UKC

So, after our non-binding referendum returned 52% in favor of exit, with perhaps no more than half of that number in favor of a "hard" exit, our illustrious leaders have decided that not only must "Brexit mean Brexit" but that a good, hard, Brexit is the way it should be.

The thinking behind the direction we are hurtling in seems well summed up by the hubris in David Davis' comments in the Times today:

“We don’t want the EU to fail, we want it to prosper politically and economically, and we need to persuade our allies that a strong new partnership with the UK will help the EU to do that”.

Us? Preaching to Europe as if we are its guardian and carrying all the cards here? That if THEY want to survive they should behave themselves and listen to what England has to say?

Good grief!

In reply to David Martin:

Apparently (quotes in the Guardian so who knows how true), hard Brexit is for unity, although given the vote was 48/52 its basically saying they are going to completely ignore almost half the population. But maybe its just a negociating stance (trying to find something to be optimistic in all this)

In reply to Doug:


if the vote as 52/48 ie the other way around, that would mean that 'almost half' the population's desire to exit the EU would be ignored. In order to keep this 'almost half' happy perhaps they should have soft brexited either way, regardless of which way the slim margin lay?

The slim margin is acceptable in keeping Scotland part of the UK and has certainly elected several US presidents, Bush vs Gore for example...

I think in reality it's bargaining and the real stance will lie in the middle. Better to start tough and exit with a soft brexit deal, the Remainers/Softexiteers are relieved, the cut all ties with everything UKIPers feel like the government gave it a go and leaves them with no future political ground.

In reply to Doug:
I'd say it ignores more than half the population. I very much doubt 92% of those who voted Brexit would prefer HARD-BREXIT over REMAIN.

Put to the vote tomorrow it would be surprising if so much as 40% were then in favor of Brexit under these terms.

Making it a negotiating stance is a bit silly really. For one, it will do huge economic damage between now and when negotiations conclude. Second, not going with hard-exit after stating this will look like a substantial climb down - May is pretty much stating we don't need anything the EU has to offer us anyway. And three, everyone knows we can go with a hard-exit if we want so there's not much to be gained by even stating it now; May could always go toys-out-of-pram if we weren't getting what we wanted and declare a hard Brexit during negotiations.

In reply to David Martin:

Makes perfect sense going into the 'negotiations' the other side must believe you are prepared to walk away from everything, or they will screw you.

David ( dumpling) Davis was a complete idiot to earlier suggest that the UK would be prepared to actually pay for entry into the single market, May is only trying to repair the damage of that.

In reply to summo:


Bollocks. This is like joining the euro and Schengen after as a result of a remain vote.

Lie in the campaign, demonise the judiciary, civil service and now anyone who disagrees. Brexiteers are protofacist shits. At one time I would have been entirely confident writing that would never have any consequences for me. That's no longer 100% true.

In reply to summo:



Agree.

In reply to Jim C:

Negotiating isn't my strong point

But where else can we go from hard-Brexit? We have no stronger stance that we can reposition to, no fall-back position, and the EU will be well aware that this was a position we could have held anyway. What more can we threaten them with if we aren't getting our way...other than to climb down? To which they still don't need to throw us any carrots for. At the very least, I'm not sure what we gain by stating this now.

I do wonder if this kind of negotiating strategy will even do us much good when dealing with the EU. It's been said elsewhere that we are not well equipped for these kinds of negotiations and the EU, if judging by its electoral systems, doesn't work on a UK-US style winner takes all hard-line approach. I could be completely wrong - this isn't an area I have any experience in. But it would not surprise me at all if in this kind of negotiation, we completely misjudge our bargaining position. This is no longer a case of internal EU negotiation that we are familiar with. The room for things to go horribly wrong and not in our favour is large.

In reply to David Martin:

You are of course correct. Also that brexiteers see it as them vs us, winner takes all, rather than a mutually beneficial deal where everyone wins speaks volumes about their attitudes, and any likely outcomes with the, in charge.

In reply to David Martin:

Whatever the government thinks it's doing, I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of the 52% really thought much about it beyond wanting to be out in a simplistic way, and wanting a change in immigration.

As for the suggestion that we'd been cutting corporation tax in order to stay competitive, seems pretty unlikely that they wanted that.

In reply to David Martin:
If you go into the negotiations on the middle ground David, the opposing negotiating team will take that as a place marker , and will only look to reduce your position from there. So if you can go in accepting that you expect the worst possible outcome( for both sides) , then the only way is up for your expectations.
Remembering tarrifs etc work both ways

Edit:- You can be sure that the other negotiating team are being lobbied too to protect EU member states interests to give way to some UK demands, some of which have a lot of sympathy in other member states.

In reply to sg:
.... I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of the 52% really thought much about it beyond wanting to be out in a simplistic way, and wanting a change in immigration.


Of course, your view is of the vast majority of the 52% are stupid and racist, what do you expect.
They were , unfairly , given an equal vote to you and voted to type, to leave.

In reply to David Martin:
I voted remain and still am pretty devastated by the result. But if we are leaving we should leave fully and get on with it.

In reply to Jim C:

I am not sure that is what they are saying, more along the lines of they didn't think of the technicalities and what could possibly be lost. That certainly seems the be the case among the people I know that voted leave.

"Oh, I didn't realise the pound would drop that much making fuel more expensive!"
"I assumed we would carry on being part of the free market."
"We managed okay before we joined the EU, I though we would go back to the status quo."

etc.

Although there was one who said "I didn't think we would actually leave!"

In reply to snoop6060:

No, we should still make the argument that leaving is stupid, as it is stupid and it would ge especially stupid to leave the single market and damage our economy.

In reply to snoop6060:

Why such an almost resentful view, rather than the more logical view for a Remainer of wishing to retain some kind of ties, e.g. be an EEA/EFTA member which I believe would be a compromise representing the split reasonably well?

In reply to snoop6060:


Not really, they will still be our closest trading partners and next door neighbours. If we leave fully, the next thing we'd do once we were out is to try to establish trade deals, alliances and agreements. It would make sense to discuss this at the same time as the leave arrangements, but sense is lacking...

If we were to leave and haul the country elsewhere in the world to find new neighbours, etc. I think your comment would be correct, though I'm not sure we can do this?

In reply to Jim C:

The problem with that is there are some companies, or functions of companies, based in the UK that need to be in the single market. If we invoke article 50 saying we are going to pull out of the single market they won't have time to wait to see if the UK is using this as a negotiating tactic.


The best the UK can hope for is that other countries vote to leave the EU soon and are in a similar position to us or else the EU as a whole collapses. Either scenario might help our relative position but would leave us worse off overall compared to our pre-Brexit position.

In reply to Jim C:




I actually think that almost all of us vote more on gut instinct than anything else. We've all learned that not all policies are enacted in the way they are originally described in manifestos and I think in the referendum the vast majority of all voters would have made up their mind months or years before the vote, based on their general inclination.

No amount of detail, accurate or otherwise, was likely to persuade most people away from their position. It's clear that immigration must have been one of the biggest factors weighing on the brexit side, but my original point is that most of the arguments on both sides were, inevitably, fairly simplistic. I don't remember any discussion about hard or soft brexit before the vote so, without these two easily-described camps, it's hard to believe that most brexit-voters would have been able to outline in detail their vision outside the EU, isn't it? And yes, I think it was fairly simplistic.

In reply to LakesWinter:


Leaving is stupid but it's a bit late for making that case, we should have made it a little more successfully before the vote. Staying in the single and accepting the controls that go with it but with no say or vito is worse than we had so isn't really leaving at all.

In reply to snoop6060:

Leaving is also worse than what we have. Leaving is worse than staying in single market and accepting all that that involves, so the least worst option is to stay in the single market.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Although there was one who said "I didn't think we would actually leave!"

That would be Boris then...

In reply to LakesWinter:

From a purely economic standpoint you don't know that, neither do I or anyone. We might be better off outside but might be worse off. Stating it as fact as one way or the other is pointless.

In reply to Jim C:


What negotiations, though? It's basically going to go:
UK: "yeah, screw you, we don't need you or your single market, you can stick your free movement and your court of justice where the sun don't shine!"
EU: "Fine."
UK: "Er, can we have single market access, though."
EU: "Not without free movement and accepting the jurisdiction of the European courts, no."
UK: "Pretty please?"
EU: "No."
UK: "Crap."

In reply to snoop6060:

Explain how leaving the single market would get better than the current status quo, which in an economic sense is what staying in the single market is. No ifs, just facts. Point is, you probably can't say how it would be better for definite, whereas we already know what being in the single market us like as we are in it.

In reply to David Martin:


You obviously know exactly how all remainers and leavers think, it doesn't occur to you that many remain voters didn't do so out of any great love of the EU, they were just spooked by the scare mongering, or worked for a company which wrote to them telling them how their jobs were at risk, or bought into the group think that voting to leave made you a racist bigot or any other number of reasons other than actually thinking the EU is a good thing.

You clearly know that all remainers think that uncontrolled mass migration is wonderful, or perhaps they don't but they thought it was a price we had to pay to avoid economic catastrophe which its increasingly obvious isn't going to happen. How exactly do you know that since we're going to leave anyway that lots of remain voters don't think we might as well do it properly and get control of migration and law making back?

Wake up and see which way the wind is blowing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/eu-has-lose-hard-brexit-uk-mark-...
"The EU has more to lose from Brexit than the UK, the Governor of the Bank of England has said as he admitted that Britain's economy will defy his own gloomy forecasts and grow at a faster rate than expected."

"Mark Carney conceded that Brexit is no longer the biggest domestic risk to Britain's economy after issuing a series of dire warnings about the consequences of a leave vote in the run up to the EU referendum."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ihs-markit-uk-services-pmi-december-2016-2017...

"Every single sector of the British economy is now doing better than expected and has defied the forecasts of economists in December, according to the latest services PMI data from IHS Markit on Thursday."

"On Thursday, Morgan Stanley, one of the world's biggest investment banks, said that it is "eating humble pie" about its post-Brexit economic forecasts. The American bank was one of the more pessimistic financial institutions after the referendum, predicting a Brexit induced recession and a long-lasting slowdown in the British economy off the back of diminished investment and weakening consumer demand. It has since changed tack on the back of data like today's."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/21/economists-need-get-real-wor...

