FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The brexit white paper
The brexit white paper
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The end of the road has been reached for the proverbial can. Mrs May will either oversee a successful Brexit or the disintegration of the Conservative party. Despite using words like "collective responsibility", I'm certain that Johnson, Gove and Fox, urged on by Mogg, Paterson and Bone, will fight their corner and disrupt the whole thing. The EU is negotiating from both a united collective position of strength, and a desire not to see the UK leave. Even if a common position is found by the Government, they could easily derail the whole thing by the end of next week. There are too many conundrums, too many opposing views, too many selfish characters in Brexit. It's simply undeliverable." Quite. It should have been a cross party thing, but that would have been far too sensible an idea for both the rabid far right brexiteers and the hand-wringing centrist remainers. | |||
"The end of the road has been reached for the proverbial can. Mrs May will either oversee a successful Brexit or the disintegration of the Conservative party. Despite using words like "collective responsibility", I'm certain that Johnson, Gove and Fox, urged on by Mogg, Paterson and Bone, will fight their corner and disrupt the whole thing. The EU is negotiating from both a united collective position of strength, and a desire not to see the UK leave. Even if a common position is found by the Government, they could easily derail the whole thing by the end of next week. There are too many conundrums, too many opposing views, too many selfish characters in Brexit. It's simply undeliverable. Quite. It should have been a cross party thing, but that would have been far too sensible an idea for both the rabid far right brexiteers and the hand-wringing centrist remainers. " That would have thrown in even more opposing views surely | |||
| |||
"The tragic thing is,that with problems in the two main drivers in the EU, France and Germany, we could and should have been at the forefront of pushing through EU reform. The Trump "regime" certainly hasn't helped our cause, although we will never know if a Clinton led administration would have allied themselves with us either." There can’t be any EU reform, that goes against the whole ‘project’. Which is why it will eventually fail | |||
"The tragic thing is,that with problems in the two main drivers in the EU, France and Germany, we could and should have been at the forefront of pushing through EU reform. The Trump "regime" certainly hasn't helped our cause, although we will never know if a Clinton led administration would have allied themselves with us either. There can’t be any EU reform, that goes against the whole ‘project’. Which is why it will eventually fail " Has the whole "project" stayed the same since its creation and through the years? Whether it's called "reform" or something else, things change and will be changing to adapt with new/emerging needs/requirements. In fact, what better way to secure the continued existence and strengthen support for the "project" from its members, than gradual/as necessary "reforms"? Self preservation and success sound like pretty good motives to me. Just because *you want* it to fail, doesn't mean that they'll indulge you  | |||
"The end of the road has been reached for the proverbial can." Yes, brexit was always heading to the cliff edge. | |||
"Today there will be a meeting and may is expected to deliver the plans, how do you think it will go? I reckon some of it wont be accepted such as the third way with the irish border." I have a feeling that they'll try to come up with something that's ambiguous enough to "fool" the EU into moving forward and completing the whole process. That might mean staying in the customs union/single market (in effect) but renamed as something else and with a few concessions from the EU side, like for example our ability to sign new trade deals. The way Theresa might try to sell this to her cabinet is to "promise" that we could always renegotiate or even pull out from the whole thing altogether at some point in the next few years, once we've started establishing new trading relationships and had more time to come up with a solution for the N.I. border situation (which might even solve itself somehow by then, by reunification or whatever). I cannot see any other way for everyone to get at least part of what they want (even if it is time limited - thus keeping their hope/desire alive that things will change more towards their side later). You guessed it: fudge, but on a grander scale. | |||
" Quite. It should have been a cross party thing, but that would have been far too sensible an idea for both the rabid far right brexiteers and the hand-wringing centrist remainers. " In the UK, we are used to two parties being in power and the policies being either of the right or the left. Nationalism does not fit that model. So we have two parties paralysed by an issue that transcends the usual divide. Neither has yet shown any signs of being able to grasp and adjust. In Scotland, it is the SNP who fits the model of nationalism; in England and Wales it is UKIP. But for some reason, UKIP did not get any bounce from the EU referendum result. Quite the opposite. So we are left in a state of paralysis. | |||
"The tragic thing is,that with problems in the two main drivers in the EU, France and Germany, we could and should have been at the forefront of pushing through EU reform. The Trump "regime" certainly hasn't helped our cause, although we will never know if a Clinton led administration would have allied themselves with us either. There can’t be any EU reform, that goes against the whole ‘project’. Which is why it will eventually fail Has the whole "project" stayed the same since its creation and through the years? Whether it's called "reform" or something else, things change and will be changing to adapt with new/emerging needs/requirements. In fact, what better way to secure the continued existence and strengthen support for the "project" from its members, than gradual/as necessary "reforms"? Self preservation and success sound like pretty good motives to me. Just because *you want* it to fail, doesn't mean that they'll indulge you "Of course it’s changed since its creation and will continue to do so. It’s only half way through the project and won’t stop until until there is a one government United States of Europe. Or that’s the plan anyway. It won’t be derailed from that objective but it won’t work. And self preservation? Of what? They don’t want to preserve what they’ve already got. Without trying to be condescending, you don’t understand what the EU is | |||
| |||
"The tragic thing is,that with problems in the two main drivers in the EU, France and Germany, we could and should have been at the forefront of pushing through EU reform. The Trump "regime" certainly hasn't helped our cause, although we will never know if a Clinton led administration would have allied themselves with us either. There can’t be any EU reform, that goes against the whole ‘project’. Which is why it will eventually fail Has the whole "project" stayed the same since its creation and through the years? Whether it's called "reform" or something else, things change and will be changing to adapt with new/emerging needs/requirements. In fact, what better way to secure the continued existence and strengthen support for the "project" from its members, than gradual/as necessary "reforms"? Self preservation and success sound like pretty good motives to me. Just because *you want* it to fail, doesn't mean that they'll indulge you
Of course it’s changed since its creation and will continue to do so. It’s only half way through the project and won’t stop until until there is a one government United States of Europe. Or that’s the plan anyway. It won’t be derailed from that objective but it won’t work. And self preservation? Of what? They don’t want to preserve what they’ve already got. Without trying to be condescending, you don’t understand what the EU is "Self preservation of its existence, "reformed"/evolved or not. I appreciate the non condescending feeling. Please briefly explain to me what your perception of the EU is and what don't they want to preserve in what they've already got. | |||
"The tragic thing is,that with problems in the two main drivers in the EU, France and Germany, we could and should have been at the forefront of pushing through EU reform. The Trump "regime" certainly hasn't helped our cause, although we will never know if a Clinton led administration would have allied themselves with us either. There can’t be any EU reform, that goes against the whole ‘project’. Which is why it will eventually fail Has the whole "project" stayed the same since its creation and through the years? Whether it's called "reform" or something else, things change and will be changing to adapt with new/emerging needs/requirements. In fact, what better way to secure the continued existence and strengthen support for the "project" from its members, than gradual/as necessary "reforms"? Self preservation and success sound like pretty good motives to me. Just because *you want* it to fail, doesn't mean that they'll indulge you
Of course it’s changed since its creation and will continue to do so. It’s only half way through the project and won’t stop until until there is a one government United States of Europe. Or that’s the plan anyway. It won’t be derailed from that objective but it won’t work. And self preservation? Of what? They don’t want to preserve what they’ve already got. Without trying to be condescending, you don’t understand what the EU is
Self preservation of its existence, "reformed"/evolved or not.
I appreciate the non condescending feeling. Please briefly explain to me what your perception of the EU is and what don't they want to preserve in what they've already got."The EU is a plutocracy. And what is the point of preserving a half built house, so to speak. The single market, the Maastricht Treaty, the single currency and the stability and growth pact combined to impose policies of deregulation, privatisation, anti labour rules, regressive tax regimes, and cuts to welfare and financialisation. The ECB is committed by Treaty to favour deflation over growth, to prohibit state aid to stricken industries and enforce austerity measures. Regarding the Euro, Europe’s main creditor Germany has trampled over values like democracy and national sovereignty and left a vassal state (Greece) in ruins. Then there is the ECJ which issued rulings that the workers right to strike was subordinate to employers right to do business freely. Democracy needs a people for whom government is of, by and for. Without it all you have is inter-elite management, treaty law and money grubbing. Such as the EU. To coin a phrase from Labour- EU, for the few, not the many | |||
| |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence." What makes you think the UK elite wanted reform? You still don’t get it | |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence." Exactly, brexiters like to think of the EU as some evil existential other, rather than the collective will of the member states. If those member states want to form a single government, then so be it. The EU only has a population of 500m (inc. UK), and China and India are more than twice as big. Not once have any of the brexiters explained why they can do it but Europe can't. | |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence. Exactly, brexiters like to think of the EU as some evil existential other, rather than the collective will of the member states. If those member states want to form a single government, then so be it. The EU only has a population of 500m (inc. UK), and China and India are more than twice as big. Not once have any of the brexiters explained why they can do it but Europe can't. " Because it all comes down to control. Those same people who want out of the EU because they cannot be in charge are the same people who want the UK to stay together precisely because they are in charge. The logic of Brexit is the logic of the break-up of the United Kingdom - that communities are better off separate than working together. Both are a union of states joined together in the common good, and both can be undone by the people. | |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence. What makes you think the UK elite wanted reform? You still don’t get it " Whatever tinfoil hatted excuse you trot out doesn't really matter. The story that the UK *had* to leave as reform wasn't possible relies on lying about the nature of the EU. Without that lie, the story becomes "we tried nothing and we're all out if ideas" - which paints the UK as an unimportant and feckless country, something that nobody who supports the most holy brexit would tolerate. | |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence. What makes you think the UK elite wanted reform? You still don’t get it Whatever tinfoil hatted excuse you trot out doesn't really matter. The story that the UK *had* to leave as reform wasn't possible relies on lying about the nature of the EU. Without that lie, the story becomes "we tried nothing and we're all out if ideas" - which paints the UK as an unimportant and feckless country, something that nobody who supports the most holy brexit would tolerate." So. What is the nature of the EU? What are it’s intentions and goals for the future? What reforms does it need to make? And what reforms do you think it will make? | |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence. What makes you think the UK elite wanted reform? You still don’t get it Whatever tinfoil hatted excuse you trot out doesn't really matter. The story that the UK *had* to leave as reform wasn't possible relies on lying about the nature of the EU. Without that lie, the story becomes "we tried nothing and we're all out if ideas" - which paints the UK as an unimportant and feckless country, something that nobody who supports the most holy brexit would tolerate. So. What is the nature of the EU? What are it’s intentions and goals for the future? What reforms does it need to make? And what reforms do you think it will make?" Nope. The premise was that the EU had an intractable nature and couldn't be reformed. Put those goalposts down and argue your point. For once. | |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence. What makes you think the UK elite wanted reform? You still don’t get it Whatever tinfoil hatted excuse you trot out doesn't really matter. The story that the UK *had* to leave as reform wasn't possible relies on lying about the nature of the EU. Without that lie, the story becomes "we tried nothing and we're all out if ideas" - which paints the UK as an unimportant and feckless country, something that nobody who supports the most holy brexit would tolerate. So. What is the nature of the EU? What are it’s intentions and goals for the future? What reforms does it need to make? And what reforms do you think it will make? Nope. The premise was that the EU had an intractable nature and couldn't be reformed. Put those goalposts down and argue your point. For once." That is the point! You cannot answer the question because you know it cannot be reformed! | |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence. What makes you think the UK elite wanted reform? You still don’t get it Whatever tinfoil hatted excuse you trot out doesn't really matter. The story that the UK *had* to leave as reform wasn't possible relies on lying about the nature of the EU. Without that lie, the story becomes "we tried nothing and we're all out if ideas" - which paints the UK as an unimportant and feckless country, something that nobody who supports the most holy brexit would tolerate. So. What is the nature of the EU? What are it’s intentions and goals for the future? What reforms does it need to make? And what