Brexit discussion thread II

BoatMad · 09-10-2017 10:04PM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Are you sure? Does ratifying Brexit require a constitutional amendment?

Nate

believe so in Ireland , its a mod to the treaties

Nate--IRL-- · 09-10-2017 10:17PM

BoatMad wrote: »

believe so in Ireland , its a mod to the treaties

I'm sure some legal finesse will be employed to allow the Dail to ratify. That said, I'd find Brexit ultimately in the hands of the Irish electorate highly amusing.

Nate

steddyeddy · 09-10-2017 10:28PM

No they haven't agreed to a transition, but the UK's under the assumptions that the EU will give them whatever they want.

carrickbally · 09-10-2017 10:28PM

Heading in the Daily Telegraph says it all.

Britain has a strong Brexit hand. Planning for no deal helps the Government play it
Telegraph View

murphaph · 09-10-2017 10:40PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No they haven't agreed to a transition, but the UK's under the assumptions that the EU will give them whatever they want.

The UK seems to see the hypothetical transition as some sort of concession to the EU, when it would obviously be the EU doing the UK a massive favour.

steddyeddy · 09-10-2017 10:42PM

murphaph wrote: »

The UK seems to see the hypothetical transition as some sort of concession to the EU, when it would obviously be the EU doing the UK a massive favour.

The biggest mystery is how they can get the EU 27 to agree to a transition deal when they publically stated freedom of movement stops on March 2019. Transition means freedom of movement.

Water John · 09-10-2017 10:44PM

Not sure we have to have a ref on this. Article 50 as an option document is already in the Treaties and agreed to. All that has happened is, the UK has pulled it off the shelf and blown the dust off it.

A Little Pony · 09-10-2017 10:48PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

A deal is never going to happen, the government is already planning behind closed doors for the possibility, they know it's not going to happen but have to give the illusion at this time of it being possible. I'd have already had us out of the EU by now. It's wasting everyone's time and the sooner we leave the better.

By planning you mean:
- Publishing extra ferry time tables
- Guides to exporting to the 12 island nations that are not WTO members
- Guides on how to apply for a Schengen visa
- Guides to exporting to as a non WTO member state
- ...

The idea that you can walk away from your commitments and expect that the 27 member states will agree to your application for full WTO membership etc... is beyond delusional.

Once any obligation period is over then that is it. I have seen no evidence that any deal is going to happen. Actually from what I have been reading and the vibe is the government is preparing for a no deal, probably actually expecting it which is what I think is going to happen.

Leonard Hofstadter · 09-10-2017 11:11PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Once any obligation period is over then that is it. I have seen no evidence that any deal is going to happen. Actually from what I have been reading and the vibe is the government is preparing for a no deal, probably actually expecting it which is what I think is going to happen.

I think so as well, it's perfectly normal for a bit of playing to the gallery in any big political thing and then at the 11th hour we have some sort of 'breakthrough' and it's all miraculously resolved. We only have to look at the budget tomorrow - of course it will be passed - nobody wants an election and no political party wants to be blamed for causing an election as that will go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.

But I do think we're a bit beyond this and it really is best to plan for no deal, the upper echelons of the Tory party and the hard Brexiters are still operating under the delusion that they have the upper hand over the EU when they most clearly don't.

A genuine question: can the EU block the UK from joining the WTO? The UK after is a member at present via the EU but they will need to go in as their own country post-Brexit. If they can then that is quite a trump card the EU has over the UK (in addition to all the other trump cards they have).

Sam Russell · 09-10-2017 11:15PM

captainspeed wrote: »

I think so as well, it's perfectly normal for a bit of playing to the gallery in any big political thing and then at the 11th hour we have some sort of 'breakthrough' and it's all miraculously resolved. We only have to look at the budget tomorrow - of course it will be passed - nobody wants an election and no political party wants to be blamed for causing an election as that will go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.

But I do think we're a bit beyond this and it really is best to plan for no deal, the upper echelons of the Tory party and the hard Brexiters are still operating under the delusion that they have the upper hand over the EU when they most clearly don't.

A genuine question: can the EU block the UK from joining the WTO? The UK after is a member at present via the EU but they will need to go in as their own country post-Brexit. If they can then that is quite a trump card the EU has over the UK (in addition to all the other trump cards they have).

Don't mention Trump. They have enough trouble with Boeing.

Talking of Boeing, would the EU intervene and use some muscle to help out our new Canadian best friends? Would they be more likely if the UK was not leaving the EU?

Leonard Hofstadter · 09-10-2017 11:33PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Don't mention Trump. They have enough trouble with Boeing.

Talking of Boeing, would the EU intervene and use some muscle to help out our new Canadian best friends? Would they be more likely if the UK was not leaving the EU?

Ha, I see what you did there! Wasn't intentional as I can't stand the man! I bet if it was a country staying in the EU they would. As has been pointed out before, the US never dared to do anything against Airbus even though (unlike Bombardier) they compete directly with Boeing.

This is one of the advantages of being in a massive trade block (the single market/EU), the market is large enough and attractive enough for other third countries to want to do a deal with, but equally the EU single market is large enough that we don't have to have trade deals with other third countries. They're a kind of nice little luxury but we can manage without them, even with the UK gone there is still a single market for 440 million, that's a lot so there's plenty of room for competition and innovation.

Because we're not desperate for trade deals (even though we'd like them at the same time) it means that to use Theresa May's favourite phrase 'no deal is better than a bad deal', which when it comes to trade deals can often be the case (e.g. US-Australia), more often than not the EU has the upper hand in trade deals due to its sheer size and the fact that the single market is the world's wealthiest trading bloc so it can hold the line on environmental and food standards and force everyone up to their level rather than allowing any old thing because you're so desperate for a trade deal (like what might happen in Brexit Britain).

Junkyard Tom · 09-10-2017 11:57PM

This is the salient point when it comes to Brexit that I keep returning to in my thoughts.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Brexit will be an education in how a false sense of one's place in the world can have consequences.

In the clip below we can listen to the absolute disconnect from reality UKIP and Rule Britannia types have. Just listen to the utter idiocy of the UKIP peer contrasted with Ian Dunt speaking of the deeply damaging realities a bad Brexit could inflict on the British population.

https://youtu.be/Aetus_o1RnE?t=59

jimmycrackcorm · 10-10-2017 12:08AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Well that seems to be what UK government has been saying for since brexit started. The UK has decided its leaving. Please over us the deal we want. The EU can't and isn't going to stop the UK from leaving. The EU has said if you want to have a trade agreement that goes beyond WTO rules there's our demands. If they are unacceptable to the UK, it leaves and goes trading under WTO rules ( assuming it gets over the objections of other WTO members)

The analogy made be crude but it sums up the situation. The UK badly needs some sort of deal. Its the reason there is so much debate and division in the UK over it. For the EU no politician will lose their job. It is up to the UK to offer a deal that's acceptable to the EU not the other way around.

TLDR. Husband decides he wants to leave his wife and family home. He gets to live in a grotty bedsit, still has to pay the mortgage, but at least he has his freedom.

sink · 10-10-2017 12:53AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

In the clip below we can listen to the absolute disconnect from reality UKIP and Rule Britannia types have. Just listen to the utter idiocy of the UKIP peer contrasted with Ian Dunt speaking of the deeply damaging realities a bad Brexit could inflict on the British population.

https://youtu.be/Aetus_o1RnE?t=59

When he says that they can set up a medicine regulator in a fortnight with no budget you have to wonder about his sanity. It's like claiming you can build an commercial aeroplane out of cardboard and superglue. He is reasoning on the level of a cargo cult, dress up like an aeroplane and pray to the sky and maybe some rations will fall.

Nody · 10-10-2017 01:01AM

captainspeed wrote: »

A genuine question: can the EU block the UK from joining the WTO? The UK after is a member at present via the EU but they will need to go in as their own country post-Brexit. If they can then that is quite a trump card the EU has over the UK (in addition to all the other trump cards they have).

UK is in a hybrid set up where they are part of WTO as a country and the EU block as well; that's why an agreement needs to be reached on their share of the EU quotas to be able to act as it's own again. That's also what the recent Canada, NZ, Australia, USA etc. rejection was about; if the other countries don't accept the split UK in practice can't sign new WTO trade deals or invoke old once because their share of imports are not clear. What makes it even more interesting of course is the export side of things; once UK have left EU in April 2019 and try to export under the quotas agreed by EU if an agreement has not been reached they are likely to be rejected and told full WTO tariffs apply since they are no longer part of EU.

And to help put things in perspective here's an interview done by the CNN with opinion of Pascal Lamy (European Commissioner for Trade 1999-2004 and head of WTO 2005-2013) who answered when asked if trading on WTO terms would be enough simply with a "No, that's why UK joined EU in the first place" and also shoots down the idea of UK getting better FTA then what EU has been able to get. I'd strongly recommend watching the interview for our Brexiteers here but of course with him being an expert and previous head of the WTO I'm sure his opinion will simply be ignored since it's all part of project fear...

Zubeneschamali · 10-10-2017 06:18AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are being intransigent

Good.

The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result

She has changed tack completely because the referendum, held to marginalize the Tory Eurosceptics, backfired and strengthened the Eurosceptic wing of the party, and she had to change sides to get the top job.

If internal Tory party politics dictated that she should change back, announce Parliament is sovereign and hang the referendum result to stay at number 10, she would do so in a heartbeat.

Calina · 10-10-2017 06:24AM

BoatMad wrote: »

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Are you sure? Does ratifying Brexit require a constitutional amendment?

Nate

believe so in Ireland , its a mod to the treaties

It is unlikely. We don't have a referendum every time there is a new member or trade deal. This is a) reverse new member (one leaving) and b) possibly a trade deal at some point in the future.

This is not a substantive mod to the treaties. The list of countries changes but the provisions within the treaties do not.

In any case we don't ratify Brexit. Only the UK does. We agree an exit arrangement and potentially trade arrangements afterwards.

Enzokk · 10-10-2017 07:48AM

Nody wrote: »

And to help put things in perspective here's an interview done by the CNN with opinion of Pascal Lamy (European Commissioner for Trade 1999-2004 and head of WTO 2005-2013) who answered when asked if trading on WTO terms would be enough simply with a "No, that's why UK joined EU in the first place" and also shoots down the idea of UK getting better FTA then what EU has been able to get. I'd strongly recommend watching the interview for our Brexiteers here but of course with him being an expert and previous head of the WTO I'm sure his opinion will simply be ignored since it's all part of project fear...

I think Pascal Lamy puts it in terms that is easy to understand, paraphrasing here, but in a FTA negotiation your weight is the size of your market. In the EU the weight of of the market is 500 million, but the UK is cutting that down now to 60 million or to around 10%-15%. So I would guess the fantasy idea that the UK can just cut and paste FTA with countries that already have ones with the EU will be almost impossible.

Why would South Korea, who I am sure gave up some concessions in the negotiations with the EU, just give those concessions to the UK as well as the EU? What incentive do they have to double their concessions as I am sure the EU will not agree to a 15% cut in the FTA because the UK isn't there any longer? The FTA will continue as is and the UK will have to negotiate its own concessions from the start with those nations, or have a quick deal that will favour the other side as they have been negotiating with the EU and will be up to date on what they want.

LeinsterDub · 10-10-2017 08:20AM

Theresa May has angered pro-Brexit MPs by conceding that the European court of justice would continue to have jurisdiction over the UK during the “implementation period” when Britain leaves the European Union

An other day an another flip flop on so called UK red lines. It's only a small step away from accepting jurisdiction for ever or 100 years and will have the citizens rights issue resolved

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/brexit-mps-angry-as-theresa-may-accepts-continuing-rule-of-eu-court

Samaris · 10-10-2017 08:34AM

An interesting bit I came across in reading about the whole thing was that Britain does not have a great deal of negotiators and people trained in agreeing trade deals. Since they joined the EU, it has been the EU negotiating teams to sort out all trade deals. Obviously, some of those people were British, of course, but there hasn't been a need to push for people with those skills in roughly forty years.

When the UK put forward Article 50 (the timing of which was pretty much May's only big card and she did not exploit it at all), the UK had about forty people able for the job (experienced trade negotiators) vs the EU's 550 or thereabout. With those 40, plus some help from New Zealand and perhaps some from Canada (there was a call put out there towards negotiators that had just finished the seven year negotiation for a Canada-EU trade deal, not sure if they got them), minus any of the forty that were London-based in particular and pro-Remain in general that weren't particularly interested in delivering an almost impossible deal that they didn't agree with anyway (that was also an issue with getting people), the UK has to work out the negotiations with the EU, once there's enough progress made there, negotiations with the WTO and other countries - if they have the people. This is just to prevent things not being done in time, regardless of how well the actual negotiations go.

Also, the deal with the EU has to be completed long before March 2019, as all other 27 countries have to ratify it. That's going to be longer than a two month job, the deal has to be struck and agreed between UK and the negotiators by perhaps this time next year to ensure it has time to be passed.

Britain also cannot unilaterally decide to raise or lower tariffs without it hitting all WTO countries, unless there is a specific trade deal in place. They cannot just decide to raise or lower tarrifs on one trading partner without the same effect on all. Brexiters who talk about being able to lower the tariffs to nothing between the UK and EU cannot also argue for a no-deal Brexit, because it simply does not work this way. A taste of this is NZ, Canada and the US going "oy" regarding the quota splits. ("Most favoured nation" rule). This all assumes that the UK can just disentangle its "schedule" from the EU one (the schedule being the list of rules and tariffs that apply to goods being imported and exported). This needs to be argued out for legalities, but let's take the best case scenario, that they can. (If they don't, they start from scratch).

The UK needs to extract its schedule and present it to the WTO. The WTO needs to accept it and any issues need to be dealt with through a process if other countries disagree. So, Britain goes to the WTO and tries to bring along as much of its EU agreements as possible. Every change the UK makes risks trade disputes with other countries - and some of the EU regulations aren't as useful to the UK. Firstly, there's bringing forward all external tariffs that the EU already has, i.e. on cars, etc. It would be suicide to start messing with those, because it's going to take delicate work to get anything through the WTO and changes will absolutely start disputes coming in. This, by the way, means that Britain is not particularly in control of its tariffs and trade. That is the inevitable downside of trading on a world market. The alternative is being North Korea.

Also, some of the tariffs don't really benefit Britain - their main sugar refining is of cane sugar (through Tate & Lyle). The vast majority of European sugar is beet. Protections are on beet. There are also protections on oranges. Tinkering with any of these already opens the UK up to costly trade disputes.

And this is just what happens after if things go okay with the EU. If things don't go okay with the EU, that's 27 aggravated countries in the WTO who can make life difficult.

Those forty trained negotiators are going to be busy.

Samaris · 10-10-2017 08:37AM

Food for thought - that comment that May made about how Britain wants to take back control of how it labels its goods would actually indicate a removal from the WTO. The rules on international goods labelling comes from the Codex Alimentarius, which sets regulations that go down through the WTO, are accepted by the EU and all countries within.

A lot of the complaining about the EU regarding food labelling wasn't actually to do with the EU (Johnson's moronic EU correspondent articles aside). If May wants to unilaterally decide how Britain labels its foodstuffs and does not abide by the usual rules, they don't sell them to anyone.

So even from that point, it was becoming clear that the politicians in charge of Brexit had little to no idea of what they were actually doing.

solodeogloria · 10-10-2017 09:08AM

Samaris wrote: »

An interesting bit I came across in reading about the whole thing was that Britain does not have a great deal of negotiators and people trained in agreeing trade deals. Since they joined the EU, it has been the EU negotiating teams to sort out all trade deals. Obviously, some of those people were British, of course, but there hasn't been a need to push for people with those skills in roughly forty years.

When the UK put forward Article 50 (the timing of which was pretty much May's only big card and she did not exploit it at all), the UK had about forty people able for the job (experienced trade negotiators) vs the EU's 550 or thereabout. With those 40, plus some help from New Zealand and perhaps some from Canada (there was a call put out there towards negotiators that had just finished the seven year negotiation for a Canada-EU trade deal, not sure if they got them), minus any of the forty that were London-based in particular and pro-Remain in general that weren't particularly interested in delivering an almost impossible deal that they didn't agree with anyway (that was also an issue with getting people), the UK has to work out the negotiations with the EU, once there's enough progress made there, negotiations with the WTO and other countries - if they have the people. This is just to prevent things not being done in time, regardless of how well the actual negotiations go.

