BREXIT

Hello, I would like to buy your house for £500,000 please and I don't mind if it's not been surveyed or searches carried out.

Of course you buy my house and I'll accept £500,000 because I was only going to ask £400,000.

Negotiation by revealing ones hand without checking out what your counterparts have on offer.

Simples......

Nonsense Hugh_Man.  It is not like a game of Poker.  Even after it is all wrapped up either party can change their mind before it is ratified. 

In short it has to work for both parties (or all parties in case of EU) before a deal can be signed.  But you keep telling yourself that TM has an Ace up her sleeve and I will keep telling you she has got a Joker and the Joker is that she has no plans to leave the Single Market.

Brexiters are going to get so screwed in this and they do not have the brains to see it.  Guys, that light at the end of tunnel, it is a train coming at you...get out of the way!

perry

TM made no such promise about UK remaining in the single market.

TM has told the UK and the EU that she wants the best possible access to the single market or trade both ways between the UK and the EU.

Many of the members states sell much of their produce to the UK, we are among many EU countries best customers, do you really think that European businesses will accept an EUdirective to add tariffs to goods sold to the UK.

There is a big world out there only too happy to sell us their cars, machines, computers, food and wine, we really do not have to buy from the EU IF they are stubborn enough to ignore our presence as an independent trading country.

Figures of 44% of our exports against 9% of EU exports have been bandied about but the 9% of the total of 27 EU countries is higher in monetary terms than 44% of UK exports.

Perry

Where do you make it up from?

I never mentioned poker I merely mentioned that in a business negotiation suggest as purchasing a house or negotiating for a business contract, both sides would be expected NOT to make public to each other their negotiating piston until an agreement suiting both sides was reached.

What on earth has that to do with gambling.

Who saidTM had an ace up her sleeve?

I merely corrected your comment that she promised us membership of the single market, simply not true.

Hopefully if everyone is sensible, no one will get screwed and the world will carry on trading with each other and living our lives as best we can given all the crap going on around us.

European politicians will negotiate the best deal possible to suit their needs.

Religious fanatics and zealots have no time for negotiation, thank god we live in the still partially civilised part of the world where negotiation is preferable to the bomb.

Hugh,

We have no idea what she has promised the car companies or the Banks.  Just that she has given them enough for them to feel certain.

Yes, if we are outside the single market all EU countires will have to add the WTO levels of tariffs...it is part of international law.

What cars are you going to buy, they will all have trade tariffs attached?  Without passporting for Financial Services our biggest industry will collapse.  TM is not going to risk the UK's future when she can just say I got the best deal I could.  Basically she is going to go for a Norway deal, that is completely obvious.  But I really worry about how the UK is going to react when all the Brexiters realise they have been deceived.  The remainers won't be happy either because the very situation we have warned about - being second class, having to abide by rules not being allowed to vote on them - is all going to come true.  We will be outside the EU...just.  We are going to get so f......d on this.

Hugh

The point about negotiations is a real joke. Each side will have lawyers coming out of their lawyers. The EU will have a pool of people to draw on that they have used already to draw up the various trade deals they have been doing since day 1. The UK will have a new team, built from consultancies, at, what, £2-3k per day each. These new hired guns wont give a crap what they deliver, as long as they get their billable hours paid for.

You may as well start expecting a chocolate teapot for a deal, just so that your expectations arent missed. Thats if Brexit even goes ahead. And thats the upside.

Perry

TM can at present promise nothing to car companies or banks other than a pledge to negotiate over a period the best possible deal for all EU countries including the UK so that EUbusiness into the UK is also not harmed by obsessive demands from bureaucrats.

Banks and financial institutions will be able to negotiate Equivalence deals index MiFiD agreements and I would suggest that the City of London including the Insurance market have been the leader in finance since the East India Company debacle and well before we joined the EU, I very much doubt that European financial centres or indeed institutions will ever match Londons expertise in global finance, especially considering the dire state of some European banks at present.

What cars?

Given that UK is currently the biggest market for new cars, with record new registrations  I would suggest we could always buy Japanese cars made in the UK or even BMW Minis etc. produced in UK or will we have to tariff our own production?

No, WTO tariffs are not compulsory IF agreements can be reached between trading partners.

PS average WTO tariff current,under 3%

Of course TM is going for a Norway deal, you already know her mind. 😄

How about a UK deal?

Do you actually realise what many European companies or workers think of the EU. I can tell you, dealing with Spanish companies on a daily basis, all I ever hear  is, we abide by Spanish Law here, the EU is for people who want to obey rules.

rob

quoting a chocolate teapot seems to sum up many of the arguments  that you use with other posters on here.

Brexit will happen or a great deal of the electorate will become very irate.

Perhaps TM will be better off calling an election, many feel her majority would increase.

