Brexit discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good answer, bravo.

Thanks. I think it's a fair reflection of the reality that the loss of the 8 billion won't be a factor in the negotiations. It's simply a red herring. Much like Boris, Davies and May's assertion that there would be parallel talks. Bluff and bluster. The EU will tell them the terms under which they can leave and the Tories will have to take it or leave it. That's what's going to happen. The 'negotiations' are a pretence.

BlitzKrieg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The cost of these count towards eu expenditure in the UK, but these institutions will continue elsewhere, so will need to be paid for.

Are we talking about the cost to keep running those institutions or the cost to move them out of the UK?

Because my understanding is that the first point is already accounted for in the budget and depending on where those institutions go might be affected by a country's willingness or ability to pay for hole left by the UK (paying money into a budget when you know that money is going to come right back to you in part as you play host to a selection of new rentals and hires etc from the EU) it will very much still an issue for that country in other ways.

And the second issue is my understanding to be part of the problem with the whole debate over the UK's departure bill.

Capt'n Midnight

123shooter wrote: »

The UK's net contribution is approx £9 billion, so when the UK goes the EU is going to be missing £9 billion or approx 10.25 billion euro after whatever money the EU can squeeze out of the UK on leaving.

Considering the UK bill is some fraction of One Hundred Billion it should cover a few years contributions.

Have you factored in the costs to the UK ?
travel visa's and stuff ?
look at how much stuff has gone up due to the fall in Sterling, now add the same again for WTO tariffs.


There's this http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39785018 , which is happening and a lot more than the €84 figure you handwaved which even if it was true would be more than covered by the Water refunds.

Fratton Fred

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Are we talking about the cost to keep running those institutions or the cost to move them out of the UK?

Because my understanding is that the first point is already accounted for in the budget and depending on where those institutions go might be affected by a country's willingness or ability to pay for hole left by the UK (paying money into a budget when you know that money is going to come right back to you in part as you play host to a selection of new rentals and hires etc from the EU) it will very much still an issue for that country in other ways.

And the second issue is my understanding to be part of the problem with the whole debate over the UK's departure bill.

The existing cost to run those institutions.

The eu want the UK to pay the full cost of moving those institutions, which seems to be a bit of gamesmanship to me.

Enzokk

ambro25 wrote: »

According to the news at the time, Trump didn't say much of anything, Macron did all the talking.

I don't believe Macron is asserting his popularity at home: he doesn't need to, after burying left-right politics in France, and Marine LePen in passing, 2 months ago. And then cleaning up at the GE with a boatload of newbie deputes a month later or so.

I believe he's trying his hand at realpolitik early, intent on fully seizing the opportunities opened by Brexit. A viewpoint supported by his hard stance about the UK (reportedly the hardest amongst the EU27) and 'nabbing' a home visit from Trump under Teresa's nose.

Trump's an odious joke, for sure...but at the end of the day, he's still POTUS, for now at least. And he has yet to set foot in the 'special friend' UK. Actions, words and all that.

In fairness he will be absolutely booed out of the UK and with a skin as thin as his there is no way he is going to the UK anytime soon. That isn't to say he will not still keep the relationship with the UK closer to any other countries, just that he will not visit right now.

I don't think you can take anything Trump does as meaning anything. He has said that the US has had some terrible trade deals in the past and he wants to pull out of some and future ones will be for the benefit of the US. At the same time he wants a trade deal done quickly for the UK. So are we to assume he wants a quick deal to help the UK? Or a quick deal to screw the UK over?

With Trump you just don't take anything he says seriously as he is a known liar and will change his mind if he wants to. Any proclamations will need to be taken with a pinch of salt as well. China was a currency manipulator until he visited them and they weren't. Qatar is a enemy because they support terrorism, although they are the US biggest ally with their biggest air base in the Middle East from where the US launch anti-terror raids against ISIS.

Any case that is neither here nor there with Brexit, other than the purported deal that the UK wants may not be the deal that they need.

BlitzKrieg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The existing cost to run those institutions.

As I said my understanding the cost of running those institutions would be part of the EU budget already. The buildings and staff the EU currently rent and hire within the UK are not given freely by the british government.

For example (https://www.ft.com/content/4ad548c6-2b58-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7?mhq5j=e1)

So we know the EU was already paying for the lease on these buildings in canary wharf and that cost would exist somewhere in the current EU budget. Them being based in the UK or in another EU country wont change that bill (debatable if they might get cheaper lease terms in another EU country) so there is no increased cost to the running these facilities beyond the cost we've already acknowledged from the Uk's departure from the budget.

The eu want the UK to pay the full cost of moving those institutions, which seems to be a bit of gamesmanship to me.

*shrug* that will be one of the key points of the debate over the divorce bill, I dont think it's unfair to ask the UK to contribute to the cos, in terms of paying for the full move, that may be the position, but considering the other EU countries are bidding to take over hosting these institutions I wont be surprised if each them will throw something into the hat to make them the preferred choice which the EU will use in the actual negotiations. It might in the end work somewhat in the UK's favour when somewhere like Spain offers to cover some of the cost to relocate the EMA if it is relocated to Barcelona. But at the very least I would expect the UK would be required to pay off the leases of the buildings, which is still the biggest piece of the cost (at least with the EMA).

Bushmanpm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Nah. Britain flouncing with their 8 billion isn't the body blow you wish it was.

By the various calculations I've seen its more in the region of aprx 10.8 bn. In Sterling. Bearing in mind, when exactly did the EU publish any form of meaningful, accurate and reliable accounts? 15 years ago? 20 years ago? And let's just pray its not by the same accountants, Goldman Sachs, who said Greece's finances were fine for joining the EU because THAT ended well, didn't it?! If the EU was a business not many would want to trade with them for that one point alone, but I digress.
At today's FX rate of 1 to 1.14 that 10.8bn would result in a net contribution of 12.312 bn Euro, as in 12,312,000,000 Euro. Hardly a "small change down the back of the sofa" sum of money. Mentioned earlier was a total sum from all 28 at 140bn PA IIRC so that 12.3bn from the UK WILL leave a hole.

BlitzKrieg

Bushmanpm wrote: »

By the various calculations I've seen its more in the region of aprx 10.8 bn. In Sterling. Bearing in mind, when exactly did the EU publish any form of meaningful, accurate and reliable accounts?

reliable accurate accounts of the revenue for 2015 - 2012 (2016 account should be ready soon) with page numbers and total percentage of EU budget underneath

2015: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2015/lib/financial_report_2015_en.pdf

page: 31
total: 15.6%

2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2014/lib/financial_report_2014_en.pdf

page: 36

total: 10.6%

2013
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2013/lib/financial_report_2013_en.pdf

page 40

total: 12.2%

2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2012/pdf/financialreport-2012_en.pdf

page 36

total: 12.5%

interesting how the rebate works.

its calculated based of the payment the UK made the previous year and that amount is deducted from the UK's cost at the next budget by spreading the cost across the other EU members to cover (with France getting the lions share) So you can see how much the UK rebate costs the other member states each year.

This year's report should be quite interesting as the UK should receive its biggest rebate as it was a much higher contributor in 2016 then usual.

It also means the last rebate would probably be part of the brexit bill negotiations I imagine as it cant come as part of the next budget as normal.


There are other graphs in there that are interesting, such as the amount spent by the EU directly on each country etc etc.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu want the UK to pay the full cost of moving those institutions, which seems to be a bit of gamesmanship to me.

Why? If a member state bids for an institution then changes its mind about membership itself, surely that member state which bid for the institution in the first place should compensate the union for the costs of moving it somewhere else. These costs are arising solely due to the member state's departure.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Considering the UK bill is some fraction of One Hundred Billion it should cover a few years contributions.

Have you factored in the costs to the UK ?
travel visa's and stuff ?
look at how much stuff has gone up due to the fall in Sterling, now add the same again for WTO tariffs.


There's this http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39785018 , which is happening and a lot more than the €84 figure you handwaved which even if it was true would be more than covered by the Water refunds.

Good morning,

It's worth balancing some of the fear mongering on this thread.

There are options for tariff free trade with the European Union without being a member of the single market. One point that hasn't been responded to on this thread is that there are also options for passporting financial services from outside the European Union provided that there is regulatory equivalence. This is outlined in MiFID II.

Even if the UK were on WTO tariffs it wouldn't be the end of the world. It is a very bad outcome but the British economy can weather it.

As for travel visas - I can't imagine it being very cumbersome. It would probably be on a waiver in most countries anyway.

The fall in sterling is an interesting one. A fall was predicted in 2015 even if we didn't leave the European Union because sterling has been overvalued for a long time. IMF even warned about it in July 2015. The value of a currency isn't the only yardstick. Devaluing currency can be beneficial. Some central banks even force devaluation.

There are of course challenges to Brexit but I would love some of the hard remainers to acknowledge that there are lots of opportunities also.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are of course challenges to Brexit but I would love some of the hard remainers to acknowledge that there are lots of opportunities also.

It would be easy to acknowledge them if you could actually give some specifics instead of just saying that they exist.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It would be easy to acknowledge them if you could actually give some specifics instead of just saying that they exist.

Good morning,

I've listed them all on numerous occasions before. To claim that I haven't is lying.

Freedom to have progressive trade deals on goods and services with other countries globally is a huge advantage that Britain will have after leaving.

You claim that this is vague but it isn't. It's a fantastic opportunity for Britain to expand trade with some of its biggest trading partners and to seek trade elsewhere.

Alongside with a free trade deal from the EU and MiFID II equivalence this would be a huge boon for Britain and a great reason why companies would want to set up shop there.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've listed them all on numerous occasions before. To claim that I haven't is lying.

You haven't. Not once. You've just oscillated between sneering at anyone concerned about Brexit and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of fearmongering or lying.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You haven't. Not once. You've just oscillated between sneering at anyone concerned about Brexit and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of fearmongering or lying.

Good morning,

Yes I have. In dozens of posts.

I've posted a huge advantage to you again in respect to trading arrangements with other countries.

Expanding trading arrangements with the £259bn share of UK trade by removing tariffs would be huge. The United States and China make up over £100bn of that together. There are huge opportunities for expanding this with a FTA after being unburdened with EU restrictions.

That is too good an opportunity to turn down.

To claim that that isn't an advantage is a lie. I'm not interested in playing games but in having a discussion based on reality.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Err carrier, singular, not plural.

It's currently in dry dock in Toulon on an 18 month refit.

Unless the UK government demonstrated some sudden bout of negotiating prowess (for a change), and magically managed to shackle itself off from its contractual commitments (under the clauses of which it would cost more to cancel the extra one than to build it: kudos to the private sector negotiators and legal team :pac:), of which I am obviously unaware, the UK is building two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, at a combined cost of £6.2bn: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Freedom to have progressive trade deals on goods and services with other countries globally is a huge advantage that Britain will have after leaving.

OK, let's talk about that "freedom".

Firstly, trade deals typically take 5-10 years to negotiate, so even if they start now (and they won't, see below), we might see these deals coming into effect from 2022-2027. The UK economy will be very, very badly damaged in the interim.

Secondly, trade deals require that the UK has a team of trade negotiators. Right now, they have none since they ceded that role to the EU 40 years ago. Any they can get will be busy negotiating Brexit for the next 2-5 years.

Thirdly, the UK has a very weak hand in any such negotiation. We have already seen India state baldly that there will be no such deal without increased access for Indians to the UK labour market, precisely what the UK is leaving the EU to limit.

Fourthly, the UK has a big trade deficit in goods, and make up the difference in services. Free trade deals do not generally include services. Such manufacturing as is left is in things like Airbus wings (hosed), nuclear (hosed), Japanese/German/Indian cars for Europe (hosed). Pharma (very mobile) and electronics (likewise) are liable to move for EU access. Pharma, electronics, space and especially nuclear will all be badly affected by hostility to immigration and international co-operation.

Defence is probably a banker - outside the EU, the UK can build up their arms dealing industries, a traditional industry for countries trying to go it alone like South Africa, Israel, and to a lesser degree Sweden before the EU.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I've listed them all on numerous occasions before. To claim that I haven't is lying.

Freedom to have progressive trade deals on goods and services with other countries globally is a huge advantage that Britain will have after leaving.

You claim that this is vague but it isn't. It's a fantastic opportunity for Britain to expand trade with some of its biggest trading partners and to seek trade elsewhere.

Alongside with a free trade deal from the EU and MiFID II equivalence this would be a huge boon for Britain and a great reason why companies would want to set up shop there.

This doesn't really stack up, solo. By leaving the EU, the UK is leaving the largest and freest free trade deal the world has ever seen. Fully half of the UK's trade is done under this deal. Anyone who thinks that free trade deals are a Good Thing should be instinctively opposed to Brexit.

But that's not all. Of the other half of the UK's foreign trade, a large chunk is done under the EU's network of free trade agreements with the rest of the world. Brexit means pulling out of those free trade deals as well.

All of which means that the UK is going to have to do a huge amount of reinventing of wheels, simply in order to get back to the level of free trade that it currently enjoys. Actually improving the position regarding the UK's trade requires the UK to negotiate a better network of free trade deals than the EU has negotiated, and that's counting the European Treaties themselves.

Given that the UK is not going to participate in the Single Market, so the 50% of its trade that it conducts with the EU-27 is going to be conducted on more restrictive terms than at present and the only question is how much more more restrictive it can be, and given that in negotiating with the rest of the world the UK has much less negotiating muscle than the EU has and holds rather fewer cards, the notion that the UK will, overall, end up in a better position as regards freedom of trade seems rather far-fetched. No offence, but it's little more than wishful thinking.

I've seen lots of Brexiters - yourself included - express confidence in this happy outcome, but I have yet to see any of them explain in a plausible way how they think this can be achieved, or why the are so confident that it will be. When you raise the question they either adopt a Liam Fox-like belief in the Triump of the Will, or they fall strangely silent.

First Up

Meanwhile Davies treated yesterday's start of Brexit negotiations as a photo opportunity and only stayed an hour.

The photo sums it up; EU team with their papers in front of them, ready to go. The UK team grinning inanely with nothing (both literally and metaphorically) on the table.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

The photo sums it up; EU team with their papers in front of them, ready to go. The UK team grinning inanely with nothing (both literally and metaphorically) on the table.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

But that's not all. Of the other half of the UK's foreign trade, a large chunk is done under the EU's network of free trade agreements with the rest of the world. Brexit means pulling out of those free trade deals as well.

This is the bit lost on many Brexiteers. Britain will negotiate its new trade agreements with about 10% of the negotiating strength it had as part of the EU.

Why should China or Japan offer Britain better terms than they have the EU?

It is more nonsensical fantasy - just like expecting former colonies thousands of miles away to fill the hole in their exports after they are turfed out of the single market.

swampgas

The EU is preparing to call the UK out on their inability to get their act together - and may state they will stall the negotiations until the UK bring something realistic to the table.
http://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-prepared-to-stall-brexit-talks-over-uk-bill/

"According to the diplomats, the message Barnier planned to deliver, while not quite an ultimatum, was intended to convey his view that negotiations were futile without better engagement by the British side.

'Financial settlement is the priority,' one EU diplomat said. 'The EU will not walk away from talks but will stall them.' The diplomat added, 'The impression we got so far is that the U.K. is not ready for these talks.'"

DaniilKharms

swampgas wrote: »

The EU is preparing to call the UK out on their inability to get their act together - and may state they will stall the negotiations until the UK bring something realistic to the table.
http://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-prepared-to-stall-brexit-talks-over-uk-bill/

"According to the diplomats, the message Barnier planned to deliver, while not quite an ultimatum, was intended to convey his view that negotiations were futile without better engagement by the British side.

'Financial settlement is the priority,' one EU diplomat said. 'The EU will not walk away from talks but will stall them.' The diplomat added, 'The impression we got so far is that the U.K. is not ready for these talks.'"

It's the impression EVERYONE has.

Sure, the UK team is on par with Trump Co for undercutting their own positions on a daily basis and for looking like amateurs in a world of professionals.

DaniilKharms

Peregrinus wrote: »

This doesn't really stack up, solo. By leaving the EU, the UK is leaving the largest and freest free trade deal the world has ever seen. Fully half of the UK's trade is done under this deal. Anyone who thinks that free trade deals are a Good Thing should be instinctively opposed to Brexit.

But that's not all. Of the other half of the UK's foreign trade, a large chunk is done under the EU's network of free trade agreements with the rest of the world. Brexit means pulling out of those free trade deals as well.

All of which means that the UK is going to have to do a huge amount of reinventing of wheels, simply in order to get back to the level of free trade that it currently enjoys. Actually improving the position regarding the UK's trade requires the UK to negotiate a better network of free trade deals than the EU has negotiated, and that's counting the European Treaties themselves.

Given that the UK is not going to participate in the Single Market, so the 50% of its trade that it conducts with the EU-27 is going to be conducted on more restrictive terms than at present and the only question is how much more more restrictive it can be, and given that in negotiating with the rest of the world the UK has much less negotiating muscle than the EU has and holds rather fewer cards, the notion that the UK will, overall, end up in a better position as regards freedom of trade seems rather far-fetched. No offence, but it's little more than wishful thinking.

I've seen lots of Brexiters - yourself included - express confidence in this happy outcome, but I have yet to see any of them explain in a plausible way how they think this can be achieved, or why the are so confident that it will be. When you raise the question they either adopt a Liam Fox-like belief in the Triump of the Will, or they fall strangely silent.

Add to that the team responsible for making POST-Brexit a success is the same one that can't seem to even make the lead up to the negotiations a success.

Gross incompetence doesn't inspire confidence.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This makes perfect sense. Davies didn't bring any position papers because the EU wouldn't read them. Barnier will hand over those stacks of papers to Davies. They are the terms under which Britain can leave the UK. They will be told to take it or leave it.

Chips Lovell

We've removed a few posts that weren't up to the standard expected of this forum. Please read the charter, in particular:

High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are required. Repeated one liner, low quality style posts will result in a ban. Threads (and posts) that are not based on serious and legitimate Political discussion will be deleted without warning.

Bushmanpm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

This makes perfect sense. Davies didn't bring any position papers because the EU wouldn't read them. Barnier will hand over those stacks of papers to Davies. They are the terms under which Britain can leave the UK. They will be told to take it or leave it.

"...because the EU wouldn't read them" ???
Well THATS constructive and helpful! Yet he's being criticised for NOT bringing anything. Can't win can he?

"...will be told to take it or leave it"
Wow! That's quite some negotiating tactic right there! And the UK are being criticised d by THEIR approach? Quite the tunnel vision going on. If both sides here on boards could at least agree that there's a fair amount of sabre rattling and brinkmanship going on with BOTH sides (not just the one you disagree with) that would be a better approach.

And as for that photo, oldest trick in the book: get a clipboard or some paperwork and look busy and important.

