This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I made a lot of posts on here about the experience of Norway and Switzerland in negotiating a deal with the EU while remaining outside. In particular the likelihood of having to pay in while having no say and the probability of having to accept free movement in return for being part of the single market. I took a lot of flak from UKC Brexiters. Well, lets see what happens. There's really no point in replying as no one knows what will happen. It's the future innit? One early indicator. The leader of the EU parliament says negotiations should start immediately rather than as Boris/Gove want, in October when Cameron goes. If I'm wrong I will avidly scoff my humble pie.
5
1
In reply to Pekkie:
What on earth are we talking about Norway and Switzerland for. The significance of what we've gone and done has threatened the peace and prosperity of the entire continent. I think the rest of the EU will agree to shun us for years mainly pour encourager les autres. They need stability even more than we do.
They've got real life refugees lining up on the borders. They can almost hear the gun fire in the middle east and there's Putin gloating in the wings. These are bigger problems than the fact someone's opened a Polish shop in the high street. God help us all.
What on earth are we talking about Norway and Switzerland for. The significance of what we've gone and done has threatened the peace and prosperity of the entire continent. I think the rest of the EU will agree to shun us for years mainly pour encourager les autres. They need stability even more than we do.
They've got real life refugees lining up on the borders. They can almost hear the gun fire in the middle east and there's Putin gloating in the wings. These are bigger problems than the fact someone's opened a Polish shop in the high street. God help us all.
38
10
If I were running EU I would f*ck UK as hard as it's possible. So other states would think seven times before leaving.
20
6
16
In reply to nutme:
there in lies the problem, the worse the EU appears, the more they stoke anti EU sentiment in the rest of the EU. They can't afford another exit. Their best bet is to eat a little humble pie etc.. and promise to listen to the 1/2billion people, not rant on about 'leave now'.
> If I were running EU I would f*ck UK as hard as it's possible. So other states would think seven times before leaving.
there in lies the problem, the worse the EU appears, the more they stoke anti EU sentiment in the rest of the EU. They can't afford another exit. Their best bet is to eat a little humble pie etc.. and promise to listen to the 1/2billion people, not rant on about 'leave now'.
13
1
In reply to Pekkie:
You are spot on with those aspects of any deal. A lot of my day job involves eu-related work, and I represent (or used to after the vote) the UK on one EU committee. No one takes a lot of Norway as they don't have a vote, so no influence. For now, we are still attending technical meetings, but it will,be interesting to see how we are recovered. After all what's the point of a UK vote, if we are off in 2-years, and at the moment out travel,costs are met by the Commission, again would you want to cough up for so,Rome who is off soon.
It was a very odd day in the office yesterday and more odd and busy times ahead.
You are spot on with those aspects of any deal. A lot of my day job involves eu-related work, and I represent (or used to after the vote) the UK on one EU committee. No one takes a lot of Norway as they don't have a vote, so no influence. For now, we are still attending technical meetings, but it will,be interesting to see how we are recovered. After all what's the point of a UK vote, if we are off in 2-years, and at the moment out travel,costs are met by the Commission, again would you want to cough up for so,Rome who is off soon.
It was a very odd day in the office yesterday and more odd and busy times ahead.
2
In reply to Pekkie:
If the EU has to talk to Johnson and Gove how can they possibly trust them. They are blatant liars. And consistently so. Even before the Referendum.
If the EU has to talk to Johnson and Gove how can they possibly trust them. They are blatant liars. And consistently so. Even before the Referendum.
10
3
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Deals are done in back rooms by smart people with sleeves (metaphorically) rolled up.
Politics takes place in public and each participant speaks to a local audience only.
By resigning Cameron helpfully removes from the negotiation the key participant whom the EU's leaders might wish to shit on. In fact they are doing it today, loudly and to Cameron alone, not Boris with whom you'd imagine they have less in common but with whom they might well have to do a deal. It's quite interesting if you can divorce yourself from the horror of the campaign.
> If the EU has to talk to Johnson and Gove how can they possibly trust them. They are blatant liars. And consistently so. Even before the Referendum.
Deals are done in back rooms by smart people with sleeves (metaphorically) rolled up.
Politics takes place in public and each participant speaks to a local audience only.
By resigning Cameron helpfully removes from the negotiation the key participant whom the EU's leaders might wish to shit on. In fact they are doing it today, loudly and to Cameron alone, not Boris with whom you'd imagine they have less in common but with whom they might well have to do a deal. It's quite interesting if you can divorce yourself from the horror of the campaign.
1
2
In reply to nutme:
The guys in Brussels probably think the same way because they are just interested in the EU and its institutions. But the governments of the individual nations, after the initial anger wears off, will not. Any action designed to hurt the UK by imposing trade barriers will also hurt their own taxpayers and the large companies that fund their parties. The governments of countries near Russia are also going to remember that the UK is the largest military power in the EU and has a seat on the UN security council.
My guess is the EU will try and get the UK into the Switzerland/Norway deal but the UK will have more leverage and be able to get something a little better. But probably no better than what we already have so the whole exercise will be costly and pointless.
Helping Scotland leave the UK is one of the few things the EU could do to hurt the London government which has no negative effects on EU companies and citizens.
> If I were running EU I would f*ck UK as hard as it's possible. So other states would think seven times before leaving.
The guys in Brussels probably think the same way because they are just interested in the EU and its institutions. But the governments of the individual nations, after the initial anger wears off, will not. Any action designed to hurt the UK by imposing trade barriers will also hurt their own taxpayers and the large companies that fund their parties. The governments of countries near Russia are also going to remember that the UK is the largest military power in the EU and has a seat on the UN security council.
My guess is the EU will try and get the UK into the Switzerland/Norway deal but the UK will have more leverage and be able to get something a little better. But probably no better than what we already have so the whole exercise will be costly and pointless.
Helping Scotland leave the UK is one of the few things the EU could do to hurt the London government which has no negative effects on EU companies and citizens.
7
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
The UK negotiating team will be obliged to accept levels of freedom of movement that head off the prospect of a second IndyRef if Brexit is not to precipitate the break up of the UK, arguably a greater evil than losing access to the single market. Lots of forces at play here.
The UK negotiating team will be obliged to accept levels of freedom of movement that head off the prospect of a second IndyRef if Brexit is not to precipitate the break up of the UK, arguably a greater evil than losing access to the single market. Lots of forces at play here.
In reply to nutme:
If I were running the EU I'd seek referenda about membership and "ever closer union" in all EU countries, so that integration of willing countries could proceed with a proper democratic mandate.
I'd then arrange for friendly cooperation and free trade with any other European countries that wished (unconditional on anything else), on the basis that free trade is good for everyone.
What I would not do is get angry as though membership of the EU is some sort of moral obligation, with the UK being remiss for not agreeing,
> If I were running EU I would f*ck UK as hard as it's possible. So other states would think seven times before leaving.
If I were running the EU I'd seek referenda about membership and "ever closer union" in all EU countries, so that integration of willing countries could proceed with a proper democratic mandate.
I'd then arrange for friendly cooperation and free trade with any other European countries that wished (unconditional on anything else), on the basis that free trade is good for everyone.
What I would not do is get angry as though membership of the EU is some sort of moral obligation, with the UK being remiss for not agreeing,
8
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Given that the London government currently subsidies Scotland, and given that ongoing *Tory* London government would be much more likely if Scotland were independent, why would that "hurt" the current London government?
> Helping Scotland leave the UK is one of the few things the EU could do to hurt the London government ...
Given that the London government currently subsidies Scotland, and given that ongoing *Tory* London government would be much more likely if Scotland were independent, why would that "hurt" the current London government?
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Exactly the point I have been making. Maybe such an outcome wouldn't be too bad - free trade without a commitment to political intergration. The EU would have to reach a deal that wouldn't harm their trade with us and we do carry more clout than Norway or Switzerland. Maybe we could pick and choose some of the regional programmes to be be involved in. Except we wouldn't have a say in setting rules and policy, and would most likely have to accept free movement as the price of being in the single market (only the nuttiest economists want to be out of this). Let's see what happens.
> My guess is the EU will try and get the UK into the Switzerland/Norway deal but the UK will have more leverage and be able to get something a little better. But probably no better than what we already have so the whole exercise will be costly and pointless.
Exactly the point I have been making. Maybe such an outcome wouldn't be too bad - free trade without a commitment to political intergration. The EU would have to reach a deal that wouldn't harm their trade with us and we do carry more clout than Norway or Switzerland. Maybe we could pick and choose some of the regional programmes to be be involved in. Except we wouldn't have a say in setting rules and policy, and would most likely have to accept free movement as the price of being in the single market (only the nuttiest economists want to be out of this). Let's see what happens.
3
In reply to Pekkie:
you can expect some of the best climbing shoes may cost more in the uk.
as if good la sportiva were cheap to start with.
you can expect some of the best climbing shoes may cost more in the uk.
as if good la sportiva were cheap to start with.
1
In reply to Pekkie:
"What Brexit deal can we expect from the EU?"
So long and thanks for all the fish.
(Thanks to Douglas Adams)
"What Brexit deal can we expect from the EU?"
So long and thanks for all the fish.
(Thanks to Douglas Adams)
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't believe the London government subsidises Scotland. There's a lot more to it than just looking at government spending and even the way that is reported with 'spending for the benefit of' regions rather than 'spending within' regions is misleading. The centralisation of infrastructure, government and financial services in London makes it hard for Scotland to prosper. Basically London screws Scotland up and then provides some funding to partially compensate for it.
Scotland leaving and staying in the EU would hurt the London government a lot. Some businesses and skilled people with connections to the EU will come north. The UK will lose territory. The rUK will need to deal with a land border into a Shengen country with volumes of trade and a level of cross border family and business connections which make a hard border impractical.
If Scotland, Ireland and the EU were smart they'd further reduce the influence of London by putting in a fixed connection like a bridge or tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland with rail joining Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Dublin. A port on the Forth linked by rail to Ireland would avoid the need for ships from the EU to sail all the way round the UK to get to Ireland. A London government would think building a bridge/tunnel between Scotland and Ireland was crazy even though the distance is far shorter than the channel tunnel but its got no problem with Crossrail n + 1 or HS n +1 because it has a London perspective on everything.
> Given that the London government currently subsidies Scotland, and given that ongoing *Tory* London government would be much more likely if Scotland were independent, why would that "hurt" the current London government?
I don't believe the London government subsidises Scotland. There's a lot more to it than just looking at government spending and even the way that is reported with 'spending for the benefit of' regions rather than 'spending within' regions is misleading. The centralisation of infrastructure, government and financial services in London makes it hard for Scotland to prosper. Basically London screws Scotland up and then provides some funding to partially compensate for it.
Scotland leaving and staying in the EU would hurt the London government a lot. Some businesses and skilled people with connections to the EU will come north. The UK will lose territory. The rUK will need to deal with a land border into a Shengen country with volumes of trade and a level of cross border family and business connections which make a hard border impractical.
If Scotland, Ireland and the EU were smart they'd further reduce the influence of London by putting in a fixed connection like a bridge or tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland with rail joining Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Dublin. A port on the Forth linked by rail to Ireland would avoid the need for ships from the EU to sail all the way round the UK to get to Ireland. A London government would think building a bridge/tunnel between Scotland and Ireland was crazy even though the distance is far shorter than the channel tunnel but its got no problem with Crossrail n + 1 or HS n +1 because it has a London perspective on everything.
3
2
In reply to Pekkie:
At some point the Brexiters are going to be eating humble pie. This from Mattew Elliot, leader of the Leave campaign
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-25/no-need-to-rush-split-from-eu-say...
We don't think there is a need to swiftly invoke Article 50.
It's best for the dust to settle over the summer and during that time for there to be informal negotiations with other states.
