Brexit Referendum Superthread

solodeogloria

demfad wrote: »

Its actually black and white.

Tate and Lyle will face EXACTLY the same tariffs inside the EU then outside.
This isnt an opinion. I know this because Liam Fox has formerly applied for the UKs post Brexit WTO rates and has instructed the WTO that there is to be NO change to ANY tariff rate whatsoever.

Otherwise any State he changes the rate for will istigate a WTO trade dispute, and the UK will incur sanctions and penalties (where is the sovereignty?). The UK must also set quotas on this trading which they must make favourable to their opponents for the same reason. Every other state will smell blood here.

As regards trade deals the UK must negotiate its EU trade deal first. This will take 10 years and the UK will most likely lose Gibralter and have to commit to not reducing corporation tax. The trade deals that it enjoys under the EU will be lost.
The EU will then have to renegotiate those other deals as they are different now minus the UK. When the EU is finished renegotiating those the UK can negotiate (worse) deals with those countries.
By the time the UK gets around to negotiating its 'new' deals the EU will probably have been there already.
Note: the reason the EU hasnt signed a deal with India is due to UK objections.

The 400,000 jobs projections is ludicrous.
IT counts jobs made from exports not jobs lost from imports.
It counts gains from trade deals the EU already has.
It counts gains from dishing the most 'cumbersome' regulations omitting to mention that any EU regulations it retains puts in under ECJ authority for these regulations.
It doesnt count losses from tarriffs to Europe.
It doesnt acknowledge payments to Nissan and their ilk from the exchequer.
The cumbersome regulations include workers rights, safety, quality.
These will save money for companies but not for teh exchequer. The rport but tehse savings directly into the exchequer.
With less quality products imports into discerning markets like the EU will suffer.

This report definitively showed that elite Brexiters have no plan, never had one and dont care iof it ruins their countrya s long as Brexit is carried out and they dont have to deal with those bogey Europeans anymore.

Good morning,

I think you need to consider what I've said already on this issue.

Firstly, I addressed the WTO issue in reference to Tate Lyle in this post.

I agree with you that the UK would use EU tariffs initially but there's always the option of adjustment following this. There of course is the option of avoiding the most favourable nation rate of the WTO with free trade agreements.

Secondly, I disagreed with the 400,000 figure this post. I'm not a member if Change Britain and I've got my own views. I realise my view is unpopular but this thread shouldn't be an echo chamber. Robust political debate is important.

Thirdly - I agree that the EU deal will take a long time which is why I support a transitional period between leaving and negotiating the EU FTA.

Finally - my position isn't that this isn't a risky option. The least risky option was to remain in the EU and push for reform. I voted remain. The people chose to leave. The question that's left is how can Britain leave in the best way possible.

In my view it's by leaving the single market and customs union and arguing for a FTA with the EU. It's funny that people think that Brexit is a rejection of globalisation. It is in part a rejection of a straight jacket that the EU places on the trade policy of member states which would allow the UK to be more globalised and not less.

EDIT:

View wrote: »

The UK is perfectly free to either:
A) not proceed with Brexit, or,
to proceed with it on the basis that it intends to apply for Schengen and/or EFTA/EEA membership (like Norway, Switzerland etc).

If the UK chooses to do neither of the above then it is choosing not just to overturn the status quo but to exclude any easy possibility of it being extended either on a temporary or more permanent basis.

That though is a matter for the UK to decide.

Given that it is six months after the referendum, it wouldn't have been hard for them to give a clear indication of their preferences for the future of the border. The fault for any lack of clarity on the matter is entirely down to the UK.

No. The European Union don't get a free pass on how they handle Brexit.

The EU can and should recognise that Northern Ireland is a special case and allow the UK and Ireland to sign a bilateral agreement as the House of Lords suggested recently. Enda Kenny needs to consider this as an option.

Both Theresa May and David Davis have been clear that they want an open border.

A) isn't an option. Rejecting democracy is never an option.
this isn't the best option and it doesn't allow addressing the issues raised in the campaign.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the leave side would be honest and acknowledge that losing access to 44% of the export market would be bad and if the remain side would be honest and acknowledge that Britain has every chance of success outside the EU in the right circumstances we'd be a long way closer to an accurate discussion.

But you refuse to acknowledge that the “right circumstances” may not exist – that’s the problem with your whole argument.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the UK government and Irish governments don't want a border and the EU imposes one it is a failure of the EU to the Irish people.