First Up

Bushmanpm wrote:

And as for that photo, oldest trick in the book: get a clipboard or some paperwork and look busy and important.

As opposed to looking what?

solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This makes perfect sense. Davies didn't bring any position papers because the EU wouldn't read them. Barnier will hand over those stacks of papers to Davies. They are the terms under which Britain can leave the UK. They will be told to take it or leave it.

Good afternoon!

If that's how a "negotiation" works with the EU, I'm more than happy to say au revoir, adiós and auf wiedersehen to it.

If that's how the EU works then I'm delighted that the UK is going out and hope it stays out.

Unlike you - I think the UK has a stronger hand than you think. The EU needs continued relations with the UK, in trade, in security and in diplomacy.

I'm also pretty sure that Davis had documents. It's a good idea to put them away for photos due to the risk of leaks. There have been quite a lot in Whitehall lately. Also officials were still negotiating when Davis left so it's a moot point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

Bushmanpm wrote: »

"...because the EU wouldn't read them" ???
Well THATS constructive and helpful! Yet he's being criticised for NOT bringing anything. Can't win can he?

"...will be told to take it or leave it"
Wow! That's quite some negotiating tactic right there! And the UK are being criticised d by THEIR approach? Quite the tunnel vision going on. If both sides here on boards could at least agree that there's a fair amount of sabre rattling and brinkmanship going on with BOTH sides (not just the one you disagree with) that would be a better approach.

And as for that photo, oldest trick in the book: get a clipboard or some paperwork and look busy and important.

What is there to negotiate? Britain wants to leave - here's the terms. If they don't like it, who cares? What are they going to do? They have three options:
1. Flounce off with no deal.
2. Stay under current arrangements.
3. Agree to the EU's terms.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If that's how a "negotiation" works with the EU, I'm more than happy to say au revoir, adiós and auf wiedersehen to it.

If that's how the EU works then I'm delighted that the UK is going out and hope it stays out.

Unlike you - I think the UK has a stronger hand than you think. The EU needs continued relations with the UK, in trade, in security and in diplomacy.

I'm also pretty sure that Davis had documents. It's a good idea to put them away for photos due to the risk of leaks. There have been quite a lot in Whitehall lately. Also officials were still negotiating when Davis left so it's a moot point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Indeed the UK has a strong hand. But the EU's is infinitely stronger because Britain has far more to lose than the EU. So they will accept the EU's terms. They've being doing exactly that to date.

Regarding how things work politically in relation to Brexit. How's the EU doing? How's Britain getting on?

Calina

I think that is an over simplified view of matters.

The first item on the agenda which is very negotiable is the exit settlement.

The default no negotiations is crash out. Mitigation for both sides can be negotiated. The issue is the the UK desperately needs help from soneone who has a clue.

I am fully in favour of the EU negotiating strongly in its interest. That is its role. But while the UK has a very poor position, there are still details to be worked out. The UK can negotiate those if they can find a detail oriented negotiator.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

<big pic>

I prefer Ben Jennings' interpretation:



:pac::D

Calina wrote: »

<...>

The first item on the agenda which is very negotiable is the exit settlement.

The default no negotiations is crash out. Mitigation for both sides can be negotiated. The issue is the the UK desperately needs help from soneone who has a clue.

<...>

From the various UK position papers output by -one presumes- Whitehall about the core issues of the exit settlement, I pretty much doubt that "someone who has a clue" and a "details-oriented negotiatior" would suffice, in the circumstances.

Particularly given the deal-notionally-agreed-by-October-2018 timescale, once you've factored in the delaying factor of the GE, and 2 Parliamentary summer recesses (why aren't they foregoing their holidays to continue Parliamentary work about something as important to the UK as Brexit?)

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

This is the bit lost on many Brexiteers. Britain will negotiate its new trade agreements with about 10% of the negotiating strength it had as part of the EU.

Why should China or Japan offer Britain better terms than they have the EU?

It is more nonsensical fantasy - just like expecting former colonies thousands of miles away to fill the hole in their exports after they are turfed out of the single market.

The logic is and one that I believe has some merits, is that the UK can negotiate a deal with China (or whoever) that doesn't need to reflect the needs of the Flemish Farming community or Czech Visa requirements.

Trade deals aren't just based on the size of the party involved, like any commercial transaction, they reflect the commercial value of each party to the other.

For example, a coffee shop in Cork might get a 20% discount off the local dairy because they use 50 litres of milk per day. Apple may also buy milk off the local dairy, but despite them being the biggest company on the planet, only buy 10 litres of milk per day, so the dairy only gives them a 5% discount.

As we all know lads, size isn't everything.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Trade deals aren't just based on the size of the party involved, like any commercial transaction, they reflect the commercial value of each party to the other.