Mr Elliot said the final deal should include agreements on the British contribution to the EU, access to the single market, extradition agreements and free trade "passporting" for financial services.
British contribution to the EU.... but we were going to spend all that on hospitals!
Access to the single market... so trade deals are important after all?
'passporting' for financial services... why do we need that, not like the skies going to fall in.
He doesn't mention what the UK will bring to the table... free movement of people perhaps?
> If I'm wrong I will avidly scoff my humble pie.
At some point the Brexiters are going to be eating humble pie. This from Mattew Elliot, leader of the Leave campaign
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-25/no-need-to-rush-split-from-eu-say...
We don't think there is a need to swiftly invoke Article 50.
It's best for the dust to settle over the summer and during that time for there to be informal negotiations with other states.
Mr Elliot said the final deal should include agreements on the British contribution to the EU, access to the single market, extradition agreements and free trade "passporting" for financial services.
British contribution to the EU.... but we were going to spend all that on hospitals!
Access to the single market... so trade deals are important after all?
'passporting' for financial services... why do we need that, not like the skies going to fall in.
He doesn't mention what the UK will bring to the table... free movement of people perhaps?
Post edited at 15:23
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Hmm, unlikely to be in numbers big enough to matter to England, given how much smaller the economy of Scotland is. Also, much of Scotland is as far from London as Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, etc, so it would likely not matter that much.
Why would that harm the London government or the rUK? I just don't get this "big is better" meme.
OK, that's a better one. Yes, a controlled border would cost money. Of course Scotland would need to factor in the cost of that also (they couldn't let goods into the EU without slapping a big tariff on them, could they ) and compared to the size of the Scottish economy it'd be more significant.
> Scotland leaving and staying in the EU would hurt the London government a lot. Some businesses and skilled people with connections to the EU will come north.
Hmm, unlikely to be in numbers big enough to matter to England, given how much smaller the economy of Scotland is. Also, much of Scotland is as far from London as Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, etc, so it would likely not matter that much.
> The UK will lose territory.
Why would that harm the London government or the rUK? I just don't get this "big is better" meme.
> The rUK will need to deal with a land border into a Shengen country with volumes of trade and a level of cross border family and business connections which make a hard border impractical.
OK, that's a better one. Yes, a controlled border would cost money. Of course Scotland would need to factor in the cost of that also (they couldn't let goods into the EU without slapping a big tariff on them, could they ) and compared to the size of the Scottish economy it'd be more significant.
3
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Leave have **continually** emphasized the importance of trade deals. What Leave want is free trade (with the EU and wider) without all the other stuff of the EU.
Nope, free trade. The EU exports 200 billion a year to us, and has a trade surplus with us. They won't want to lose that.
> ... so trade deals are important after all?
Leave have **continually** emphasized the importance of trade deals. What Leave want is free trade (with the EU and wider) without all the other stuff of the EU.
> He doesn't mention what the UK will bring to the table... free movement of people perhaps?
Nope, free trade. The EU exports 200 billion a year to us, and has a trade surplus with us. They won't want to lose that.
1
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I agree we need to access to the single market for at least the foreseeable future. I think we will exit the political structure and pay around the same (or slightly more) fees for access to the single market. The rebate secured by Maggie Thatcher will not apply to a new deal to secure access so ironically we might pay more.
Of course to maintain this access we will have to accept the majority of regulation and free movement of labor, however, Germany has already stated that the deal Cameron has done is null and void, so unfortunately no 'emergency brake' either.
> Leave have **continually** emphasized the importance of trade deals. What Leave want is free trade (with the EU and wider) without all the other stuff of the EU.
> Nope, free trade. The EU exports 200 billion a year to us, and has a trade surplus with us. They won't want to lose that.
I agree we need to access to the single market for at least the foreseeable future. I think we will exit the political structure and pay around the same (or slightly more) fees for access to the single market. The rebate secured by Maggie Thatcher will not apply to a new deal to secure access so ironically we might pay more.
Of course to maintain this access we will have to accept the majority of regulation and free movement of labor, however, Germany has already stated that the deal Cameron has done is null and void, so unfortunately no 'emergency brake' either.
Post edited at 16:15
In reply to nutme:
Idiot.
Even threatened with numerous referendums, from numerous countries, and the People of the UK standing up to the Establishment, the EU has still refused to any reform.
The majority of remain voters all have said words to the effect of "it's not perfect but we can stay in and push for reform". They don't, didn't and wouldn't want reform.
Junckers is refusing to resign.
The people have spoken. They aren't happy. And still the EU behemoth won't be moved.
The UK should leave when it's god damn good and ready to go, within Article 50. not be pushed out by disgruntled rich unelected elite caviar munching arseholes.
"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
Idiot.
Even threatened with numerous referendums, from numerous countries, and the People of the UK standing up to the Establishment, the EU has still refused to any reform.
The majority of remain voters all have said words to the effect of "it's not perfect but we can stay in and push for reform". They don't, didn't and wouldn't want reform.
Junckers is refusing to resign.
The people have spoken. They aren't happy. And still the EU behemoth won't be moved.
The UK should leave when it's god damn good and ready to go, within Article 50. not be pushed out by disgruntled rich unelected elite caviar munching arseholes.
"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
2
6
In reply to FreshSlate:
I've no objection to that so long as the EU then pays us for access to our market. They sell to us about 15% more than we sell to them, so we should set the free for access to our market at 15% higher than whatever they ask us.
> I think we will exit the political structure and pay around the same (or slightly more) fees for access to the single market.
I've no objection to that so long as the EU then pays us for access to our market. They sell to us about 15% more than we sell to them, so we should set the free for access to our market at 15% higher than whatever they ask us.
2
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Really. About as close they came was to wave their hands and say everyone would do deals that suit the UK and it will all be fine.
> Leave have **continually** emphasized the importance of trade deals.
Really. About as close they came was to wave their hands and say everyone would do deals that suit the UK and it will all be fine.
4
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Unless I've failed to pick up on some sarcasm, I fear that in dismissing the importance of the passporting of financial services you are in danger of displaying precisely the sort of contempt for "the experts" that brought about this monumental act of economic self harm.
As I understand it, passporting enables London to act as a centre for much of Europe's financial services industry. In order to passport your services (ie sell them in any other EEA state), a base within the EU/EEA is mandatory. Leaving the EU/EEA threatens the very existence of the City. Bear in mind that the tax receipts (corporate and financial) thereof are the biggest source of income for UK plc
No single EU directive has more influence on our economic wellbeing.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/authorisations/passporting/default...
Unless I've failed to pick up on some sarcasm, I fear that in dismissing the importance of the passporting of financial services you are in danger of displaying precisely the sort of contempt for "the experts" that brought about this monumental act of economic self harm.
As I understand it, passporting enables London to act as a centre for much of Europe's financial services industry. In order to passport your services (ie sell them in any other EEA state), a base within the EU/EEA is mandatory. Leaving the EU/EEA threatens the very existence of the City. Bear in mind that the tax receipts (corporate and financial) thereof are the biggest source of income for UK plc
No single EU directive has more influence on our economic wellbeing.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/authorisations/passporting/default...
Post edited at 16:08
2
In reply to BnB:
Greenland left the EEC, and it's doing just fine. Or did it manage to get out before the EU got its claws nice and rooted in?
Greenland left the EEC, and it's doing just fine. Or did it manage to get out before the EU got its claws nice and rooted in?
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Not really, it was all about 'Take Back Control' against a Union Jack background. 'Experts' were derided and detail was thin on the ground.
Yeah, and I'd like a Ferrari. Go back to my original post, even Matthew Elliot knows that isn't possible, we will have to make contributions ( so the electorate was lied to by the leave campaign).
And the EU is still our biggest export market, we won't want to lose that. The EU hold a strong card, the financial 'passporting'...... the Germans could accept the loss of some car sales to grab a chunk of the City's business. This is why there's a sudden reluctance to invoke Article 50.
> Leave have **continually** emphasized the importance of trade deals.
Not really, it was all about 'Take Back Control' against a Union Jack background. 'Experts' were derided and detail was thin on the ground.
> What Leave want is free trade (with the EU and wider) without all the other stuff of the EU.
Yeah, and I'd like a Ferrari. Go back to my original post, even Matthew Elliot knows that isn't possible, we will have to make contributions ( so the electorate was lied to by the leave campaign).
> Nope, free trade. The EU exports 200 billion a year to us, and has a trade surplus with us. They won't want to lose that.
And the EU is still our biggest export market, we won't want to lose that. The EU hold a strong card, the financial 'passporting'...... the Germans could accept the loss of some car sales to grab a chunk of the City's business. This is why there's a sudden reluctance to invoke Article 50.
Post edited at 16:13
3
In reply to BnB:
I was being sarcastic. Anyway, thanks for emphasising the importance.
> Unless I've failed to pick up on some sarcasm,
I was being sarcastic. Anyway, thanks for emphasising the importance.
Post edited at 16:18
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Unfortunately, as we both know it doesn't work like that. A trade deficit does not give us the upper hand over a significantly larger market, if this was true, the US would pay Greece for access to it's markets. Hopefully the situation you describe will motivate the EU into giving us the similar level of access we currently enjoy. Will we still have to pay a significant fee for this? Most certainly yes.
> I've no objection to that so long as the EU then pays us for access to our market. They sell to us about 15% more than we sell to them, so we should set the free for access to our market at 15% higher than whatever they ask us.
Unfortunately, as we both know it doesn't work like that. A trade deficit does not give us the upper hand over a significantly larger market, if this was true, the US would pay Greece for access to it's markets. Hopefully the situation you describe will motivate the EU into giving us the similar level of access we currently enjoy. Will we still have to pay a significant fee for this? Most certainly yes.
Post edited at 16:30
3
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Greenland? First the Brexiteers cited the example of Norway. Then Michael Gove got enthusiastic about Albania. Now it's Greenland. Is that really the height of your ambitions?
(Greenland, population 56480, land area mostly ice, major industry fish)
> Greenland left the EEC, and it's doing just fine. Or did it manage to get out before the EU got its claws nice and rooted in?
Greenland? First the Brexiteers cited the example of Norway. Then Michael Gove got enthusiastic about Albania. Now it's Greenland. Is that really the height of your ambitions?
(Greenland, population 56480, land area mostly ice, major industry fish)
6
In reply to Mike Stretford:
And the single market means open borders..
It looks like there's increasing panic in the leave side as they realise they have no idea what to do..
And the single market means open borders..
It looks like there's increasing panic in the leave side as they realise they have no idea what to do..
5
1
In reply to tony:
And Switzerland has 23% immigrant population, no NHS, military service - an interesting model to copy.
And Switzerland has 23% immigrant population, no NHS, military service - an interesting model to copy.
5
In reply to Pekkie:
If Leave goes ahead (if I read the B word once more....) the EU will probably fast track us into the EEA. That means they get access to our markets and minimise the damage that a collapse of the City would involve. As was pointed out many, many times, our bargaining position in such negotiations would be very weak. We would just have to accept whatever we were offered or face total economic collapse. This of course would involve free movement and they'd probably throw in some extra stuff to show up how bad a deal any other countries considering leaving would get. Many loss of the rebate and having to sign up to Schengen. Meanwhile an independent Scotland would be hoovering up structural and research funding.
After that they would have no further interest in negotiating a better deal. The total f*ckwittery of the whole thing is beyond belief.
If Leave goes ahead (if I read the B word once more....) the EU will probably fast track us into the EEA. That means they get access to our markets and minimise the damage that a collapse of the City would involve. As was pointed out many, many times, our bargaining position in such negotiations would be very weak. We would just have to accept whatever we were offered or face total economic collapse. This of course would involve free movement and they'd probably throw in some extra stuff to show up how bad a deal any other countries considering leaving would get. Many loss of the rebate and having to sign up to Schengen. Meanwhile an independent Scotland would be hoovering up structural and research funding.