“The various reports into the economic costs of the UK leaving the EU most likely fell at the same hurdle. They are written, in the main, by the elite for the elite,” said Mr Haldane, (Bank of England’s chief economist) writing the foreword to a new book, called ‘The Econocracy: the perils of leaving economics to the experts’.

Of course we haven't actually left yet but all this in the wake of clear evidence that we're heading for a hard Brexit.
Meanwhile the EU is still mired in problems of its own making with no sign of any solution. So we could could go into the negotiations grovelling and pleading for special help or we could go in saying what are you willing to concede for access to your biggest export market because unlike you we've got a fallback option with most of the world's major economies publicly stating their desire to do trade deals with us.

We've also got the bargaining chip of being the 2nd biggest net contributer to the EU, money we can choose to continue to put their way or not depending on what deal they might be willing to concede.

This idea we're a helpless little island about to be cut adrift into the economic wilderness if we don't remain as attached to the EU as possible is nonsense, it always was and its increasingly obvious to more and more people that its so, even the "experts"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/26/mervyn-king-britain-should...

"Britain may be better off going for a hard Brexit that would mean leaving the single market and customs union, Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, has suggested."

You have to wonder what news some people have been watching since the referendum if the incessant tide of better than predicted news has passed them by but then I suppose there's still some people who think we should join the Euro and Schengen.

In reply to LakesWinter:

I didn't say I could, nobody can. That's my point. You hear alot of people saying that leaving the single market is certain a economic disaster and that's why we should stay in it at all costs. But the fact is that nobody actually knows that.

In reply to sg:


For anyone paying attention during the campaign it was pretty obvious that leaving was all about regaining control over immigration and law making and regaining the ability to make our own trade deals. These themes cropped up time and time again and people voted to leave on the strength of them. How that can be interpreted as anything other than a hard Brexit is wishful thinking.

In reply to David Martin:

My impression of the few Brexiters I know, was that a hard Brexit was their idea of Brexit (out with all immigrants, jobs for Brits, claim back the seas, out with CAP farming) only in the aftermath of the vote did reality and some truths slowly creep in that perhaps it wasn't going to be as simple as that. Equally, some Brexiters really have good arguments for their decision to vote. A referendum was held, vote went one way and we have to abide by that decision, democracy however flawed.
Even I am starting to get tired of the continual whinging about the result and I'm a strong remainer.

But we know nothing at all about the future outcome, pure speculation on here as none of us have access to the information, the deals, the thousands of pages of treaties to re-negotiate. There's an awful lot of bargaining and negotiating to be done with a lot of countries trying to protect themselves, I reckon the best way to approach the negotiating table is to come in hard and confident and do the best. If you come in like a bedraggled, kicked dog then they will walk all over us.

In reply to snoop6060:


Many economists were of the opinion that the U.K. Pound has been significantly overvalued for some time. From the OEMs, Tier 1s and supply chains I do R&D for, there's quite an uplifting picture since the pound fell. Rolls-Royce's aero engine order books for export have gone crazy, with the associated supply chains pushed out with work and recruiting. (R-R are now confident enough to press on with their civil small modular reactor programme now). Same picture across Midlands Aero, Auto and low-Carbon supply chains and SMEs. Most exports are heading global rather than euro.
I meet with hundreds of business (mainly engineering and tech) owners every year, and it's been a long time since the sector has felt so positive.

In reply to Moley:

Well the problem really is that we now have to base our relation with Europe on threats and coercion (if you screw me I'll screw you, and so on). It looks like we are heading for a full blown trade wars which of course is a zero sum game, and in which innocent people are often collateral damage.
This can only lead to grudges and hatred. Unfortunately already the case with EU nationals in he UK who are feelling scared of anxious of what is going to happen to them.

In reply to pec:
You're right that they concentrated on immigration but The leave campaign also frequently cited Norway and Switzerland as examples of countries who were successful outside the EU. They didn't state we would stay in the single market but they definitely muddied the waters.
Switzerland also voted to control immigration, but 2 1/2 years on they haven't enacted their referendum and there is a good chance it will be watered down to some local initiatives.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Only on the part of the EU, not by us and largely for internal consumption i.e. to warn other countries not to start getting ideas which ultimately, if carried through, is a double whammy to themselves. A bad deal is at least as bad for them as it is for us and secondly, any organisation which can only hold itself together by fear is ultimately doomed anyway.



If this were all actually true then that would be so, but the one thing the EU does par excellance is fudge things. Its all part of taking a pre negotiating stance and will bear little resemblance to what actually happens.


The UK has made it pretty clear that we want existing EU nationals in the UK to remain but will not commit to doing so until the EU reciprocates. Its a perfectly normal way to enter negotiations. Of course the fears of EU citizens could be allayed now if the EU would stop using them as pawns.

In reply to pec:

The best possible argument against a hard brexit would surely be that Mervyn King has predicted it may leave us better off. His record on predictions is woeful. Why people continue to report them is beyond me.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

There will be winners and losers of course, like with everything . I suspect science and education will be one of the main losers which is a shame (I might be wrong). My MSc scholarship was 100% funded by the EU and my mother still voted brexit. Saved me about 20k that.

In reply to stevieb:


It wasn't just immigration, the ability to make our own laws and trade deals was frequently cited - only possible outside the single market. Norway and Switzerland were cited as examples of countries thriving outside the EU but not as examples we should emulate exactly.


That's a problem which may well come back to bite Swiss politicians on the arse. When moderate politicians ignore the concerns of ordinary voters too long, the voters will eventually turn to anybody willing to express them. Its the very reason for UKIP's success and a major reason why we voted to leave.

In reply to David Martin:

TM isn`t stupid and this appears to be a reasonable negotiating position. Unfortunately economic systems appear to be so complex that whatever is negotiated will be a gamble. The irritating thing is that DC has put this country in this position for no good reason IMO other than trying to further his own political ends

In reply to summo:
The presidential example is just odd..

In 4 years you vote again. Brexit won't be revoted on in 4 years

To change major issues in the US typically takes a very large majority.

In reply to pec:
And Norway and Switzerland don't make small their own rules...

In reply to pec:

What you seem to don't understand is that a good deal for the EU could well be a bad deal for the UK, in fact it is more likely than not.


Yes, as I said above, we are in a situation of threats, coercion, and bargaining and as usual, EU nationals who have done nothing wrong are being caught in the middle.
Of course the EU will not agree a deal on EU nationals until the UK had triggered art 50 and they know what the UK wants to do with them.
Unfortunately given that T May seem uncompromising on jurisdiction of the ECJ I think it is more likely than not that EU nationals will be kicked out or discriminated against so harshly that it'll be the same.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


If that should read "don't make all their own rules" then no, they don't.

In reply to pec:


Well if those concerns are based on nothind else but ignorance and bigotry they rightly deserve to be ignored.
One of the issue is in fact mainstream politicians amplifying those "concerns" by spreading myths and untruths for political gain.

In reply to snoop6060:


I wonder what is it your mother gains.

In reply to snoop6060:


I sympathise with your point, I'm running around £10M of EU funded projects at the moment.
However I never forget that as net contributors, we're effectively spending our own money.
I've also spent a fair amount of time on liaison committees to ensure that sufficient and effective support for science and engineering transfers to UK govt during the transition,
We'll just have to see.

In reply to pec:

Excellent post at 11:02.

If it could be calmly and rationally digested by at least some other posters on this site, then it won't have been wasted.

Agree and like Moley's comments too.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Nothing but then again she already has so little that she doesn't stand to lose anything either. Same is to be said about my whole family who all voted brexit.

In reply to pec:



More lies from brexiteer zealots. There were many suggestions about adopting Norwegian or Swiss approach. In fact often there were explicit statements that leaving the EU didn't mean leaving the single market.

In reply to snoop6060:


People who say they have nothing to lose, in my experience, actually have a lot to lose, but they take what they have for granted.

In reply to MG:


Not only that but the tories manifesto (on which this government has a majority) made a clear commitment to the single market.

In reply to pec:


The thing is, the people who were worried about immigration were often quite a different lot from those who were worried about laws and trade deals. This is anecdotal, by necessity - I helped campaign for remain, knocking on doors and working on a street stall, and I spoke to quite a lot of people who intended to vote leave.

There were outright racist leavers, a couple of them utterly vile and happy to shout on the street about kicking out 'the wogs', or how 'Britain was for British People'. But they were quite few in number.

There were leavers concerned about immigration above all else (mostly Muslim immigration, it has to be said) - these were the biggest group, more than half of the leavers I spoke to; their concerns ranged from the reasonable to the racist, from the well-informed to the ignorant.

And there were quite a lot of leavers who felt the EU was undemocratic, or corrupt, or that we just didn't get a good financial deal from it, or that we should control more of our own laws. They tended to want to make it clear that they weren't worried about immigration (probably eager to avoid being tarred as racists), and mostly thought we should have a 'Norway-style deal' - that is, be in the EEA. I'd say these made up about a third of the leavers I spoke to.

I'm pretty confident that if the referendum had had three options - remain, or leave EU but stay in EEA, or 'hard leave', that the middle 'soft exit' option would have won. But I suppose we'll never know now.

In reply to summo:


I think it's more likely that this is the price required by those who helped manoeuvre May into the top job during the Tory leadership "contest".

In reply to RomTheBear:


Clearly your political beliefs make it very hard for you to understand why people might have legitimate concerns so its easier for you to dismiss them as ignorance and bigotry, that doesn't mean they are. And even if they were, dismissing them doesn't make them go away, people will still turn to fringe parties if they're not being listened to and that's still a problem.


Funny how many mainstream politicians who were happy to adopt your approach have had a wake up call since the referendum. You can't dismiss half the population as ignorant bigots. Myths and untruths? As defined by who exactly?

In reply to RomTheBear:


How could they have made a commitment to the single market as a condition of leaving the EU? They made no public plans whatsoever for leaving on the assumption remain would win.
Can you provide a link to where they put this in their manifesto?

In reply to pec:

I don't think it's a problem if a minority of bigots turn to fringe parties. It's their right after all.
When it becomes a iribkrk is when mainstream parties spread the ideas of the fringe parties and hoodwink large parts of the population for short term political gain.