For example, a coffee shop in Cork might get a 20% discount off the local dairy because they use 50 litres of milk per day. Apple may also buy milk off the local dairy, but despite them being the biggest company on the planet, only buy 10 litres of milk per day, so the dairy only gives them a 5% discount.

As we all know lads, size isn't everything.

What would the UK buy more of from China than the EU?

Your coffee shop example is not valid here anyway. The UK government when negotiating the FTA can't guarantee to buy anything from China and the EU is always more likely being 9 times the size of the UK to "buy more Chinese stuff", so we're back to size mattering.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

What would the UK buy more of from China than the EU?

Your coffee shop example is not valid here anyway. The UK government when negotiating the FTA can't guarantee to buy anything from China and the EU is always more likely being 9 times the size of the UK to "buy more Chinese stuff", so we're back to size mattering.

China is probably a bad example, because it is such a massive market for pretty much everyone.

Not necessarily more of something, but the eu has very protectionist policies when it comes to imports from outside the eu, so it may be that the UK is just a far more attractive market for certain goods.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

China is probably a bad example, because it is such a massive market for pretty much everyone.

Not necessarily more of something, but the eu has very protectionist policies when it comes to imports from outside the eu, so it may be that the UK is just a far more attractive market for certain goods.

Yes, that's true. But given the scale of the free trade agreements that the UK is walking away from through Brexit, both in terms of the size of the markets and the range of goods and services covered, the notion that they can compensate for this through good deals focussed on the "certain goods" for which the UK is a more attractive market than the EU is not very plausible. Off-hand, I can't think of any goods for which UK imports would exceed EU-27 imports, except maybe good for which the UK is a net importer and the EU-27 is a next exporter, like wine. And if the UK's trade deal strategy amounts to doing deals with China and India on the basis that they'll buy lots of Chinese and Indian wine, well, good luck with that.

View

Calina wrote: »

I think that is an over simplified view of matters.

The first item on the agenda which is very negotiable is the exit settlement.

Actually the ONLY items on the agenda all relate to the exit settlement. There aren't going to be any negotiations on a possible transition period, much less a possible post-Brexit deal, until the majority of the exit settlement is agreed with only a few minor points left over.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This makes perfect sense. Davies didn't bring any position papers because the EU wouldn't read them. Barnier will hand over those stacks of papers to Davies. They are the terms under which Britain can leave the UK. They will be told to take it or leave it.

Good afternoon!

If that's how a "negotiation" works with the EU, I'm more than happy to say au revoir, adiós and auf wiedersehen to it.

That's how negotiations with all major economic players work. When "Team USA" walk in the room, they are there to maximise the deal they can get for the USA; they are not going to throw any part of the US economy under a bus so that the UK's Brexit politicians can have an easy win.

Professor Moriarty

Further to the idea that 'No deal is better than a bad deal', Moody's paint a very grim picture of that scenario:

For the UK, such a “no deal” scenario would result in weaker macroeconomic outturns, including slower growth or outright recession as well as higher unemployment and inflation.

Possible restrictions on immigration could also exacerbate skill shortages in certain sectors. One key adjustment channel in these circumstances would be the exchange rate, which was likely fall sharply, Moody’s said.

On a corporate level, UK firms would be severely hit by trade disruption. “A weaker economy would clearly weigh on corporate credit metrics, with reduced domestic demand eroding revenues and profitability,” it said.

Companies reliant on “just-in-time supply chains” could also be severely affected by increased border inspections.

Infrastructural operators in the UK, it said, would be hit in different ways with some only suffering moderately with others more severely impacted.

While domestically regulated networks and water companies would be insulated from cyclical developments, an economic slowdown might negatively affect UK bus and rail companies, for instance, albeit the impact would be partly mitigated by limited direct EU exposure.

For airports, aviation and ports, however, Moody’s said the impact could be more substantial “or even dramatic”, reflecting the loss of institutional arrangements that the UK enjoys as an EU member.


Reports like this simply strengthen the EU's hand.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, that's true. But given the scale of the free trade agreements that the UK is walking away from through Brexit, both in terms of the size of the markets and the range of goods and services covered, the notion that they can compensate for this through good deals focussed on the "certain goods" for which the UK is a more attractive market than the EU is not very plausible. Off-hand, I can't think of any goods for which UK imports would exceed EU-27 imports, except maybe good for which the UK is a net importer and the EU-27 is a next exporter, like wine. And if the UK's trade deal strategy amounts to doing deals with China and India on the basis that they'll buy lots of Chinese and Indian wine, well, good luck with that.

Don't knock Indian wine

That's the principle, I didn't say it was water tight.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The logic is and one that I believe has some merits, is that the UK can negotiate a deal with China (or whoever) that doesn't need to reflect the needs of the Flemish Farming community or Czech Visa requirements.