After that they would have no further interest in negotiating a better deal. The total f*ckwittery of the whole thing is beyond belief.
8
1
In reply to nutme:
Sounds like an abusive relationship............
> If I were running EU I would f*ck UK as hard as it's possible. So other states would think seven times before leaving.
Sounds like an abusive relationship............
2
In reply to Peter Metcalfe:
I'm not convinced. For one thing, they cannot force us to accept such a deal for two years after *we* have triggered Article 50. If they want us to *agree* earlier than that then they need to offer us something we'd readily accept.
They have their needs also; their markets are down more than ours, and many tensions in the EU are problematic.
> As was pointed out many, many times, our bargaining position in such negotiations would be very weak.
I'm not convinced. For one thing, they cannot force us to accept such a deal for two years after *we* have triggered Article 50. If they want us to *agree* earlier than that then they need to offer us something we'd readily accept.
They have their needs also; their markets are down more than ours, and many tensions in the EU are problematic.
1
1
In reply to Pekkie:
I think the title of the thread is completely the wrong way around. And should read, what kind of deal can the EU expect from us?
It seems to me that they are already trying to change their own rules on Article 50 so as to take the initiative, which I think should be resisted. UK Gov has always been very keen to adopt the EU’s rules and now we should enforce them on the EU. Yes, we are considering leaving (the referendum isn’t legally binding) and until such time that we are sure and ready, we are going to take our own sweet time.
The comments coming out of the EU at the moment seem to be highly vindictive and if that continues we should threaten to respond in kind unless they adopt a more conciliatory stance, as I think that this is being driven by a very real fear that more countries will have referendums on leaving an increasingly dysfunctional and unaccountable organisation.
Eventually they have to make a deal with us. It may take elements from the deals done with other countries but we have a very strong hand and if it’s played correctly it could be better than any current deal. Otherwise, sod the EU, there is a whole world out there that we can trade with, and once our contribution has been withdrawn how long can the bankers/corporations/lobbyists prop it up before it shatters into pieces who may well look to us as an example of life after the EU.
But I hope our negotiating team are more like the Dragons Den than the two faced, sycophantic, lying, politicians who will no doubt feel they are better qualified to conduct the negotiations.
Or perhaps we could do a Sturgeon and bend over and ask nicely to remain.
I think the title of the thread is completely the wrong way around. And should read, what kind of deal can the EU expect from us?
It seems to me that they are already trying to change their own rules on Article 50 so as to take the initiative, which I think should be resisted. UK Gov has always been very keen to adopt the EU’s rules and now we should enforce them on the EU. Yes, we are considering leaving (the referendum isn’t legally binding) and until such time that we are sure and ready, we are going to take our own sweet time.
The comments coming out of the EU at the moment seem to be highly vindictive and if that continues we should threaten to respond in kind unless they adopt a more conciliatory stance, as I think that this is being driven by a very real fear that more countries will have referendums on leaving an increasingly dysfunctional and unaccountable organisation.
Eventually they have to make a deal with us. It may take elements from the deals done with other countries but we have a very strong hand and if it’s played correctly it could be better than any current deal. Otherwise, sod the EU, there is a whole world out there that we can trade with, and once our contribution has been withdrawn how long can the bankers/corporations/lobbyists prop it up before it shatters into pieces who may well look to us as an example of life after the EU.
But I hope our negotiating team are more like the Dragons Den than the two faced, sycophantic, lying, politicians who will no doubt feel they are better qualified to conduct the negotiations.
Or perhaps we could do a Sturgeon and bend over and ask nicely to remain.
2
7
6
1
3
In reply to BnB:
Well for a start it should only have optimistic negotiators on the team, there are too many defeatists already and talking down whatever team we send's chances, by saying openly that they think they can walk all over us.
If the opposing team wants an early meeting, then that is the first thing that you put down as the first negotiating plus on your side, and then play on it. If they are in a hurry then perhaps they will roll over on our side on issues just to get a deal. For me their first move showing their hand is a weakness gift to us.
Under no circumstances should we start to negotiate on their terms.
Well for a start it should only have optimistic negotiators on the team, there are too many defeatists already and talking down whatever team we send's chances, by saying openly that they think they can walk all over us.
If the opposing team wants an early meeting, then that is the first thing that you put down as the first negotiating plus on your side, and then play on it. If they are in a hurry then perhaps they will roll over on our side on issues just to get a deal. For me their first move showing their hand is a weakness gift to us.
Under no circumstances should we start to negotiate on their terms.
Post edited at 21:14
2
1
In reply to Jim C:
Jim,
28 countries in the EU, 500 million people, we are 1 country negotiating with 27 others.. It's highly unlikely we will get a favorable deal. We've got a pretty weak hand and leave know that, hence why they want informal negotiations before article 50.. Basically they want to know how shafted we will be before making the decision.
Jim,
28 countries in the EU, 500 million people, we are 1 country negotiating with 27 others.. It's highly unlikely we will get a favorable deal. We've got a pretty weak hand and leave know that, hence why they want informal negotiations before article 50.. Basically they want to know how shafted we will be before making the decision.
4
2
In reply to Bootrock:
Have you any idea about fishing? You may want to check the Faroes getting shafted by us, the Eu and Norway for mackerel quotas..
> At least they have a fishing industry......
Have you any idea about fishing? You may want to check the Faroes getting shafted by us, the Eu and Norway for mackerel quotas..
2
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
You have just ruled yourself out of the team negotiating for our future, far far too negative, we now need upbeat can- do people.
( not that I think you are worried about that
Would you rather we just accept our lot from the EU?
I will order you a mug, with :- Keep calm and cave in.
> Jim,
> 28 countries in the EU, 500 million people, we are 1 country negotiating with 27 others.. It's highly unlikely we will get a favorable deal. We've got a pretty weak hand and leave know that, hence why they want informal negotiations before article 50.. Basically they want to know how shafted we will be before making the decision.
You have just ruled yourself out of the team negotiating for our future, far far too negative, we now need upbeat can- do people.
( not that I think you are worried about that
Would you rather we just accept our lot from the EU?
I will order you a mug, with :- Keep calm and cave in.
4
1
In reply to Jim C:
Have you seen this:
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-why-we-may-remain-even-if...
Very much supports what I just said.. They want to negotiate first to basically make a case that we shouldn't do this..
Have you seen this:
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-why-we-may-remain-even-if...
Very much supports what I just said.. They want to negotiate first to basically make a case that we shouldn't do this..
1
In reply to Jim C:
I don't think we should leave. It was advisory.
The young wanted to stay in.. It was close. The campaigns were awful.
But we elect to make decisions. They asked the people's advice and as the lies unfold I think there's a real case to look at the deals but backtrack on this. I'd certainly hope labour wouldn't follow this through.
Cameron made a good move resigning. He's bought time. Because he had said he'd start the exit straight away.
I don't think we should leave. It was advisory.
The young wanted to stay in.. It was close. The campaigns were awful.
But we elect to make decisions. They asked the people's advice and as the lies unfold I think there's a real case to look at the deals but backtrack on this. I'd certainly hope labour wouldn't follow this through.
Cameron made a good move resigning. He's bought time. Because he had said he'd start the exit straight away.
2
3
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Who are 'they'
Is this not a , pre vote case , made by a pro European to ignore a Brexit result ( or go for a second referendum - to get the 'right result' ?)
If so, I've missed your point of how it supports whatever it was you had just said.
Sorry for being so dim, you will have to spell your point out to me, and don't use too many big words that I will need to look up.
> Have you seen this:
> Very much supports what I just said.. They want to negotiate first to basically make a case that we shouldn't do this..
Who are 'they'
Is this not a , pre vote case , made by a pro European to ignore a Brexit result ( or go for a second referendum - to get the 'right result' ?)
If so, I've missed your point of how it supports whatever it was you had just said.
Sorry for being so dim, you will have to spell your point out to me, and don't use too many big words that I will need to look up.
1
1
In reply to Jim C:
The leave. But namely those in power
I agree, I think this was pre-agreed, hence why they just made it advisory.
It's been an awful period.
My generation and below have to get together and ensure we never let Tories get in power again.
This was a Tory leadership battle using the UKs EU membership as fodder. The leave campaign have no idea what to do next and are already back peddling..
The leave. But namely those in power
I agree, I think this was pre-agreed, hence why they just made it advisory.
It's been an awful period.
My generation and below have to get together and ensure we never let Tories get in power again.
This was a Tory leadership battle using the UKs EU membership as fodder. The leave campaign have no idea what to do next and are already back peddling..
2
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Cameron's resignation an refusal to invoke article 50 has left a very poisoned chalice...
Cameron's resignation an refusal to invoke article 50 has left a very poisoned chalice...
1
1
In reply to Removed User:
But, as the EU has showed its hand that it is desperate for a quick deal, then that falls nicely with the leadership delay before even thinking of invoking Article 50. It is not good negotiating strategy to do what the opposing team want.
There is a lot of loose talk on the business news about negative things that we will bring on ourselves, by this vote, but that is the result, it's reality, start to look forward not back.
As was pointed out to one commentator, there was a point to these kind of doom laden comments pre voting, but to do it now is just damaging to the country, so I would urge everyone to get behind Britain and stop talking it down, or it will be a self fulfilling prophesy.
> Cameron's resignation an refusal to invoke article 50 has left a very poisoned chalice...
But, as the EU has showed its hand that it is desperate for a quick deal, then that falls nicely with the leadership delay before even thinking of invoking Article 50. It is not good negotiating strategy to do what the opposing team want.
There is a lot of loose talk on the business news about negative things that we will bring on ourselves, by this vote, but that is the result, it's reality, start to look forward not back.
As was pointed out to one commentator, there was a point to these kind of doom laden comments pre voting, but to do it now is just damaging to the country, so I would urge everyone to get behind Britain and stop talking it down, or it will be a self fulfilling prophesy.
2
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Nope , still thick, I don't get your point from this pre vote article NOT written by anyone in leave, quite the opposite.
If 'They' is leave, then you are saying that the leave camp was putting forward a plan to ignore the vote if it was to leave ( or to have a second referendum to overturn the result?) In what way is this article supporting the premis that the leave camp was back pedalling before even the vote had taken place?
I really am thick, I just don't follow this argument
,( and there were no big words, thanks for that , tugs forlock)
Ok that last bit was an impossibility
Can you , patiently, try again to explain this to me , or maybe someone else (who understands your point ) can read the article and have a go, and put me out of my simple minded confusion?
> The leave. But namely those in power
> I agree, I think this was pre-agreed, hence why they just made it advisory.
> It's been an awful period.
> My generation and below have to get together and ensure we never let Tories get in power again.
> This was a Tory leadership battle using the UKs EU membership as fodder. The leave campaign have no idea what to do next and are already back peddling..
Nope , still thick, I don't get your point from this pre vote article NOT written by anyone in leave, quite the opposite.
If 'They' is leave, then you are saying that the leave camp was putting forward a plan to ignore the vote if it was to leave ( or to have a second referendum to overturn the result?) In what way is this article supporting the premis that the leave camp was back pedalling before even the vote had taken place?
I really am thick, I just don't follow this argument
,( and there were no big words, thanks for that , tugs forlock)
Ok that last bit was an impossibility
Can you , patiently, try again to explain this to me , or maybe someone else (who understands your point ) can read the article and have a go, and put me out of my simple minded confusion?
1
1
In reply to Jim C:
Jim, Johnson himself was saying early on that a Brexit vote ought to trigger a period of negotiation and that it would be possible after that to take a view on whether we should really leave or not, possibly via a second referendum. He dropped it pretty quickly, to be sure, but it's definitely something that Leave floated at one time.
