Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

tigger123

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is still advantageous to negotiate a long term trade deal, but that still has to be done anyway. The problem with WA is that it merely postpones the cliff edge, the fear of which puts the UK in a weak position to negotiate this longer term deal. That is not to say that there is not a significant economic cost to a no deal on the 31st October, but from a purely negotiating point of view there are advantages.

So, if I'm reading what you're saying, the advantage is the EU cant put the UK in a sh*t position because the UK have already done that?

First Up

ohnonotgmail wrote:

And what are those advantages?

Ask any business.

ohnonotgmail

First Up wrote: »

Ask any business.

well i'm asking the person who said that these negotiating advantages exist. perhaps if you know you might tell us? or are they so super secret like the alternative to the backstop they cannot be written down?

Bit cynical

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

And what are those advantages?

There's no ticking clock. Having left, the UK is a country outside the EU trading on WTO terms which it can continue to do until a favourable deal is agreed. They don't have to agree to any deal in order to prevent the shock of leaving the single market and customs union since they have already done that and taken the economic hit.

tigger123

Bit cynical wrote: »

There's no ticking clock. Having left, the UK is a country outside the EU trading on WTO terms which it can continue to do until a favourable deal is agreed. They don't have to agree to any deal in order to prevent the shock of leaving the single market and customs union since they have already done that and taken the economic hit.

And who will the UK trade with?

Bit cynical

tigger123 wrote: »

And who will the UK trade with?

I don't think most people think that there will be no trade whatsoever even if the UK leave without a deal with the EU.

tigger123

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think most people think that there will be no trade whatsoever even if the UK leave without a deal with the EU.

They're biggest trading partners post Brexit will be ... the EU! Who are currently offering them a favourable trading partnership that they won't accept.

So they can trade post no deal on god awful terms, or they can agree to the WA that they already negotiated.

First Up

ohnonotgmail wrote:

well i'm asking the person who said that these negotiating advantages exist. perhaps if you know you might tell us? or are they so super secret like the alternative to the backstop they cannot be written down?

I'm talking about the advantages of having long term certainty through trade arrangements. Business demands that and won't tolerate anything less.

The longer the UK farts around playing games, the more business it loses

ohnonotgmail

Bit cynical wrote: »

There's no ticking clock. Having left, the UK is a country outside the EU trading on WTO terms which it can continue to do until a favourable deal is agreed. They don't have to agree to any deal in order to prevent the shock of leaving the single market and customs union since they have already done that and taken the economic hit.

so they dont have to worry about being kicked in the balls because they have already kicked themselves in the balls. a cunning strategem indeed.

Bit cynical

tigger123 wrote: »

So, if I'm reading what you're saying, the advantage is the EU cant put the UK in a sh*t position because the UK have already done that?

Yes but it is now a quantifiable sh*t position. If you are of the opinion that a deal absolutely must be done; that no deal under any circumstances cannot be countenanced then you are in a weak negotiating position.

If you have been told by your boss that you must buy a particular vehicle for your company today and that walking away is not acceptable, and your opposite number also knows this, then you are not in a good negotiating position. The other person knows they can charge what they like and you are forced to accept.

In order to have any chance of effective negotiation you have to be able to walk away.

ohnonotgmail

First Up wrote: »

I'm talking about the advantages of having long term certainty through trade arrangements. Business demands that and won't tolerate anything less.

The longer the UK farts around playing games, the more business it loses

I suspect you haven't been following the thread carefully enough. that is not what I, or the poster I responded to, was discussing.

First Up

ohnonotgmail wrote:

I suspect you haven't been following the thread carefully enough. that is not what I, or the poster I responded to, was discussing.

You responded to a post that said "there are still advantages to a long term deal" by asking what are those advantages but if you meant something else that's OK.

ohnonotgmail

First Up wrote: »

You responded to a post that said "there are still advantages to a long term deal" by asking what are those advantages but if you meant something else that's OK.

this is what i responded to

It is still advantageous to negotiate a long term trade deal, but that still has to be done anyway. The problem with WA is that it merely postpones the cliff edge, the fear of which puts the UK in a weak position to negotiate this longer term deal. That is not to say that there is not a significant economic cost to a no deal on the 31st October, but from a purely negotiating point of view there are advantages.

these are the advantages i was referring to not the advantages of a long term deal. i would have thought those advantages were pretty obvious.

First Up

ohnonotgmail wrote:

these are the advantages i was referring to not the advantages of a long term deal. i would have thought those advantages were pretty obvious.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bit cynical

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so they dont have to worry about being kicked in the balls because they have already kicked themselves in the balls. a cunning strategem indeed.

Sure it seems paradoxical but in order to negotiate properly you need to be prepared to walk away. The problem in the UK is that the negotiators have been told that they must do a deal and that no deal is not acceptable. Paradoxically from our point of view, this makes a favourable deal less likely as the negotiating position is weakened.

alastair

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The EU Establishment need this to be an absolute disaster for the UK to maintain their control over the European peoples. If the UK leave next month and it isn't a complete and utter disaster, other countries will follow. They will attempt to punish anybody that even thinks about it

Ehh no. Brexit has already convinced anyone contemplating pulling out of the EU that it’s not that clever an idea. Witness the Damascus conversion of Marine Le Pen to working inside the system rather than Frexit.

ohnonotgmail

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure it seems paradoxical but in order to negotiate properly you need to be prepared to walk away. The problem in the UK is that the negotiators have been told that they must do a deal and that no deal is not acceptable. Paradoxically from our point of view, this makes a favourable deal less likely as the negotiating position is weakened.

that was dumb when Boris first said it. nothing has changed since.

swampgas

Bit cynical wrote: »

There's no ticking clock. Having left, the UK is a country outside the EU trading on WTO terms which it can continue to do until a favourable deal is agreed. They don't have to agree to any deal in order to prevent the shock of leaving the single market and customs union since they have already done that and taken the economic hit.

