nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

theological

fash wrote: »

If legal sovereignty is practical sovereignty, then there would be no need or reason to Brexit to "take back control". The UK always retained full legal sovereignty while in the EU.

This is obviously untrue. Just read the EU treaties and the areas of competence that need to be handed over on becoming a member. I listed many on this thread.

There seems to be an attitude on this forum of denying any possible negative to EU membership.

There's an irrational desire to dismiss any chance of success for the UK out of the EU when the evidence suggests that many countries do pretty well outside even countries much smaller than the UK.

Another poster continued this train of thought by suggesting the UK has nothing to export compared to Canada or Australia. That's obviously false because the UK economy is bigger than both. A huge amount of UK trade even goes to countries without an EU FTA. The opportunities of liberalising this trade are huge.

I don't buy the doom and gloom nonsense. The evidence shows there are lots of opportunities for the UK after leaving. There's a ready made withdrawal agreement that looks pretty certain to pass after this election.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

the evidence suggests that many countries do pretty well outside even countries much smaller than the UK

Which countries? Name them, instead of talking in Trumpisms.

theological wrote: »

Another poster continued this train of thought by suggesting the UK has nothing to export compared to Canada or Australia. That's obviously false because the UK economy is bigger than both. A huge amount of UK trade even goes to countries without an EU FTA. The opportunities of liberalising this trade are huge.

The UK's economy is overwhelmingly dependent on its services sector, for which it's membership of the EU SM is an important feature. UK manufacturing for export is also heavily dependent on EU SM supply chains. Like it or not, the UK trade with non-EU FTA countries that you refer to, and the strength of the British economy, is directly due to 40 years of EU membership. How is that going to be replicated?

theological wrote: »

The evidence shows there are lots of opportunities for the UK after leaving.

What evidence? Give us some links describing these opportunities.

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

This is obviously untrue. Just read the EU treaties and the areas of competence that need to be handed over on becoming a member. I listed many on this thread.

There seems to be an attitude on this forum of denying any possible negative to EU membership.

There's an irrational desire to dismiss any chance of success for the UK out of the EU when the evidence suggests that many countries do pretty well outside even countries much smaller than the UK.

Another poster continued this train of thought by suggesting the UK has nothing to export compared to Canada or Australia. That's obviously false because the UK economy is bigger than both. A huge amount of UK trade even goes to countries without an EU FTA. The opportunities of liberalising this trade are huge.

I don't buy the doom and gloom nonsense. The evidence shows there are lots of opportunities for the UK after leaving. There's a ready made withdrawal agreement that looks pretty certain to pass after this election.

On the first bolded part, what do you mean? That seems such a broad statement that it will be correct but it means nothing.

To the second part, if you are going to make assertions about figures you will be on better footing by supplying links to those figures. Otherwise it seems like you are forming an opinion based on nothing more than soundbites and not on real world figures.

So take your assertion about a huge amount of trade going countries without an EU trade deal. Where are the figures? How can we know if it is a huge amount or not?

Here is a document with figures that will help you out. So now all you need to do is take the countries that has no deals with the EU and add the total together and compare it to the overall trade numbers and we can see how huge it is.

UK TRADE FIGURES

But even here there are some trickery, like how Switzerland and Norway isn't included in EU figures when they are very closely aligned by being in either the single market or customs union. Either way, this still shows how important EU trade is for the UK and anything but a close relationship will mean less trade as it will add barriers which will harm trade.

stefanovich

Enzokk wrote: »

...it will add barriers which will harm trade.

There is already a large barrier. It's called the EU border.

fash

theological wrote: »

This is obviously untrue. Just read the EU treaties and the areas of competence that need to be handed over on becoming a member. I listed many on this thread.
.

Well as a lawyer, let me reassure you that (for example) in Ireland the Irish Constitution and Irish law remains wholly and completely sovereign. In the UK, parliament remains sovereign.
Temporarily delegating some competences and decision-making to the EU to amplify its effect on a practical level does not negate that fact.

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

There is already a large barrier. It's called the EU border.

So you're saying the UK won't be taking back control of its borders?

stefanovich

VinLieger wrote: »

So you're saying the UK won't be taking back control of its borders?

I am saying that there is a large barrier to trade called the EU border.

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

I am saying that there is a large barrier to trade called the EU border.