I can't see it working, mind - I think the EU are too fly to talk to us before we've committed ourselves.
jcm
Jim, Johnson himself was saying early on that a Brexit vote ought to trigger a period of negotiation and that it would be possible after that to take a view on whether we should really leave or not, possibly via a second referendum. He dropped it pretty quickly, to be sure, but it's definitely something that Leave floated at one time.
I can't see it working, mind - I think the EU are too fly to talk to us before we've committed ourselves.
jcm
3
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Try not to confuse me with too many issues, stick to the one I'm struggling with for now please, so can YOU explain Roadrunner5's point of posting Andrew Hilton's article written pre vote, as proof of the leave backpeddeling ?
> Jim, Johnson himself was saying early on that a Brexit vote ought to trigger a period of negotiation and that it would be possible after that to take a view on whether we should really leave or not, possibly via a second referendum. He dropped it pretty quickly, to be sure, but it's definitely something that Leave floated at one time.
Try not to confuse me with too many issues, stick to the one I'm struggling with for now please, so can YOU explain Roadrunner5's point of posting Andrew Hilton's article written pre vote, as proof of the leave backpeddeling ?
1
In reply to Jim C:
Not really, I can't, - it's merely one reasonably informed commentator predicting that even if leave wins, especially narrowly, there may still be water to flow under the bridge before a final decision. Some people, possibly grasping at straws, are now hoping that Johnson is returning to his a-leave-vote-may-not-be-final position. As far as I know that's all Iain's saying.
Of course Leave are back-pedalling inasmuch as Farage has admitted the 350-million-a-week-to-spend-on-the-NHS thing was a 'mistake'( = 'lie', obviously), and Hannon has admitted it might not reduce immigration.
It's going to be very interesting to see what happens when it becomes apparent - if it does - that we can't trade with the EU *at all* without paying them a bucket of money with no funding in return or rebate, accepting all the "60% of our laws", and allowing freedom of movement. Johnson understandably wants to find out whether that's going to be the position before he does anything too committal.
jcm
Not really, I can't, - it's merely one reasonably informed commentator predicting that even if leave wins, especially narrowly, there may still be water to flow under the bridge before a final decision. Some people, possibly grasping at straws, are now hoping that Johnson is returning to his a-leave-vote-may-not-be-final position. As far as I know that's all Iain's saying.
Of course Leave are back-pedalling inasmuch as Farage has admitted the 350-million-a-week-to-spend-on-the-NHS thing was a 'mistake'( = 'lie', obviously), and Hannon has admitted it might not reduce immigration.
It's going to be very interesting to see what happens when it becomes apparent - if it does - that we can't trade with the EU *at all* without paying them a bucket of money with no funding in return or rebate, accepting all the "60% of our laws", and allowing freedom of movement. Johnson understandably wants to find out whether that's going to be the position before he does anything too committal.
jcm
3
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
As I said on the other thread, I'm fed up with all the pointless negativity, it's almost like remainers want the UK to fail just so they can bleat
' I told you so'
Time to be a bit more positive, and I for one will only be contributing to threads that are looking forward and have a positive outlook, and the leavers can wallow in their recriminations, finger pointing, personal abuse and self pity that is frankly becoming rather pathetic, and I want no part of it.
> Not really, I can't, - Ok let's drop it, one of life's mysteries I guess.
> It's going to be very interesting to see what happens when it becomes apparent - if it does - that we can't trade with the EU *at all* without paying them a bucket of money with no funding in return or rebate, accepting all the "60% of our laws", and allowing freedom of movement. Johnson understandably wants to find out whether that's going to be the position before he does anything too committal.
As I said on the other thread, I'm fed up with all the pointless negativity, it's almost like remainers want the UK to fail just so they can bleat
' I told you so'
Time to be a bit more positive, and I for one will only be contributing to threads that are looking forward and have a positive outlook, and the leavers can wallow in their recriminations, finger pointing, personal abuse and self pity that is frankly becoming rather pathetic, and I want no part of it.
Post edited at 04:00
2
4
In reply to Jim C:
Really? Jim was quite clear, so was I, leave don't want to leave until they know what it means. Which is fair enough, then why call a referendum?
It's looking increasingly like nothing will change.
You can blubber away, which I thought better of you, but why should the UK government act? This stalking now going on should set off alarm bells.,,
Really? Jim was quite clear, so was I, leave don't want to leave until they know what it means. Which is fair enough, then why call a referendum?
It's looking increasingly like nothing will change.
You can blubber away, which I thought better of you, but why should the UK government act? This stalking now going on should set off alarm bells.,,
2
In reply to Jim C:
Ok positive outlook?
The UK ignores the referendum, just plays a straight bat, keeps the economy on a level keel, slowly turns pro..
Ok positive outlook?
The UK ignores the referendum, just plays a straight bat, keeps the economy on a level keel, slowly turns pro..
3
In reply to Roadrunner5:
That may or may not be true.
But what has any of that to do with the article you posted which was a pro European commentator saying , (pre vote) , that the pro European government ( expected to be led by Cameron) post Brexit vote, might not act on that vote.
You know, don't bother, your negativity is draining .
That may or may not be true.
But what has any of that to do with the article you posted which was a pro European commentator saying , (pre vote) , that the pro European government ( expected to be led by Cameron) post Brexit vote, might not act on that vote.
You know, don't bother, your negativity is draining .
2
2
In reply to Jim C:
I think I'm positive..
I was being polite but you are being insulting.. So look old man, we want in, f*ck you. We will get in sooner or later. It's what we want.
We've decided we want peace, you guys can opt for war, we will delay and question.. But we've seen already, they don't want to leave. If you do press that button. Stop threatening and do it?
You leave guys gambled on the UK, won, now look panicked? Do something? Act? A shambles..
I think I'm positive..
I was being polite but you are being insulting.. So look old man, we want in, f*ck you. We will get in sooner or later. It's what we want.
We've decided we want peace, you guys can opt for war, we will delay and question.. But we've seen already, they don't want to leave. If you do press that button. Stop threatening and do it?
You leave guys gambled on the UK, won, now look panicked? Do something? Act? A shambles..
Post edited at 04:24
1
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
2 people disagreed. Explain why I was wrong?
> Have you any idea about fishing? You may want to check the Faroes getting shafted by us, the Eu and Norway for mackerel quotas..
2 people disagreed. Explain why I was wrong?
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Sounds rather threatening, but you want peace ?
( and ageist with it)
I think that is my last response to you.
Sounds rather threatening, but you want peace ?
( and ageist with it)
I think that is my last response to you.
1
In reply to Jim C:
You are the one refusing to dialogue.
Less than 40% voted your way..
You can insult and dismiss.
Ps. I almost emailed you today to say how muchI welcome your debates, even though we see other sides.
Not all leave were racists, but enough were. You saw thenguy from Barnsley saying how Iraqis had to be shopped.. A non EU issue..
I want mY country back..
You are the one refusing to dialogue.
Less than 40% voted your way..
You can insult and dismiss.
Ps. I almost emailed you today to say how muchI welcome your debates, even though we see other sides.
Not all leave were racists, but enough were. You saw thenguy from Barnsley saying how Iraqis had to be shopped.. A non EU issue..
I want mY country back..
Post edited at 04:55
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
it's not about a favourable deal, it's a deal that leaves both parties with something they are happy with, which will no doubt be the UK in EEA, but with a migration clause of some type. All the other issues are window dressing. At the moment the EU is under greater pressure as their markets closed down twice as much as the FTSE and their economy in general has less flex. Even if you think you have a weak hand, you certainly don't say it and you never play it that way?
> 28 countries in the EU, 500 million people, we are 1 country negotiating with 27 others.. It's highly unlikely we will get a favorable deal. We've got a pretty weak hand and leave know that, hence why they want informal negotiations before article 50.. Basically they want to know how shafted we will be before making the decision.
it's not about a favourable deal, it's a deal that leaves both parties with something they are happy with, which will no doubt be the UK in EEA, but with a migration clause of some type. All the other issues are window dressing. At the moment the EU is under greater pressure as their markets closed down twice as much as the FTSE and their economy in general has less flex. Even if you think you have a weak hand, you certainly don't say it and you never play it that way?
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Interesting article about Johnson yesterday - implying that he wanted to lose, which he could have done with good grace while gaining capital with the swivel eyed loons.
Being PM negotiating what is going to be a desperately complex and, for most of the electorate, a boring set of agreements which they will only see negative consequences, is a poisoned chalice.
Interesting article about Johnson yesterday - implying that he wanted to lose, which he could have done with good grace while gaining capital with the swivel eyed loons.
Being PM negotiating what is going to be a desperately complex and, for most of the electorate, a boring set of agreements which they will only see negative consequences, is a poisoned chalice.
In reply to summo:
Exactly the correct attitude.
I don't go in to my customers cap in hand begging for work at any cost.
I name my terms with my best price up front and that's it. Customer wants it great if not so be it (95% of them that do turn us down come back over time when the cheaper guys let them down anyway).
As well as being a net contributer we also buy a lot from within Europe, 2 massive strengths that we should be pushing.
It's all going to come down to our leaders standing firm and not bending over and passing the EU the lube.
> Even if you think you have a weak hand, you certainly don't say it and you never play it that way?
Exactly the correct attitude.
I don't go in to my customers cap in hand begging for work at any cost.
I name my terms with my best price up front and that's it. Customer wants it great if not so be it (95% of them that do turn us down come back over time when the cheaper guys let them down anyway).
As well as being a net contributer we also buy a lot from within Europe, 2 massive strengths that we should be pushing.
It's all going to come down to our leaders standing firm and not bending over and passing the EU the lube.
1
In reply to Dax H:
Well let's hope those that have got us in this mess have the skills and abilities to get us out. I'd rather we weren't in it in the first place.
Well let's hope those that have got us in this mess have the skills and abilities to get us out. I'd rather we weren't in it in the first place.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
If Scots get a whiff of that ,the feeling will be "don't YOU tell us what to do as well!"
The EU is treading a fine line and don't unfortunately seem to realise it.
If Scots get a whiff of that ,the feeling will be "don't YOU tell us what to do as well!"
The EU is treading a fine line and don't unfortunately seem to realise it.
Post edited at 08:38
In reply to Pekkie:
The crucial thing is Norway doesn't have a vote. Which as someone who attends an EU meeting where we vote on decisions (chemical,related) would make participation somewhat pointless. You can join in discussion but have to take whatever decision is made by the voting members. To,cap,it, there is a large fee to pay. It's better than nothing, but not greatly..
The crucial thing is Norway doesn't have a vote. Which as someone who attends an EU meeting where we vote on decisions (chemical,related) would make participation somewhat pointless. You can join in discussion but have to take whatever decision is made by the voting members. To,cap,it, there is a large fee to pay. It's better than nothing, but not greatly..
In reply to Bootrock:
Denmark subsidised in 2015 Greenland with 3.7 billion DKK. In 2013 Greenlands GDP was 13.6 billion DKK.
I have no idea of the current exchange rate DKK over Sterling...
> Greenland left the EEC, and it's doing just fine. Or did it manage to get out before the EU got its claws nice and rooted in?
Denmark subsidised in 2015 Greenland with 3.7 billion DKK. In 2013 Greenlands GDP was 13.6 billion DKK.
I have no idea of the current exchange rate DKK over Sterling...
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I think he's panicing. Cameron played it well, nobody actually wants to be the person who presses that button.
He's openly said he wants informal talks first, basically to see if it is worth leaving.. Which isn't the way and the EU are right to say leave now, the longer it is dragged out the worse for all, economies bounce pretty quick, but they hate instability and years of negotiations will be constant instability.
The back peddling within the last 48 hours is mind boggling, already they've said they won't be closing borders, and erm that 350 million a week for the NHS.. Erm that's not actually going there..
> Interesting article about Johnson yesterday - implying that he wanted to lose, which he could have done with good grace while gaining capital with the swivel eyed loons.