Hugh,

TM gave Nissan assurances that are for the entire car industry.  

Equivalents are no where near as comprehensive as passporting, will take five years to implement and exclude many areas, lending and deposit-taking and asset management – would not be captured and loads more, plus the UK would have to maintain regulatory rules equivalent to the EU rulebook to be able to benefit from it which is exactly what Brexit is opposed to.  Mifid II is not more than a temporary solution that gives us access rights equivalent to any other third country with regulatory oversight.  It will erode and then kill the advantages we currently have.  Our strengths in the Global Financial Services arena will be lost to New York, Frankfurt, Paris, Milan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.   It is the same arrogant attitude that resulted in the automotive and motorcycle industries in the UK being pummelled.  

The UK is the biggest or second biggest new car market in Europe.  USA and China much larger.   And yes we will have to pay import duty on all the parts and components we import to make cars here   The duty on automobiles is 10% and higher yet on parts   

It took seven years to do a trade deal with Canada   It will take just as long to do one with Canada/UK.  India has just made it clear that Freedom of Movement will be a key demand in any UK/India trade deal.

A Norway deal is an obvious choice but you are right   We don't know what she plans to do cause it is a secret.  Shhhhhhhh.

We are going to get a f*** you very much deal.  Oh well that will unite the country because we will all be equal losers   

Prefer the chocolate teapot to the dill pickle - can't stand vineger which is just about all you get here!

Talk here goes round in circles with people talking the same old rubbish. For instance we have covered the Canadian trade deal several times. The reason the deal is poor and has taken so long to negociate is because of the EU's protectionist attitude, the penpushers in Bruxells and the fact that here are many countries having a say. A deal beween the UK and Canada (or the UK and NAFTA) could be accomplished in a fraction of the time. I would not be surprised if Mr Fox has not had his feelers out in several different countries. We may see a whole raft of deals once we are free to make them.

The only possible reason for trying to tie the negociators hands before the negociations is to try and make any deal impossible and thereby delay our exit. The whole purpose is to waste time and ruin our negociating position. Parliament will be able to discuss and vote on the deal and future parliaments will be free to negociate ammendments.

Can I ask why wouldn't the EU consider fair transient controls on migration for any member state that has been significantly compromised by swift and uncontrolled movements and until such time as they can adequately accommodate for these swift movements, in full knowledge of the citizen unrest that if left unattended in the interim periods has the potential to impact social cohesion within that member state? Why are they not willing to recognise the harm this is doing to  divide nations instead of seeking civilised solutions so as to provide adequate forward planning, within realistic timeframes alongside workable strategies to assist the underlying cause of large scale migration, unemployment and wide wage differentials etc?

Also is it fair to assume that given the numbers of British citizens currently living and working in the EU are  1.2 million and EU citizens currently living and working in the UK are 3.2 million, that the EU bureaucrats will agree to safeguard citizens rights (equivalent to protecting acquired rights) i.e. they will be more than willing to find a mutually agreeable solution in this regard?

Also why can't the Canada deal which is presumably of mutual benefit be used in principle as a template/ starting point to negotiations and thereby speed up the process? Aren't there commonalities that could be " lifted " (ie. a more standardised approach)?

This message was last edited by ads on 07/11/2016.

ads:

You keep asking the same question and the answer does not change either.

Free movement of people and capital is one of the four founding principles of the EU. It’s reason for being if you like. Here is a brief history from the BBC web site which explains why what you suggest cannot happen without unanimous treaty changes.

Until all EU nations arrive at the same and equal economic level of prosperity free movement cannot be watered down or weakened to suit individual nations. If they did that the EU would become a pick and mix patch work of differing rights. It would in short be unworkable.

The original idea was that allowing people to move across the continent - from countries where there were no jobs to countries where there were labour shortages - would not only boost European growth, but would help prevent war by getting people to mix more across borders.

The founding fathers of the European Community wanted it to be a construct that also had a political integration and for that you needed people to move because the minute people crossed boundaries and borders, you had deeper integration… So it was both a social as well as an economic aim.

"The big shift came in the early 1990s, [with] the Treaty of Maastricht, explains Floris de Witte, a Belgian political scientist at the London School of Economics. "It was a big treaty that changed the nature of the EU from really an economically-oriented project towards a more politically-oriented project. And one of the manifestations of that was that we had something called European Citizenship.

"Before that, European rights were only for people that were economically active, that moved across borders in order to work or to provide a service in economic terms. After that it became much more of a political concept whereby every European citizen had certain rights to free movement.

"It allows individuals essentially to really figure out what is most important for them. If the most important thing in my life is to have sun all day, I now have the right to move to Spain or to Greece. If the most important thing in my life is saunas, I can go to Finland

"It allows individuals essentially to really figure out what is most important for them. If the most important thing in my life is to have sun all day, I now have the right to move to Spain or to Greece. If the most important thing in my life is saunas, I can go to Finland. 