But in the case of brexit there will be an equally large barrier to trade called the UK border....? And they also won't have the benefit of having zero trade barriers with the rest of the EU 27 so im really not sure what point you're trying to make?

stefanovich

VinLieger wrote: »

But in the case of brexit there will be an equally large barrier to trade called the UK border....? And they also won't have the benefit of having zero trade barriers with the rest of the EU 27 so im really not sure what point you're trying to make?

They can make trade agreements that suit the UK. Not trade agreements that suit the EU with its inherent protectionism.

fash

theological wrote: »

Another poster continued this train of thought by suggesting the UK has nothing to export compared to Canada or Australia. That's obviously false because the UK economy is bigger than both.

Canada and Australia are both jaw droppingly large countries with relatively tiny populations, vast resources and sitting on the doorstep of their respective biggest resource hungry markets and integrating further into those markets.
The UK is resource poor and erecting barriers to its biggest market.

A huge amount of UK trade even goes to countries without an EU FTA. The opportunities of liberalising this trade are huge.

What countries? What trade? What benefits are possible by liberalisation? What are the concessions required to get that liberalisation and why has that not been done before?
I bet you are not willing to go into facts on this matter because reality does not match your dreams.

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

They can make trade agreements that suit the UK. Not trade agreements that suit the EU with its inherent protectionism.

Yeah that's not the reality of the situation at all, heres an expert to explain why.

You actually think the likes of the US, China, India, Japan, or Mercosur are going to just roll over and give the UK whatever they want in negotiations? Hilarious

BonnieSituation

stefanovich wrote: »

They can make trade agreements that suit the UK. Not trade agreements that suit the EU with its inherent protectionism.

Inherent protectionism? Do go on...

You know that suiting the EU is suiting the UK because the UK is the EU?

You understand that?

VinLieger

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Inherent protectionism? Do go on...

You know that suiting the EU is suiting the UK because the UK is the EU?

You understand that?

Shhh probably best not to tell them the UK, like every EU member, also had a veto on every FTA the EU has negotiated and signed.....

Strazdas

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Inherent protectionism? Do go on...

You know that suiting the EU is suiting the UK because the UK is the EU?

You understand that?

Indeed, EU protectionism would be a good thing from the point of view of any member state.

stefanovich

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah that's not the reality of the situation at all, heres an expert to explain why.

You actually think the likes of the US, China, India, Japan, or Mercosur are going to just roll over and give the UK whatever they want in negotiations? Hilarious

Your expert appears to be extremely biased.

Of course each of these countries is going to want a deal that maximizes the benefit to them but they also want to do business with the UK.

stefanovich

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Inherent protectionism? Do go on...

You know that suiting the EU is suiting the UK because the UK is the EU?

You understand that?

The UK is one of 28 members. Any agreements need to suit all 28 which means a big opportunity cost for the UK.

Call me Al

stefanovich wrote: »

Your expert appears to be extremely biased.

If course each of these countries is going to want a deal that maximizes the benefit to them but they also want to do business with the UK.

Wow.. way to try to dismiss someone with experience in her field. Had enough of experts eh? Where have we heard that before.

They don't want or need to do business with the UK at any cost (as in a more valuable EU FTA), and most of them have made this point already. Whereas the UK......

storker

stefanovich wrote: »

Your expert appears to be extremely biased.

If course each of these countries is going to want a deal that maximizes the benefit to them but they also want to do business with the UK.

But not as badly as the UK will want to do business with them, which was the speaker's point.

I love how logic gets re-branded as "bias".

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

Your expert appears to be extremely biased.

If course each of these countries is going to want a deal that maximizes the benefit to them but they also want to do business with the UK.

Hilarious cus you disagree with her she's immediately biased?

Yes they will want to do business with the UK but they also will not be desperate for a deal unlike the UK. Also regardless if you think Ngaire Woods is biased or not the facts are trade deals are negotiated under the principle of market size being the over riding factor to decide who gets to be the bigger dog at the negotiating table and the UK quite simply will not be in many of these sessions when it is outside of the EU.

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

The UK is one of 28 members. Any agreements need to suit all 28 which means a big opportunity cost for the UK.

Again you are conveniently and i presume intentionally ignoring the facts they not only gave input and opinions on all trade deals prior to and during negotiations, they also, like every other country, had a final veto on each trade deal negotiated and signed. If it didnt suit them why did they not use the veto.

stefanovich

VinLieger wrote: »

Hilarious cus you disagree with her she's immediately biased?

Yes they will want to do business with the UK but they also will not be desperate for a deal unlike the UK. Also regardless if you think Ngaire Woods is biased or not the facts are trade deals are negotiated under the principle of market size being the over riding factor to decide who gets to be the bigger dog at the negotiating table and the UK quite simply will not be in many of these sessions when it is outside of the EU.

I class it as biased because it is a "People's Vote" video with comments disabled and any counter argument missing.

stefanovich

VinLieger wrote: »

Again you are conveniently and i presume intentionally ignoring the facts they not only gave input and opinions on all trade deals prior to and during negotiations they like every other country had a final veto on each trade deal negotiated and signed.

And that's exactly the problem. You need to keep everyone happy. Potential opportunities lost.

lawred2

stefanovich wrote: »

The UK is one of 28 members. Any agreements need to suit all 28 which means a big opportunity cost for the UK.

you know - there actually be something in this for you

could you point to some examples in the trade deals agreed by the EU in recent times where what was ultimately agreed short changed the UK in some respect?

lawred2

stefanovich wrote: »

And that's exactly the problem. You need to keep everyone happy. Potential opportunities lost.

as I said - I think you may have a fledgling point

but surely as you're making it - you have concrete examples on hand which go to illustrate these lost opportunities.

Or are you going for a wistful - 'we'll never know what could have been' type lament with nothing really specific in mind.

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

I class it as biased because it is a "People's Vote" video with comments disabled and any counter argument missing.

First of all the platform displaying the video and lack of comments doesn't make it biased. Thats an ad hominem.

Secondly it is a factual point, this is how trade negotiations work full stop, there is no counter argument to be made.

storker

stefanovich wrote: »

I class it as biased because it is a "People's Vote" video with comments disabled and any counter argument missing.

This just goes to show how your thinking on the subject is back-to-front. An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not the identity of the position making it, referring to it or publishing it.

Nody

stefanovich wrote: »

And that's exactly the problem. You need to keep everyone happy. Potential opportunities lost.

Spell out what these are please; what are the exact missed opportunities that UK will grasp after Brexit. What trade, what countries, what sectors please. Since this is so clearly the case in your mind you should have no problem specifying them.

fash

stefanovich wrote: »

They can make trade agreements that suit the UK. Not trade agreements that suit the EU with its inherent protectionism.

Aside from Singapore and Hong Kong (and even then just about), the EU is literally the most liberalised market on Earth.
There is almost no scope to liberalise further and furthermore, very limited concessions (especially if you are small like the UK) you can make to other less liberalised countries - something Canada and Japan both pointed out for example.

The only things the UK has to trade are:
1. Dropping food standards
2. Selling out the NHS /health Care.
3. Handing out visas.
4. Falklands - to Mercosur/Argentina.

What will it concede?

Enzokk

stefanovich wrote: »

And that's exactly the problem. You need to keep everyone happy. Potential opportunities lost.

Your assumptions are that the UK will always have goods to trade with countries that is wanted. It is fair criticism that we only see the positives of EU membership, at the same time dismissing the benefits of EU membership is also prevalent from those advocating for Brexit.

The UK will have its priorities and will relay them to the EU negotiators before talks start. To get those terms EU negotiators will be able to use areas from other EU countries to get what the UK wants. This is glossed over and ignored, at the moment the UK is able to use French wine and cheese and German cars as a incentive to get what they want from an all EU trade deal.

But in future the UK will try to sell services and if there is nothing in return the other party wants or needs, then tough luck. But imagine having the other 27 countries who could provide those goods the other country is interested in to get what you want? Now imagine giving that up and thinking this is a good thing.

theological

fash wrote: »

What countries? What trade? What benefits are possible by liberalisation? What are the concessions required to get that liberalisation and why has that not been done before?
I bet you are not willing to go into facts on this matter because reality does not match your dreams.

You can find out the export destinations of the UK pretty easily online and the value of these to the UK.

The benefits to liberalising trade are obvious. More UK goods going to other destinations, more goods coming into the UK at better prices, jobs being created and so on.

Why has this not been done before? The European Union forbids member states to negotiate their own free trade deal. Part of the sovereignty you must cede to sign-up. It's right there in the TFEU if you read the text.

The concessions required depend on the outcome of negotiations that haven't taken place yet but what I do know is that they won't be anywhere near as great as the concessions required in joining the EU. No trading bloc on the planet requires as much sovereignty to be handed over on joining as the EU does.