jmayo wrote: » Ah come on be fair. JCB is what is left of what was once a great indigenous British vehicle manufacturing industry. The rest from their glory years, when they were even sometimes world leading design, have either disappeared entirely or have been bought up by foreigners. And the shock and horror of it sometimes the foreigners hail from former colonies. Next week he will be speaking from Morgan's plant.
Necro wrote: » Here's the thing that I wonder most regarding the possibility of a No Deal Brexit (and apologies if this has been discussed before). Given that the HoC can't even decide what direction to take with a Crash Out looming, how on earth can any of the parties - Labour, Tories - whoever is in charge in the aftermath - be trusted or deemed competent to negotiate trade deals with other nations? Most of the countries that would yield a return to some form of normality after an extended period of hardship and chaos in the UK must be licking their lips at the thought of dealing with... May (Probably unlikely), Corbyn (also unlikely) - or whoever is PM/Foreign Secretary. How will it ever be resolved without an entire revamp of UK politics?
wiggle16 wrote: » There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that, even though the entire idea of Brexit (sans the xenophobia that spawned it) is that the UK will be free to strike its own super-amazing trade deals "across the globe" as if the East India Tea Company will be setting sail again, they barely managed to negotiate this one, after two and a half years, and they don't even want it. I know this deal is more than just a trade deal in that it's to set out the UK's future legal relationship with the EU and the border is a fatal complication, but in this case they were negotiating with an economic power that doesn't want to hurt them or exploit them. How are they going to fare against the US or China etc when this shítshow is the best they could manage? They are seriously overestimating their own clout and paying no heed to the fact that other nations want good trade deals for themselves, not for the UK.
sandbelter wrote: » Nope, I think your underestimate the stakes the game is being played on the continent, they have bigger fish to fry. In Greece I think is still on one pain killer per surgical procedure, Spain still hasn't recovered from the crash, and the right wing is on a rise in Europe, so they are playing for much higher states. From a European perspective Ireland is a country that deals with its problems and moves on (that might comes a shock to some of you). To boot we have the second highest highest GDP per capita in the Eurozone. We'll be paying for NI and also more to the EU, and frankly its a good problem to have, without the EU we wouldn't be this well off. They're be diplomatic support, the odd grant, but I expect we'll do 97% of the heavy lifting. We're seen to have the money ....that how 4% of the EU population ending up with 90% of the EU bailout bill.
road_high wrote: » David McWilliams was talking lately about re unification and his point is that Irish GDP has been rising pretty fast as the economy expands further, the relative burden of the NI subsidy is getting smaller and smaller relative to us thus we’d be more easily able to absorb it. Plus there would be an eventual economic dividend as NI itself is definitely not performing to its full potential under London.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Well, the DoIT is brand new. The civil service is completely new to negotiating trade deals so it gets worse whereas the US and China are much more experienced in this regard. The cheap talk of Trump's Scottish mother will evaporate when it comes to negotiations.
road_high wrote: » Trade deals by their very nature are brutal and protracted- just look at NAFTA and the recent name change to appease Trump- and that’s with three major economies that neighbor each other, share cultural similarities and deep historic ties...can only imagine the difficulties that’ll arise with some English Tory toffs talking down to much more robust economies!! The UK will be coming at them all from a point of desperation whereas it’ll be incidental to most of the other countries. I guess they still have such an entrenched notion of superiority going on in their national psyche that no one can see this!
Strazdas wrote: » This is a key point. People are assuming NI would carry on being a subsidised region of Ireland in the same way it had been a subsidised region of the UK, but unification would be a complete game changer and would radically alter the NI economy in a different direction.
road_high wrote: » The work IDA Ireland could do in NI would be phenomenal really. As would same be for the tourist industry. We decry our govt and state bodies regularly but they’ve done a fine job promoting investment into Ireland and brand Ireland the past 25 years. All in all we are a well run country and very stable. NI is a pure basket case by comparison
wiggle16 wrote: » Figures can be bandied around about how much or how little of our trade is with the UK, but as things stand, 50% of our beef and 56% of our pork exports go to the UK - there's a lot of jobs in and connected with those industries (not to mention the actual communities that depend on them). If the UK and the EU begin to hardball each other on trade, and they almost certainly will and at the UK's instigation, we will be the ones to suffer. And that's without considering the practical impact of a hard border on the island itself. Out of the EU 27 we have by far the most to lose from Brexit. Which is what makes it even more frustrating to listen to the bollox and jingoism put out by the UK media, the carry on in Westminster and the unlettered Rule Britannia crap coming out of the mouths of people such as on Question Time the other night etc - their ignorance and lack of any foresight is going to have a direct effect on us. There's no way to counter that, it's their business, but it's infuriating.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Even the Ukraine is looking for a renegotiation:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-ukraine-welcome-progress-on-trade-relationship
Donald Trump wrote: » Tourism is already largely marketed or coordinated via All-Ireland bodies is it not?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I can't say where I got this from but DoIT's current objective is trying to mitigate as much damage as possible. The issue won't be signing new trade deals, it's going to be trying to preserve as much of the current deals as possible as other countries will be angling for renegotiations given that the EU negotiated them on its members' behalf. Even the Ukraine is looking for a renegotiation:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-ukraine-welcome-progress-on-trade-relationship
Tell me how wrote: » That will be some debate and vote if she moves to repeal A50. Some of the speeches will be fairly no holds barred at that stage
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The civil service is completely new to negotiating trade deals.
road_high wrote: » Sounds like the Ukraine just want to continue on as per EU agreement already there- does that say it all about the folly of Brexit and it’s sheer pointlessness
wiggle16 wrote: » Scotland has been shown definitively now that they do not have a voice in the UK.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » The EU trade deals are an average. There's 28 countries so some deals will suit the UK , others won't. The UK just won't have the time to do haggle through 70 deals so they may just have to accept the terms of the deals the EU negotiated that may have suited France or Poland or Italy more than it suited them. If only because that's the only way they'll the have resources to negotiate deals with the countries that think the existing EU deal favoured the UK too much. Like everyone who exports meat to the continent and expects their tariff free quota to shrink.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » So explain why haven't they done so in last 2 years? EU negotiators have been running circles around UK ones Your proclamation has been shown to be false by reality
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.
ThePanjandrum wrote: Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.
Necro wrote: » So who do you want negotiating your deals? Throwing money at a team of 'highly experienced negotiators' is really just passing the buck... I mean what are MPs elected to do then, pontificate and talk extreme nonsense in the HoC?
Prince William wrote: » When are those clowns in the D4 bubble going to realize that the British don't do politics like us paddies ?
ThePanjandrum wrote: » It really isn't, it negotiated all of the UK's trade deals before the EU decided that all negotiation should be in its own hands. This centalisation of agencies is one of the ways in which EU member states have been losing sovereignty. However, the UK can reassemble a team of experienced negotiators by advertising attractive positions, the negotiators do not have an exclusive attachment to their own country.
sandbelter wrote: » Nope, they'll simply tell the Irish to collect their company taxes. It's for the Irish to make Ireland work.