And the reason to come to England is???????

Mickeyfinn,

What you are suggesting is that the EU are willing to use member states as scapegoats and suffer the consequences of undermining their positive psyche developed over years to be inclusive and tolerant and who have happily and successfully integrated many different nationalities and cultures into their country over decades since the 2nd world war, establish a civilised balance to make provision via a decent and caring system of benefits to cater for those who for whatever reason struggle to find work, or through disability are limited in the work they can do, etc, to set in place a regulatory structure to counter abuse ( currently having to be reviewed, which could place many at risk of homelessness, if ironically not managed in a fair and timely manner),  a member state renowned for its civilised and fair approach, regulatory structures that in the main adhere to the rule of law etc, I could go on.

But the overall (and I hope you see, sincere) point I'm trying to make is that you are suggesting that the EU by their inflexibility to devise a system to achieve their aims in swift fashion, are only willing to do so without due regard to the significant impacts on cohesion and fairness.  

And all because they are not prepared to adapt their system to  BETTER MANAGE the speed at which this change that they aspire to is handled?

I thought cohesion was one of their founding principles, and yet what you are suggesting is to undermine that principle, to undermine those member states in that transient process.

It doesn't make any sense and what is tragic is that it doesn't have to be this way. Doesn't the pace of change have to be better managed? Don't you see how the EU should be adapting to the uncomfortable realities, and respond in a more fair and rational manner, a manner that takes sufficient heed of citizens genuine concerns, and in that way not compromise the EU's longer term aspirations?

IMHO, to continue in the fashion they are doing, to be obstructive and intransigent will only hinder progress, and sadly alienate and divide citizens in that process.

Surely there is a better way to reach a compromise where there is a better mutually acceptable and civilised manageable solution?

ads:

I don’t agree that free movement creates the negative affects you describe. That may be the impression you might arrive at by some of the negative publicity free movement gets from the UK media. However in reality the vast majority of migrants from the EU that move around the continent do so in search of the employment and standard of living they cannot find in their own state.

This is a list compiled by the OECD indicating the direct benefits free movements of people contribute.

Migrants accounted for 47% of the increase in the workforce in the United States and 70% in Europe over the past ten years.

Migrants fill important niches both in fast-growing and declining sectors of the economy.

Like the native-born, young migrants are better educated than those nearing retirement.

Migrants contribute significantly to labour-market flexibility, notably in Europe.

Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in benefits. Ø

Labour migrants have the most positive impact on the public purse.

Employment is the single biggest determinant of migrants’ net fiscal contribution.

 Migration boosts the working-age population.

Migrants arrive with skills and contribute to human capital development of receiving countries.

Migrants also contribute to technological progress.

You believe in controls and regulatory barriers to the extent that much of the benefit would be either lost or reduced. Work visas or a points system is really what you are suggesting. Imposed until such time as the nation states have created greater infrastructure to cope with the migrant influx.

The difficulty with that is migrant labour is by its very nature transient. The other problem is national states would move at differing speeds and some not at all. Then if controls were imposed by the EU a back lash would begin from states where migration enhances their economy.

People may move but after a while they move back to their home state. In any case I don’t believe the numbers actually cause the negative affects you describe. That is a misguided perception if I may say so..

Spain is a nation state with enormous numbers of migrants from Europe, not just British people retiring, Spain is not as rich as Britain yet they cope with the migration very effectively. I would suggest migration in Spain is seen as a positive development by the population. In Britain people feel threatened by it.

That difference is where the real heart of the matter arises. I believe British people in the referendum voted leave after seeing thousands of migrant refugees fleeing war in the Middle East and confused the issue. Fear is what is driving populations into the arms of the extreme right around the world. Brexit did not win the vote for any other reason but irrational negative fear for the consequences of migration.

I spoke to a British voter the other day and asked him why he voted to leave the EU. He said because he did not want his granddaughter to be in the future compelled into wearing a Burqa.

Ads

You keep using the same pejorative language to spin positives into negatives.

"Swift uncontrolled migration" This can equally be described as business having access to resources to help grow the economy.

"Scapegoats" is really stretching the spin doctoring.

The fundamental point is that the EU stands for the 4 freedoms. No amount of spin doctoring will change that. You can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, and you can keep telling the forum that if you believe trolling in this manner will make any difference.

The various pollies will decide what comes next (barring of course any other illegal shambolic position our turncoat incompetent PM can arrive at that gets rightly overturned via the rule of law). Behind closed doors, I highly doubt the EU will give a stuff what we think, as they still have an enormous market, they have their own trade deals firmly in place with the rest of the world, and they will be seeking to make an example out of us. The discussion has already been made by various EU leaders, so this shouldnt come as any great surprise when it happens.

As stated below, we will get royally shafted if we choose to proceed. The only question is, will they use lube or not?

They' (the EU) still need us (the uk) more than we need them. So they should be careful..............

After we exit how many rich countries will be left in the EU. Answer:2. Germany and France.

How mnay other countries will follow Brexit and why is that..............

Much of what you say probably will happen and our Brexit will be the demise and end to what we call the EU over next 5 - 10 years.

The gravy train will be halted..no wonder they are worried................

If we take Spain and the UK.

Spain has thankfully benefitted from migration because they needed migrants to assist their economic status. The impact was in the overall a positive experience for many of the reasons you specify, and they received a major slice of EU funding for infrastructure, roads etc in that process, which has thankfully been a positive ( apart from the corrupt element that is!)

But when the financial crash occurred, unemployment struck them hard but they then ( understandably) looked in the main to the UK to ease that burden, which again appeared a positive for both countries, again achieving many of the positives you identified....  Apart from the fact that  is, that Spain was not encouraged to diversify their own economy and seek to expand their economic growth for themselves. Look towards new technologies, new possibilities to enhance their independent growth, etc. And this is my point. This ease of movement if not carefully reviewed has the potential if not managed well, and without forward planning and strategies in place, to stall growth and create more dependency on other member states.

Now the UK already had a large migrant population and was managing and benefitting also from all the factors you identified, but at the point of the financial crisis, they found that the country's debt was ballooning which started to impact their ability to continue to deal with the swift uncontrolled migrant influx from the EU ( and yes non EU ) in so much as their infrastructure and social systems were coming under massive strain ( uncomfortable realities Mickeyfinn that you appear not to acknowledge).

This coupled with measures to try and bring the UK's growing debt under control ( which is why debt has to be reviewed in this equation also)  together with a necessity to review the benefit culture both from a national perspective and to deal with a sudden growth in part time migrants,  ( housing benefits, tax credits) , major growth of zero hours contracts, wage disparities causing a downward spiral etc all started to exacerbate the economic benefits to the country and also exacerbated the concerns of nationals (and ironically existing migrants who had settled in the UK)  in many swathes of the country.

 In reality ( first hand reality Mickeyfinn, not suggestions) they started to question both Govt and EUs ability to effectively manage the swiftly changing circumstances. Citizens in the UK failed to see them respond to their real concerns, they started to witness firsthand the breakdown in tolerance in pockets of their society, for instance the sudden growth of crime ( which has actually, not suggested Mickeyfinn , resulted in a major increase in EU prison inmates) , to witness underhand comments directed towards migrants, which all felt very alien and of great concern to them.

This coupled with other firsthand knock-on impacts ( very real impacts), to the educational system, NHS, housing etc all added to the disaffection and growing discontent with the EU, ( alongside their request for greater controls going unheeded by the EU bureaucrats). 

So all of this firsthand experience appears to have led to their decision to vote to leave, ( obviously other reasons accompanied this such as legal concerns which have also been covered within this thread).

But this became further exacerbated when they were met with bureaucrats' statements during the referendum campaign, inferring that we as a nation were being selfish when in reality citizens were dealing with realities that have arisen as a consequence of factors outside of their control, i.e. mismanagement by the Govt, and a stubborn  intransigence from the EU to fairly and effectively respond to these realities.

To suggest that their choice to leave was based upon inference from the press and media and not firsthand realities, is sadly a denial of what has been occuring in the UK Mickeyfinn. And I state this with a heavy heart not wishing to be anything other than seeking rational solutions to a very real problem.

This message was last edited by ads on 07/11/2016.

This message was last edited by ads on 07/11/2016.

We have to agree to disagree ads. I see no advantage in re-hashing the Brexit question over and over again.

I do not believe for one moment three million EU migrant workers dispersed across the UK have caused anything like the affects you describe in your posts. You have a personal agenda against the EU dating back to property rights in Spain. Your dissatisfaction and frustration with the Spanish legal system now shakes a stick at the EU for failing to force Spain into changing their legal and procedural methodology. You had good valid points which I agreed with then now you have lost the plot.

The vote has been cast the damage will be done to both sides. That is what happens in a divorce. I have always accepted the result. It depressed me enormously but democracy and divorce does that sometimes we all have to live with it.

We who have made our lives in Europe will continue to thrive and prosper within the EU and single market. Continue to enjoy free movement of people and all the benefits that brings. The only cloud on the horizon is if we can retain our existing rights and privileges as a European citizen of British origins.

Britain will go its own way and will have to suffer the consequences of Brexit which will be considerable. I believe no quarter will be given in any negotiations and that's my greatest concern.

As in any divorce it’s the settlement which creates the greatest resentment and hardship.

Mickyfinn

a very good summary