No, they haven't adopted this approach at all, on the contrary, mainstream politicians have been recycling the far right arguments to the point that they have become mainstream.


Why not ? There is no shortage of historical examples of previously reasonable populations turning to ignorance and bigotry pretty fast. Believe it or not the majority is not always right.


As defined by those who actually bother looking at the facts.

In reply to pec:



https://www.conservatives.com/europe/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/MAN...

"In other words, yes to the single market"

In reply to RomTheBear:
also from their 2015 Conservative Manifesto

"We will protect our economy from any further integration of the Eurozone. The integration of the Eurozone has raised acute questions for non-Eurozone countries like the United Kingdom. We benefit from the Single Market and do not want to stand in the way of the Eurozone resolving its difficulties. Indeed, given the trade between Britain and the Eurozone countries we want to see these economies returning to growth. But we will not let the integration of the Eurozone jeopardise the integrity of the Single Market or in any way disadvantage the UK." P73

and

"We want to preserve the integrity of the Single Market, by insisting on protections for those countries that have kept their own currencies. We want to expand the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms." p73

In reply to Removed User:

So none of that commits us to staying in the Single Market upon leaving the EU as Rom implies.

In reply to Removed UserRom,
do you really expect me to trawl through 74 pages of Tory manifesto to prove your point for you? Thanks to simon c for taking the trouble.

Also for those who've been cowed by the EU threats and think we enter the negotiations from a position of weakness, yet more evidence that's not the case.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/phillip-hammond-threatens-turn-uk-131031524.html

Like the EU threats, its a bargaining position, it probably won't happen but that's how you negotiate.

In reply to pec:

I don't see how else you can interpret "yes to the single market" as anything else but support for staying in the single market.



Actually it's evidence that they are utterly desperate. If Britain adopts a tax haven model it will profit disproportionately those living in the big cities, and utterly screw those in poorer parts of the UK who voted out,
Of course those even more screwed will be the Scots and the NI, who voted remain AND will be utterly screwed.


All these threats and bargaining are just a poker game. There will be winners and losers, but overall, it doesn't create anything, it adds nothing, creates nothing. It's a zero sum game.

In reply to David Martin:

It'll be a real shotgun blast to the foot. The UK is a large customer but the EU countries will be happy to improve their trade position just like anyone would be. UK arrogance is definitely not going to help matters.

Working in IT networking and I can see the London Fintech advantage slipping away. It's a running joke among suppliers now that they can all up their prices by 15%. "Sorry it's because of BREXIT mate."

In reply to pec:


There is a small likelihood of that. But that would easily be matched (and I suspect more so) by those voting leave because some tabloid or bloke down at the pub convinced them that the EU was the cause of all their ills. Fact remains, remain is largely clear in what it stands for. Exit however can mean pratically anything, many of which are contradictory. I cannot possibly see any circumstances in which the number voting for exit could remain as high as it was at the time of the referendum, now that its meaning has been more clearly defined.


I can see that pretty clearly in exchange rates. As for your quoted items, its not hard to find plenty of rosy reports and predictions. Brexiteers were only too keen to venture forth rosy predictions on our fortunes.

But all predictions were based on how markets would respond immediately after the decision, and with no underlying alteration to terms this is purely an estimate of sentiment. That is notoriously hard to predict.

What is less difficult to predict is the likelihood of a positive outcome for the UK under a hard-Brexit proposal, where all the good results (renewed trade with a host of new countries and equivalent trade deals renewed with those in the EU) are purely speculative with no evidence at all that they should come to fruition. It is based on nothing but wishful thinking.

Personally I've never cared much about what the market will do between a brexit decision and brexit occurring. That is temporary and could go all over the place. What matters is what we negotiate and what others are prepared to give. I have not seen any convincing explanation for how the club is going to suddenly give us a better deal because we are no longer part of it.

In reply to David Martin:


None of us really knows why and in what numbers people voted. Of course what remain means in clearer, how could it not be, but despite not knowing what leave means most people still chose it i.e. whatever we get is better than remain.


Post referendum opinion polls show an almost identical result.


See posts above on exchange rates, its swings and roundabouts. Regarding rosy reports, well it is rather easier to find them than negative ones.


So why did the remain camp make such predictions and to a degree of precision which could never be justified?


China, India, the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan etc. etc. they have all actually said they would like to do trade deals with us, they aren't lining up to say that about the EU. That's not speculation or wishful thinking, they really have said that. Obviously it hasn't happened yet. how could it? The total size of all the economies who have expressed a desire to do a deal with us dwarfs the EU, even if only half of them came off that's a pretty good deal especially as they're the growing ones unlike the stagnant EU which is a smaller slice of our exports every year anyway.


Indeed, I have many times said things might get better or worse or both in either order. What really matters is where we are in 10 or 15 years time. I don't think anybody has seriously suggested we'll get a better deal from the EU but good one will do and there's no reason to suppose that's not possible assuming the EU want a good deal for themselves, if not it will hurt them at least as much us. The better deal arises from the freedom to make our own deals elsewhere and make our own laws.

In reply to David Martin:

All talk. This is not going anywhere.

In reply to pec:


No it f*cking won't! A much greater proportion of our trade goes to the EU than the reverse. Therefore it will hurt us much more.

In reply to MG:


I was being a little sarcastic, my point being people only dislike marginal votes when it goes against them. Otherwise it will be all " we won by the skin of our teeth", "a win is a win" etc..

In reply to stevieb:

I think you will find that new rules on migrant permits, extensions etc.. were brought into place last September. They are based on level of integration. They have used this approach as a means of not angering the EU by blocking migration, but then agreeing to the local referendum by also not allowing people to stay who do not learn the language, work etc... time will tell how successful it is, at both pleasing the people and the EU.
http://lenews.ch/2016/09/22/tough-new-swiss-rules-on-residency-permits-make...
not the best source, but you get the drift.

In reply to MG:


Try reading this link I posted earlier
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/eu-has-lose-hard-brexit-uk-mark-...

About 44% of our exports go to the EU, that figure has been in decline for a number of years now so the EU is increasingly less important to us. About 53% of our imports come from the EU, that figure is pretty steady so we continue to remain as important to the EU as we have done.

The EU makes up about 15% of world trade a figure which decreases every year (there will be a further sharp drop when we leave).

The EU's GDP is worth about £12 Trillion, the countries who have already expressed a desire to do trade deals with us have a combined GDP of about £40 trillion, these countries are not lining up to deals with the EU.

The EU has consistently proved itself very slow to make trade deals, individual countries have proven themselves rather faster.

Put these facts together and consider the direction of travel, the obvious conclusion is that we are more likely to increase our trade with the rest of the world than the EU is and that trade beyond the EU is worth much more now and is where most of the future growth will be.

In reply to MG:

According to this https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OTS%20Releases/OTS_Release_1116.pdf we have quite a big trade deficit with the EU and in particular Germany but this is inevitable as we have a trade deficit with most countries except the U.S. but as they may also becoming more protectionist this might be eroded in coming years ether than improved (I know you said proportionally and that us withdrawing we lose access to all member states and each individual country left only loses access to one but it could have been interpreted differently). It is inevitable EU will suffer, economically, to a great extent once UK leaves the EU, the thing that puzzles me is why Brexiteers see this as a good thing? This is not a zero sum game and it is possibles that both economies will tank. Further, the Brexiteers seem to have incredible faith in the EU's ability to make the correct, most logical, decision when they have spent the last year telling us they are incapable of doing so. The EU fears contagion more than recession so will not necessarily make the decision that benefits them economically.

In reply to pec:

None of which alters the fact EU trade is more important to us than the rest of the EU, and will remain so for the foreseeable future , contrary to your claim. Pretending inconvenient truths don't exist might work for dishonest, it doesn't alter reality

In reply to Jim C:


This is not a transaction like buying a car. You need a win-win non-confrontational negotiating stance if you want to make a mutually beneficial arrangement within a limited time period with an organisation of 27 countries you have a four decade long deeply intertwined economic relationship with. As soon as you start making threats the other side will come back with threats everyone will get angry and nothing will be agreed.

In reply to summo:
I thought this was still to be enacted but yes, the Swiss govt are trying to keep everyone happy and risk leaving no one happy. Not helped because a majority of their people want control of immigration and full access to the single market.
The Swiss ability to negotiate has been limited by brexit, and I imagine the uk will find it difficult to negotiate in case it looks like a two speed Europe and leads to other net contributors like Denmark and Sweden choosing to follow.

In reply to pec:


I read the whole quote and the issue seems to be that because the UK has done so much large scale financial business on behalf of the member states it will create massive turmoil for them, I imagine this is something they will want to rectify pretty quickly, if it was me I'd offer a short term pas sporting deal to the UK until that business was brought back into the EU but then I'm probably being simplistic.

Now that the pound has devalued do you thing this trend might reverse?


Is that actually the case or are we just hearing about the countries wanting to do deals with us because of the media focus. Every country wants to do deals with every other country if they think it's to their advantage so there's no way India or someone are going to turn round and say we don't intend to do business with the UK post Brexit, but equally they've probably never said they don't want to do business with the EU. What you've got to ask yourself is why these deals have never happened? However you look at it the EU is a massive market, particularly for high value consumables.

So should we ditch trying to make any deal with the EU post Brexit? We should go for the low hanging fruit of India, surely?

I agree, let's hope that's enough to cover the turmoil in the mean time. Let's also hope that in the mean time EU countries don't expand into markets previously occupied by the UK through existing EU trade deals.

In reply to Doug:

Been out all day, so missed the thread, but to butt in:


It is nothing to do with ignoring half the populace, the government would go for Soft Brexit if it were on offer! The reason they're not going for it is BECAUSE THE EU IS NOT OFFERING IT! Or at least, they are offering soft Brexit only on such bad terms that it would be a far worse option than staying in the EU.

So, all you Remainers who would prefer Soft Brexit to Hard Brexit, please go and persuade your buddies on the Continent to offer something reasonable, some sensible half-way house -- it is the lack of of that that is forcing May and her government towards Hard Brexit.

In reply to pec:

Utter bollocks, there is no evidence that they are slower at negotiating individual deals than smaller countries, but on top of that they still have been a lot faster at negotiating deals overall, because they have the capacity and the clout to negotiate many in parallel.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

More bullshit.Why are brexiteers all so dishonest?

There have been no offers or discussion at all by anyone yet. This is power grab by the Farage wing of the Tories. At absolute best it will us all much poorer. Quite likely much worse.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



What you mean is that the EU is rather obviously not offering us a deal that would be deeply damaging to themselves.

Well, it was to be expected frankly, I know that leading brexiteers have been peddling this idea that we could somehow screw other EU countries by getting full access to their markets without abiding top any of their rules, but that was obviously bollocks.

In reply to RomTheBear:
It's a just blatant lie. Norwegian or Swiss arrangements, probably better, are available

In reply to MG:


The EU have been fairly vocal in saying what they would demand in return for membership of the single market. If that is merely an opening stance, and if they are actually willing to negotiate a sensible soft Brexit, then we might get it (hope so!).

In reply to RomTheBear:


Equitable free trade is not "deeply damaging" to either party, indeed it benefits both.

They sell us 350 billion euros of stuff a year; we sell them 320 billion euros of stuff a year. How is that deeply damaging to them?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



You're quite right, the eu isn't offering us soft brexit(whatever you think that means). They haven't offered anything.


They haven't offered anything. Are you pissed?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Spot on. Unfortunately Brexiteers have a Trumpesque view of the world as a series of fights that must be "won", with any compromise, even if mutually beneficial a "loss"

In reply to Tyler:


Many companies are reporting increased exports, anecdotaly it seems to be largely non EU based but in the long run who knows?


These are countries that have specifically expressed a wish to do deals once we're free of EU restrictions. They've had decades to do deals with the EU but haven't. The EU does not have a great track record of doing deals, certainly not quickly. Given the Canadian experience which took years and nearly fell through and the TTIP efforts its not a surprise countries aren't falling over themselves to negotiate with the EU. We are a much more open and outward looking nation and the rest of the world knows it.


Of course we should try and do a deal with the EU, I'm sure the vast majority of brexiteers would think likewise, its the EU that's making all the beligerant noises right now.


Leaving the EU isn't about making things better next week, it could take 5, 10 or even more years for the benefits to really kick in. The benefit of leaving however is we make the first move to where the future lies and in that respect we have a huge advantage over the EU. We have greater historical ties to many developing markets, we're a more open and dynamic market with far less protectionism, we already trade with them more and we don't have to keep 27 other nations on board with all their vested interests

Look at the direction of travel of trade, economic growth, population growth etc and future is not European, getting in ahead of the pack is the way to capitalise on the future opportunities rather than go down with a sinking ship.

In reply to MG:


Some brexiteers. Despite the will of the people bollocks they are a mixed bunch. Let's not buy into the propaganda
I am not sure though how some manage to reconcile the argument we didn't have enough of a say in Europe with how they will bend over once we are out.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But I think the EU would be more than happy for the UK to have equitable free trade, for us to be part of the single market with the same rules as everybody else.

Unfortunately the UK wants to have the free trade without without the equitable part. It's just frankly a bit dumb.


those 350 billion euros are just 3% of their GDP, those 320 billions euros is 14% of ours. Why would they jeopardise the integrity of their single market, and let Britain have full access to theirs without any of the rules thereby undercutting them, for such a small market ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


There is nothing inequitable about free trade! There is no "law of nature" that says one has to bundle it in with all the the things that the EU does!


Why on earth would it? Doing a trade deal with Canada, for example, doesn't compromise the EU.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It is inequitable when one country can have different rules. For example the UK, freed from EU law, could relax labour standards to reduce labour cost and crush the EU competition. Effectively they'd be undercutting other EU countries. That's clearly not equitable free trade, it's called a race to the bottom.


Because in the trade deal with Canada specific standards and rules are agreed between both countries on the trade of goods that are liberalised, and that includes relaxed visa rules. Anyway it's not a good example because Canada and the EU have very little trade, so the issues are hardly the same.

It seems to me T May says she wants no external jurisdiction and full control of immigration policy.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Which would be prevented by UK voters, wanting some standards here.


Well if the EU were willing to offer something along the lines of the Canada deal then I'm sure the UK government would be interested.

In reply to pec:


This is just f*cking deluded.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Last time I checked the Tories were the main recipient of UK votes, so betting on employment rights and standards being maintained by a UK parliament after Brexit may not be the smartest of wagers.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


haha, what a joke, uk voters are sheep they'll just go along with whatever parliament decide.


Something along the lines of Canada would be disastrous for the U.K, it covers mostly goods, and not so much services.

In reply to David Martin:

To those arguing that a hard Brexit was the clear intention of Leave voters based on what the Leave camp were selling, this would be quite funny if it weren't so tragic:

All The Times Brexiters Promised We Wouldn’t Leave The Single Market:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nige...

In reply to RomTheBear:

There you have it folks, Rom's contempt for the British shining through.

In reply to Big Ger:

Just being a realist, the Tories are likely to have a majority for a while, and they are not exactly keen to keep EU Labour standard.

In reply to Big Ger:

Especially funny given the shock the majority of Parliament just got when the sheep voted leave against the advice of the vast majority of their MPs. Good old Rom

Baaa!

In reply to RomTheBear:


But they didn't do what they were told in the referendum, did they?

In reply to thomasadixon:


As you may have noticed, there was a referendum.
Do you think we'll get a referendum when the tories inevitably increase the pension age to compensate for lower immigration, scrap the 48 hours working time limit, workplace health and safety and so on ?

I don't think so, it'll just ho through parliament, people will complain, there'll be a few bleeding hearts articles in the guardian, but in the end, they'll just swallow.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Do you think the referendum happened by chance? I think we made it happen personally, because people cared about the issue and so put pressure on - you know, democratic politics.

But then we're just sheep that follow our leaders so that can't be right...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well they followed the wishes of the Australian and French elite owning a lot of the press.

In reply to RomTheBear:


So your "realistic" view of the British is that they are sheep?

Very telling.

In reply to Big Ger:

Well yes, and you are deluded if you think we aren't.
Just compare with France of Germany, try do half of what the tories have done in the UK in France and you'd get a massive general strike and Molotov cocktails thrown at the cops.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Thanks for confirming that prejudice.

In reply to Big Ger:

You are confusing prejudice with the ability to self criticise, which apparently eludes you.

In reply to RomTheBear:
"Self criticise"? What nationality are you again Rom?


Interesting that you consider "a massive general strike and Molotov cocktails thrown at the cops" as sign of a superior electorate.

In reply to Big Ger:


I'm British, not sure what that has to do with anything anyway.

In reply to Big Ger:



Where did I say that this would be the sign of a superior electorate ? You're just making stuff up. I actually think it's really stupid.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well how then can your "realistic" view of the British as sheep be "self criticism"?

You're just a plain old fashioned bigot, aren't you?

In reply to Big Ger:


???? You don't make sense, at all.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Right so first off you accuse the British voter of being, and I quote "sheep".

Then you state;

Well yes, and you are deluded if you think we aren't.
Just compare with France of Germany, try do half of what the tories have done in the UK in France and you'd get a massive general strike and Molotov cocktails thrown at the cops.

So obviously you think the sign of an electorate not being "sheep" is " a massive general strike and Molotov cocktails thrown at the cops."

Spo, should we be sheep or throw Molotov cocktails at the cops Rom?

In reply to RomTheBear:
No, you are just either being stupid for the sake of it, or your normal lying self,

I asked;


Your reply was;


So you consider calling the British "sheep" an act of "self-criticism"

But, as you are NOT British, how can considering the British to be sheep be "self-criticism", you are criticising the British nation, of which you are not a member.

In reply to Big Ger:

Yes, we so are, if you think we aren't, you're deluded imo.

Did a couple of days of canvassing, quite an eye opener for me, you realise most people don't have a f*cking clue about politics or the issues at play, most don't even know the difference between an MSP, an MP and an MEP, and they are asked to vote in complex issues such as brexit...






Yes, that would be an example if the electorate not being sheep. It doesn't mean it's necessarily the best thing to do.


Neither. Ideally we would have highly educated voters who understand the complex issues at play, vote accordingly, instead of voting for some soundbite and then just swallow just whatever shit sandwich we are given.

In reply to Big Ger:

You clearly don't even know how to read, I just told you that I am British. WTF is wrong with you.

In reply to RomTheBear:

That's odd, you've claimed that you "chose" to live in the UK in the past, I thought you were foreign.

Are you a citizen by birth or by application?

In reply to RomTheBear:



So why did you give it as an example of "not being sheep" if it's not a good thing to do?

In reply to RomTheBear:
So Rom, this Britishness of yours?

What did you mean when you posted;

RomTheBear - on 14 Aug 2014

In reply to Big Ger:


Because it's a good example ?

In reply to Big Ger:

I have dual citizenship you idiot.
I am British AND French.

I'm guessing I am not "British" enough for you then ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

No that's fine, it doesn't excuse your prejudice and bigotry, but as a fellow dual citizen I think it's ok to be that.

In reply to RomTheBear:

In what way does


become a "good example"?

It's an example of bad or malicious, illegal activity, not something any self respecting electorate would do.

Can you think of another?

In reply to Big Ger:


Wait for it, Queen Teresa will probably scrap it at some point.

In reply to Big Ger:



It's good example in the sense that it illustrates well the point I was making.


Not really, this is pretty much it. When the UK government screw their electorate, they just swallow (until they had enough and go mad in an ill advised referendum).
When the French government tries to do the same, there is a riot and they back down.

Which means the British systematically get screwed by their own government, and the French screw themselves by preventing any sort of meaningful change from happening.

My view on it is that the British way is overall better most of the time, it's actually one if the reason I liked living in the UK over France, people in the U.K. don't constantly moan and whine every time the government tries to do something. The downside is that we readily accept totally bonkers stuff without much resistance at all.

In reply to KevinD:


As opposed to virtually all leaders of countries everywhere (Obama even came over to show us sheep the way!), most celebs, a large portion of our press including Murdoch's times and especially the BBC (as it's the biggest source), international organisations, universities, etc.

Baaa!

In reply to RomTheBear:

That the British are sheep because they do not, like France of Germany, throw a massive general strike and Molotov cocktails thrown at the cops, which are bad things?

Either you or your point is very stupid then


As opposed to what? You've said that throwing a massive general strike and Molotov cocktails thrown at the cops are not " necessarily the best thing to do," so what should the British sheep do?


Oh ok, so every time the French government do something unpopular, there is "a riot and they back down". Why bother with elections then? Why bother with government in that case? Why not just go for mob rule?

What do the German's do, seeing as you say they are somewhat better/different?


So both systems are bad, according to you, so what is your solution?


A fair and reasonable view.

In reply to pec:

Have you not considered that many of the expressions of interest towards the UK are on the back of them knowing the UK is about to turn it's back on its closest trading partners?

Essentially that makes us a fire-sale trading partner with us at a significant disadvantage in any negotiation as the distressed partner. We can be walked away from or given miserable terms with little lost to them.

And what burdensome regulations do you think China will be looking forward to us ditching to make its produce more sellable ? The costs to the British populace could be quite unpleasant

In reply to KevinD:


as a rule people don't buy papers, magazines or read websites that challenge their opinions, they buy what matches their existing line of thinking, conformation bias. The DM didn't just swing to the right, or the Guardian to the left, they've always been there.

In reply to David Martin:


I didn't realise there had been a public announcement that trading with mainland Europe was due to stop, what is the last day so I can stock up on marmite, bisto and custard powder?


yeah because all those cheap electrical goods that China currently sells to the EU are of such high quality... CE stamped in name, but certainly not tested or meeting the majority of guidelines.

In reply to summo:


Are you really arguing that people were buying those papers based on their knowledge of the papers EU position?

In reply to Big Ger:


Yes.


I am not making much of a point, I am just making a description of a cultural difference I've observed.



A bit better in Germany, they have generally very powerful unions and a federal system, so there is more bargaining and negotiating going on.

The UK system, on the other hand has often been described as an "electoral dictatorship". Once there is a majority elected they more or less have absolute power, this is going to be made a lot worse when we exit the EU treaties and the ECHR, as they were providing useful safeguards against any abuse and were providing good minimum standards.

In reply to pec:




I'm assuming your including the United States in that. I'm pretty sure they are lining up to do a deal with Europe. Which are the other countries?

In reply to FreshSlate:


Have you heard the news this morning?

In reply to pec:


You mean Trump's 'divide and conquer' strategy to reach a more favourable deal with the UK (more favourable for the US, that is, and presumably also in the interests of the UK elite he's colluding with) once that pesky EU and its insistence on social responsibility is out of the way?

In reply to pec:

Yes, such is The Donald's deep understanding of the EU that he thinks he'll also be able to do a bilateral deal with Germany too.

Of course, he's keen on doing deals with a post-Brexit UK because of his frustration with EU environmental standards impinging on his Irish property development deals. This morning I heard him described as 'honest and transparent' He doesn't know what honest means and it's hard him to be anything other than transparent when he's so shallow.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I'm no fan of The Donald but I don't think that's implied by anything he said. He said Merkel made a mistake letting in migrants and warned BMW that he would apply a 35% import tax on cars imported from Mexico, which is where BMW has a plant.

In reply to john arran:


Lets assume we both think Trump is an idiot, he is nevertheless the idiot in charge soon, and when US presidents say they want something, things happen. So the chances of us doing a deal with the US have just risen dramatically now we're at the front of the queue rather than the back and the chances of us getting a good deal and quickly are considerably greater negotiating on our own than bound up with 27 other countries vested interests.
Ultimately if we can only strike a bad deal we don't have to sign it but only a totally blinkered Europhile could not regard this as a positive sign. Of course there are plenty of them, desperate to see everything go wrong so they can prove they were right all along. As I said in an earlier post, some people can't see which way the wind is blowing, they'd still probably like us to join the Euro.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


He may be an idiot but he's not totally stupid, I'm sure he's well aware that EU countries can't do deals on their own so he's probably playing games as you imply, nevertheless that's not our problem.

In reply to pec:

Just because the wind has changed direction doesn't mean you should abandon your chosen destination, let alone persuade yourself you always wanted to end up somewhere else.

Let's see what the US trade negotiators think the relationship of, say, US pharmaceutical companies and health care providers should be to NICE and the NHS. Not that I have anything against US pharma and Health care companies per se but I don't want them dictating our healthcare policy here.

In reply to pec:



When I heard the story on the radio earlier I did notice that Trump sidestepped the question/prompt about Britain now being at the head of the queue, by responding with something bland like "things are looking good". Only those most desperate to believe the UK will come out of this well will believe we'll see anything other than a harsh but mildly face-saving offer from a Trump administration.

The problem with striking deals in a hurry is trusting those currently in charge, who weren't elected to do any of this and who most likely are desperate to find any way not to crash onto a political scrapheap, to decide what's a good deal and what isn't. Anyway, a bad deal is a bad deal, whether it's signed or not, and in no way could be interpreted as a positive sign of anything. Not quite sure how that isn't obvious.

In reply to pec:

given that he's told us he's pulling the US out of TPP because its terms aren't favourable enough for the US; and that TTIP has foundered in part because what the US already wanted- greater access to European health markets- was more than EU states were willing to give; it doesn't give me any confidence that the deal on offer will be anything other than a very bad one for us.

being desperate is a bad place from which to drive a hard bargain.

though of course, it does give the tories the chance to sign over the NHS to american firms, claim they've done a 'red white and blue' trade deal *and* solved the NHS crisis at the same time, and disappear off to well-remunerated consultancies before everyone realises what's happened.

hurray for brexit!

In reply to David Martin:



I know you're really keen for it all to go wrong but if you could take your blinkers off for a moment, we aren't about to stop trading with the EU, our stated aim is to strike a good trade deal with them and there's no good reason why we shouldn't as its in both our best interests. Even if we don't they aren't going stop buying our stuff, even with tariffs our stuff is pretty competetive with current exchange rates.

To describe us as like a fire sale simply confirms to me your relentless pessimism about Britains capacity to govern its own affairs, hardly surprising you thought we'd better let some unelected Eurocrats do it for us.
Let me remind you, as the world's 5th largest economy, a leading member of Nato, a G8 member, a permanent member of the UN security council, head of the commonwealthand the world's fastest growing advanced economy
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/04/britain-fastest-growing-g7...
we don't lack for clout in international circles. We are no pushover and we can walk away from bad deals as easily as any other country. Only a few militant remainers could possibly consider we are a weak nation unable to hold our own on the international stage.
I'm sure plenty such as yourself will still be whining about this in a decade's time, but fortunately many in positions of power and influence, including many who were remainers, have woken up and taken their blinkers off, try reading the links I posted in my first reply. Nobody is saying its going to be easy but we aren't about to fall off a cliff and the more people who wake up to the possibilities and capitalise upon it the better.

In reply to pec:


There seems to be something fundamentally dishonest about you. You claim the above re. David Martin, but I can't see where he says that at all. In fact, he says more or less the exact opposite: 'The room for things to go horribly wrong and not in our favour is large.' Would he use the term 'horribly' if he were in favour of it?

Again, you talk about people wanting to join the Euro ...

The net result is that I'm sure many people can't be bothered to read you any more, because you're the one who is doing the whining.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Good god, how many times to we have to go through this. We are not desperate, we do not have to sign up to any trade deal that doesn't benefit us.
Have you actually looked at what we're leaving? The EU, mired in economic stagnation with intractable problems of its own making is facing an existential crisis whilst we've got countries with a combined GDP 3.5 times that of the EU lining up to deals with us. If only half of them come off we'd be doing pretty well.

In reply to pec:
I understand your frustration.

And on top of that the US are going to do a fast track trade deal with the UK( starting talks the day after A50 is signed apparently) They also said yesterday on R4 , that 3 or 4 other EU countries might also be also interested in a similar deal with them.
(Maybe a few more EU referendums to come if the american's are right , but that is entirely up to the US and whoever these countries are, however, if more leave then of course they are free to do their own bilateral trade deals with us if they want to trade free of the contraints of the EU, and their 'internal market' )

In reply to pec:


Well that's debatable.

There's a difference between wanting something to go wrong and not seeing any option over the horizon that isn't worse in a number of ways than what we currently have. I don't want this to go wrong, it already has gone wrong. Now we just do what we can to minimise the harm and in truth, there isn't much we can do, the lunatics have the asylum for the forseeable future
jk

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Unlike say the totally honest and upstanding Rom who makes unsubstantiated assertions which he then expects you to go and find the evidence for


Its not such much what he says he wants as the mood of his (and others) posts, a relentless focus on the negative and a totally myopic view of anything positive. I'm sure he wouldn't actually state he'd like it all to go pear shaped, indeed he doesn't probably doesn't even think he wants it all to go pear shaped. But reading between the lines its hard to to believe that he would feel a sense of schadenfreude if it did.


I'm using hyperbole to make a point, I'm sure you could have worked that out.


I realise that as a Brexiteer on an overwhelmingly liberal lefty, pro EU forum my views present a challenge to all good right thinking people such as yourself. Puncturing your groupthink doubtless makes you uncomfortable so ignore me if its easier, but that doesn't change the what's happening out there.

In reply to pec:



'lining up to do deals' is a pretty loaded way of putting it.

if it was so easy to do deals that were mutually acceptable to both parties on this matter, it wouldnt take years to negotiate them, only to have them fail, and we wouldnt have people pulling out of ones that do exist. the world appears to be retreating into protectionism; this strikes me as not the best time to be trying to negotiate news deals, quickly, on good terms.

now if we just want *a* deal, to say we've been successful, the consequences of which won't be fully realised til after the people signing it have left office, then i'm sure that's readily achievable; and with the pressure to be seen to be making brexit a 'success', i dont have much faith that our representatives will put the long term national interest above saving their own careers. given how massively complex any trade deal will be, and the lack of appetite people have in understanding how complicated things actually work, i think there is ample scope for any old deal to be draped in the union jack and its detractors dismissed as enemies of the people.

after all, brexit is brexit....

<sings> 'things... can only get better...'

In reply to RomTheBear:


Dunno , have you passed the Tebbit test ?