> Being PM negotiating what is going to be a desperately complex and, for most of the electorate, a boring set of agreements which they will only see negative consequences, is a poisoned chalice.
I think he's panicing. Cameron played it well, nobody actually wants to be the person who presses that button.
He's openly said he wants informal talks first, basically to see if it is worth leaving.. Which isn't the way and the EU are right to say leave now, the longer it is dragged out the worse for all, economies bounce pretty quick, but they hate instability and years of negotiations will be constant instability.
The back peddling within the last 48 hours is mind boggling, already they've said they won't be closing borders, and erm that 350 million a week for the NHS.. Erm that's not actually going there..
4
1
As I explained to my wife earlier, the leave campaigners aren't in power, so weren't in a position to say what they would do after leaving. Farage could have promised pink unicorns and Ferraris for everyone, but because he isn't in power and is never likely to be (I hope) then it was poiintless listnening to anything he had to say. My opinion was that he was just a campaigner who happened to want to leave.
Cameron on the other hand is in power, yet was so confident of a remain vote he didn't seem to have a contingency plan in the event of a leave vote. Not once did I hear any plans from him in the event of this outcome. All we heard was constant scare mongering and Osborn coming out with his idea about a budget to punish us for leaving. He's now thrown the towel in after saying that he would invoke article 50 but not having the balls to do so.
There's a saying, failing to plan is planning to fail. This is what's happened here. It was nearly impossible for.the OUT campaign to plan, because they don't hold the balance of power and couldn't be sure of how that power would shift in the event of an out vote. What we needed was for Cameron to stay on for a bit and invoke article 50 and commence the negotiations and put a team together probably made up from both sides that could negotiate the best deal for the UK and then later step aside if he still felt the need.
What he's done is a scorched earth policy leaving the UK in political turmoil and paralysed while the conservative party should be uniting to try and sort this out in the best interests of Britain. That's why loads of Tory MP's signed a letter back Cameron to stay on in the event of an out vote, but instead he acted like a spoilt child determined to spoil it for everyone else because he didn't get his way.
The negative campaign from the remain side has massively weakened any bargaining position that we have and the continued negativity from dissatisfied remain supporters is further weakening our position. We really do jeed to 'Keep calm and carry on' or all of those bad predictions for leaving might become true.
Cameron on the other hand is in power, yet was so confident of a remain vote he didn't seem to have a contingency plan in the event of a leave vote. Not once did I hear any plans from him in the event of this outcome. All we heard was constant scare mongering and Osborn coming out with his idea about a budget to punish us for leaving. He's now thrown the towel in after saying that he would invoke article 50 but not having the balls to do so.
There's a saying, failing to plan is planning to fail. This is what's happened here. It was nearly impossible for.the OUT campaign to plan, because they don't hold the balance of power and couldn't be sure of how that power would shift in the event of an out vote. What we needed was for Cameron to stay on for a bit and invoke article 50 and commence the negotiations and put a team together probably made up from both sides that could negotiate the best deal for the UK and then later step aside if he still felt the need.
What he's done is a scorched earth policy leaving the UK in political turmoil and paralysed while the conservative party should be uniting to try and sort this out in the best interests of Britain. That's why loads of Tory MP's signed a letter back Cameron to stay on in the event of an out vote, but instead he acted like a spoilt child determined to spoil it for everyone else because he didn't get his way.
The negative campaign from the remain side has massively weakened any bargaining position that we have and the continued negativity from dissatisfied remain supporters is further weakening our position. We really do jeed to 'Keep calm and carry on' or all of those bad predictions for leaving might become true.
2
5
In reply to Phil Payne:
I think he had no choice. He'd lost control of his party, but also he thinks it is wrong, and has said its for someone else to pull the switch.
A rare moment of integrity.
It's now for the new leader to form a brexit party, but we will see. This has a leg way to run and I'm not sure boris will get it, if go with Theresa May as it stands if I was to get on it.
But I dont think cameron had any intention of taking britain out. The referendum was advisory. They now have to decide what to do next, but the pRty is in turmoil and an early general election isn't out of the picture now.
I think he had no choice. He'd lost control of his party, but also he thinks it is wrong, and has said its for someone else to pull the switch.
A rare moment of integrity.
It's now for the new leader to form a brexit party, but we will see. This has a leg way to run and I'm not sure boris will get it, if go with Theresa May as it stands if I was to get on it.
But I dont think cameron had any intention of taking britain out. The referendum was advisory. They now have to decide what to do next, but the pRty is in turmoil and an early general election isn't out of the picture now.
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
A rare moment of integrity? Really?
I don't think integrity is a quality possessed by any of our current politicians. I certainly don't waant Gove or BJ as our next leader, but if we are actually going to leave (I'm still not convinced that it would ever be allowed) then I want it to at least be someone who was on the Leave side.
Whoverer takes over has got a tough job and we may need to have a second referendum to decided which union is more important to us, Scotland or Europe.
A rare moment of integrity? Really?
I don't think integrity is a quality possessed by any of our current politicians. I certainly don't waant Gove or BJ as our next leader, but if we are actually going to leave (I'm still not convinced that it would ever be allowed) then I want it to at least be someone who was on the Leave side.
Whoverer takes over has got a tough job and we may need to have a second referendum to decided which union is more important to us, Scotland or Europe.
2
In reply to Phil Payne:
If he stayed, he had to press the button. He has now passed on a horrible position.
There's talk of years of informal negotiations to get a proper picture, then a second referendum.
This has years to run yet.
If he stayed, he had to press the button. He has now passed on a horrible position.
There's talk of years of informal negotiations to get a proper picture, then a second referendum.
This has years to run yet.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Years of informal negotiations until after a general election at which point the new government will claim not to have a mandate to pull the trigger on a brexit.
There's a lot of history in Europe on referendums being ignored when the political elite don't get wht they want. I was never under any illusions that we would be allowed to leave easily unless we had something crazy like a 80% leave vote on a 99% turnout.
I feel sorry for people that voted to leave and actually thought that their vote might count for something.
Years of informal negotiations until after a general election at which point the new government will claim not to have a mandate to pull the trigger on a brexit.
There's a lot of history in Europe on referendums being ignored when the political elite don't get wht they want. I was never under any illusions that we would be allowed to leave easily unless we had something crazy like a 80% leave vote on a 99% turnout.
I feel sorry for people that voted to leave and actually thought that their vote might count for something.
Post edited at 21:52
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
But it is impossible. Swiz and Norway have free movement of labour - it is exactly opposite to leave campaign main point. For government to make a deal with EU including a free movement is an act of making sure they will never get elected again. Brits votes to cut migration. Some even believed that they will kick out existing emigrants.
> My guess is the EU will try and get the UK into the Switzerland/Norway deal but the UK will have more leverage and be able to get something a little better. But probably no better than what we already have so the whole exercise will be costly and pointless.
But it is impossible. Swiz and Norway have free movement of labour - it is exactly opposite to leave campaign main point. For government to make a deal with EU including a free movement is an act of making sure they will never get elected again. Brits votes to cut migration. Some even believed that they will kick out existing emigrants.
1
In reply to nutme:
>Brits votes to cut migration. Some even believed that they will kick out existing emigrants.
That's the trouble. Who knows what they voted for? When you tell the sort of lies Leave did, who knows what your supporters thought they were voting for? I'm sure some thought they were voting to cut immigration. Others might not care about that but wanted to renegotiate our EU deal.
jcm
>Brits votes to cut migration. Some even believed that they will kick out existing emigrants.
That's the trouble. Who knows what they voted for? When you tell the sort of lies Leave did, who knows what your supporters thought they were voting for? I'm sure some thought they were voting to cut immigration. Others might not care about that but wanted to renegotiate our EU deal.
jcm
4
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That is what I have found in my job, our European suppliers, have said that they don't want any trade tarrifs.
( on the other side, a lower pound should drive exports . )
I may not be an expert, but I think the FT are overly pessimistic, and fail to headline that the UK losses in the markets are dwarfed by others who are hurting much more and need a quick deal more than we do. We need to talk up our advantages now.
> Leave have **continually** emphasized the importance of trade deals.
> Nope, free trade. The EU exports 200 billion a year to us, and has a trade surplus with us. They won't want to lose that.
> Nope, free trade. The EU exports 200 billion a year to us, and has a trade surplus with us. They won't want to lose that.
That is what I have found in my job, our European suppliers, have said that they don't want any trade tarrifs.
( on the other side, a lower pound should drive exports . )
I may not be an expert, but I think the FT are overly pessimistic, and fail to headline that the UK losses in the markets are dwarfed by others who are hurting much more and need a quick deal more than we do. We need to talk up our advantages now.
Post edited at 06:58
3
In reply to Bootrock:
Greenland is not 'doing just fine' - it is a country with frightening social problems supported by vast handouts from Denmark.
Greenland is not 'doing just fine' - it is a country with frightening social problems supported by vast handouts from Denmark.
In reply to Jim C:
It isn't about tariffs - it is about regulations. Neither the UK nor EU have any interest in engaging in a tariff war. The eu's trade deals do prevent tariffs, but this is the 'easy' bit - much more difficult is reducing regulatory barriers (and this is why there are so many eu regulations to run it all). Yes, they run a surplus with us overall, but it is worth about 3% of their trade - our trade with the eu is about 50% of ours. Their market is about 7-8x bigger than ours, so access is far more important for UK companies than European ones (the size of this market is why the eu can negotiate beneficial trade deals with almost everyone else in the world.) Finally, not all eu states run a surplus - in fact, I think only Germany and the low countris do. But all eu states have to agree on the deal. And if you think losing Scotland is not a problem here - the one thing the eu does not have easy access to is oil and gas; this is a major bargaining chip for Norway.
It isn't about tariffs - it is about regulations. Neither the UK nor EU have any interest in engaging in a tariff war. The eu's trade deals do prevent tariffs, but this is the 'easy' bit - much more difficult is reducing regulatory barriers (and this is why there are so many eu regulations to run it all). Yes, they run a surplus with us overall, but it is worth about 3% of their trade - our trade with the eu is about 50% of ours. Their market is about 7-8x bigger than ours, so access is far more important for UK companies than European ones (the size of this market is why the eu can negotiate beneficial trade deals with almost everyone else in the world.) Finally, not all eu states run a surplus - in fact, I think only Germany and the low countris do. But all eu states have to agree on the deal. And if you think losing Scotland is not a problem here - the one thing the eu does not have easy access to is oil and gas; this is a major bargaining chip for Norway.
2
In reply to tony:
> Greenland? First the Brexiteers cited the example of Norway. Then Michael Gove got enthusiastic about Albania. Now it's Greenland. Is that really the height of your ambitions?
> (Greenland, population 56480, land area mostly ice, major industry fish)
Don't forget the ice industry Post edited at 08:11
2
In reply to Jim C:
It's obvious that no sensible person would put in immediate trade tariffs on physical goods when there has been 30 years of companies developing supply networks and choosing plant locations assuming no tariffs. Sticking 10% taxes on the flow of goods at many places in the production of a complex product like a car or plane would destroy the economics and make many EU produced products less competitive than those produced entirely outside the EU. It is less clear what the EU has to lose from screwing up the business of the city of London by removing its passport or putting tariffs on financial services supplied from Britain.
Even though tariffs on physical goods are in neither sides interest it doesn't mean that tariffs won't be imposed at some point in a fractious negotiating process when one side feels the need to kick the other to show their power and force a concession. The EU might also decide to offer a relatively long no-tariff transition period to give EU companies 5 or 10 years to cut the UK out of their supply chain rather than a complete no-tariff for ever deal.
> That is what I have found in my job, our European suppliers, have said that they don't want any trade tarrifs.