Also, the deal with the EU has to be completed long before March 2019, as all other 27 countries have to ratify it. That's going to be longer than a two month job, the deal has to be struck and agreed between UK and the negotiators by perhaps this time next year to ensure it has time to be passed.

Britain also cannot unilaterally decide to raise or lower tariffs without it hitting all WTO countries, unless there is a specific trade deal in place. They cannot just decide to raise or lower tarrifs on one trading partner without the same effect on all. Brexiters who talk about being able to lower the tariffs to nothing between the UK and EU cannot also argue for a no-deal Brexit, because it simply does not work this way. A taste of this is NZ, Canada and the US going "oy" regarding the quota splits. ("Most favoured nation" rule). This all assumes that the UK can just disentangle its "schedule" from the EU one (the schedule being the list of rules and tariffs that apply to goods being imported and exported). This needs to be argued out for legalities, but let's take the best case scenario, that they can. (If they don't, they start from scratch).

The UK needs to extract its schedule and present it to the WTO. The WTO needs to accept it and any issues need to be dealt with through a process if other countries disagree. So, Britain goes to the WTO and tries to bring along as much of its EU agreements as possible. Every change the UK makes risks trade disputes with other countries - and some of the EU regulations aren't as useful to the UK. Firstly, there's bringing forward all external tariffs that the EU already has, i.e. on cars, etc. It would be suicide to start messing with those, because it's going to take delicate work to get anything through the WTO and changes will absolutely start disputes coming in. This, by the way, means that Britain is not particularly in control of its tariffs and trade. That is the inevitable downside of trading on a world market. The alternative is being North Korea.

Also, some of the tariffs don't really benefit Britain - their main sugar refining is of cane sugar (through Tate & Lyle). The vast majority of European sugar is beet. Protections are on beet. There are also protections on oranges. Tinkering with any of these already opens the UK up to costly trade disputes.

And this is just what happens after if things go okay with the EU. If things don't go okay with the EU, that's 27 aggravated countries in the WTO who can make life difficult.

Those forty trained negotiators are going to be busy.

Good morning!

I'm broadly in agreement that the UK will need to keep its trade schedule broadly in harmony upon retaking its own independent seat on the WTO.

I think Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia have a fair point and steps need to be taken to compromise with them. I think the UK should be willing to take a greater quota to compensate for the lack of flexibility if they don't want to trade more. Keeping the same quota isn't keeping things the same as what they are.

Once the UK sits on the WTO it can propose modifications in due course.

This wrangling with WTO terms shows the obvious disadvantage of giving up control of your trade policy for 40 years.

I think the UK have made reasonable proposals to the EU. I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the Prime Minister has gone as far as she can go.

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy · 10-10-2017 09:22AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An other day an another flip flop on so called UK red lines. It's only a small step away from accepting jurisdiction for ever or 100 years and will have the citizens rights issue resolved

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/brexit-mps-angry-as-theresa-may-accepts-continuing-rule-of-eu-court

They still have to sort out border, bill and rights before a transition deal occurs.

cantwbr1 · 10-10-2017 09:24AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think the UK have made reasonable proposals to the EU. I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the Prime Minister has gone as far as she can go.

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Can you point us to where how far Teresa May can go is defined. As has been pointed out numerous times the entire show is purely to appease the Tory eurosceptics and nothing appears to ever have been defined (in public anyway)

listermint · 10-10-2017 09:32AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm broadly in agreement that the UK will need to keep its trade schedule broadly in harmony upon retaking its own independent seat on the WTO.

I think Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia have a fair point and steps need to be taken to compromise with them. I think the UK should be willing to take a greater quota to compensate for the lack of flexibility if they don't want to trade more. Keeping the same quota isn't keeping things the same as what they are.

Once the UK sits on the WTO it can propose modifications in due course.

This wrangling with WTO terms shows the obvious disadvantage of giving up control of your trade policy for 40 years.