Let's explore that logic for a minute. You are saying that the UK's access to the Chinese (for example) market is constrained because it has to enforce EU tariffs or restrictions on some Chinese (for example) imports that threaten sectional or regional interest in other EU member states, causing China to retaliate with restrictions on EU exports.

The logic being that once free from the shackels of EU trade negotiations, the UK will be able to access bits of the Chinese (for example) market that are currently closed or protected.

So what will persuade China to grant greater access to UK exports than it will grant to the EU 27? Which bits of the UK market are currently off limits to China to the extent that their opening would persuade China to reciprocate?

Given that the UK has less than 13% of the EU's population and 17% of its GDP, those bits of the UK market would need to be very juicy indeed to win that argument.

The UK's starting position in its third party (non EU) trade arrangements will be to ask that it continue under the terms of the EU's trade deals until such time as new arrangements can be negotiated (and we are talking years).

This would be the ideal outcome for the UK for three reasons; (1) the UK has no trade negotiation capacity or competence as it was last needed in 1972. They are currently scrambling around trying to acquire it, (2) the EU's trade terms are likely to be better (or at least as good as) anything the UK can negotiate for itself and (3) UK exporters will have enough to worry about dealing with European customers from outside the Single Market without also having to try to hang onto customers in other parts of the world before the UK manages to conclude trade terms.

And this is just to keep their head above water. Anything as fanciful as negotiating better terms of trade with China (or Japan, or the US) is in the realm of fantasy.

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

Let's explore that logic for a minute. You are saying that the UK's access to the Chinese (for example) market is constrained because it has to enforce EU tariffs or restrictions on some Chinese (for example) imports that threaten sectional or regional interest in other EU member states, causing China to retaliate with restrictions on EU exports.

The logic being that once free from the shackels of EU trade negotiations, the UK will be able to access bits of the Chinese (for example) market that are currently closed or protected.

So what will persuade China to grant greater access to UK exports than it will grant to the EU 27? Which bits of the UK market are currently off limits to China to the extent that their opening would persuade China to reciprocate?

Given that the UK has less than 13% of the EU's population and 17% of its GDP, those bits of the UK market would need to be very juicy indeed to win that argument.

The UK's starting position in its third party (non EU) trade arrangements will be to ask that it continue under the terms of the EU's trade deals until such time as new arrangements can be negotiated (and we are talking years).

This would be the ideal outcome for the UK for three reasons; (1) the UK has no trade negotiation capacity or competence as it was last needed in 1972. They are currently scrambling around trying to acquire it, (2) the EU's trade terms are likely to be better (or at least as good as) anything the UK can negotiate for itself and (3) UK exporters will have enough to worry about dealing with European customers from outside the Single Market without also having to try to hang onto customers in other parts of the world before the UK manages to conclude trade terms.

And this is just to keep their head above water. Anything as fanciful as negotiating better terms of trade with China (or Japan, or the US) is in the realm of fantasy.

Better is a relative term.

A deal that has zero duty on Aero engines, but 50% on dairy products is great for the UK, but **** for Ireland. An eu - China deal would have to take this into consideration. A UK - China deal wouldn't.

This is hypothetical of course and China is just an example.

solodeogloria

View wrote: »

That's how negotiations with all major economic players work. When "Team USA" walk in the room, they are there to maximise the deal they can get for the USA; they are not going to throw any part of the US economy under a bus so that the UK's Brexit politicians can have an easy win.

Good evening!

Please read the post. The claim was that the EU will not consider the UK's position at all in the negotiations.

That isn't what seems to have happened with Canada interestingly enough.

If that is the EU's genuine outlook towards Britain I would argue that the UK should say adiós, auf wiedersehen and au revoir out of sheer principle!

Of course that's just tripe. No access to the City and a complete reduction in EU trade is not in the EU's interest at all. I couldn't state that any more clearly. It's not good for either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

A deal that has zero duty on Aero engines, but 50% on dairy products is great for the UK, but **** for Ireland. An eu - China deal would have to take this into consideration. A UK - China deal wouldn't.

If the UK negotiates duty free access to the Chinese market for its aero engines, it will be because it has granted China access to the UK market for something else.

solodeogloria

First Up wrote: »

Given that the UK has less than 13% of the EU's population and 17% of its GDP, those bits of the UK market would need to be very juicy indeed to win that argument.

The UK's starting position in its third party (non EU) trade arrangements will be to ask that it continue under the terms of the EU's trade deals until such time as new arrangements can be negotiated (and we are talking years).

This would be the ideal outcome for the UK for three reasons; (1) the UK has no trade negotiation capacity or competence as it was last needed in 1972. They are currently scrambling around trying to acquire it, (2) the EU's trade terms are likely to be better (or at least as good as) anything the UK can negotiate for itself and (3) UK exporters will have enough to worry about dealing with European customers from outside the Single Market without also having to try to hang onto customers in other parts of the world before the UK manages to conclude trade terms.

