Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Adebesi]

There was an interesting article in the FT a few days ago. It said May is inching towards a position where she wants to stay part of the CU / SM and accept EU jurisdiction and regulation of goods. But wants to negotiate a separation for services.

Why we would want to do that - make a deal to the benefit of the much smaller part of our economy, ignoring services which dominate it, and specifically excluding financial services - I have no idea. Apparently some people think the ability to make free trade deals with EM would be valuable for The City, even if it ended up without passporting rights.

 

[Adebesi]

It depends what you mean by short, medium and long term.

If the UK leaves the CU/SM which could be as soon as in 9 months time, for which they are not even slightly prepared for, how will they ever recover in any any reasonable amount of time. I agree it's speculation as to how bad it could but it'll be very bad to catastrophic. It's the initial damage that will be the worst, companies leaving, currency collapsing, confidence at zero.

The question is ,which is speculation, is how they recover, signing trade deals with USA and China is not going to change that, they already sell to them.

If we go over the cliff edge the shit storm will last quite some time, I agree.

Fwiw I probably agree with you in my assumptions about what will happen. I'm just saying, people want certainty, they want simple answers in layman's terms, but they can't have them. Nobody is in a position to give them, no matter how much information they gather.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

If we go over the cliff edge the shit storm will last quite some time, I agree.

Fwiw I probably agree with you in my assumptions about what will happen. I'm just saying, people want certainty, they want simple answers in layman's terms, but they can't have them. Nobody is in a position to give them, no matter how much information they gather.

Well tomorrow Theresa May's at the EU summit and has been told that the EU wants clarity tomorrow so within the next few days we should be a bit more clear as how things will work out. The noises coming out of the EU appear to be that they're now expecting a no deal scenario.

No doubt May will say she wants a bespoke deal and the EU needs the UK as much as the other way round. That's no deal talk.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

There was an interesting article in the FT a few days ago. It said May is inching towards a position where she wants to stay part of the CU / SM and accept EU jurisdiction and regulation of goods. But wants to negotiate a separation for services.

Why we would want to do that - make a deal to the benefit of the much smaller part of our economy, ignoring services which dominate it, and specifically excluding financial services - I have no idea. Apparently some people think the ability to make free trade deals with EM would be valuable for The City, even if it ended up without passporting rights.

This is what's driving the EU crazy, she's trying to cherry pick yet again, it's indivisible.

As far as I'm concerned, and this is speculation, she will continue to pick bits and pieces in such a manner to delay the inevitable.

The EU just want to get on with the future, even Barnier who has the patience of a saint is becoming tetchy. Brexit is becoming a low priority for the EU and seem to just want it over with.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

How is that a problem with what I said? I never said we know nothing. Just that there are enough variables to make the long term implications impossible to predict.

The factors you mentioned are part of the reason an economic shitstorm is inevitable in the short term. But to say those problems will bring the UK to its knees in the longer term is clearly speculation.

If impossible to predict, you acknowledge that possible long term benefits may make any possible short term chaos worthwhile?

 

[Adebesi]

If impossible to predict, you acknowledge that possible long term benefits may make any possible short term chaos worthwhile?

Yes.

Which is not to say I expect it. But it's certainly possible. Absolutely.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Yes.

Agreed.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

If impossible to predict, you acknowledge that possible long term benefits may make any possible short term chaos worthwhile?

Two Brexiters resurfacing in one night - not expecting an answer but how long do you expect the short-term chaos to last and what will be the long term benefit and after how many years.

 

[Adebesi]

The other thing is the answer might be yes for some and no for others. People who were dissatisfied with Europe, people who longed for an end to immigration, are more likely to see a positive outcome. Personally, as someone who had no problem with immigration and enjoyed living in a cosmopolitan country, it is probably less likely.

 

[JPRouve]

The other thing is the answer might be yes for some and no for others. People who were dissatisfied with Europe, people who longed for an end to immigration, are more likely to see a positive outcome. Personally, as someone who had no problem with immigration and enjoyed living in a cosmopolitan country, it is probably less likely.

At a micro level, it's a lot more random. The people that might be happy to see less immigrants could also see less jobs, some won't see any difference, others will see less immigrants and more jobs, while others will see more visible immigrants and more or less jobs.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Two Brexiters resurfacing in one night - not expecting an answer but how long do you expect the short-term chaos to last and what will be the long term benefit be and after how many years.

The long term benefits are obvious. We'd be a free governing nation again, and would be able to trade with whoever we wished. Short term problems are unknown, because the leaving process is unknown.
There's also the possibility of EU reform due to the growing issues in countries like Germany and Italy especially at the moment. If the reform was quite significant, it may be enough to force a second referendum.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The long term benefits are obvious. We'd be a free governing nation again, and would be able to trade with whoever we wished. Short term problems are unknown, because the leaving process is unknown.
There's also the possibility of EU reform due to the growing issues in countries like Germany and Italy especially at the moment. If the reform was quite significant, it may be enough to force a second referendum.