I’m sorry, but that is utter nonsense. How many times did we hear some reference to “taking back control of our borders” during the Brexit campaign?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK can probably sign good free trade deals relatively efficiently with other countries.

That’s a ridiculous assumption. For example, the UK has already effectively been knocked back by India, who are refusing to allow access to the Indian services market without a significant increase in the number of visas granted to Indian nationals. Given the anti-immigration rhetoric doing the rounds in the UK currently, an increase in visa numbers seems highly unlikely.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The point is with the right free trade agreement with the EU the UK can gain hugely from external trade deals with other countries. You've yet to give a good response - claiming it isn't an argument isn't honest.

It’s more accurate to say it’s not an honest argument. It’s the same old “have our cake and eat it” nonsense that Brexiteers have been spouting for months.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree with you that the UK would use EU tariffs initially but there's always the option of adjustment following this. There of course is the option of avoiding the most favourable nation rate of the WTO with free trade agreements.

The adjustment under WTO rules is zero sum. You get something you give it. No other country is in this poor starting position. Re FTAs my point here is that after an FTA with the EU you would have to wait until the EU renegotiated existing treaties to negotiate with those States.
It would take decades even to replicate the amount of FTAs the EU has. Those would be on worse terms logically as the UK market is much smaller (assuming equal competence in negotiation which is far from clear).
The economy will have shrunken considerably by then, with the probability that Growth rate would be even slower all this with the third largest deficict on the planet.

Thirdly - I agree that the EU deal will take a long time which is why I support a transitional period between leaving and negotiating the EU FTA.

And the UK would have to accept all 4 freedoms?

Finally - my position isn't that this isn't a risky option. The least risky option was to remain in the EU and push for reform. I voted remain. The people chose to leave. The question that's left is how can Britain leave in the best way possible.

The high court position is that the decision to invoke article 50 is for the parliament and not for the royal prerogative and not for the advisory referendum. The supreme court is likely to uphold this.
If the Tories wanted a binding referendum they could have made it a binding referendum (as was done with the electoral reform referendum.)
This legal and democratic position has been attacked by the Government at all turns. They tried to force A50 through by royal perogative. Now they are trying again to subvert democracy by issuing a 3 line Act and insisting it must be backed (after 'debate').
The case through the Irish courts is quite serious about A50s revocability.
If it is revocable then the Brexit team must come up with a deal that passes a soft leaning parliament. If it is not revocable then the parliament must pass it as otherwise the UK is dumped out with no deal. Better to shoot yourself on the foot than on the head etc.
If it turns out that public opinion has shifted greatly then a second referendum could be called.
It is utterly contemtible that this Brexit government does not know or care if A50 is revocable. Presumably it is better to look at a house up close for two years before buying than buying it from a photoshopped and dishonest brochure two years out.

solodeogloria

djpbarry wrote: »

But you refuse to acknowledge that the “right circumstances” may not exist – that’s the problem with your whole argument.
I’m sorry, but that is utter nonsense. How many times did we hear some reference to “taking back control of our borders” during the Brexit campaign?
That’s a ridiculous assumption. For example, the UK has already effectively been knocked back by India, who are refusing to allow access to the Indian services market without a significant increase in the number of visas granted to Indian nationals. Given the anti-immigration rhetoric doing the rounds in the UK currently, an increase in visa numbers seems highly unlikely.
It’s more accurate to say it’s not an honest argument. It’s the same old “have our cake and eat it” nonsense that Brexiteers have been spouting for months.

Good afternoon!

If you're going to claim that it's not possible for the UK to sign a third country deal (not single market membership) then please provide some reasons. I've provided my reasons for choosing this option as my preferred option going forward. I'm interested to hear alternatives apart from staying in the EU which is off the cards.

Secondly - there's no appetite amongst anyone to put up a hard border on the Irish or British sides. Therefore if the EU refuses to acknowledge the special situation in respect to Northern Ireland the blame falls rather squarely on them in my view.

Thirdly - The UK hasn't negotiated a free trade deal with India because it is still in the EU. There's a lot of countries who have already expressed interest in FTAs post-Brexit. I've mentioned a few already. There are other countries in the world apart from India but I still wouldn't write them off.

Finally - I'm not arguing for single market membership and therefore I'm not arguing for have my cake and eat it. The deal may be worse than what we have now but cover some of the essential trade between both parties. If that allows for more non-EU trade deals then it's definitely worth it.