It's obvious that no sensible person would put in immediate trade tariffs on physical goods when there has been 30 years of companies developing supply networks and choosing plant locations assuming no tariffs. Sticking 10% taxes on the flow of goods at many places in the production of a complex product like a car or plane would destroy the economics and make many EU produced products less competitive than those produced entirely outside the EU. It is less clear what the EU has to lose from screwing up the business of the city of London by removing its passport or putting tariffs on financial services supplied from Britain.
Even though tariffs on physical goods are in neither sides interest it doesn't mean that tariffs won't be imposed at some point in a fractious negotiating process when one side feels the need to kick the other to show their power and force a concession. The EU might also decide to offer a relatively long no-tariff transition period to give EU companies 5 or 10 years to cut the UK out of their supply chain rather than a complete no-tariff for ever deal.
Post edited at 09:46
In reply to Phil Payne:
Totally agree, we are already seeing the grat back pedal start.
> Years of informal negotiations until after a general election at which point the new government will claim not to have a mandate to pull the trigger on a brexit.
> There's a lot of history in Europe on referendums being ignored when the political elite don't get wht they want. I was never under any illusions that we would be allowed to leave easily unless we had something crazy like a 80% leave vote on a 99% turnout.
> I feel sorry for people that voted to leave and actually thought that their vote might count for something.
Totally agree, we are already seeing the grat back pedal start.
1
In reply to Ben1983:
But crucially it is Germany who bankrolls the rest, he ( or she) who pays the piper calls the tune .
> Finally, not all eu states run a surplus - in fact, I think only Germany and the low countris do. But all eu states have to agree on the deal.
But crucially it is Germany who bankrolls the rest, he ( or she) who pays the piper calls the tune .
1
In reply to Jim C:
Even though I was a firm remainer I have recognised now that it's time to move on and out I recognise that we have a strong negotiating hand. There is absolutely no need to rush, despite what the EU tells us. That plays to our strengths. To get what we want we need to be as annoying and as awkward as possible . We will have an easier time negotiating as ours will be a smaller team, whereas they have 27countries to deal with, all with different interests.
Just ember our military is in Scandinavia covering everybody's interests towards Russia.
Even though I was a firm remainer I have recognised now that it's time to move on and out I recognise that we have a strong negotiating hand. There is absolutely no need to rush, despite what the EU tells us. That plays to our strengths. To get what we want we need to be as annoying and as awkward as possible . We will have an easier time negotiating as ours will be a smaller team, whereas they have 27countries to deal with, all with different interests.
Just ember our military is in Scandinavia covering everybody's interests towards Russia.
Post edited at 19:27
3
In reply to neilh:
Apparently we have very few experienced trade deal negotiators left - once we joined the EU, all the work was done for us.
Apparently we have very few experienced trade deal negotiators left - once we joined the EU, all the work was done for us.
In reply to neilh:
I'm hoping that everyone can in time ( hopefully shortish) come to that view.
Ironically, you may be taken out of the EU against your will, and I may be kept in ( or taken back in) as I live in Scotland.
I'm hoping that everyone can in time ( hopefully shortish) come to that view.
Ironically, you may be taken out of the EU against your will, and I may be kept in ( or taken back in) as I live in Scotland.
In reply to Pekkie:
Nothing is going to happen. By not pressing the button Cameron has cleverly out-witted Boris and Gove because the onus will now fall on his successor to do it and they won't have the balls. End of.
Nothing is going to happen. By not pressing the button Cameron has cleverly out-witted Boris and Gove because the onus will now fall on his successor to do it and they won't have the balls. End of.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
It seems the Boris bikes have a back-pedalling option.
Frankly the whole thing is a sham, Boris in his column again giving the impression that he can end free movement for eu nationals in the UK, but keep it for the Brits abroad, and keep access to the single market without paying for it. He obviously doesn't even have a clue.
Project farce is on indeed.
> Totally agree, we are already seeing the grat back pedal start.
It seems the Boris bikes have a back-pedalling option.
Frankly the whole thing is a sham, Boris in his column again giving the impression that he can end free movement for eu nationals in the UK, but keep it for the Brits abroad, and keep access to the single market without paying for it. He obviously doesn't even have a clue.
Project farce is on indeed.
Post edited at 19:39
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Free trade isn't just a benefit to everyone. Plenty people in the EU would benefit from trade tariffs with the UK. They'd probably take quite a lot of jobs from the UK to EU, for example. Also, they don't see their interests in the EU breaking up further or entirely, so they don't want to see the UK doing too well. Overall GB-EU trade is a much smaller proportion for the EU than it is GB, so they've got the power in negotiations.
> The guys in Brussels probably think the same way because they are just interested in the EU and its institutions. But the governments of the individual nations, after the initial anger wears off, will not. Any action designed to hurt the UK by imposing trade barriers will also hurt their own taxpayers and the large companies that fund their parties.
Free trade isn't just a benefit to everyone. Plenty people in the EU would benefit from trade tariffs with the UK. They'd probably take quite a lot of jobs from the UK to EU, for example. Also, they don't see their interests in the EU breaking up further or entirely, so they don't want to see the UK doing too well. Overall GB-EU trade is a much smaller proportion for the EU than it is GB, so they've got the power in negotiations.
In reply to Donald82:
its irrelevant. You are negotiating on a whole range of issues . For example Poland will want it to be successful, there are a lot of Poles here, sending money back, and with few jobs to return to. It's not difficult to draw up a good list of the things we can play to.
And in the background the USA will be knocking heads together.
It's why I say we have an advantage, our interests are easier to define.
its irrelevant. You are negotiating on a whole range of issues . For example Poland will want it to be successful, there are a lot of Poles here, sending money back, and with few jobs to return to. It's not difficult to draw up a good list of the things we can play to.
And in the background the USA will be knocking heads together.
It's why I say we have an advantage, our interests are easier to define.
In reply to Jim C:
Scotland going back in, still not sure Spain will give on that because of the Catalonia issue. And you still have got to sort out the euro issue. Sturgeon is playing a tight hand to get more powers and that will be it, well that is my view.
Scotland going back in, still not sure Spain will give on that because of the Catalonia issue. And you still have got to sort out the euro issue. Sturgeon is playing a tight hand to get more powers and that will be it, well that is my view.
1
In reply to neilh:
The problem is, and I'm not being personally insulting, neither you nor anyone else has a clue - it's so complex and unprecedented, there are arguments every which way. I'd rather we weren't having to discuss it.
> its irrelevant. You are negotiating on a whole range of issues . For example Poland will want it to be successful, there are a lot of Poles here, sending money back, and with few jobs to return to. It's not difficult to draw up a good list of the things we can play to.
> And in the background the USA will be knocking heads together.
> It's why I say we have an advantage, our interests are easier to define.
The problem is, and I'm not being personally insulting, neither you nor anyone else has a clue - it's so complex and unprecedented, there are arguments every which way. I'd rather we weren't having to discuss it.
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I am not sure that it is the case . I llearnt today that a HofC select committee had already prepared a report on what happens to tariffs if we come out . It's all laid down in black and white, as we automatically go to " most favoured nation" status under wto rules. All pretty straight forward it's why we have a civil service to plan these things.
I am not sure that it is the case . I llearnt today that a HofC select committee had already prepared a report on what happens to tariffs if we come out . It's all laid down in black and white, as we automatically go to " most favoured nation" status under wto rules. All pretty straight forward it's why we have a civil service to plan these things.
Post edited at 20:09
In reply to neilh:
Sure, being one nation instead of 28 is probably an advatage to us. The US might be too, I expect they care more about the EU than they do us though. Proportion of trade is an advatage to the EU. As is generally being much bigger than us. I'd say their advatages outweigh ours and they have a fairly big motivation for us not to be seen to do well outside of the EU. Anyway, I guess we'll get to see how it goes. My bet is that we will probably keep freetrade but we'll also keep freemovement and paying them money. If we don't keep free trade, the EU countries will make sure what ever we do have is worse for us than it is for them.
Sure, being one nation instead of 28 is probably an advatage to us. The US might be too, I expect they care more about the EU than they do us though. Proportion of trade is an advatage to the EU. As is generally being much bigger than us. I'd say their advatages outweigh ours and they have a fairly big motivation for us not to be seen to do well outside of the EU. Anyway, I guess we'll get to see how it goes. My bet is that we will probably keep freetrade but we'll also keep freemovement and paying them money. If we don't keep free trade, the EU countries will make sure what ever we do have is worse for us than it is for them.
In reply to neilh:
And my view too, the Euro was already in trouble , and it is now in more trouble, why would she want to join and get lumbered with the Euro , the negatives far outweigh any positives of being a EU member at the moment. She should worry that once she calls it, that will be highlighted, and those Scots that, at the moment having voted to remain, and want to reverse the referendum result position, will then realise that they don't miss the EU that much after all.
> Scotland going back in, still not sure Spain will give on that because of the Catalonia issue. And you still have got to sort out the euro issue. Sturgeon is playing a tight hand to get more powers and that will be it, well that is my view.
And my view too, the Euro was already in trouble , and it is now in more trouble, why would she want to join and get lumbered with the Euro , the negatives far outweigh any positives of being a EU member at the moment. She should worry that once she calls it, that will be highlighted, and those Scots that, at the moment having voted to remain, and want to reverse the referendum result position, will then realise that they don't miss the EU that much after all.
Post edited at 21:02
In reply to Donald82:
I work for a really big American Corporation (OK, belly of the beast and all that, but hell, I needed a job) Today whilst on holiday I voluntarily attended a conference call as the topic involved projects I am deeply involved with. From what was said the Yanks seemed quite relaxed about the whole situation. They already have offices on mainland Europe, so that isn’t an issue and as the projects I am involved with generate most cash from Arabian/Far East contracts there are no negative implications, at this time, for us in the UK, and perhaps even benefits (when international cost allocations are factored in).
So perhaps it’s a case of every cloud has a silver lining, although things will be kept under scrutiny by head office (in Ireland?).
It sure is a complicated world and things aren’t always as straight forward as they seem, from a pan-global perspective.
> .... I expect they care more about the EU than they do us though.
I work for a really big American Corporation (OK, belly of the beast and all that, but hell, I needed a job) Today whilst on holiday I voluntarily attended a conference call as the topic involved projects I am deeply involved with. From what was said the Yanks seemed quite relaxed about the whole situation. They already have offices on mainland Europe, so that isn’t an issue and as the projects I am involved with generate most cash from Arabian/Far East contracts there are no negative implications, at this time, for us in the UK, and perhaps even benefits (when international cost allocations are factored in).
So perhaps it’s a case of every cloud has a silver lining, although things will be kept under scrutiny by head office (in Ireland?).
It sure is a complicated world and things aren’t always as straight forward as they seem, from a pan-global perspective.
1
In reply to Mark Edwards:
The Americans I deal with have already said to me " so you are now free of EY shackles".
The Americans I deal with have already said to me " so you are now free of EY shackles".
1
In reply to Bootrock:
But no one seriously believes any of that positive outlook stuff, it is much better to think we are doomed as predicted, the guy is clearly a lunatic leaver.
But no one seriously believes any of that positive outlook stuff, it is much better to think we are doomed as predicted, the guy is clearly a lunatic leaver.
1
In reply to Mark Edwards:
I expect any difference will mostly be medium term, when people are deciding where to put an office or invest. Somewhere fairly guaranteed to be in the free trade area or in the UK.
My point above, though, was that we probably can't expect the US to help us out if we have problems in futrure EU negotiations. (Which I understood to be neilh's point when he said the US would bang heads together)
I expect any difference will mostly be medium term, when people are deciding where to put an office or invest. Somewhere fairly guaranteed to be in the free trade area or in the UK.
My point above, though, was that we probably can't expect the US to help us out if we have problems in futrure EU negotiations. (Which I understood to be neilh's point when he said the US would bang heads together)
In reply to Pekkie:
Here's a useful link, with 5 models: Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey and Hong Kong/Singapore. Be careful about choosing the last one as this would probably hit the UK's manufacturing and agricultural sectors hard! Can't imagine that being too popular.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36639261
Here's a useful link, with 5 models: Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey and Hong Kong/Singapore. Be careful about choosing the last one as this would probably hit the UK's manufacturing and agricultural sectors hard! Can't imagine that being too popular.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36639261
In reply to Pekkie:
Here's another link. The UK's negotiating team will be only too aware that the UK's banking and manufacturing sectors must have access to the single market. And this means free movement and paying in. There's more drama to come, folks!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36651829
Here's another link. The UK's negotiating team will be only too aware that the UK's banking and manufacturing sectors must have access to the single market. And this means free movement and paying in. There's more drama to come, folks!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36651829
In reply to Pekkie:
Ha ha ha, it keeps saying that preparation, strong leadership and unity are required!! SNP are the only ones at the moment that fit any of these criteria!
Ha ha ha, it keeps saying that preparation, strong leadership and unity are required!! SNP are the only ones at the moment that fit any of these criteria!
3
In reply to girlymonkey:
Lucky the civil service are well staffed and havent been continually chopped back over the last couple of governments.
> Ha ha ha, it keeps saying that preparation, strong leadership and unity are required!!
Lucky the civil service are well staffed and havent been continually chopped back over the last couple of governments.
In reply to neilh:
Is that why everyone who does it always uses large teams?
jcm
> That is old news. Easier to do with a smaller team.
Is that why everyone who does it always uses large teams?
jcm
1
In reply to KevinD:
More jobs for negotiators then, that's good news.( unless they recruit them on the cheap from the EU
> Lucky the civil service are well staffed and havent been continually chopped back over the last couple of governments.
More jobs for negotiators then, that's good news.( unless they recruit them on the cheap from the EU
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
"The widespread belief in "strength in numbers" suggests that having more players on your team should be a benefit, not a burden. But this belief can lead team members to underprepare for negotiation, a common mistake. Think about the times during a negotiation when you wished you could retract a concession or bit of information that slipped out of a teammate's mouth."
Harvard Business School link
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4940.html
Edit
Go in with a small team, less chance of a disastrous faux pax, and play for time, and as they want a quick deal , they can only have that for a good deal for the UK.
> Is that why everyone who does it always uses large teams?
> jcm
"The widespread belief in "strength in numbers" suggests that having more players on your team should be a benefit, not a burden. But this belief can lead team members to underprepare for negotiation, a common mistake. Think about the times during a negotiation when you wished you could retract a concession or bit of information that slipped out of a teammate's mouth."
Harvard Business School link
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4940.html
Edit
Go in with a small team, less chance of a disastrous faux pax, and play for time, and as they want a quick deal , they can only have that for a good deal for the UK.
Post edited at 00:03
1
In reply to Jim C:
I have this idea that neither of us knows much about the best way to negotiate major international trade treaties and that we might as well both shut up about the best methodology for doing so. Deal?
jcm
I have this idea that neither of us knows much about the best way to negotiate major international trade treaties and that we might as well both shut up about the best methodology for doing so. Deal?
jcm
3
1
In reply to Pekkie:
You never go into a negotiation conceding the main issue, as you have just done.
Happily, I'm confident that our negotiators will be positive and motivated to get a good deal and not defeatists,
(and as the French finance minister said only today, everything is still on the table. )
What we want, is also what others in the EU want too, to avoid similar exit campaigns in their own countries, so we will have support there too.
All these defeatist comments from a range of people that are supposed to be UK patriots, are not helpful to the position we are in.
They should just keep their unhelpful comments private, and if they cannot contribute something constructive say nothing.
There has been some good news in the markets to which some remain supporters were less than conviningly pleased about, they should be ashamed of themselves continuing to wish anything but a positive outcome.
( and given such news , some even say that it is early days , and it could all crash and burn yet, talking ourselves into a self fulfilling prophesy)
The EU say the negotiations have not started, that in itself is a negotiating tactic.
> Here's another link. The UK's negotiating team will be only too aware that the UK's banking and manufacturing sectors must have access to the single market. And this means free movement and paying in. There's more drama to come, folks!
You never go into a negotiation conceding the main issue, as you have just done.
Happily, I'm confident that our negotiators will be positive and motivated to get a good deal and not defeatists,
(and as the French finance minister said only today, everything is still on the table. )
What we want, is also what others in the EU want too, to avoid similar exit campaigns in their own countries, so we will have support there too.
All these defeatist comments from a range of people that are supposed to be UK patriots, are not helpful to the position we are in.
They should just keep their unhelpful comments private, and if they cannot contribute something constructive say nothing.
There has been some good news in the markets to which some remain supporters were less than conviningly pleased about, they should be ashamed of themselves continuing to wish anything but a positive outcome.
( and given such news , some even say that it is early days , and it could all crash and burn yet, talking ourselves into a self fulfilling prophesy)
The EU say the negotiations have not started, that in itself is a negotiating tactic.
2
2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I cited the Harvard Business School's view on team sizes , not my own views.
You are of course correct, although I work in Procurement, I have not experience of complex international trade treaties, but I do know simple basic rules are not being followed , and that what people, supposedly on our side , are doing , is helping the other side, and should reflect on that. Particularly our politicians from all parties.
At least Cameron, Osborne and Carney have got behind team UK, time for others to do the same.
When people stop talking down the UK's chances of getting a positive outcome, our chances of getting a positive outcome will increase.
Edit, others have expressed their views of how the EU should approach this, I would like to think that my contribution ( given the thread topic) are at least as valid
Nutme :- " If I were running EU I would f*ck UK as hard as it's possible. So other states would think seven times before leaving."
Peakie:- "Bend over"
BnB:-"The UK negotiating team will be obliged to accept levels of freedom of movement that head off the prospect of a second IndyRef "
ROxOr wolfs:-"Of course to maintain this access we will have to accept the majority of regulation and free movement of labor, "
And one I wholeheartedly agree with:-
Phil Payne:- "The negative campaign from the remain side has massively weakened any bargaining position that we have and the continued negativity from dissatisfied remain supporters is further weakening our position.
We really do jeed to 'Keep calm and carry on' or all of those bad predictions for leaving might become true."
> I have this idea that neither of us knows much about the best way to negotiate major international trade treaties and that we might as well both shut up about the best methodology for doing so. Deal?
> jcm
I cited the Harvard Business School's view on team sizes , not my own views.
You are of course correct, although I work in Procurement, I have not experience of complex international trade treaties, but I do know simple basic rules are not being followed , and that what people, supposedly on our side , are doing , is helping the other side, and should reflect on that. Particularly our politicians from all parties.
At least Cameron, Osborne and Carney have got behind team UK, time for others to do the same.
When people stop talking down the UK's chances of getting a positive outcome, our chances of getting a positive outcome will increase.
Edit, others have expressed their views of how the EU should approach this, I would like to think that my contribution ( given the thread topic) are at least as valid
Nutme :- " If I were running EU I would f*ck UK as hard as it's possible. So other states would think seven times before leaving."
Peakie:- "Bend over"
BnB:-"The UK negotiating team will be obliged to accept levels of freedom of movement that head off the prospect of a second IndyRef "
ROxOr wolfs:-"Of course to maintain this access we will have to accept the majority of regulation and free movement of labor, "
And one I wholeheartedly agree with:-
Phil Payne:- "The negative campaign from the remain side has massively weakened any bargaining position that we have and the continued negativity from dissatisfied remain supporters is further weakening our position.
We really do jeed to 'Keep calm and carry on' or all of those bad predictions for leaving might become true."
Post edited at 01:22
2
2
In reply to Jim C:
I love your idea that the EU has crack teams of negotiators scanning UKC for signs of defeatism. Let's hope they know to look in Off Belay and not just the climbing forums, eh?
jcm
I love your idea that the EU has crack teams of negotiators scanning UKC for signs of defeatism. Let's hope they know to look in Off Belay and not just the climbing forums, eh?
jcm
4
1
In reply to Jim C:
I provided a link to an article on the BBC website in order to share information commonly available with UKC users. You make it sound like a conspiracy to do the country down. I suggest you take five minutes and think about who the real patriots are in this whole mess.
> You never go into a negotiation conceding the main issue, as you have just done.
> All these defeatist comments from a range of people that are supposed to be UK patriots, are not helpful to the position we are in.
> They should just keep their unhelpful comments private, and if they cannot contribute something constructive say nothing.
I provided a link to an article on the BBC website in order to share information commonly available with UKC users. You make it sound like a conspiracy to do the country down. I suggest you take five minutes and think about who the real patriots are in this whole mess.
2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Of course the real damage is done by commentators in the press and the TVs and in parliament, but, spreading such defeatism anywhere us not helpful
( although a Google search will equally pick up negative UKC comments as it would negative comment made public elsewhere. )
Emily Thornburry should give it a rest, she by far the most defeatist of anyone I have heard yet. What does she think she is doing?
> I love your idea that the EU has crack teams of negotiators scanning UKC for signs of defeatism. Let's hope they know to look in Off Belay and not just the climbing forums, eh?
> jcm
Of course the real damage is done by commentators in the press and the TVs and in parliament, but, spreading such defeatism anywhere us not helpful
( although a Google search will equally pick up negative UKC comments as it would negative comment made public elsewhere. )
Emily Thornburry should give it a rest, she by far the most defeatist of anyone I have heard yet. What does she think she is doing?
Post edited at 01:31
2
In reply to Pekkie:
And you think that saying we should " bend over" makes you come across patriotic?
I certainly don't think there is any conspiracy to do the country down, but there is a fair bit of unthinking loose talk, that with hindsight, I think / hope many will regret, particularly bitter remainer politicians who's mouth's are running way ahead of their brains.
> I provided a link to an article on the BBC website in order to share information commonly available with UKC users. You make it sound like a conspiracy to do the country down. I suggest you take five minutes and think about who the real patriots are in this whole mess.
And you think that saying we should " bend over" makes you come across patriotic?
I certainly don't think there is any conspiracy to do the country down, but there is a fair bit of unthinking loose talk, that with hindsight, I think / hope many will regret, particularly bitter remainer politicians who's mouth's are running way ahead of their brains.
Post edited at 01:51
2
In reply to Jim C:
Yeah the leave were all calm and calculated.,
We'll give the NHS 350 million a year...
We'll have access to the single market and controlled migration..
Err yeah.. their mouths weren't running way ahead of their brains.
And I'm not even going to mention the 'look who is laughing now' comments nor the overtly racist poster campaigns.
> And you think that saying we should " bend over" makes you come across patriotic?
> I certainly don't think there is any conspiracy to do the country down, but there is a fair bit of unthinking loose talk, that with hindsight, I think / hope many will regret, particularly bitter remainer politicians who's mouth's are running way ahead of their brains.
Yeah the leave were all calm and calculated.,
We'll give the NHS 350 million a year...
We'll have access to the single market and controlled migration..
Err yeah.. their mouths weren't running way ahead of their brains.
And I'm not even going to mention the 'look who is laughing now' comments nor the overtly racist poster campaigns.
Post edited at 02:24
3
In reply to Jim C:
Whereas Farage taking the trouble to fly over to Brussels and piss off the EU Commission with his stupid gloating, telling heart surgeons they've never had a proper job, and so forth, was presumably bang on message, was he?
jcm
Whereas Farage taking the trouble to fly over to Brussels and piss off the EU Commission with his stupid gloating, telling heart surgeons they've never had a proper job, and so forth, was presumably bang on message, was he?
jcm
7
In reply to Jim C:
F*cking Hell Jim.
Its like going to see Father Christmas and asking for Rudolph for some snow. You aren't going to get him.
If we get a deal paying less per capita than Norway they will want a rebate. So the EU lose twice over.