But the UK is a sovereign nation and governs itself. It is also able to trade with and does currently trade with whoever it wishes.
How do refugees from outside Europe, which I presume you are referring to, affect the UK. They already did agree a long time ago not to take many refugees and the UK already has borders to stop them. Whether the EU exists or not those refugees will still be there.

At present the UK government is insisting on leaving the CU/SM and has very little time to change that stance which means in practice that if they don't change that stance they're leaving for good without transition next March. I doubt the EU will change much in that short space of time or that even a referendum would be wanted or arranged in that time.

 

[Reiver]

This is what's driving the EU crazy, she's trying to cherry pick yet again, it's indivisible.

As far as I'm concerned, and this is speculation, she will continue to pick bits and pieces in such a manner to delay the inevitable.

The EU just want to get on with the future, even Barnier who has the patience of a saint is becoming tetchy. Brexit is becoming a low priority for the EU and seem to just want it over with.

This is the UKs problem with Europe and has been for years, in my opinion. We won't commit to it fully but want all the benefits of being in the EU, using the "they need us more than we need them" argument. Sceptics complain about the Germany/France axis making all the decisions and seem to think we should be an equal partner.
Anyway, the "they need us more than we need them" argument is about to be put to the test. We best hope it's true

 

[Paul the Wolf]

This is the UKs problem with Europe and has been for years, in my opinion. We won't commit to it fully but want all the benefits of being in the EU, using the "they need us more than we need them" argument. Sceptics complain about the Germany/France axis making all the decisions and seem to think we should be an equal partner.
Anyway, the "they need us more than we need them" argument is about to be put to the test. We best hope it's true

But the UK is ,until they leave anyway, as equal as France is, Germany have slightly more representation because they have a larger population. In addition to that the Uk has a lot of concessions most other countries don't have.

The problem is that the EU is not explained well enough to the British public and that interest in voting for their MEP has been low on people's agenda. This led to people like Farage being voted in as him and his ilk had no intention of representing the British interest in the EU parliament.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

But the UK is a sovereign nation and governs itself. It is also able to trade with and does currently trade with whoever it wishes.
How do refugees from outside Europe, which I presume you are referring to, affect the UK. They already did agree a long time ago not to take many refugees and the UK already has borders to stop them. Whether the EU exists or not those refugees will still be there.

At present the UK government is insisting on leaving the CU/SM and has very little time to change that stance which means in practice that if they don't change that stance they're leaving for good without transition next March. I doubt the EU will change much in that short space of time or that even a referendum would be wanted or arranged in that time.

We currently trade according to EU regulations. This makes the EU sovereign where trade is concerned.
Regardless of how immigration affects the UK, there is anti EU sentiment growing throughout europe. The EU cannot afford to see too many other countries vote to leave. There's a serious risk of them losing Italy.
As for all of the negotiating, who knows? We have a weak government in power with a leader who is a remainer, and the majority of westminster is out to derail the leave process. We have to wait and see what the leave process will be. However, the threat of walking away with no deal has to be upheld by us if we do not want to be taken to the cleaners by the EU, which is why May wanted a bigger majority government. That backfired massively, and this also has made the government weaker.

 

[4bars]

The long term benefits are obvious. We'd be a free governing nation again, and would be able to trade with whoever we wished. Short term problems are unknown, because the leaving process is unknown.
There's also the possibility of EU reform due to the growing issues in countries like Germany and Italy especially at the moment. If the reform was quite significant, it may be enough to force a second referendum.

As I understand:

- Any country would like to trade with all the countries under the most beneficial terms. Inside the EU, UK will get better deals than alone. Also, if any agreement is not ok for the UK, the UK can veto it ALWAYS. I don't see that argument as correct
- UK is a sovereign country, he accepts EU regulation. In trade, they have to go under EU regulations in order to sell into the EU market. Outside the EU, if the UK wants to sell to the EU, will need to go under EU regulations as well. The only difference is that inside the EU, the UK can influence in those regulations (actually it did to the benefit of the EU also) and now will not have any influence (at least direct).
- If "issues" is an euphemism of immigration (sorry if I misunderstood that), UK has 100% sovereignty in non-EU immigration now inside the EU. being outside, will not change that fact. Again, any change in any immigration policy that is not of the like of UK, could be vetoed.
- About the EU immigration, UK has absolutely the right to deport any EU national that has no job and does not meet some requirements after 3 months of the arrival. Had been the UK that did not enforce this policy of which UK completely is sovereign to apply.

In my understanding your arguments don't adjust to reality and UK is absolutely sovereign in matters of immigration and has veto capacity of any trade deal that does not agree on and the probability to have way better deals inside the EU than outside it

Could you discuss my points in case I am wrong, please?

 

[Rightnr]

The long term benefits are obvious. We'd be a free governing nation again, and would be able to trade with whoever we wished. Short term problems are unknown, because the leaving process is unknown.
There's also the possibility of EU reform due to the growing issues in countries like Germany and Italy especially at the moment. If the reform was quite significant, it may be enough to force a second referendum.

The tl;dr version of this is basically - do what I say because I will wish it into reality. Pure fantasy land and wishful thinking.

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Massive Spanner]

The long term benefits are obvious. We'd be a free governing nation again, and would be able to trade with whoever we wished. Short term problems are unknown, because the leaving process is unknown.
There's also the possibility of EU reform due to the growing issues in countries like Germany and Italy especially at the moment. If the reform was quite significant, it may be enough to force a second referendum.

So true.

Well, except for the biggest free trade bloc in the world, who are also your closest neighbours.

But other than that, bob's yer uncle.

Well, apart from all the other mega-nations that already have trade agreements with that bloc.

But other than that...

 

[Paul the Wolf]

We currently trade according to EU regulations. This makes the EU sovereign where trade is concerned.
Regardless of how immigration affects the UK, there is anti EU sentiment growing throughout europe. The EU cannot afford to see too many other countries vote to leave. There's a serious risk of them losing Italy.
As for all of the negotiating, who knows? We have a weak government in power with a leader who is a remainer, and the majority of westminster is out to derail the leave process. We have to wait and see what the leave process will be. However, the threat of walking away with no deal has to be upheld by us if we do not want to be taken to the cleaners by the EU, which is why May wanted a bigger majority government. That backfired massively, and this also has made the government weaker.

What do you mean we trade according to EU regulations?
In the future the UK will still sell to the EU. To be able to sell to the EU the products the UK sells have to conform to EU regulations.

The UK are selling to elsewhere in the world under WTO rules, there are some free trade agreements with various countries throughout the world of which the UK were part of the negotiations on the EU team with those countries. But the WTO rules are not the only thing that govern trade.
Whether now whilst in the EU or afterwards outside the EU, whatever the UK sells to other countries has to conform to that country's regulations. That had nothing to do with the EU and won't change.
I will add that when a country such as Australia currently deals with the EU, it knows that the products it buys will conform to EU regulations whether it was manufactured in Poland, Spain or the UK. When the UK leaves the EU which standards will the UK adopt and will they meet Australian regulations?

What will change is that all those deals that the UK were part of will become null and void when the UK leaves. The UK will then have to negotiate a new deal with every single country or bloc.
Now destroying what the UK already has in order to hope that something better than they currently have might occur in the long distant future seems a very high price to pay for something which would be nigh on impossible.
What you are saying is that a corner shop could get a better deal than Tesco or Sainsbury with the wholesaler. How is that possible?

I don't see how Italy would want to leave the EU, that would be economic suicide as well.. Sure people are fed up with immigrants/refugees but the boats will still cross the Mediterranean whether they're in or out. The problem is why there are so many refugees - sort the problem at the source.

The EU would prefer that the UK had a strong and stable government, they don't know who they're dealing with, is it Johnson and JRM, May and Davis or the Daily Mail, who's really running the country.
Having a 100% Tory Hardline Brexit House of Commons will not change the fact that the EU are not going to allow the UK to cherry pick which parts they like.
However, I'm still unclear what the UK will negotiate. Will they pay 38 , 39 or 40 billion pounds. Citizens rights are the only real negotiating point left other than the future trade negotiations which will only start when the UK have left.
The UK have said they are leaving the CU/SM so either they change their mind or they have to put up a hard border in Ireland, not because of EU regulations but because of WTO regulations.

 

[stevoc]

The UK have said they are leaving the CU/SM so either they change their mind or they have to put up a hard border in Ireland, not because of EU regulations but because of WTO regulations.

Which would of course break the Good Friday Agreement, an International agreement. Great way to show the world whether or not Britain can uphold international agreements at a time when they will be looking to negotiate lots of them.

 

[Adisa]

They insult us everyday.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[C3Pique]

They sure do

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Oscie]

We are going to need regulatory alignment with the EU. So what we can offer future trading partners is the same as we can now only without allowing them access to the Single Market. Not quite sure how that's supposed to make us a more attractive trading partner than we are now.

 

[C3Pique]

There is no deal that sees Britain leave Europe and for it to be beneficial to the UK economy. It literally does not exist.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Why do people keep going on about Norway, it is not a solution for an economy like Britain.

What do Brexiters actually expect the EU to give them, but if they don't give it to them they're going to commit suicide. Sounds slightly deranged to me.

 

[Green_Red]

Why do people keep going on about Norway, it is not a solution for an economy like Britain.

What do Brexiters actually expect the EU to give them, but if they don't give it to them they're going to commit suicide. Sounds slightly deranged to me.

But there is no good deal to be had. How is staying part of a customs union with zero political power advantageous to Britain? That only benefits Europe. This whole car industry thing is bollox too. The major part of the British economy is services. But please, explain how being part of the customs union and single market is good for Britain without political power.

 

[Oscie]

"Do what I want or I will punch myself in the face, then you'll be sorry"

 

[C3Pique]

But there is no good deal to be had. How is staying part of a customs union with zero political power advantageous to Britain? That only benefits Europe. This whole car industry thing is bollox too. The major part of the British economy is services. But please, explain how being part of the customs union and single market is good for Britain without political power.

So you agree we should remain? Glad we're all on the same page.

 

[Oscie]

But there is no good deal to be had. How is staying part of a customs union with zero political power advantageous to Britain? That only benefits Europe.

True. But we "took back control" and voted to remove any political power we had.

 

[Green_Red]

So you agree we should remain? Glad we're all on the same page.

Im not a Brexiter. When the vote was happening I was laughing my bollox off at how stupid British people are for voting for it. But it was voted for and it is happening. That given doesn't mean that you should prove how stupid you really are by allowing Paris, Brussells and Berlin to scaremonger you into a terrible soft brexit deal that costs more, with less benefits and is lopsided in Europes favour.

Long term soft Brexit is not in your economic interest. Think about it... why on earth would Europe let Britain out with a deal that is economically beneficial to Britain. Why would any country stay a member? It will never happen.

 

[C3Pique]

And no deal is better how? The country would be shut down within a week.

 

[Green_Red]

"Do what I want or I will punch myself in the face, then you'll be sorry"

"Give me everything I want, then we'll discuss what you want"

 

[Green_Red]

And no deal is better how? The country would be shut down within a week.

Do you really believe that?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

But there is no good deal to be had. How is staying part of a customs union with zero political power advantageous to Britain? That only benefits Europe. This whole car industry thing is bollox too. The major part of the British economy is services. But please, explain how being part of the customs union and single market is good for Britain without political power.

Of course, being part of the CU/SM without any say is not great but the UK decided to leave, it's the next best thing to actually being in the EU.
The car industry thing is not a red herring, it's not just the car industry , it's manufacturing of all types. It is also to do with the supply of food for one thing.

If the UK has a frictioned border it cannot cope with the delays it can cause nor the administration. What is your solution for the NI border ? Because you're also saying CU/SM is not acceptable.

Yes the main part of the UK economy is services but that also requires equal access only granted the same way.

All options are bad for the UK, it's just what will be the least bad.

 

[Green_Red]

No deal gives you the ability to start fresh. That terrible deal will noose you to Europe. And thats what it is a noose. And Europe are fecking laughing their bolloxs off knowing yous are going to agree to it.

 

[devilish]

They insult us everyday.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

thanks for the advert.

As*hole.

 

[C3Pique]

Do you really believe that?

Ok, let's start with Open Skies, then Euratom. Tell me how they work in this magical No Deal scenario of yours and then we'll get on to the complicated stuff...

 

[devilish]

No deal gives you the ability to start fresh. That terrible deal will noose you to Europe. And thats what it is a noose. And Europe are fecking laughing their bolloxs off knowing yous are going to agree to it.

All countries are 'noosed' to its continent. That's why orange man had backtracked about destroying NAFTA and we're talking about the US, a financial superpower the size of a continent not the UK.

That's the problem with Brexit. The Brexiteers want to cut ties with the very continent they desperately need.

 

[Green_Red]

Of course, being part of the CU/SM without any say is not great but the UK decided to leave, it's the next best thing to actually being in the EU.
The car industry thing is not a red herring, it's not just the car industry , it's manufacturing of all types. It is also to do with the supply of food for one thing.

If the UK has a frictioned border it cannot cope with the delays it can cause nor the administration. What is your solution for the NI border ? Because you're also saying CU/SM is not acceptable.

Yes the main part of the UK economy is services but that also requires equal access only granted the same way.

All options are bad for the UK, it's just what will be the least bad.

You decided to leave, then leave...

Go back and read my suggestion for the NI border. I am from 30 miles from the NI border in Ireland. I think its a reasonable amd achievable suggestion.

Youre in frieght handling so are looking at this in your own way. A European Economic Area Agreement similar to Norways gives the time to work out a proper agreement / deal. Why not use that mechanism?