding if the US and Japan can be deemed to be equivalent in terms of financial regulation (The US has a very good case in terms of Dodd Frank) for January 3rd. If the US is deemed to be regulatory equivalent to the EU and the UK isn't after Brexit despite sharing the same law there would be potential for legal action.

The UK trades 44% in goods and services with the EU. I agree this is worth maintaining whilst looking for other opportunities also. I agree with you that the UK should negotiate access to this and to the open skies policy.

It isn't helpful to discuss how much the EU might be interested in harming itself and others. The will is there for a constructive future from what I can see. The fact that most posters are keen for the EU to pull the trigger on the UK and therefore on itself is depressing, but I don't think it reflects reality at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jm08 · 09-08-2017 04:50PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK still trades in services with a lot of other countries. This would continue even if tariffs had to be charged on them. If the UK has services that are needed elsewhere they will continue to be bought. Much in the same way that the UK imports services from outside of the EU. It would be painful for the UK economy but the idea that the UK couldn't weather it is an unfounded myth. Leaving on WTO terms is a last resort.

This isn't the desired outcome and presenting it as if it is isn't helpful. The UK are clear that they want a free trade deal with the EU and it is very much in the EU's interest to have British trade post-Brexit and it isn't in the EU's interest to lock themselves out of financial markets. MiFID II is still something to watch. The European Commission are still deciding if the US and Japan can be deemed to be equivalent in terms of financial regulation (The US has a very good case in terms of Dodd Frank) for January 3rd. If the US is deemed to be regulatory equivalent to the EU and the UK isn't after Brexit despite sharing the same law there would be potential for legal action.

The UK trades 44% in goods and services with the EU. I agree this is worth maintaining whilst looking for other opportunities also. I agree with you that the UK should negotiate access to this and to the open skies policy.

It isn't helpful to discuss how much the EU might be interested in harming itself and others. The will is there for a constructive future from what I can see. The fact that most posters are keen for the EU to pull the trigger on the UK and therefore on itself is depressing, but I don't think it reflects reality at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

UK financial services will not be able to operate in the EU as they will be outside the EU Regulatory area. One of the main reasons that the EBA has to leave the London is because it would not be covered by EU law and there is a reason why American banks have such a large presence in the city of London and why they are now all planning to move their EU business to EU countries.

The ECJ and EU Regulations are a red line for Mrs May. I can't see her changing her mind on that.

solodeogloria · 09-08-2017 04:55PM

jm08 wrote: »

UK financial services will not be able to operate in the EU as they will be outside the EU Regulatory area. One of the main reasons that the EBA has to leave the London is because it would not be covered by EU law and there is a reason why American banks have such a large presence in the city of London and why they are now all planning to move their EU business to EU countries.

The ECJ and EU Regulations are a red line for Mrs May. I can't see her changing her mind on that.

Good evening!

It isn't true that financial services can't be traded into the EU. This happens already and further provisions for passporting from third countries which are deemed regulatory equivalent are provided for in MiFID II which goes live in the UK and in the rest of the EU on January 3rd next year.

My point which was largely ignored earlier is that the EU will need access to financial services in London after Brexit. Mark Carney highlighted this as has Wolfgang Schaeuble and Barnier himself. I linked to all three on this thread already.

I don't think anyone has any issue with the EU exercising judgement over companies that deal in and with the single market. People do have issue with the EU ruling on domestic matters in the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments