Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
    Really?

    I'm pointing out to you what an EU equivalent of the current crop of UK Brexit BS about both the EU and the Brexit process might look like.

    Fortunately so far the rubbish thinking has been limited to the UK side. But yes, it is trying to have to wade through. (You're still arguing in bad faith btw.)

    And the EU has been very good for the UK. But as I said, some British will be damned (i.e. Brexit) before conceding this.
    Arguments over the benefits of being in the EU are now moot. The referendum was over to years ago and the democratic decision was to leave.

    The question is now what kind of future the UK should have outside the EU. Whether to have something based on May's Chequers plan where the UK would still be subject to all the EU rules, part of the customs union (but not calling it that) and subject to the ECJ but not have any say in the running of the Union and importantly continuing to make large net contributions OR leaving the EU completely through an agreed free trade deal after two years transition plus the £39bn bar bill OR leaving the EU completely at the end of March and going on to WTO rules with the EU and whatever trade arrangements can be negotiated with countries outside the EU plus importantly not giving the EU the £39bn subsidy.

    Of the three it looks like the EU is going to reject May's proposals (probably because they see no interest in allowing us to harm ourselves). Thus it is either a free trade agreement plus £39bn or WTO from March with no exit charge.

    Personally I think WTO from March would be best - gets it over with quicker, the exit process has dragged on long enough. The longer it goes on for the more the instability in the UK and elsewhere. Also the EU will want to negotiate a free trade agreement eventually anyway as it would be beneficial to both parties.
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

      The question is now what kind of future the UK should have outside the EU. Whether to have something based on May's Chequers plan where the UK would still be subject to all the EU rules, part of the customs union (but not calling it that) and subject to the ECJ but not have any say in the running of the Union and importantly continuing to make large net contributions

      May's Chequers plan is really something quite incredible. I think its got into her head and that of her advisors that a plan that nobody at all actually likes on any side somehow makes it a good compromise.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

        Arguments over the benefits of being in the EU are now moot. The referendum was over to years ago and the democratic decision was to leave.

        The question is now what kind of future the UK should have outside the EU. Whether to have something based on May's Chequers plan where the UK would still be subject to all the EU rules, part of the customs union (but not calling it that) and subject to the ECJ but not have any say in the running of the Union and importantly continuing to make large net contributions OR leaving the EU completely through an agreed free trade deal after two years transition plus the £39bn bar bill OR leaving the EU completely at the end of March and going on to WTO rules with the EU and whatever trade arrangements can be negotiated with countries outside the EU plus importantly not giving the EU the £39bn subsidy.
        £39bn is not a subsidy but more in what UK has pledge to commit to the EU as a whole via various EU wide projects and initiatives as well as pensions. It won't be a single large payment (unless UK so chooses to make) but one lasting until 2040s IIRC (in small quantities). According to what i have understood in response UK would remain participant to those projects for the duration UK's share of funding lasts. I suppose in some sense 'bar bill' could be seen as a metaphor for it - after all it is what UK has ordered but hasn't paid for.
        Of the three it looks like the EU is going to reject May's proposals (probably because they see no interest in allowing us to harm ourselves). Thus it is either a free trade agreement plus £39bn or WTO from March with no exit charge.
        Chequers proposal was dead on arrival. It is worth noting that the £39bn does not 'give' a free trade agreement - it is not any kind of a guarantee for it but it is a prerequisite for anything such - but it should allow for transition period to take place. Even worse for the UK is that there is uncertainty if WTO accepts UK to their schedules. After all several WTO member states have rejected initial UK moves.

        Nothing simple about UK regaining WTO status post-Brexit. Now don't get me or what was posted there in a wrong way. UK would in all likelihood re-establish itself as a WTO member - in a sense. However since the exact allowances for various goods within the WTO for the new UK entity would not be defined it would only become such if and when those are agreed by consensus (not vote) - UK can not impose those by itself. So you really need that transition period even for the WTO model. It is worth noting that the EU likely faces re-negotiations with the other WTO member states because of Brexit but since the EU would continue to exist as a large single market entity those are likely to be much faster than the ones facing the UK which needs to re-establish its separate standing in the WTO.
        Personally I think WTO from March would be best - gets it over with quicker, the exit process has dragged on long enough. The longer it goes on for the more the instability in the UK and elsewhere. Also the EU will want to negotiate a free trade agreement eventually anyway as it would be beneficial to both parties.
        It really would not. Crashing out of the EU without transition period - especially given the utter lack of anything being done for it in the UK - would be harsh and painful. And without any guarantees of WTO trade. Then again you don't strictly speaking need WTO for trading - but you need it for avoiding being discriminated against when trading and for establishing more predictable trade (which is something industry tends to appreciate).
        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
          £39bn is not a subsidy but more in what UK has pledge to commit to the EU as a whole via various EU wide projects and initiatives as well as pensions. It won't be a single large payment (unless UK so chooses to make) but one lasting until 2040s IIRC (in small quantities). According to what i have understood in response UK would remain participant to those projects for the duration UK's share of funding lasts. I suppose in some sense 'bar bill' could be seen as a metaphor for it - after all it is what UK has ordered but hasn't paid for.

          Chequers proposal was dead on arrival. It is worth noting that the £39bn does not 'give' a free trade agreement - it is not any kind of a guarantee for it but it is a prerequisite for anything such - but it should allow for transition period to take place. Even worse for the UK is that there is uncertainty if WTO accepts UK to their schedules. After all several WTO member states have rejected initial UK moves.

          Nothing simple about UK regaining WTO status post-Brexit. Now don't get me or what was posted there in a wrong way. UK would in all likelihood re-establish itself as a WTO member - in a sense. However since the exact allowances for various goods within the WTO for the new UK entity would not be defined it would only become such if and when those are agreed by consensus (not vote) - UK can not impose those by itself. So you really need that transition period even for the WTO model. It is worth noting that the EU likely faces re-negotiations with the other WTO member states because of Brexit but since the EU would continue to exist as a large single market entity those are likely to be much faster than the ones facing the UK which needs to re-establish its separate standing in the WTO.

          It really would not. Crashing out of the EU without transition period - especially given the utter lack of anything being done for it in the UK - would be harsh and painful. And without any guarantees of WTO trade. Then again you don't strictly speaking need WTO for trading - but you need it for avoiding being discriminated against when trading and for establishing more predictable trade (which is something industry tends to appreciate).
          As has already been established, if there is no deal then the UK has no legal obligation to pay the £39bn.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

            As has already been established, if there is no deal then the UK has no legal obligation to pay the £39bn.
            Which matters how for how the UK might try to trade on WTO rules?

            The WTO is after all is being wound down by the US. As the US is blocking new appointments to the WTO arbitration bodies, the WTO is currently set to stop functioning by late 2019. It requires a change of US policy to remain in operation.

            So realistically the UK should probably also prepare to trade on no rules, except bilateral agreement, with no arbitration processes in place.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
              As has already been established, if there is no deal then the UK has no legal obligation to pay the £39bn.
              Only in a similar sense that any country can choose to default their debts without any legal consequences. Sure they can but it won't exactly help in future when trying to agree on something - like say in trying to make trade agreements which generally rely on parties not defaulting. That £39bn is not a price tag of a free trade agreement.
              It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                Only in a similar sense that any country can choose to default their debts without any legal consequences. Sure they can but it won't exactly help in future when trying to agree on something - like say in trying to make trade agreements which generally rely on parties not defaulting. That £39bn is not a price tag of a free trade agreement.
                There is no legal debt. Thus the U.K. would not be defaulting. The £39bn is the price tag of the transition period plus any further arrangements that are agreed. No transition and no further agreements means no payment.
                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post

                  Which matters how for how the UK might try to trade on WTO rules?

                  The WTO is after all is being wound down by the US. As the US is blocking new appointments to the WTO arbitration bodies, the WTO is currently set to stop functioning by late 2019. It requires a change of US policy to remain in operation.

                  So realistically the UK should probably also prepare to trade on no rules, except bilateral agreement, with no arbitration processes in place.
                  Not at all, it was a response to V's point.

                  The WTO option can work and work reasonably well if the government is focused and gets its act together. If WTO ceases in late 2019 then a move to reciprocal tariffs would encourage trade agreements and elimination of trade barriers. Though I suspect if wto goes they would be a global recession similar to the 1930s.
                  Or we could just zero all our own tariffs for a boost to the economy.
                  Last edited by Surrey; 04 Sep 18, 15:10.
                  "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                    Only in a similar sense that any country can choose to default their debts without any legal consequences. Sure they can but it won't exactly help in future when trying to agree on something
                    You don't understand. Brexit is the 'Holy Grail' Its a matter of deep faith and no amount of awkward facts is going to get between the faithful and their eagerly anticipated rapture. 'They' care nothing about rules, regulations or precedent. All that matters is that 'we' free ourselves from the 'shackles of the unelected dictators of the Fourth Reich'. We can't have swarthy Johny Foreigner telling us how to behave. Only the UK that has the right to demand everyone else defers to their feelings on any matter and the quicker the Degos realise this the better it will be for them.
                    The Daily Mail ran a story the other day about the upsurge in support for Scottish Independence and the comments were overwhelmingly along the lines of 'let the buggers go/we are sick of subsidising them/ how will they manage without out money/the oil belongs to England/good riddance etc,etc,etc.
                    The torrent of bile usually reserved for EU citizens shifted effortlessly to the shoulders of the Scots. In short the Little Englanders have a deep and unreasonable hatred for anyone not born in England. They seem not to realise that the South East as a whole is very pro-EU given half the chance would ditch the rest of the country and rejoin the EU. In the main its the failing regions that want to leave not the successful and prosperous parts of the UK.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                      The Daily Mail ran a story the other day about the upsurge in support for Scottish Independence and the comments were overwhelmingly along the lines of 'let the buggers go/we are sick of subsidising them/ how will they manage without out money/the oil belongs to England/good riddance etc,etc,etc.
                      Reminds me of the Soviet Union circa 1990.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        There is no legal debt. Thus the U.K. would not be defaulting.
                        It is there exactly in the same manner. That UK would refuse to honor its commitments is the same thing as defaulting a debt.



                        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        The WTO option can work and work reasonably well if the government is focused and gets its act together. If WTO ceases in late 2019 then a move to reciprocal tariffs would encourage trade agreements and elimination of trade barriers. Though I suspect if wto goes they would be a global recession similar to the 1930s.
                        Loss of WTO would likely result in increasing protectionism and further the enactment of additional trade barriers - after all the whole point of the WTO was to prevent those from hindering global trade. The main 'benefit' of not being in WTO is that you would be able offer preferential treatments to favored customers instead of playing fairly. Which might seem enticing until you remember that so would every one else too.
                        Or we could just zero all our own tariffs for a boost to the economy.
                        And destroy your own industry? Keep in mind that unless UK goes through an economic disaster which would collapse the standard of living (and hence the cost of living) the costs of production in the UK would remain higher than in prospective importers - meaning local production would suffer while those selling stuff into the UK would prosper.
                        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                          You don't understand.
                          I do understand. And i know how little chance there is given the difference in opinions. But unless we try to have a discussion and a fact based transfer of ideas then there would be no chance at all - after all even a slim chance is better than nothing.
                          It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                            A few pints

                            Most MPs in Northern Ireland are Unionist, thus unlikely that Ulster will want to join with Ireland. The last election was post the EU referendum, if there had been large scale support for joining Ireland then there would have been more nationalist MPs.
                            The Scots had their referendum in 2014 and unlikely to have another one for a generation at least so not relevant. The SNP vote actually dropped at the last election.

                            Salmond's wondering hands are not relevant to either Brexit or whether or not Scotland should be independent.
                            It's obvious you don't live here.

                            The irrelevance of Salmond's wandering hands is obvious - since he no longer holds any official position - but the independence movement is stronger than ever in Scotland, hence the (generally pro-Union) press' attempt to discredit it in any way possible.

                            The prevailing opinion in Scotland is that the people of Scotland will decide whether there's another referendum, and no-one else - and those opposed are already running scared.

                            As to Ireland, an all-Irish referendum on reunification would almost certainly result in its success, while most - even in Northern Ireland - do not want a return to a, "Hard Border," which leaving the EU will almost certainly cause. I love the way May's government is falling over backwards to say there will be no such border in Ireland while insisting Scotland must have one. Overall, there's serious discontent in NI, that the people who were so desperate to remain British that they instigated one of the most brutal Civil Wars in History, are being ignored by the government in whose name they committed a catalogue of crimes.

                            Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                              It is there exactly in the same manner. That UK would refuse to honor its commitments is the same thing as defaulting a debt.




                              Loss of WTO would likely result in increasing protectionism and further the enactment of additional trade barriers - after all the whole point of the WTO was to prevent those from hindering global trade. The main 'benefit' of not being in WTO is that you would be able offer preferential treatments to favored customers instead of playing fairly. Which might seem enticing until you remember that so would every one else too.

                              And destroy your own industry? Keep in mind that unless UK goes through an economic disaster which would collapse the standard of living (and hence the cost of living) the costs of production in the UK would remain higher than in prospective importers - meaning local production would suffer while those selling stuff into the UK would prosper.
                              Only inefficient producers gain any benefit from protectionism. Erecting tariff barriers means that you are effectively taxing consumers in order to subsidise special interest groups. The classic example of British Leyland can be used here, it was heavily subsidised to produce poor quality but expensive cars. I see no need to repeat the 70s.

                              If we import cars that are cheaper and/or better quality for same price than those produced here then we benefit. That's how trade works. Would you pay more for a worse product?

                              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by the ace View Post

                                It's obvious you don't live here.

                                The irrelevance of Salmond's wandering hands is obvious - since he no longer holds any official position - but the independence movement is stronger than ever in Scotland, hence the (generally pro-Union) press' attempt to discredit it in any way possible.

                                The prevailing opinion in Scotland is that the people of Scotland will decide whether there's another referendum, and no-one else - and those opposed are already running scared.

                                As to Ireland, an all-Irish referendum on reunification would almost certainly result in its success, while most - even in Northern Ireland - do not want a return to a, "Hard Border," which leaving the EU will almost certainly cause. I love the way May's government is falling over backwards to say there will be no such border in Ireland while insisting Scotland must have one. Overall, there's serious discontent in NI, that the people who were so desperate to remain British that they instigated one of the most brutal Civil Wars in History, are being ignored by the government in whose name they committed a catalogue of crimes.
                                The possible results of an all Irish referendum are irrelevant. It is only the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland that matters here. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, Eire isn't. The northern Irish population may be opposed to a hard border, but they are opposed to joining Ireland more.
                                What 'brutal Civil War'? or are you just spouting terrorist propaganda? Saw an article in the paper a couple of days ago about how your buddies blow up children in Warrington..



                                http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questi...d-now-ask#line

                                Latest Scottish polls on independence show a majority against. In any event another vote would need an act of the UK Parliament which is unlikely to happen for many years. The last one was just four years ago.

                                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X