Edit: to the other post Free Trade Agreements do not require free movement. It isn't the same as single market membership. That's why South Korea doesn't have free movement with the EU. A transition deal would probably be similar to the status quo.

The result of the referendum is the result. People can complain about democracy but ignoring the people isn't an option from my perspective. Court cases are futile, the government are going to do what the people asked them in June.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

whatstherush

solodeogloria wrote: »

If that allows for more non-EU trade deals then it's definitely worth it.

How can you say this, when you don't know
A: The economic cost of transitioning from single market membership to third party FTA with the EU
B: The economic benefit of any new Non EU trade deals
C: The economic costs of any new Non EU trade deals

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you're going to claim that it's not possible for the UK to sign a third country deal (not single market membership) then please provide some reasons.

I made no such claim. Maybe try responding to what I actually posted, rather than what you assume I posted.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - there's no appetite amongst anyone to put up a hard border on the Irish or British sides.

Once again, you are demonstrating a complete detachment from reality:

Almost half of British voters want to introduce passport checks between the UK and Ireland after Brexit, according to a major new opinion survey.

The report by NatCen Social Research found that 45 per cent backed passport checks on visitors from Ireland, with 29 per cent opposed and 25 per cent with no opinion.

Some 57 per cent of those who voted to leave the EU in June’s referendum back the proposal, compared to just 33 per cent of those who voted to remain.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/brexit-news/almost-half-of-british-voters-favour-passport-checks-with-ireland-after-brexit-1.2870305

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - The UK hasn't negotiated a free trade deal with India because it is still in the EU. There's a lot of countries who have already expressed interest in FTAs post-Brexit. I've mentioned a few already. There are other countries in the world apart from India but I still wouldn't write them off.

You’ve basically just completely ignored the point I made, haven’t you? India has no interest in trading with the UK unless the UK is prepared to make big concessions. This is the bit that Team Brexit seem blissfully unaware of – the world doesn’t owe the UK anything. It might be in the UK’s interest to sign an FTA with country X, but that doesn’t mean its in country X’s interests to do so.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Finally - I'm not arguing for single market membership and therefore I'm not arguing for have my cake and eat it.

You are – you are painting a gloriously rosy picture of life for the UK outside the EU. You are absolutely refusing to acknowledge that it could take a considerable amount of time for the UK to negotiate a deal with the EU and the terms of that deal could be very unfavourable. The same goes for any deals negotiated with other countries. Given the lack of negotiating expertise at Britain’s disposal, something they’ve just exacerbated by inexplicably hounding their most senior EU diplomat out of office and attacking his civil service, any confidence in a positive outcome for the UK from all of this seems altogether misplaced.

It’s obviously possible that the UK may come out of all this rather well. It’s also possible that Donald Trump is just another one of David Bowie’s alter egos, but it’s not very likely, is it?

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Again - you need to provide good reasons why it is unlikely that:
- Britain can get a free trade agreement with the EU (third country)
- Britain can get free trade agreements with other interested countries.

I think it's pretty probable. If Australia can have a free trade agreement with the US, Britain can too. If Iceland can have a free trade deal with China, Britain can too.

If you make claims that this is unlikely you need to present your reasons.

I'm optimistic because there are lots of opportunities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again - you need to provide good reasons why it is unlikely that:
- Britain can get a free trade agreement with the EU (third country)
- Britain can get free trade agreements with other interested countries.

I think it's pretty probable. If Australia can have a free trade agreement with the US, Britain can too. If Iceland can have a free trade deal with China, Britain can too.

If you make claims that this is unlikely you need to present your reasons.

I'm optimistic because there are lots of opportunities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What exactly is your understanding of 'Free Trade Agreement'?

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

EDIT:

View wrote: »

The UK is perfectly free to either:
A) not proceed with Brexit, or,
to proceed with it on the basis that it intends to apply for Schengen and/or EFTA/EEA membership (like Norway, Switzerland etc).

If the UK chooses to do neither of the above then it is choosing not just to overturn the status quo but to exclude any easy possibility of it being extended either on a temporary or more permanent basis.

That though is a matter for the UK to decide.

Given that it is six months after the referendum, it wouldn't have been hard for them to give a clear indication of their preferences for the future of the border. The fault for any lack of clarity on the matter is entirely down to the UK.

No. The European Union don't get a free pass on how they handle Brexit.

The EU can and should recognise that Northern Ireland is a special case and allow the UK and Ireland to sign a bilateral agreement as the House of Lords suggested recently. Enda Kenny needs to consider this as an option.

Both Theresa May and David Davis have been clear that they want an open border.

A) isn't an option. Rejecting democracy is never an option.
this isn't the best option and it doesn't allow addressing the issues raised in the campaign.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

In response and in roughly reverse order:

A) The referendum was advisory, not binding. The UK is free to act on or ignore the advice as it sees fit. There is not much point in holding advisory referenda if countries are bound to implement the advice received, is there?

The Leave campaign promised all sorts of things including both Norwegian & Swiss style arrangements. Both are Schengen members. It is very difficult to see why you believe that part of the Leave message should be ignored and another part allowed to trump it.

Also, need I point out that the Leave message of "Control our borders' was not "Control our borders (except those with Ireland)" and, logically, if acted upon, should mean a complete border fence/wall between the UK & the RoI?

C) The utterances of the UK Ministers routinely contradict each other about Brexit. Until such time as they clearly (& formally) state their position, we can hardly set too much store in them one way or another. Indeed, if I recall correctly, they were at one stage advocating the idea that the UK Border Agency would take over the operations of all our borders. I presume we shouldn't plan on that basis?

D) A bilateral agreement is only possible if it is compatible with our EU membership and its commitments. If, for instance, the UK does not wish to (or cannot) partake in the EU's customs union then we MUST levy customs duties on our borders with them as an EU member. This is not an optional extra and has been a standard part of the ECs/EU since day one.

Therefore, YOU are in fact supporting the idea of border controls (in some fashion or another) on our borders with the UK when you support the idea of them setting different tariff rates which would mean they must be outside the EU's customs union.

And, once again, it is entirely up to them to decide what they intend to do.

Or, is it your preference that we follow them out of the EU and treat their advisory referendum as being binding on us?

E) The EU can only respond when the UK clarifies what it wants, so your point about a "free pass" is clearly premature. There is not much point in the EU drafting a Norwegian style agreement especially for the UK if they don't want one, is there?

ancapailldorcha

Trade deals inherently involve compromise. Therefore, it's better, even for a nation as large as the UK to be part of a huge trading bloc such as the EU. A nation like India is hardly likely to open up its market of over 1.3 billion consumers for access to a market of 5% of what it’s offering. Someone like Narendra Modi will likely want something large in exchange such as more visas for Indians. Free movement would be quite unlikely but easier access is something which would be on the table.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Trade deals inherently involve compromise. Therefore, it's better, even for a nation as large as the UK to be part of a huge trading bloc such as the EU. A nation like India is hardly likely to open up its market of over 1.3 billion consumers for access to a market of 5% of what it’s offering. Someone like Narendra Modi will likely want something large in exchange such as more visas for Indians. Free movement would be quite unlikely but easier access is something which would be on the table.

Good evening!

I agree that all trade deals require comprises. However, most do not require the wholesale surrender of sovereignty as the European Union requires.

The arguments for staying in the European Union aren't workable now that the people have voted to leave. The remain side had the opportunities to make them but the referendum was lost. In hindsight I voted remain due to risks. The people have asked the government to leave. Therefore the only legitimate democratic option is to discuss how to leave.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that all trade deals require comprises. However, most do not require the wholesale surrender of sovereignty as the European Union requires.

This isn't even remotely true. The EU requires pooling of sovereignty in those areas where it has exclusive competence. Describing this as a "wholesale surrender of sovereignty" comes across, with respect, as little better than a UKIP talking point.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that all trade deals require comprises. However, most do not require the wholesale surrender of sovereignty as the European Union requires.

Except there is no such wholesale surrendering of sovereignty. As OscarBravo notes, it's pooled. The UK can wield greater influence as a result of it's membership of the Union.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The arguments for staying in the European Union aren't workable now that the people have voted to leave. The remain side had the opportunities to make them but the referendum was lost. In hindsight I voted remain due to risks. The people have asked the government to leave. Therefore the only legitimate democratic option is to discuss how to leave.

Unless of course they were to vote against leaving in a referendum of the terms. I find it quite telling that so many Brexiteers decry such a referendum despite planning for more membership referendums to hedge their bets. Makes sense given the backing of hedge fund managers for the leave side I suppose.