Good evening!

I've snipped your post. You do realise that arguing that the EU has reduced the UK's negotiating capacity is an argument against staying in the EU?

The EU is the reason why Britain hasn't had negotiating capacity. Brexit is an opportunity to build this up.

As for why China would want better trade terms with Britain - that is manifest. China has a trade surplus with the UK and less restrictive trade terms will allow Chinese businesses to grow by trading more with the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Better is a relative term.

A deal that has zero duty on Aero engines, but 50% on dairy products is great for the UK, but **** for Ireland. An eu - China deal would have to take this into consideration. A UK - China deal wouldn't.

This is hypothetical of course and China is just an example.

My prediction is still that China will dump steel and shoes into the UK wiping out what's left of those industries there.

Meanwhile the EU will probably tighten up restrictions now the UK is no longer batting for China.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/12/sajid-javid-uk-blocked-higher-eu-steel-tariffs-fearing-shoe-price-rises

The UK blocked tougher EU trade rules to help the steel industry partly because it could have raised the price of shoes for British shoppers, Sajid Javid has said.

The business secretary argued the UK opposed scrapping the so-called lesser duty rule as it would have “cost British shoppers dear”, including an extra £130m a year on the price of footwear – the equivalent of about £4.80 for each household.

A number of EU countries have been trying to get the rule lifted, as it would allow higher tariffs to be imposed on cut-price Chinese steel being dumped on the world market.

Yes Rolls Royce turbines are a niche product especially if you have a 30 contract for aircraft which can't use other brands. But it's balanced by the import of a similar value of electronics from places that know they have a captive audience.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Please read the post. The claim was that the EU will not consider the UK's position at all in the negotiations.

That isn't what seems to have happened with Canada interestingly enough.

If that is the EU's genuine outlook towards Britain I would argue that the UK should say adiós, auf wiedersehen and au revoir out of sheer principle!

Of course that's just tripe. No access to the City and a complete reduction in EU trade is not in the EU's interest at all. I couldn't state that any more clearly. It's not good for either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Comparing Brexit and CETA negotiations doesn't work as an argument. At all.

If I have a gun and you have a knife, whose terms will we agree on? It really is as simple as this. A hard Brexit is a blow to the EU. It will be devastating to Britain. Dont take my word for it, check out what British businesses are saying. Moody's have stated that no deal will also be devastating. So the only other options are to remain under current conditions or take what the EU offers. And that cannot be be better than what Britain currently has.

Stop believing what the Tory Eurosceptics are telling you. It isn't true.

solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Comparing Brexit and CETA negotiations doesn't work as an argument. At all.

If I have a gun and you have a knife, whose terms will we agree on? It really is as simple as this. A hard Brexit is a blow to the EU. It will be devastating to Britain. Dont take my word for it, check out what British businesses are saying. Moody's have stated that no deal will also be devastating. So the only other options are to remain under current conditions or take what the EU offers. And that cannot be be better than what Britain currently has.

Stop believing what the Tory Eurosceptics are telling you. It isn't true.

Good evening,

What both Canada and the UK are looking for is broadly similar. A comprehensive third party free trade deal. That's the justification for comparison.

It's absolute tosh to suggest that the EU will not even listen to Britain's concerns.

If they were that obnoxious, I would say adiós, Tschüss and bonne nuit to the lot of them out of sheer principle. I would question the assumption more heavily that the EU is this all benevolent institution.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

DaniilKharms

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

What both Canada and the UK are looking for is broadly similar. A comprehensive third party free trade deal. That's the justification for comparison.

It's absolute tosh to suggest that the EU will not even listen to Britain's concerns.

If they were that obnoxious, I would say adiós, Tschüss and bonne nuit to the lot of them out of sheer principle. I would question the assumption more heavily that the EU is this all benevolent institution.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you think they will listen more NOW that the UK has essentially stuck the knife in their back than BEFORE when they repeatedly bent over backwards to give the UK special treatment.

Makes a lot of sense.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

What both Canada and the UK are looking for is broadly similar. A comprehensive third party free trade deal. That's the justification for comparison.

It's absolute tosh to suggest that the EU will not even listen to Britain's concerns.

If they were that obnoxious, I would say adiós, Tschüss and bon soir to the lot of them out of sheer principle. I would question the assumption more heavily that the EU is this all benevolent institution.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's nothing personal, it's business. Getting upset about a business negotiation is self-defeating. I'm sure the EU will listen politely as soon as the Tories have decided what their position is. Then they'll be told the terms. If they flounce, so be it.

Ask yourself this. Why should the EU be generous to a country that has spent decades mocking it and complain about it? A country that has constantly tried to change the rules in order to pander to Little Englanders? How much goodwill do you think Britain has left?

Ask yourself another question. Why shouldn't the EU screw every advantage it can out of an agreement with a country that will soon be a competitor?