I understand the point you're making, but surely the economic hit isn't simply a one off? If the UK leave without a deal the problems will be continuous. Trading under WTO rules isn't sustainable for an economy like the UK.

The UK might not have an explicit cliff edge as a disadvantage if they crash out, but it would be worse, as the UK economy would be in continuous freefall. The resulting internal upheaval that would be likely in the UK would simply compound the urgency for any UK government, I can't see how the pressure they would be under to get a deal would be less than it would be during a transition period.

seamus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure it seems paradoxical but in order to negotiate properly you need to be prepared to walk away. The problem in the UK is that the negotiators have been told that they must do a deal and that no deal is not acceptable.

Difference is that in this case, "walk away" does not mean "no deal".

It could equally mean "no brexit". This is not a standard zero-sum negotiation where nothing changes if no agreement is reached. They are not negotiating a normal trade deal where the aim is to find the outcome which provides the most benefit to all parties.

In this negotiation the aim is to find the outcome that causes the least harm to all parties.

It's closer to a divorce settlement than a trade agreement. This perspective is fundamentally missing from the UK's treatment of this. They're treating it like a trade negotiation, which it's not.

They're the unreasonable divorceé - they want the house and everything in it, they want the EU to look after the kids and give the UK full access to them, but they don't want to pay any maintenance.

And when the EU refuses to budge on a 50:50 split, the UK calls it a bully.

Bit cynical

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that was dumb when Boris first said it. nothing has changed since.

Well if you think that not being able to walk away from a deal is the best way to negotiate then I have a used car you might be interested in. Remember you can't walk away and you must pay whatever price I come up with.

Boggles

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well if you think that not being able to walk away from a deal is the best way to negotiate then I have a used car you might be interested in. Remember you can't walk away and you must pay whatever price I come up with.

People won't potentially die if you don't sell your used car though.

begsbyOnaTrain

Latest poll:

Labour drop to third place

Boris continues to trash Corbyn in "Who would be the best PM?"

Brexit number one issue facing the country

Government doing a bad job of it

Country still pretty split on whether it's the right or wrong thing to do.

Plus ça change.

swampgas

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well if you think that not being able to walk away from a deal is the best way to negotiate then I have a used car you might be interested in. Remember you can't walk away and you must pay whatever price I come up with.

The UK invoked article 50 and agreed a WA. Basically they agreed to trade in their current car for an inferior model, and have also signed up to having their current car repossesed if they don't finalise the paperwork for the inferior model. The dealer is giving them the option of another year to discuss it, yet you think they would be in a better negotiating position after losing their current car and having to get around on a Honda 50 instead?

Bit cynical

Boggles wrote: »

People won't potentially die if you don't sell your used car though.

Yes I agree the stakes are much higher but the principle is still the same.

ohnonotgmail

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well if you think that not being able to walk away from a deal is the best way to negotiate then I have a used car you might be interested in. Remember you can't walk away and you must pay whatever price I come up with.

your negotiating tactic seems to be "i will kick myself in the balls if we can't reach an agreement, see if i dont" as if that is the only alternative. when you become so one-track that you cannot see alternatives then i suppose i can understand why would would come up such dumb tactics.

tigger123

'If you don't sell me this car at the price I'm demanding, I'll set my family on fire'.

quokula

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Latest poll:

Labour drop to third place

Boris continues to trash Corbyn in "Who would be the best PM?"

Brexit number one issue facing the country

Government doing a bad job of it

Country still pretty split on whether it's the right or wrong thing to do.

Plus ça change.

Notice in the history tracker the one and only time that Corbyn was ahead of May / Boris was during the last general election. Because that's when election rules kick in, the media are forced to actually let Corbyn be heard, and people start paying attention to manifestos and policies rather than regurgitating who the Daily Mail told them to hate. I'd be surprised if we don't see a similar swing at the next election.

alastair

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well if you think that not being able to walk away from a deal is the best way to negotiate then I have a used car you might be interested in. Remember you can't walk away and you must pay whatever price I come up with.

Except you CAN walk away. Let’s not forget.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Except that legal advice from the UK Attorney General suggested that the UK would be trapped if the backstop went into effect. The Tory party tried to suppress this but were forced by parliament to reveal it.

I think you misunderstand. The nature of the trap as proposed by Brexiteers is that the EU sees the backstop as a desirable end state and would act in bad faith to prevent the UK form leaving it even if workable alternatives are identified. The AG certainly did not support this view, in fact he went to great lenghts to debunk it. He merely confrmed that the UK would not be able to leave the backstop unilaterally, but that does not make the backstop a trap.

B0jangles

The power of the No Deal Threat sounds like the power possessed by someone standing on a cliff edge negotiating the terms under which which they won't jump, but retaining the threat to jump as a bargaining tool.

If Britain jumps, it'll be fairly unpleasant for everyone watching, but kind of terminal for Britain.