130Kph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Finally - I'm not arguing for single market membership and therefore I'm not arguing for have my cake and eat it. The deal may be worse than what we have now but cover some of the essential trade between both parties. If that allows for more non-EU trade deals then it's definitely worth it.

The 3 options for a post Brexit UK/EU are:-
a) A worse deal (including no deal)
b) A similar deal
c) A better deal

so if you say the deal MAY be worse than what they have now, it seems to imply that there is a (small?) chance that it could be similar or better than the current one.

Such an implied assertion is “having your cake and eating it”.

Therefore, can you clarify if
this is merely a typo i.e. you meant to say any deal WILL be worse than the current one (EU membership)
or
you do in fact think there could be a be similar or better deal.

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again - you need to provide good reasons why it is unlikely that:
- Britain can get a free trade agreement with the EU (third country)
- Britain can get free trade agreements with other interested countries.

I think it's pretty probable. If Australia can have a free trade agreement with the US, Britain can too. If Iceland can have a free trade deal with China, Britain can too.

If you make claims that this is unlikely you need to present your reasons.

I'm optimistic because there are lots of opportunities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're optimistic? Tell us ... roughly to the number of years ... how long did it take for the USA & Australia to complete their trade deal? And then, if you wouldn't mind, offering us all an explanation as to why something apparently so easy and straight-forward took the length of time it did. After all, it [FTA] is a no-brainer right?

Enzokk

Lemming wrote: »

You're optimistic? Tell us ... roughly to the number of years ... how long did it take for the USA & Australia to complete their trade deal? And then, if you wouldn't mind, offering us all an explanation as to why something apparently so easy and straight-forward took the length of time it did. After all, it [FTA] is a no-brainer right?

The Australia US FTA didn't take long at all to complete. I believe it was negotiated and signed within a year. But the background to the deal was that Prime Minister John Howard wanted to cozy up to GW Bush and in effect forced the deal through.

Funny thing about that deal, seems that it has cost the economies of Australia and the US about $53 billion as they are trading with each other because of the wonderful FTA, but that has meant they have been distorting the market in favour of trade between the 2 countries and bypassing the rest of the world. That trade deal was done for political reasons and rushed through and the effects are only being known now.

So the UK can negotiate quick deals but they could harm themselves even more if those deals have unintended consequences down the road, especially if they go chasing after the big boys in the pond.

The costs of Australias Free Trade Agreement with America

solodeogloria

Lemming wrote: »

You're optimistic? Tell us ... roughly to the number of years ... how long did it take for the USA & Australia to complete their trade deal? And then, if you wouldn't mind, offering us all an explanation as to why something apparently so easy and straight-forward took the length of time it did. After all, it [FTA] is a no-brainer right?

Good evening!

Where did I mention length of time?

I'm simply saying that these options are open to the UK after Brexit whereas as a member of the EU they are firmly shut. What I'm saying is that the best long term strategy for the UK is to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU with a transition period, and then to negotiate free trade deals with other countries. Yes, this is a long term work, but in terms of working out what's best for Britain in the long term, this seems to be it. There are great opportunities here, and I've not heard many good arguments against it.

In response to the other posts "pooling of sovereignty" is another way of saying giving over more control. One can dress it up whatever way they want, the reality is that the British electorate weren't happy to continue in an "ever closer union" that was never defined, and to give up even more control to pursue "closer integration". If anything the EU could have benefited from less integration. But every time a crisis hits, the answer is always "closer integration". I.E - give over more control and more sovereignty.

The result was out. Putting it to another referendum would simply be to disrespect the original verdict. The reality is that it is settled on a democratic level that the UK should leave.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

marienbad

solodeogloria wrote: »

The result was out. Putting it to another referendum would simply be to disrespect the original verdict. The reality is that it is settled on a democratic level that the UK should leave.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Could I ask you if the remain side had won do you think the leave campaign would have continued on to fight for another referendum and if so would that be disrespecting democracy ?

Should Scotland give up on any future independence campaigns ?

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Where did I mention length of time?

I'm simply saying that these options are open to the UK after Brexit whereas as a member of the EU they are firmly shut. What I'm saying is that the best long term strategy for the UK is to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU with a transition period, and then to negotiate free trade deals with other countries. Yes, this is a long term work, but in terms of working out what's best for Britain in the long term, this seems to be it. There are great opportunities here, and I've not heard many good arguments against it.