I think the UK have made reasonable proposals to the EU. I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the Prime Minister has gone as far as she can go.

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

And the extremely advantageous growth that it had in those same 40 years.

Also there is a large bill to settle before they go off spending money that is owed.

Enzokk · 10-10-2017 09:34AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm broadly in agreement that the UK will need to keep its trade schedule broadly in harmony upon retaking its own independent seat on the WTO.

I think Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia have a fair point and steps need to be taken to compromise with them. I think the UK should be willing to take a greater quota to compensate for the lack of flexibility if they don't want to trade more. Keeping the same quota isn't keeping things the same as what they are.

Once the UK sits on the WTO it can propose modifications in due course.

This wrangling with WTO terms shows the obvious disadvantage of giving up control of your trade policy for 40 years.

I think the UK have made reasonable proposals to the EU. I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the Prime Minister has gone as far as she can go.

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Firstly Australia didn't sign the letter, it was the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand and Uruguay who signed the letter. I am not sure where Australia stands on this.

I know this may be pointless, but any thoughts on the interview linked with Pascal Lamy and the position the UK will find itself in regarding trade negotiations?

Also, if one of the compromises is that the UK will pay for a transition period then you are delusional. It is not a compromise to pay for access to something. That would mean the position before would have been that the UK expected to have access for free.

In the youtube clip linked by Junkyard Tom with Ian Dunt and Lord Pearson, Ian Dunt talks about the cost that the UK may have to keep paying to the EU. This would be for any EU organization that the UK will use once they are out of the EU. Now before you say they will leave everything there is no way the UK will replicate all the EU institutions that they currently make use of. So there will have to be some payments to the EU even after the UK have left the EU.

So if the UK doesn't want to spend money on setting up a new aviation regulator, or medicines agency, or anything that is currently checked in the EU that the UK uses it will need to keep paying into the EU budget.

LeinsterDub · 10-10-2017 09:48AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

They still have to sort out border, bill and rights before a transition deal occurs.

Indeed but at this stage any progress is major progress

Zubeneschamali · 10-10-2017 09:57AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Hard Brexit might cost perhaps 10% of the UKs GDP for 10 years, or £3 trillion pounds.

Good luck finding that down the back of the EU contributions sofa.

murphaph · 10-10-2017 10:11AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But I thought the NHS was getting that money after the UK left the EU?!

What a joke this has all become. You know well it will cost hundreds of millions to get even the customs infrastructure in place for heaven's sake.

It's pathetic. Just how much for economic pain are you willing to inflict on those who can't up sticks and leave, all for so called sovereignty (the whole WTO debacle shows that no nation is truly sovereign)?

ambro25 · 10-10-2017 10:32AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm broadly in agreement that the UK will need to keep its trade schedule broadly in harmony upon retaking its own independent seat on the WTO.

Too bad USA, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand and Uruguay now also want their cake and eating it, eh?

So that ain't happening.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This wrangling with WTO terms shows the obvious disadvantage of giving up control of your trade policy for 40 years.

How much of a disadvantage to the UK was getting the benefit of quotas and tariffs levels gained on the back of a 500 million consumers-sized market, again?

solodeogloria wrote: »

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

The UK has not made any inroads towards that "ideal scenario" prior to invoking Article 50 TEU or since, so you can safely knock that notion on the head.

The EU has not made much inroads, either.

But then, unlike the UK, it doesn't need to: that's what the balance of power in negotiations is all about.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Sorry to break it to you, but as already posted and linked aplenty in the past few days, No.11 Downing Street is sh1t out of luck: the OBR is shortly taking a broadsword to Hammond's Brexit kitty.

Accessorily, that converts as around 9-ish years' worth of government resources husbanding and deficit nursing by Osbourne down the tubes, for the sake of 16 months' worth of rethoric and identity politics.

And I've not mentioned the exit bill, which is on top. I know you're oblivious to it, but well: the exit bill about which the EU will drag the UK kicking and screaming into the ICJ in the Hague in case of no deal/hard Brexit, with a claim for breach of its contractual obligations under the VC which will in all likelihood succeed, and the judgement for which the EU would be able to enforce through the WTO if it needs to.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments