The Brexit Thread

[f2wohf]

So it is the inflexibilty of the EU that is the problem. Thanks for making the point for me.

Small reminder, the E.U. is not a charity, they owe nothing to the UK, not a FTA neither a reasonable Brexit bill or a fair Brexit.

 

[JayM]

So it is the inflexibilty of the EU that is the problem. Thanks for making the point for me.

I think you'll find that inflexibility is more the UK's problem than the EU. They are after all the ones who have more to lose and should therefore be willing to compromise more.

 

[Vox Populi Vox Dei]

We explained it around 50 times but here are two key points:

- A FTA takes at best 5 years to negotiate, it can be upwards of 10 years.
- It takes two for a FTA, do you have any insight on the E.U. being keen to a FTA?

Well then we just trade on WTO terms in the interim while an FTA is thrashed out. While would the EU not be keen on an FTA? After all, they seem awfully keen to keep the UK in the SM and CU (perhaps only because the UK is the second biggest net contributor to the EU budget and the EU loves people's cash!). The EU has many FTAs. They would have to be rather big dicks not to want an FTA with a great nation like GB, but I can't rule that out especially the EU are now calling the UK a 'security threat' and trying to kick us out of Galileo, something which the UK has contributed literally BILLIONS of pounds.

No deal with the EU? Sounds like a good deal to me

Trading under WTO rules is often presented as ‘disastrous’ — which is alarmist and wrong. A ‘bold and ambitious’ FTA, keeping UK-EU trade largely tariff-free, is obviously the UK’s preference. The Prime Minister has made this clear ever since her Lancaster House speech of January 2017. But if we don’t secure an FTA with the EU by March 2019, we then charge reciprocal WTO tariffs, averaging some 2-3 per cent.

This in no way stops UK trade with the EU, as some gloom-mongers claim. All nations have ‘access’ to the single market, provided regulatory standards are met and the generally low tariffs are paid. The US and China conduct hundreds of billions of dollars of EU trade annually with no FTA; Britain can do the same. We’re well placed to trade with the EU on WTO terms, in fact, as we’d start with full regulatory compliance.

If trading under WTO rules is so bad, how does the UK already sell the majority of its exports beyond the EU, largely under such rules? Non-EU trade generates a surplus and is fast-growing, as opposed to our EU trade, which is shrinking and in deep deficit despite the single market. Britain’s existing trade with the US, our largest single country export destination, is under WTO rules. The EU, given the often conflicting needs of numerous member states, has failed to agree a US trade deal despite 60 years of trying.

Commercial logic, in the shape of the EU’s £71 billion trade surplus with Britain, suggests Brussels should want a UK-EU trade agreement. But a desire to ‘punish’ us, or the refusal of some sub-regional EU parliament outpost to ratify any deal, could prevail. On a purely practical level, then, it’s vital to prepare for WTO trade with the EU by making necessary upgrades to both physical infrastructure and staffing of cross-Channel customs clearance.

This makes strategic sense too. Unless the EU sees Britain is not prepared to sign just about any FTA Brussels puts on the table, we’ll be offered only a bad one. Signing a stinker of an FTA out of desperation to ‘get a deal’ would disadvantage UK exporters and consumers for years.

When Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, existing members changed our entry terms at the very last moment, forcing the UK to give up sovereignty over our fishing waters. Similarly today, the UK will secure an advantageous FTA and ensure it sticks only if we’re willing and able to trade under WTO rules instead.

Once the drama of Brexit is over, beyond March 2019 and any subsequent transition, WTO rules can be used as a ‘platform’ to cut an FTA with the EU under less time pressure, making a better deal more likely. While some UK firms worry that WTO rules will hurt ‘complex supply chains’ across the EU, most manufacturing components are zero-rated so would not attract any tariffs. Our EU deficit also means, under WTO rules, that the UK pays less in export tariffs than it receives, creating several billion pounds in net revenues for the Exchequer each year. The surplus could be used to compensate sectors like cars and agriculture, where tariffs on UK exports are likely to be higher.

‘No deal’ — trading with the EU with no FTA — is an entirely coherent position. It is very different from just ‘walking away’, which means failing to settle administrative issues such as mutual recognition agreements on exports. No one is advocating such an approach. It is unthinkable that existing and uncontroversial EU protocols granted to countless other non-EU members would not apply to Britain. For Brussels to deny such rights would breach WTO and EU treaties, while incensing EU businesses and voters by threatening billions of euros of profit and countless EU jobs.

When it comes to lurid scare stories about planes not flying, Europe’s ‘Open Skies’ agreement applies to many non-EU nations and those outside the single market. The UK boasts a huge aviation industry, with numerous EU-based airlines using our airports. That gives us much leverage.

 

[Vox Populi Vox Dei]

Small reminder, the E.U. is not a charity, they owe nothing to the UK, not a FTA neither a reasonable Brexit bill or a fair Brexit.

True, hence why the UK needs a strong leader (hopefully it doesn't trigger Dave from Sunderland):



By the way, it's not all one way traffic. The EU also has a bit to lose if nothing is agreed.

 

[f2wohf]

Well then we just trade on WTO terms in the interim while an FTA is thrashed out. While would the EU not be keen on an FTA? After all, they seem awfully keep the UK in the SM and CU (perhaps only because the UK is the second biggest net contributor to the EU budget and the EU loves people's cash!). The EU has many FTAs. They would have to be rather big dicks not to want an FTA with a great nation like GB, but I can't rule that out especially the EU are now calling the UK a 'security threat' and trying to kick us out of Galileo, something which the UK has contributed literally BILLIONS of pounds.

No deal with the EU? Sounds like a good deal to me

To make an example out of the UK to make sure that no one else is ever tempted to leave for example?

 

[access]

To make an example out of the UK to make sure that no one else is ever tempted to leave for example?

sounds like the ussr.. lol

actually, its like a competition, demonise russia get the countries to leave them and join the eu. hmm

 

[JayM]

True, hence why the UK needs a strong leader (hopefully it doesn't trigger Dave from Sunderland):

View attachment 535179

By the way, it's not all one way traffic. The EU also has a bit to lose if nothing is agreed.

The point is they have a lot less to lose, and therefore have the upper hand. You are delusional if you think they'll give the UK a FTA including services unless the UK accepts major compromises.

 

[f2wohf]

sounds like the ussr.. lol

actually, its like a competition, demonise russia get the countries to leave them and join the eu. hmm

Merely soft power.

 

[f2wohf]

True, hence why the UK needs a strong leader (hopefully it doesn't trigger Dave from Sunderland):

View attachment 535179

By the way, it's not all one way traffic. The EU also has a bit to lose if nothing is agreed.

I would associate outdated, bigot or delusional with this individual.

Definitely not strong.

 

[C4Cat]

- It takes two for a FTA, do you have any insight on the E.U. being keen to a FTA?

The EU is keen, yes, willing and ready to negotiate a FTA, that's a big part of what the Brexit negotiations are about. Just not the one the UK wants.

https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Council_Ready_To_Negotiate_UK_FTA____76620.html
https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/141238

 

[f2wohf]

The EU is keen, yes, willing and ready to negotiate a FTA, that's a big part of what the Brexit negotiations are about. Just not the one the UK wants.

https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Council_Ready_To_Negotiate_UK_FTA____76620.html
https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/141238

Thanks, didn’t know that.

 

[The_Assimilator]

So it is the inflexibilty of the EU that is the problem. Thanks for making the point for me.

Why, exactly, would you expect the EU to be flexible or accommodating in any way, shape or form, after the UK has essentially just given it a big fat middle finger?

I'm dead serious. If you can give me a decent answer that doesn't boil down to "common decency", I'm willing to hear it. Because there ain't no decency in politics, boyo.

 

[f2wohf]

Why, exactly, would you expect the EU to be flexible or accommodating in any way, shape or form, after the UK has essentially just given it a big fat middle finger?

I'm dead serious. If you can give me a decent answer that doesn't boil down to "common decency", I'm willing to hear it. Because there ain't no decency in politics, boyo.

But he already said that the UK is a great nation, isn’t it enough of a justification?

 

[konfab]

Why, exactly, would you expect the EU to be flexible or accommodating in any way, shape or form, after the UK has essentially just given it a big fat middle finger?

I'm dead serious. If you can give me a decent answer that doesn't boil down to "common decency", I'm willing to hear it. Because there ain't no decency in politics, boyo.

Greed. Them being on good terms with the UK makes them more money.

 

[C4Cat]

Why, exactly, would you expect the EU to be flexible or accommodating in any way, shape or form, after the UK has essentially just given it a big fat middle finger?

I'm dead serious. If you can give me a decent answer that doesn't boil down to "common decency", I'm willing to hear it. Because there ain't no decency in politics, boyo.

Chris_the_Brit is living in La La Land. He thinks we live in a new 'era' and even if the EU collapsed everyone would continue to be nice and accommodating to each other, would be flexible and help each other and simply get along famously, support each other, etc. While somehow, at the same time, being nationalists and prioritizing their own people and country. The EU and UK can't even get this right, if the EU fell to nationalism, like the misguided UK, it would return to war and conflict in Europe, without a doubt.

 

[The_Assimilator]

Greed. Them being on good terms with the UK makes them more money.

There are far larger things at stake here than petty capitalism.

 

[konfab]

Chris_the_Brit is living in La La Land. He thinks we live in a new 'era' and even if the EU collapsed everyone would continue to be nice and accommodating to each other, would be flexible and help each other and simply get along famously, support each other, etc. While somehow, at the same time, being nationalists and prioritizing their own people and country. The EU and UK can't even get this right, if the EU fell to nationalism, like the misguided UK, it would return to war and conflict in Europe, without a doubt.

1) Countries don't need a supranational government to get them to work together. Source: every country not at war with each other outside the EU.
2) Prioritising their own people and country is literally the reason for electing a government democratically. :erm:

What prevents war and conflict is when people can do what they want to do without affecting someone else. I would say at this stage, the EU itself is more of a threat to Europe than its disbandment. Especially given the dependency of debt on the Euro in PIIGS.

 

[C4Cat]

1) Countries don't need a supranational government to get them to work together. Source: every country not at war with each other outside the EU.
2) Prioritising their own people and country is literally the reason for electing a government democratically. :erm:

What prevents war and conflict is when people can do what they want to do without affecting someone else. I would say at this stage, the EU itself is more of a threat to Europe than its disbandment. Especially given the dependency of debt on the Euro in PIIGS.

Given the history of Europe and how nationalism and local disagreements kept Europe in conflict for pretty much all of recorded history, you must be blind or positively naive to think everyone would be friends in the absence of a common union to unite them.

 

[f2wohf]

1) Countries don't need a supranational government to get them to work together. Source: every country not at war with each other outside the EU.
2) Prioritising their own people and country is literally the reason for electing a government democratically. :erm:

What prevents war and conflict is when people can do what they want to do without affecting someone else. I would say at this stage, the EU itself is more of a threat to Europe than its disbandment. Especially given the dependency of debt on the Euro in PIIGS.

1. They don’t need to, they want to. Can you let them do as they deem fit?

2. And how is this not happening in Europe?

2. Because the US, Japan, China, Brazil are not fueled by debt? All major economies except petromonarchies are. How is the EU making any difference? Do you know how often E.U. members were devaluating their currencies before the euro? Was this preferable?

Hint: France devaluated the Franc in 1944, 1945, 1948, 1949, 1957, June 1958, December 1958, 1969, 1981, 1982, 1983. But you know, it must be the euro who’s a risk for stability...

 

[konfab]

Given the history of Europe and how nationalism and local disagreements kept Europe in conflict for pretty much all of recorded history, you must be blind or positively naive to think everyone would be friends in the absence of a common union to unite them.

I suppose the scarcity of resources doesn't play into your explanation of history. Besides you are quoting one side of the argument, most of these are in Europe BTW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties#1900%E2%80%931999

And you haven't answered the points I raised.
1) Why hasn't South Africa declared war on Botswana? We don't have a supranational government stopping us?
2) If a democratically elected government shouldn't prioritise its own citizens, then how much of out taxes should go to Lesotho?

There are a lot of commonalities in Europe besides the f__king EU. Language, Religion, ideas, history, trade. All of these things do not need a supranational government.

Ironically what actually keeps the peace between wildly different communities are strong and well defined borders.

Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups, allowing for partial autonomy within a single country.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095660

How does a country like Switzerland, which is not part of the EU fit into your thesis? Do you think Switzerland is going to declare war on everyone who is not part of Switzerland?