You, much like most other Brexiters - I know, I know, you allegedly voted remain - keep extoling the virtues of how optimistic you are and about how many wonderful opportunities will present themselves and Britain England will be swimming in FTAs & all sorts of other goodie-bag trade deals. Trade deals take time. They are technical, ergo not easy nor should they be rushed. In the face of that harsh and somewhat unwelcome reality, not once has the human cost-factor come across the lips or I dare say even the minds of most Brexiteer musings I've read or heard thus far.

Hope and optimism is all fine and well, but it will be cold comfort to those left fending for themselves & their families from the proverbial scrap-heap whilst the UK languishes in economic doldrums all the while negotiating or biding its time. Are you prepared to write-off a generation? How about two? Three? How about your own family? Now what happens if other third-party countries decide to play geo-politics at the WTO when Britain's application is considered? I can think of more than a few nations who might stand to either gain or simply make Britain bleed out of malice. Then what? Not once has any of this been considered because politically, the Brexit campaign has been an echo-chamber, devoid of any critical thought or analysis of what the other guy thinks or might be inclined to do; a point underscored by the attempt to politicise the British civil service with "yes" men & women.

Foghladh

Lemming wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Where did I mention length of time?

I'm simply saying that these options are open to the UK after Brexit whereas as a member of the EU they are firmly shut. What I'm saying is that the best long term strategy for the UK is to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU with a transition period, and then to negotiate free trade deals with other countries. Yes, this is a long term work, but in terms of working out what's best for Britain in the long term, this seems to be it. There are great opportunities here, and I've not heard many good arguments against it.

You, much like most other Brexiters - I know, I know, you allegedly voted remain - keep extoling the virtues of how optimistic you are and about how many wonderful opportunities will present themselves and Britain England will be swimming in FTAs & all sorts of other goodie-bag trade deals. Trade deals take time. They are technical, ergo not easy nor should they be rushed. In the face of that harsh and somewhat unwelcome reality, not once has the human cost-factor come across the lips or I dare say even the minds of most Brexiteer musings I've read or heard thus far.

Hope and optimism is all fine and well, but it will be cold comfort to those left fending for themselves & their families from the proverbial scrap-heap whilst the UK languishes in economic doldrums all the while negotiating or biding its time. Are you prepared to write-off a generation? How about two? Three? How about your own family? Now what happens if other third-party countries decide to play geo-politics at the WTO when Britain's application is considered? I can think of more than a few nations who might stand to either gain or simply make Britain bleed out of malice. Then what? Not once has any of this been considered because politically, the Brexit campaign has been an echo-chamber, devoid of any critical thought or analysis of what the other guy thinks or might be inclined to do; a point underscored by the attempt to politicise the British civil service with "yes" men & women.

Gosh! 3 generations fending for themselves on the proverbial scrapheap and that's BEFORE other third party countries decide to play hardball? That is quite the grim scenario you have calculated there

Lemming

Foghladh wrote: »

Gosh! 3 generations fending for themselves on the proverbial scrapheap and that's BEFORE other third party countries decide to play hardball? That is quite the grim scenario you have calculated there

Yawn.

I didn't say three generations would end up fending for themselves. Get over yourself.

solodeogloria

Lemming wrote: »

You, much like most other Brexiters - I know, I know, you allegedly voted remain - keep extoling the virtues of how optimistic you are and about how many wonderful opportunities will present themselves and Britain England will be swimming in FTAs & all sorts of other goodie-bag trade deals. Trade deals take time. They are technical, ergo not easy nor should they be rushed. In the face of that harsh and somewhat unwelcome reality, not once has the human cost-factor come across the lips or I dare say even the minds of most Brexiteer musings I've read or heard thus far.

Hope and optimism is all fine and well, but it will be cold comfort to those left fending for themselves & their families from the proverbial scrap-heap whilst the UK languishes in economic doldrums all the while negotiating or biding its time. Are you prepared to write-off a generation? How about two? Three? How about your own family? Now what happens if other third-party countries decide to play geo-politics at the WTO when Britain's application is considered? I can think of more than a few nations who might stand to either gain or simply make Britain bleed out of malice. Then what? Not once has any of this been considered because politically, the Brexit campaign has been an echo-chamber, devoid of any critical thought or analysis of what the other guy thinks or might be inclined to do; a point underscored by the attempt to politicise the British civil service with "yes" men & women.

Good morning!

You've not provided any reason as to why you think Britain won't be successful post-Brexit in the scenario I've described other than to say that things will be terrible for no reason. Prophesies of doom are not a substitute for an argument.

I'm aware that trade deals take time and need to be done properly.

I've responded to the WTO point here.

For the claim that the Brexit campaign was an echo chamber, I actually think this thread is an echo chamber. Both sides of the argument need to be presented on this thread, not just that everything is going to pot. The opportunities from Brexit also need to be presented.

The reality is that Brexit needs to be handled a day at a time. So far, so good on the economy.. Let's see what Theresa May says this week, but it is inaccurate to say that things are destined for a bad outcome. There are lots of potential advantages from Brexit also, not without risks but I still haven't heard a good reason as to why that is incorrect.

EDIT:

marienbad wrote: »

Could I ask you if the remain side had won do you think the leave campaign would have continued on to fight for another referendum and if so would that be disrespecting democracy ?

Should Scotland give up on any future independence campaigns ?

I would have routinely criticised calling another referendum irrespective of who won. The European question is now finally settled.

The Scottish 'once in a generation' independence question was settled in 2014 and there's no evidence of support now.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You've not provided any reason as to why you think Britain won't be successful post-Brexit in the scenario I've described other than to say that things will be terrible for no reason. Prophesies of doom are not a substitute for an argument.

Why Brexit is a downward economic maths reality; it's simple really. Absurdly simple. Trade deals - as agreed by all and sundry - take time. Considerable length of time to do them well. Then more time to enact them in a legal domestic framework. They take even more time to show whether or not they are of benefit or a hindrance to all parties involved. We're talking several years per trade deal, on top of the time taken to reach and then legally implement a trade deal.

To underscore the magnitude of this, let me remind you that the UK will have to find a way of way of regrowing potentially up to some 48% of total trade. All of which ignores the budgetary deficit that the intervening years inflict on the government coffers, its ability to cover the increased costs of doing business overseas or immigration control, or simply providing national services, including what will be an inevitable rise in welfare costs as money & jobs leave the economy. Businesses engaging with overseas customers may or may not be there several years later to take advantage of any new trade deals because they've folded due to inability to meet the higher costs of restricted trade. And whilst businesses come and go, new ones take time to establish themselves. They require starter capital which may or may not be available (in which case they don't start ... ) and have to grow not only a brand reputation and customer base, but a logistics network too. All of which takes time. Meanwhile Rome burns while Nero fiddles and the third-largest national deficit in the world gets wider.

None of the above has factored in political obstacles by third-parties, such as WTO membership objections and/or disputes, nor whether or not the UK can secure terms remotely favourable in trade negotiations, a point already shown up by the recent disastorous UK-India trade visit.

I've responded to the WTO point here.

Your WTO post does nothing but continue the "it'll be grand" line and offer musings that maybe Britain might join NAFTA - which is admittedly possible but on-par with it being possible that Kayne West might get the nobel prize for science, ergo unlikely in the extreme and akin to holding out for a Unicorn. And your post still continues to ignore the very large elephant in the room; namely what will the other guy do. There are more than a few countries that could (quite conceivably) block Britain's WTO application to either extort material gain or simply to make Britain bleed.

In any case, Liam Fox has requested WTO access with zero changes to UK schedules; so absolutely nothing will change regards tariff restrictions & quotas for trade so Late & Tyle are up the creek.

solodeogloria wrote: »

For the claim that the Brexit campaign was an echo chamber, I actually think this thread is an echo chamber. Both sides of the argument need to be presented on this thread, not just that everything is going to pot. The opportunities from Brexit also need to be presented.

And we have yet to see an actual concrete opportunity presented. By anyone. I'm not just talking about boards.ie here; I mean anywhere. I'm all for presenting both sides of a debate, but when one side's argument consists of holding out hope of finding a unicorn, it's hard to not just want to bang ones head against the desk.

First Up

I think some people also need it explained to them that a trade "deal" is simply the framework under which business is allowed to be done between traders in different countries. 95% of world trade is a private sector activity - private companies in one country decide to do business with a private company in another.

The terms of trade agreed between governments guarantee nothing; they simply set the mandatory conditions that must be met for transactions to be allowed - quality standards, certification, tariffs (if any apply), quotas etc.

This can be a useful enabler for trade but it is still up to exporters to find customers and to compete with alternative suppliers. The buyer has choice.