If we get a deal on limited migration, Norway and Switzerland will want likewise.
These are pretty much set ideas. If we want access to the EU single market (as in its entirety) we must have free movement of labour. Thats not defeatism. That is the rules for the other 27 member states and others involved.
Others have managed limited access but have lost access wth say financial services. That would be fantastic for London.
You seem like a typical Leave voter, shouting your mouth off, making your decision before you've even look what we could negotiate over and what deals other people got.
FFS even Boris kicked off with a silly statement with what he wanted, showed his hand straight up and was punted back to touch.
> You never go into a negotiation conceding the main issue, as you have just done.
F*cking Hell Jim.
Its like going to see Father Christmas and asking for Rudolph for some snow. You aren't going to get him.
If we get a deal paying less per capita than Norway they will want a rebate. So the EU lose twice over.
If we get a deal on limited migration, Norway and Switzerland will want likewise.
These are pretty much set ideas. If we want access to the EU single market (as in its entirety) we must have free movement of labour. Thats not defeatism. That is the rules for the other 27 member states and others involved.
Others have managed limited access but have lost access wth say financial services. That would be fantastic for London.
You seem like a typical Leave voter, shouting your mouth off, making your decision before you've even look what we could negotiate over and what deals other people got.
FFS even Boris kicked off with a silly statement with what he wanted, showed his hand straight up and was punted back to touch.
1
In reply to Jim C:
I believe that the real problem in trade negotiations will be the sheer number of treaties to be concluded (the EU used to deal with all the non EU countries for us, now we'll have to negotiate will each one individually).
I believe that the real problem in trade negotiations will be the sheer number of treaties to be concluded (the EU used to deal with all the non EU countries for us, now we'll have to negotiate will each one individually).
In reply to Jim C:
Most of my analysis has surrounded the strength of the UK hand, while assessing points of weakness. I'd prefer you to quote me in full rather than selectively. Understanding your weak points is as important as recognising your strengths, after all, and we have both.
We can both agree that Junker is utterly frustrated over the delay in invoking Article 50. It makes him look impotent. And he is helping that impression with his daily tantrums. It will, however, be a big ask to achieve concessions on free movement. A quick deal is a good deal for us, as you say, but this sticking point may be difficult to lubricate in short order.
It's good to have the perspective from a procurement specialist. I run a business selling services into the EU and worldwide. A deal is usually successful when each side feels they can claim victory, so we need to give them something that harms us not while looking like a punishment in the eyes of their constituency. And they will look to give us concessions that are valued in the UK that don't feel like caving in on the continent.
> I cited the Harvard Business School's view on team sizes , not my own views.
> You are of course correct, although I work in Procurement, I have not experience of complex international trade treaties, but I do know simple basic rules are not being followed , and that what people, supposedly on our side , are doing , is helping the other side, and should reflect on that. Particularly our politicians from all parties.
> At least Cameron, Osborne and Carney have got behind team UK, time for others to do the same.
> When people stop talking down the UK's chances of getting a positive outcome, our chances of getting a positive outcome will increase.
> Edit, others have expressed their views of how the EU should approach this, I would like to think that my contribution ( given the thread topic) are at least as valid
> Nutme :- " If I were running EU I would f*ck UK as hard as it's possible. So other states would think seven times before leaving."
> Peakie:- "Bend over"
> BnB:-"The UK negotiating team will be obliged to accept levels of freedom of movement that head off the prospect of a second IndyRef "
> ROxOr wolfs:-"Of course to maintain this access we will have to accept the majority of regulation and free movement of labor, "
> And one I wholeheartedly agree with:-
> Phil Payne:- "The negative campaign from the remain side has massively weakened any bargaining position that we have and the continued negativity from dissatisfied remain supporters is further weakening our position.
> We really do jeed to 'Keep calm and carry on' or all of those bad predictions for leaving might become true."
Most of my analysis has surrounded the strength of the UK hand, while assessing points of weakness. I'd prefer you to quote me in full rather than selectively. Understanding your weak points is as important as recognising your strengths, after all, and we have both.
We can both agree that Junker is utterly frustrated over the delay in invoking Article 50. It makes him look impotent. And he is helping that impression with his daily tantrums. It will, however, be a big ask to achieve concessions on free movement. A quick deal is a good deal for us, as you say, but this sticking point may be difficult to lubricate in short order.
It's good to have the perspective from a procurement specialist. I run a business selling services into the EU and worldwide. A deal is usually successful when each side feels they can claim victory, so we need to give them something that harms us not while looking like a punishment in the eyes of their constituency. And they will look to give us concessions that are valued in the UK that don't feel like caving in on the continent.
2
In reply to Jim C:
Before the referendum many, including me, pointed to the false promises being made on the Leave side. Namely that we could be part of the single market without free movement and that we would get £350 million per week for the NHS. Also the Leave politicians did not have a coherent plan for post-brexit negotiations with the EU (a bit like invading Iraq without a plan for what happens afterwards). So, basically, the people who voted for Leave were hoodwinked. There will be long drawn-out negotiations on the details but the key negotiation will be a game of bluff. Is our economy sufficiently bigger than Norway or Switzerland to force the EU to concede on the principles of free movement and paying in? Neither side will want a mutually damaging trade war and will want an end to uncertainty. I would settle for being part of the single market (if the alternative means heavy damage to our manufacturing and agricultural sectors), accepting free movement, and paying in whatever the cost is. But how explain that to those who voted Leave? And how do people like you who ignored all the warnings explain themselves?
> And you think that saying we should " bend over" makes you come across patriotic?
> I certainly don't think there is any conspiracy to do the country down, but there is a fair bit of unthinking loose talk, that with hindsight, I think / hope many will regret, particularly bitter remainer politicians who's mouth's are running way ahead of their brains.
Before the referendum many, including me, pointed to the false promises being made on the Leave side. Namely that we could be part of the single market without free movement and that we would get £350 million per week for the NHS. Also the Leave politicians did not have a coherent plan for post-brexit negotiations with the EU (a bit like invading Iraq without a plan for what happens afterwards). So, basically, the people who voted for Leave were hoodwinked. There will be long drawn-out negotiations on the details but the key negotiation will be a game of bluff. Is our economy sufficiently bigger than Norway or Switzerland to force the EU to concede on the principles of free movement and paying in? Neither side will want a mutually damaging trade war and will want an end to uncertainty. I would settle for being part of the single market (if the alternative means heavy damage to our manufacturing and agricultural sectors), accepting free movement, and paying in whatever the cost is. But how explain that to those who voted Leave? And how do people like you who ignored all the warnings explain themselves?
2
In reply to Jim C:
In a normal negotiating context I would agree with you. i.e. procurement / contract negotiation between 2 private entities or even typical trade negotiations which can be kept reasonably confidential.
However, this is a completely un-normal negotiating context. We have just had a very public vote which posed a multi-faceted question as a binary question. Britain's relationship with the EU is not a YES-NO question. There are many shades of "No" and even the leave campaign - let alone the country as a whole or MPs as our representatives - cannot agree on what flavour of "Leave" we want. I would be like holding a general election in which you asked people to vote on whether they prefer the Tory party or "one of the other lot". Exactly what we want from the negotiations now must be decided and depends on whether we believe the vote was a disaster or not. So what you describe as loose-talk and defeatism is just as likely to be part of the democratic process of deciding what we want from our relationship with the EU. To say that we shouldn't discuss this because it might damage the negotiations misses the fact that we don't yet know what we do want from negotiations and - since the whole situation was based on a referendum - there is no opportunity to decide that privately.
> I certainly don't think there is any conspiracy to do the country down, but there is a fair bit of unthinking loose talk, that with hindsight, I think / hope many will regret, particularly bitter remainer politicians who's mouth's are running way ahead of their brains.
In a normal negotiating context I would agree with you. i.e. procurement / contract negotiation between 2 private entities or even typical trade negotiations which can be kept reasonably confidential.
However, this is a completely un-normal negotiating context. We have just had a very public vote which posed a multi-faceted question as a binary question. Britain's relationship with the EU is not a YES-NO question. There are many shades of "No" and even the leave campaign - let alone the country as a whole or MPs as our representatives - cannot agree on what flavour of "Leave" we want. I would be like holding a general election in which you asked people to vote on whether they prefer the Tory party or "one of the other lot". Exactly what we want from the negotiations now must be decided and depends on whether we believe the vote was a disaster or not. So what you describe as loose-talk and defeatism is just as likely to be part of the democratic process of deciding what we want from our relationship with the EU. To say that we shouldn't discuss this because it might damage the negotiations misses the fact that we don't yet know what we do want from negotiations and - since the whole situation was based on a referendum - there is no opportunity to decide that privately.
8
In reply to Bob Hughes:
If it looks like the EU are going to play hard ball (why wouldn't they, they have to stop the contagion), then there are other options the UK could take apparently. Some are saying article 50 is a trap, an EU regulation for the benefit of the EU (not the leaver). The UK could ignore it and use another route, repeal the Europeans Community Act 1972 which severs the relationship (but then no negotiations under article 50). If the negotiations are weighted massively in favour of the rEU then could this be an option? It sounds messy and I have no idea if it would even work....just some alternative analysis I have read online.
If it looks like the EU are going to play hard ball (why wouldn't they, they have to stop the contagion), then there are other options the UK could take apparently. Some are saying article 50 is a trap, an EU regulation for the benefit of the EU (not the leaver). The UK could ignore it and use another route, repeal the Europeans Community Act 1972 which severs the relationship (but then no negotiations under article 50). If the negotiations are weighted massively in favour of the rEU then could this be an option? It sounds messy and I have no idea if it would even work....just some alternative analysis I have read online.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
the problem with that approach is that the European Communities Act is the codification in UK law of a Treaty which the UK has signed. In both cases - the treaty and the EC Act - European Law is given primacy over UK law. So we could scrap or amend the EC Act but then International Law would be at odds with UK law which would create a legal gridlock. Now, we could say that we as the UK will just ignore International law and follow UK law but that is a risky decision to take when at the same time we want to negotiate trade deals - in the event of a dispute between a US exporter and a British Importer, which law will decide the dispute and if it is UK law, and not International Law what guarantees does the US have that Britain will act fairly?
the problem with that approach is that the European Communities Act is the codification in UK law of a Treaty which the UK has signed. In both cases - the treaty and the EC Act - European Law is given primacy over UK law. So we could scrap or amend the EC Act but then International Law would be at odds with UK law which would create a legal gridlock. Now, we could say that we as the UK will just ignore International law and follow UK law but that is a risky decision to take when at the same time we want to negotiate trade deals - in the event of a dispute between a US exporter and a British Importer, which law will decide the dispute and if it is UK law, and not International Law what guarantees does the US have that Britain will act fairly?
In reply to Pekkie:
You say leavers ignored the warnings, we might explain (not that we need to , I did not see that rider on the ballot paper) that we saw and evaluated serious risks with either option, and on balance, we saw a better future outside the EU.
That is all the explanation anyone needs.
You say leavers ignored the warnings, we might explain (not that we need to , I did not see that rider on the ballot paper) that we saw and evaluated serious risks with either option, and on balance, we saw a better future outside the EU.
That is all the explanation anyone needs.
2
In reply to Jim C:
As you can see the future perhaps you could tell us when/if article 50 will be triggered.
> You say leavers ignored the warnings, we might explain (not that we need to , I did not see that rider on the ballot paper) that we saw and evaluated serious risks with either option, and on balance, we saw a better future outside the EU.
> That is all the explanation anyone needs.
As you can see the future perhaps you could tell us when/if article 50 will be triggered.
In reply to Jim C:
How's that going for you?
> You say leavers ignored the warnings, we might explain (not that we need to , I did not see that rider on the ballot paper) that we saw and evaluated serious risks with either option, and on balance, we saw a better future outside the EU.
How's that going for you?
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...