In reply to pec:

"Let me remind you, as the world's 5th largest economy, a leading member of Nato, a G8 member, a permanent member of the UN security council, head of the commonwealthand the world's fastest growing advanced economy
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/04/britain-fastest-growing-g7...
we don't lack for clout in international circles. We are no pushover and we can walk away from bad deals as easily as any other country. Only a few militant remainers could possibly consider we are a weak nation unable to hold our own on the international stage."

And all the while being a member of the eu. But yes, let's piss it all up the wall to stick it to the man.

In reply to pec:


So what you are saying is that the best we can do is screw our trade with Europe, which is geographically and regulatory-wise the closest partner, and hope that somehow we can replace that by negotiating as a smaller entity FTA agreements with the rest of the world.

Seems to me it's a zero sum game, it would be a lot better to stay with the single market AND have those news deals with the rest of the world as part of it, and have it all, instead of having to chose.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I don't think those MPs are going to be in opposition to their voters for long > The 'Shephard' MPs that led their flock are about to either turn poacher, or lose their seats.

In reply to pec:


They really don't. The challenge is making you see that nothing has changed, of course US want to do a deal with us, the EU want to do a deal with us few countries on earth would rule out doing a deal with other countries, its how the world works. What the EU are not prepared to do (at the moment) is roll over and acquiesce to to our demands, what makes you think the US will be different? The US is one of the few countries with which we have a trade surplus, don't you think that is something the US will want to change with the help of any future deal given Trump's protectionist views?

In reply to David Martin:

Since few seem even willing to even contemplate that its possible for a country to thrive outside of the EU and can only see negativity and certainty that everything that can go wrong will go wrong I shall bow out now and leave you all you wallow in your pessimistic groupthink. You all keep tell each other how awful it will be, just like it was going to be if we didn't join the euro and if we didn't join Schengen.
I've written more than enough for anyone interested in at least engaging in different perspective and I'm just going round in circles repeating myself to people who won't.
So bye for now and good day to you all.

In reply to David Martin:

Why are people talking about trade deals as though they are something easy and simple, trade deals are usually about mutually agreed standards not haggling for a carpet in a Moroccan market. it means employing a large number of specialist from both public and private sectors and the more complex and greater range the "deal" is the longer it will take and the more it will cost.

Remember the fuss we made about bananas and the eu (hands of our bananas u eurocrats) that was essentially a trade deal, bananas were universally graded so if a supermarket in Glasgow was supplied with a box of bananas from a supplier in Portugal both parties knew what they should be supplying and receiving, why you ask? So that the 10s of thousands of shops and suppliers don't have to be on the phone constantly quibbling about what they were expecting wasn't what was supplied. Common sense do a job once and do it properly using all the specialist's available, we mocked this at the time and now that all the hard work is done we are going to throw it all away and redo it 10 times over.
Or worse case scenario we find we don't have the skills, personal or political courage to redo this and we accept the standards of whatever country we are doing a "deal" with.
Panamanian corporate governance anyone?
Lets swap EU employment laws and lets compete with Foxcom
Anyone up for opening up the NHS for American Pharma to play with.

In reply to pec:

Are we not thriving inside the EU? Since we are "the 5th largest economy" we must be doing OK already, no?

In reply to pec:



We're engaging pec, honestly! Your arguments just aren't as persuasive to others as you think they are...

And I'm not sure that your comment about people that have a different opinion to you 'wallowing in pessimistic groupthink' goes very far to creating an impression that you have much of an open mind on the subject!

In reply to pec:


Schadenfreude: pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune

Another person's misfortune. I'd love the luxury of schadenfreude but I get f****d with the rest of you.
jk

In reply to Tyler:


Remainers keep presenting our "demands" -- as in, asking for a straight-forward trade deal, as somehow exceptional and unreasonable.

The US doesn't have free movement and the rest of the EU-crap in its other trade deals around the world, so why would it have a problem with an equitable free-trade deal with the UK?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Nah, we'll obviously get some sort of trade deal, on some timescale or other.

It's just expecting a trade deal as good as the one we already have, without accepting the conditions which come with it, which is unreasonable.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Is there such a thing as a straight-forward trade deal? If that was all that was required all countries would default to the same deal and there would be no need for individual deals between countries. In the case of the EU their little foible is free movement of trade but its not the only thing (tariff aside) that might queer the pitch. For instance there were reportedly things in the TTIP that would be detrimental to the UK/EU. They may surface in future 'straight-forward' deals offered by the ever so straight-forward Donald Trump

In reply to Coel Hellier:
the problem is going to come from turning that word 'equitable' into some concrete articles in any proposed deal.

in TTIP my understanding is that part of the deal for the US was much greater access to healthcare systems for US providers. this proved such a stumbling block in negotiations with the EU no deal was possible.

now, of course, i have no idea what the US would want as part of any deal with the UK; but given that healthcare is 20% or so of its GDP, then it would be a surprise to say the least if that wasn't on the table again; indeed, i would expect that it will be as central to the US position as 'free movement of people' was to the EU.

Of course, some people may welcome that; but many will think such a deal would not be a very good one for us.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Even as a remain voter, I thought Obama's comments about us being last in the queue for a deal with the USA were in all honesty pretty pathetic.

Historically the Uk has been the biggest direct investor in the USA, dwarfing other countries. Never mind the amount of trade between the 2 counries. The Uk is their 2nd biggest overseas market and the USA is Britain's biggest market.

We were always going to queue jump to the front. It was in neither side's interest for us to be shoved to the back.

In reply to neilh:

A quick google provides::

From OEC
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/

The top export destinations of the United States are Canada ($241B), Mexico ($194B), China ($134B), Japan ($67.5B) and Germany ($61.6B). The top import origins are China ($432B), Canada ($331B), Mexico ($291B), Japan ($128B) and Germany ($121B).

No UK listed here as either importers or exporters.



http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are the United States ($51B), Germany ($46.5B), the Netherlands ($34.2B), Switzerland ($33.6B) and France ($27B). The top import origins are Germany ($100B), China ($62.7B), the Netherlands ($50.7B), the United States ($44.4B) and France ($41.5B).

1st largest exports to USA, 4th largest imports.

Are there other sources that support your comment?

In reply to Dave B:
Come on do me a favour.

ONS

Data from 2015, the latest period for which figures are available from, indicates that the USA1 stands as the UK’s largest export partner and second-largest import partner – second only to Germany – in terms of trade in goods and services. In 2015, the USA accounted for 19.7% and 11.1% of UK’s total exports and total imports, respectively.

In the time period 2005 to 2015, the UK has continually run a trade surplus with the USA with an average value of £28.1 billion. This figure peaked in 2013 at £40.3 billion and has since fallen to £39.4 billion in 2015.

OFII

A handful of countries provided the lion’s share of the
$2.8 trillion in cumulative foreign direct investment in
the United States by year-end 2013. The United
Kingdom ranked as the single largest foreign investor
in the U.S. economy, constituting nearly one-fifth of all
cumulative foreign direct investment holdings. Japan’s
investment stock in the United States made up nearly
12 percent, followed by the Netherlands at 10 percent.

In reply to neilh:

I think you're talking at cross purposes, neilh's figures on UK into US relate to inward investment, whereas Dave B's are exports.

In reply to KevinD:


no, it was you or others suggesting that people voted out because they were led by the elite owning press. I was pointing out that peoples' opinions were probably already formed, which in turn dictates what paper they purchase.

A guardianista isn't going to by the Mail on Sunday for a Sunday's leisurely reading that challenges their current line of thinking, and vice versa.

In reply to pec:


Not at all

I bought a 3 week supply of National Lottery tickets this week. I wouldn't have done so if I wasn't somewhat upbeat about my chances of winning....at around 1 in 14 million.

I'm actually slightly more upbeat about Brexit going well. Difference is, I didn't bet the house on my lottery tickets.

In reply to summo:

Whilst I think that is true to a point, it is a bit of a simplification. People buy a paper that reflects their views in a general sense, but if the paper then uses that standpoint to repeatedly tell people that a certain course of action is in their interests, then people are likely to believe it. So the papers' approaches will influence people, particularly if these views are repeated from day to day over a course of 40 years.

The idea that everyone has fixed views which cannot have been influenced isn't true - peoples' views are formed over time by repeated exposure to the same arguments. If those same arguments always say the same thing, it is human nature to give weight to them.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I presume you are aware of how much the big companies already spend on lobbying the EU, UK, NICE etc.. ? Nothing will change.

EDIT - liking the vote down, thought I'd add in a little data, looking the Top 20, how many Chemical, Pharma companies there are. https://lobbyfacts.eu/reports/lobby-costs/all/0/2/2/2/25/0/

In reply to andyfallsoff:


you mean like, vote for Corbyn he's the best thing since slice bread, the saviour?


Politically, I think a large proportion of voters views are formed in childhood and youth. Their vote might swing a little bit, as parties drift left or right, but their own stance is more static.

In reply to summo:


which mainstream UK paper has said the above ?

In reply to lummox:

my point was how the press influence people, I have no doubt there have been several contributors to the Guardian over the past 2 years singing his praises? Given the fact that he has been an MP since time began and no one had heard of him until 2 years ago, some one has been singing his praise in the press. Because it certainly hasn't been interview shy Corbyn.

In reply to andyfallsoff:
I had the original post.

It really does not matter either way.

Whichever figures you look at - exports/imports and direct investment both ways- the point is that for both countries it is important.

The CBI points out that the UK supports 1 million jobs in the USA.

For us to be at the back of the queue ( especially now the EU/USA trade deal is effectively dead) was just never going to happen.I could not believe my ears when Obama said it.

In reply to neilh:


hardly surprising, you have to really suck at being president for people to think voting Trump or Clinton will improve things.

In reply to summo:

Of course it's true that papers like the DM and the DT are bought mainly by people who already lean toward Tory policies. The thing you're failing to acknowledge is that the Tory vote was completely split in the referendum, so it's not like Tory voters were overwhelmingly likely to be either Leave or Remain supporters. In that case, because the readers will generally be sympathetic to much of what their papers are telling them, the published stance and content of of these trusted sources is really very likely to have influenced voters on that particular issue.

In reply to summo:

Most people with a passing interest in U.K. parliamentary politics would have heard of Corbyn over the last two decades at least. He's been a target for the right wing rags on quite a few occasions over the years. However, I can't think of a newspaper that has supported his leadership of the PLP in glowing terms. Certainly not the Guardian.

In reply to summo:


That's totally contrary to the oft stated idea that people start their political journey on the left then with age shift to the right as they acquire privilege and assets they don't wish to share outside their immediate family.

I'm not sure either idea is entirely correct.
jk

In reply to summo:


I was pointing out that whilst a broad political view might already exist the view on Europe is unlikely to have been a factor in buying a particular paper in the past. Since most peoples views on Europe are based on the mainstream press they could therefore be led one way or another. Say with constant bullshit stories about EU regulation.

In reply to lummox:


I am always fascinated by those people who seem to think the Guardian is a labour paper. Whilst it does have some columnists who are it has switched between lib dems and labour (in the new labour guise) and was never really a supporter of old style labour.

In reply to pec:

Does the news spell out the other countries lining up for trade deals with the UK that aren't interested with dealing with the EU?

Can you provide a link if so? I am googling... if it's the thing about trump putting the UK at the front of the queue, great. He's being saying that for a while now. Though I'm interested in any predictions of how long that will take.

In reply to KevinD:


or a war, a great depression, plagues etc...

In reply to lummox:


Even people with a current interest in politics, won't have ever seen him on Question Time, or heard on Any Questions, because he has appeared. He did his first ever Today programme interview last week.

In reply to summo:


As others have pointed out, there doesn't appear to be a paper that has supported this view so not sure your point here.


Not my personal experience - I've gone from default left / liberal youth, to relatively neoliberal from reading Hayek etc. at university, to centrist / centre left once I'd read more detailed academic commentary of that position (and ironically, from working in the City of London).

I'm sure everyone differs, but I can attest to the idea that at least some people can shift their views if they are open to it.

In reply to neilh:

Not saying it isn't important, just thought it worth pointing out you were talking about different things.

There is of course quite a big difference between FDI (buying assets in another country) and exports (selling things that are produced in one place in another), that's all.

I think that Obama's words weren't well chosen, but equally I think it is arrogant to be upset at the idea that a country would prioritise the UK over other trade agreements that had been proposed first? Do you expect a queue jump in a shop just because you want to spend more money than the person in front of you?

In reply to andyfallsoff:
We both know I was looking at the overall picture. Which ever way you spin it, for both sides it's too economically important to be buried at the back of the queue.

To be honest yes I do expect the Uk to jump ahead of the queue for a trade deal with the USA.The $ talks in the USA.

It works both ways. You are being to Uk centric. It is just as improtant for the USA.

It is a win win for both countries.

In reply to summo:


what on earth are you on about?

In reply to neilh:

We don't "both know you were talking about the bigger picture" - I was just trying to help, as you were having a discussion with someone else and were talking about different things (and using specific statistics). I was actually trying to prevent a needless argument by pointing that out.

As for the queue jump - the US was, when Obama spoke, more concerned about the trade deal with the EU, so if money talks we should expect to be behind that (given they are a bigger market). If we were clever, we'd let money talk and prioritise trade with the EU, but we don't seem to be able to apply that same logic (yet keep shouting that everyone else will).

In reply to jkarran:



People can be a mixture I guess, if they're lucky enough to be successful enough to be able to afford to be.

It won't always happen, I'm guessing, but I know of a guy who has set up an off shore trust fund for his children to get them started with their pensions a little bit (they can't bank it setting them up nicely for all of old age), and for all his life he's given to charities and paid for children and a school in India, and that kind of thing too, and hasn't minded that a little bit more than half of his pay was taxable before retirement, seeing it as fair enough in helping to pay for schools etc.

In reply to neilh:


not if it the price is opening up the NHS to US healthcare companies on a large scale, its not

if its such a no brainer, why did it take 10 years to negotiate TTIP- to an unsuccessful conclusion, it should be noted

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Whinging foreigners. Obviously the European type, not our new best buddlies who are going to give us a fantastic deal.

In reply to Moley:

Well said, I'm heartened that a strong remainer sees that to be the case.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Was it not T May , Rom that offered to deal with the EU/UK nationals issue , and said ( we will keep yours if you keep ours) but was rebuffed
( NO negotiations until the UK trigger A50 she was told)

So those EU/ UK citizens that are still scared and anxious , know who to blame for that particular ongoing uncertainty, and it's NOT the UK Government.
Edit , noting that your concern was ONZlY for the EU nationals.
Rather telling that, for someone who reminds us that you are British.

In reply to David Martin:

I'm wondering which way we'll go with respect to Data Protection, given the rift between the US and the EU attitudes. Presumably if we choose the US model some of our companies will have to move installations into the EU in order to be able to process EU data subjects?

In reply to summo:

No he didn't, he did an interview at the 2015 conference, he was even guest editor last year. They are just the ones I remember.

Correction, Bradley Wiggins was the guest editor and he interviewed Corbyn.

In reply to snoop6060:

It was 100% funded, from the 50% of the U.K. Contributions that we get back.
The rest is swallowed up by the EU never to be seen again.
So your mother was right, you are just getting a small portion of your own money back,and you are expected to be greatful !!!

Mum knows best, listen to mum next time

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I think you will find that both the EU and UK negotiators are monitoring our UKC posts,if not relying on US to resolve the entire A50 negotiations

In reply to The New NickB:


What has the above got to do with Question Time, Any Questions, or any other nationally broadcast political programme? As I said last week was his first appearance on 'Today', his first foray into national political press, and he made a complete cluster of it.

Speaking at his own parties conference, or the Kensington jam makers club..... is talking to his own fans, surrounded by his own fans, it is just like speaking at his little rallies in London, it's not the same as national press. He makes a little speech about saving the NHS, tax the rich (or rather those richer than him), getting the pectin right etc... they all clap... everyone goes home happy little bunnies.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


I would be surprised if BMW don't decide to open a new US factory very soon,( with lots of American jobs. )
Nothing do do with taxes, just out of the goodness of their heart. The Chinese do similar deals.

In reply to KevinD:


you referred to the brexit press lying in the national papers to their supporters to swap opinion, I just cited a few examples like WW3, depression, budget of doom etc.. that the remainer's press spouted out. Both sides were at it, not just the supporters of press of brexiteers. So if the press were so persuasive, chances are voters were swung in either direction and the effect was negligible?

In reply to Jim C:


You would think that after the emissions scandal the german car makers need to keep any positive PR rolling in the USA, otherwise the US brands will capitalise, especially with Trump at the helm.

In reply to summo:


I did not comment on QT or AQ, but with regard to Today, you are adopting your regular position of making things up.

In reply to The New NickB:


I was referring to someone else about Corbyn absence in national political press.

making things up, his big new start last week, "the wages cap, is it, isn't" or is it "only for people earning more than him "etc.. ...... " or the labour party is not strictly wedded to migration controls, or against them, but it is a stance we might review in the future" or words to that effect... both topics which he managed to u-turn or change tune on by the end of the same day.

In reply to summo:


Lets see. The obvious one is the bollocks about the EU has dated back decades so not really on the same scale.
Leaving aside the association with WW3 seems to be made by Johnson the others were possible predictions as opposed to claims of current state. I am sure you can spot the difference between the two in terms of accuracy. We can, also, of course, mention the predictions of doom from the out campaign. I would say one of their more impressive achievements was associating project fear with remaining in as opposed to out if it wasnt for the rather obvious advantage they had in terms of the press. One fun thing to watch was the after several years of being told how skilled cameron was at managing the press how quickly he ran into problems when he went against the barons opinions.


Depends on the readership really.

In reply to neilh:



I think it has been stated that Obama was put up to it .
The Americans go to the back of the line do they not ?

In reply to Jim C:


I would be astonished if they did that. How long does it take to set up a new assembly plant? They'll be finished just as Trump is handing over to president Warren. They might announce some cosmetic reshuffling to make it look like they've created jobs or bring forward an announcement of something they would have done anyway.

In reply to summo:

Budget has certainly happened, it just wasn't called that. WW3 daily more likely helped along by a divided Europe and weakened NATO

Still, you can now be nasty to pesky foreigners, so I guess you are happy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/16/ann-linde-swedish-minister...

In reply to KevinD:


Wasn't suggesting anyone side was better than other, had bigger or smaller lies. Only that there were press, editors and columnists supporting both sides, spinning their own stories. I still doubt anyone into knitwear & jam bought a newspaper that was completely against their current thinking, read a piece by Boris or Gove, and swiftly voted out instead of in. Although many pundits think our jam maker himself voted out too, but we'll never know.

In reply to MG:

In what way has brexit or the vote to date weakened NATO? I'd suggest if anything trumps impending arrival has forced many Europeans to consider defense a little more closely. The current big US exercise in Poland, a full armoured division would suggest NATO is still functioning.


She is a little special and her kind are likely to hand several votes to the far right here if they don't wake up soon, but just like Boris, at least she does say as it is to the Saudis too.

Given that I know many Swedes and Brits in each other countries I think she is talking bo[[ocks, most people don't care and discuss it quite politely, there is none of the hatred that you get with brexit/remainers, or the Inde ref. camps.

In reply to summo:

Do you read the news? Trump regards it as "obselete", egged on Brexiteers, notably Farage and Gove.

In reply to summo:


I am guessing you mean "knitware & jam" being of a vaguely leftwing persuasion? You do realise there is a broad leftwing movement against the EU? Something Corbyn has been accused off. Not hundred percent sure accurately but it is clear where the accusation comes from.
You still seem to be missing the point, perhaps deliberately? The issue is the propaganda going back a couple of decades from the press barons.
I have to admit I am with Richard Dawkins on this one. The likelihood of almost anyone having enough information to make a sensible decision is minimal.

In reply to summo:

No doubt the CBI are traitors along with the judiciary and civil service now
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/16/uk-business-leaders-cbi-tr...

In reply to MG:

too many people can't spell Breaksit properly!

In reply to Jim C:

I strongly suspect that T May doesn't want the rights of eu nationals to be protected by the ECJ hence why I don't expect there will be any meaningful deal.
I also strongly suspect that regardless of whatever deal is made EU nationals will be subject to administrative harassment, legal persecutions, their rights will be reduced, their human rights dismissed, and basically will eventually go away.
The only piece of the puzzle missing for them to be really screwed is the UK leaving the ECHR, and that's probably next on the agenda for Teresa May.


Which was entirely predictable, it will be horribly complex to sort out what the rights of EU nationals and British nationals will be in 27 countries with 27 different immigrations and social security systems.

The only way it could be "simple" is if anybody with a proof of residence in the Uk at some point in time prior to the uk leaving get citizenship , and vice versa. Not going to happen given that some EU countries don't even allow dual citizenship and that's probably not on offer on the UK side either.
Plus it's simple anyway, what would constitute a residence and what evidence would be accepted, how would non eu spouses be treated etc etc...


Duh, I remind you that it's the UK that decided to leave the EU and not the opposite.
If EU nationals find themselves in this position of being at the mercy of negotiations it is because 52% of British voters basically don't give a single fuck about them.

In reply to Jim C:


If by "said ( we will keep yours if you keep ours) but was rebuffed" you mean "outright refused to guarantee the rights of EU nationals to remain in the UK, keeping them as a bargaining chip for later", then yes, yes it was.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
US healthcare companies are already over here anyway, so unless we are going to throw up the drawbridge then that issue has long gone. I am amazed that nobody has even dragged up from the bottom of the barrel GM foods ( which are in effect banned in the EU).

Having said that BAT plc has today just bought an American tobacco company at circa $40 billion- so we can reciprocate by selling them more fags. So the trade in dodgy unhealthy stuff works both ways.

The perils of evil capitalism.

In reply to neilh:

Yes they are but they essentially have to abide by local standards.
If the idea is to replace the level of integration we have with the EU with the US, surely this is the kind of non tariffs barriers that will have to be removed.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I doubt it wil be any different to what it is at the moment. Anybody who thinks there for example is going to be what I call a " material" change in standards is just scare mongering.

In reply to neilh:

Well surely if we want to increase trade with the US to compensate for lost trade with the EU we'll have to have common standards and regulations with them.
Unless you think having a free trade deal with an entity that can unfairly undercut your businnesses and workforce with lower standards is a smart idea.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Nobody is talking about integrating with the US. Yes, US health companies can bid for NHS contracts, but that would be under the terms set by the NHS (specified level of service, specified price, etc). So what?

If you're talking about US companies offering *private* health care, then, again, so what? It'd be up to customers as to whether they liked it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes, it's a smart idea. Free trade is generally a smart idea that benefits all sides.

It's only the EU that is so against free trade that it tries to undercut it with all sorts of other restrictions, that it then wants to put onto us.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Ok, so you don't want to remove those non tarifs barriers then ? In which case I'm not sure what's your point, yes we can still trade with the US with the same barriers as before and not change anything, but then we were able to do that anyway before and it won't compensate for the loss of trade we had with the EU, which had a lot less of those non tarifs barriers.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's very naive, if companies can produce goods and services in the US at lower costs with lower labour standard than in the U.K. and undercut our own businesses in the process, how is that beneficial for both sides ?
Free trade is a very good idea but you need a level playing field.


Sure, it is so against free trade, that it is the most open significant single market in the world and has trade deals with over 50 countries, and is generally considered a more open economy than for example, the US.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think you are really living in cloud cuckoo land if you are saying that standards in the USA are substantially less than in Europe/UK.

Try telling that to for example VW drivers in the USA.

They are about the same.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, actually, you don't. We do a lot of beneficial trading with, for example, China, and the playing field is far from level.

The "level playing field" dogma is EU ideology invented to push forward ever-closer political union.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And the US to ensure their companies can bid of public procurement contracts. Not necessarily a bad thing from my point of view but your statement that this comes from the EU as a way to push ever-closer union isn't true. Its a generally accepted part of trade agreements, given the significant weight of public procurement in most economies. .

"A longstanding objective of U.S. trade policy has been to open new opportunities for U.S. goods, services and suppliers to compete on a level playing field for foreign government procurement. Government procurement typically comprises 10 percent to 15 percent of a country’s GDP.

The United States includes government procurement obligations in its free trade agreements (FTAs) with the aim of ensuring that U.S. goods, services and suppliers will be given fair and non-discriminatory opportunities to compete in the government procurement of U.S. trading partners. "

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/government-procurement

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sheesh, Indeed, the playing field is far from levelled with China, and that's exactly why China doesn't have tarif free access to the EU, or the US.
And many people, including mr trump, seem to think the playing field is in fact so unfair that he wants to raise tarifs even more.


I think it's the other way around, creating a level playing field in a democratic way necessitates in the end some form of political union, and I don't really see the problem with that frankly.

In reply to neilh:


Haha sorry but yes they are, even basic stuff such as IP and data protection are different, I'm not even talking about working conditions and social minimas.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Tariffs of a few percent do little to count the vast difference in wage levels, thus there is nothing like a level playing field, and yet trade with China benefits both.


"Different" is not "substantially less".

In reply to RomTheBear:

If that's what you seriously believe then I will leave you to your cloud cuckoo land. have fun.

In reply to neilh:

Part of the reason TTIP fell apart are vastly different standards on for example food safety. Data protection is in the US is far less rigourous than here. Things are very different.

In reply to MG:

Indeed, things are very different and some sort of free trade deal with the US, which allows US companies to in any way dictate or influence (effectively lower) UK standards would be a very dangerous thing for things such as food safety, employment rights and environmental protection.

In reply to LakesWinter:
But now, rather than us EU being roughly equals, we are small and desparate for a deal. What could go wrong?

In reply to neilh:
The standards in the USA are not "about the same" as in Europe. In Texas, diesel-powered vehicles are exempt from emissions testing, and national (Federal) emissions regulations do not cover vehicle CO2 emissions at all.

In reply to RomTheBear:


by political union you mean where stronger more prosperous nation's leaders, industry and their banks dictate the terms to the weaker ones within the union? A kind of unequal union, no different to an un-level playing field with the USA or China, it's just a different fiddle player. Either way the big countries will only do things that look after themselves in the long run, be it France or Germany in the EU, or USA, China outside it.

In reply to MG:
This is exactly the problem. Brexiteers think we are in a position of strength. But having torn up the existing best trade deal we have, on nothing other than hope that something better is waiting, we are in a position of weakness. No one has to give us anything, but we need something. There is no brinkmanship or threats we can deploy in that situation.

It's happening. They're doing it. It's a bit like the Iraq war all over again. But this time I'd rather they just got on with it sooner rather than later. That way the case could be put to rest and we can get around sooner to trying to fix everything and discourage more countries from following this idiotic path.

In reply to RomTheBear:
i seem to remember that it is actually criminal to transfer an EU citizen's data for processing or storage outside the jurisdiction of the EU, where we'll be. There is, iirc, a legal obligation on handlers of data within the EU not to do this. As far as I rmember the US "safe harbor" offer was regarded as less than satisfactory


The reverse of the coin is presumably that there won't be any barrier to putting employee or customer details into US based cloud and hence subject to US jurisdiction any more?

In reply to summo:


Exactly the opposite, through the EU smaller countries get a lot more influence and power than they would otherwise have.

In reply to MG:

Exactly......

In reply to Coel Hellier:


It really depends, knock yourself out :
https://www.gov.uk/trade-tariff


It is substantially less in many areas.

In reply to summo:

You can't have it both ways, either the smaller countries are bleeding the UK (and other net contributors) dry with our £350million a week subsidy (and giving them well paid jobs and benefits when they come over here) or the big countries are looking after their own interests. Most small countries have prospered under the EU, Greece being a notable exception.

In reply to RomTheBear:

That rather depends, with QMV, a small group of MS can outvote the majority

In reply to kipper12:


Well yes, exactly, the fact that many things are decided through QMV or unanimity emcourages consensus and gives a lot of power to smaller countries to block whatever they don't like.
One could always argue it's imperfect but it's certainly better than basically being told what to do by the big players through threats and coercion.

In reply to Tyler:

Actually, even Greece is still a lot better off, even after 2009, than its neighbouring non-eu countries. They had a massive boom followed by a crash, but overall they crashed less than they boomed (if that makes sense).

In reply to RomTheBear:




A typical Rom link.
"There's something in there that might justify what I've just claimed, er, well probably. But I'll be f*cked if I can be bothered to find it myself. If you don't believe me you'll just have to trawl through it all yourself to prove I'm right."

In reply to RomTheBear:


try telling that to Greece, Cyrpus or Ireland and sure they've felt in recent years just how much influence they really have, even though yes, per capita they have more representatives within the EU, they still have less in total than the big players and have little leverage with their respective banks, the IMF, or ECB.

In reply to Tyler:


never suggested I was having it both ways, yeah Greeks they are living the dream right, thinking what a great decision it was to join the EU and the Euro... bet they've never looked back.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Mr Middle class Greek might be OK, he moved his money out of Greece years ago, perhaps bought second home outside Euroland, took his money out the bank, retired early on a nice pension... but not everyone in Greece is living the high life. What about youth unemployment in Greece itself, if you ignore all those who left to find work, because they would never find any at home?

Like it or not Germany and France are willing to see smaller nations suffer for the sake of saving the EU and the Euro's face. It does not matter how bad it gets in Southern Europe as long as gravy train still hits Strasbourg every month etc...

In reply to summo:


Yet they recently decided they still were better off in. Funny that. They must know something you (apparently along with 52% of UK voters) don't. Never mind, pretty soon it could become so obvious that even you may have to reconsider your blind conviction. Trouble is that the UK will be worse off by then and with no easy way back. Oh, but you don't live in the UK, do you? so maybe you're happy gambling with other people's prosperity.

In reply to john arran:


I don't have blind conviction, just a different opinion, obviously having a different opinion on anything these days is not always tolerated by some.

ps. I didn't realise the Greeks had also had an EU in/out referendum, what were the results?

In reply to summo:


Indeed, summo, as these three found out:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/04/enemies-of-the-people-brit...

In reply to pec:


Do you dispute that there is a variety for A variety of products ? If you can't be bother to click on a link to check, I'll suggest you make an effort.