It is probable that the UK will negotiate trade "deals" with countries such as the US, China etc. and these deals will "allow" business to be done. It remains to be seen what if anything the UK has to offer that make such "deals" any more useful to the private sector than what they have as part of the EU.

What is almost inevitable is that the UK's trade "deal" with the EU will set less advantageous conditions for UK companies selling to customers in the EU. No trade deal could be as good as membership of the Single Market. Paperwork and border delays are inevitable and that's before anything is decided about duties or any non-tariff barriers for some sectors.

This will put UK companies at a disadvantage against competitors in the EU and the 55% of UK exports that go to the EU are almost certain to suffer. To what extent the UK can compensate for this by negotiating "deals" elsewhere that allow UK companies compete better in third markets remains to be seen.

solodeogloria

Good morning,

I'll save the word count and just ask this:

Why do you think it's improbable that the UK can form a trade deal with the EU?

Moreover - why do you think it's improbable that the UK can form trade deals with other countries?

You seem to hold this irrational assumption and it needs to be explained. I've acknowledged this will take time but it isn't in unicorn territory of probability.

The idea that three generations will be impoverished by Brexit is also unfounded fearmongering.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

For the claim that the Brexit campaign was an echo chamber, I actually think this thread is an echo chamber. Both sides of the argument need to be presented on this thread, not just that everything is going to pot. The opportunities from Brexit also need to be presented.

Other than FTAs with other countries what are the opportunities that Brexit will bring? I think many of us are, if you want to call it concerned, about the positive outlook when in reality a FTA is not always beneficial to a country and it takes time to negotiate.

If the UK suffers then Ireland will feel the effect. We have just come out of a tough time and while the economy is now growing, much like the UK it is centered around the city and the country as a whole is still struggling. Wages increases are only now being negotiated and while they have been stagnant costs have been rising which meant that in real terms wages have been falling for almost 8 years. Do you think we want to see the UK suffer?

So by all means if the UK will be fine it will be great news for Ireland as well, but just saying opportunities and free trade agreements doesn't mean it will happen and be fine.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I'll save the word count and just ask this:

Why do you think it's improbable that the UK can form a trade deal with the EU?

Moreover - why do you think it's improbable that the UK can form trade deals with other countries?

You seem to hold this irrational assumption and it needs to be explained. I've acknowledged this will take time but it isn't in unicorn territory of probability.

The idea that three generations will be impoverished by Brexit is also unfounded fearmongering.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leaving aside the EU's consistent declaration that the Four Freedoms are inextricably interdependent, there is no doubt that the UK could negotiate a trade deal with the EU. It would be in both parties' interest.

However, when a economic and political union of 680 million negotiates with a country of 64 million, the balance of power is very evident. It is especially more difficult when the country has made disastrous diplomatic errors and burnt off any lingering goodwill towards it.

Yes there will a trade deal. But it won't be favourable to the UK and it will be negotiated at the EU's pace.

Regarding the UK negotiating trade deals with other countries, of course they will. How long those deals take, considering the UK has very little manpower and expertise to strike these deals, is another matter.

Finally, and this is the crucial point, the UK will be competing with an economic union that is ten times its size and exists right on its doorstep.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Free trade agreements (third country deals) with the EU do not require acceptance of the four freedoms.

Single Market Membership does. That's not what I'm arguing for.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Free trade agreements (third country deals) with the EU do not require acceptance of the four freedoms.

Single Market Membership does. That's not what I'm arguing for.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I really don't see what point you're trying to make.

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,
Why do you think it's improbable that the UK can form a trade deal with the EU?

Moreover - why do you think it's improbable that the UK can form trade deals with other countries?

You seem to hold this irrational assumption and it needs to be explained. I've acknowledged this will take time but it isn't in unicorn territory of probability.

Would you mind pointing out where I have claimed that is it improbable that the UK can form trade deals with other countries and/or the EU? If you wish to comment on irrationality, that you've decided that's what I've said says more about your perspective than mine.

But to help you out by saving you the bother of having to think about it; I have never said that the UK is incapable of negotiating a trade deal with anyone. What I DID say - and you seem to have glossed over in an attempt to sling the word "irrational" at me - was your earlier [WTO] musing that Britain could join NAFTA was highly improbable. As for the rest, Professor Moriarty has succinctly summed it up here

solodeogloria wrote: »

The idea that three generations will be impoverished by Brexit is also unfounded fearmongering.

Oh, and yet another person misses the boat on both the question I asked and what I DIDN'T say.