reforms do you think it will make? Nope. The premise was that the EU had an intractable nature and couldn't be reformed. Put those goalposts down and argue your point. For once. That is the point! You cannot answer the question because you know it cannot be reformed!" Nice try. But not playing along with your goalpost moving doesn't make your previous point you are no longer interested in defending magically valid. Any change in the EU is driven by its members. All EU treaties are hammered out through negotiations between all member states. There is no gestalt EU that dictates the next treaty. We know this to be true, because various nations do get clauses added to their benefit, including the UK, something that is in direct contradiction with your theory. So, we're back to the premise that the EU can't be reformed. Which is patently false, as shown above. The EU is driven by its members, should they be convinced of a change, then that change can be made. | |||
"The EU is whatever the member states want it to be. Knowing that - the idea that the UK couldn't have led a 'reform' is less about the EU being intractable and more a round about admission of the UK's impotence. What makes you think the UK elite wanted reform? You still don’t get it Whatever tinfoil hatted excuse you trot out doesn't really matter. The story that the UK *had* to leave as reform wasn't possible relies on lying about the nature of the EU. Without that lie, the story becomes "we tried nothing and we're all out if ideas" - which paints the UK as an unimportant and feckless country, something that nobody who supports the most holy brexit would tolerate. So. What is the nature of the EU? What are it’s intentions and goals for the future? What reforms does it need to make? And what reforms do you think it will make? Nope. The premise was that the EU had an intractable nature and couldn't be reformed. Put those goalposts down and argue your point. For once. That is the point! You cannot answer the question because you know it cannot be reformed! Nice try. But not playing along with your goalpost moving doesn't make your previous point you are no longer interested in defending magically valid. Any change in the EU is driven by its members. All EU treaties are hammered out through negotiations between all member states. There is no gestalt EU that dictates the next treaty. We know this to be true, because various nations do get clauses added to their benefit, including the UK, something that is in direct contradiction with your theory. So, we're back to the premise that the EU can't be reformed. Which is patently false, as shown above. The EU is driven by its members, should they be convinced of a change, then that change can be made." You have shown nothing above at all. The EU cannot be reformed . Now call it goal post moving if you like, but answer the questions then. What are the future intentions of the EU? And if as you say it can reform then what reforms are needed and what reforms do you think they will make? Stop saying your not playing when you’re stuck. Man up | |||
| |||
 | |||
"The mysterious hand ain’t that mysterious, it’s called money "so any change which is in the workers favour is evidence against the idea of the hand ? As why would money want workers rights ? Or is this a double bluff ? As you know I’m not familiar with the whole backstory. So my question is to try and get some understanding here rather than prove anything right or wrong.... | |||
"The mysterious hand ain’t that mysterious, it’s called money so any change which is in the workers favour is evidence against the idea of the hand ? As why would money want workers rights ? Or is this a double bluff ?
As you know I’m not familiar with the whole backstory. So my question is to try and get some understanding here rather than prove anything right or wrong...."You have to toss a bone every now and then to keep remainer types onside, the way companies do to keep the workers onside. Apart from business and bankers, who is this ‘hand’? No idea. There are so many levels of beaurocrats, diplomats, commissioners, councillors, presidents, mep’s, delegates, representatives, I’m sure the whole point is to confuse even the people who think they are running it | |||
"The mysterious hand ain’t that mysterious, it’s called money so any change which is in the workers favour is evidence against the idea of the hand ? As why would money want workers rights ? Or is this a double bluff ?
As you know I’m not familiar with the whole backstory. So my question is to try and get some understanding here rather than prove anything right or wrong....
You have to toss a bone every now and then to keep remainer types onside, the way companies do to keep the workers onside. Apart from business and bankers, who is this ‘hand’? No idea. There are so many levels of beaurocrats, diplomats, commissioners, councillors, presidents, mep’s, delegates, representatives, I’m sure the whole point is to confuse even the people who think they are running it"This is stating to sound a bit too much like a conspiracy theory. After all I suspect those who originally created this *dream* of taking power ways from the voters are off the scene ... or at least will be once the journey has finished. So the band must be some shadowy organisation. And a smart one at that to fool those who they they are in power. Why did they let the UK out ? Or are we a scrap too ? Okay. I’m being flippant. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan) | |||
"The EU cannot be reformed . " You have not made the case for this. Until you do, we are at an impasse. | |||
"The tragic thing is,that with problems in the two main drivers in the EU, France and Germany, we could and should have been at the forefront of pushing through EU reform. The Trump "regime" certainly hasn't helped our cause, although we will never know if a Clinton led administration would have allied themselves with us either. There can’t be any EU reform, that goes against the whole ‘project’. Which is why it will eventually fail Has the whole "project" stayed the same since its creation and through the years? Whether it's called "reform" or something else, things change and will be changing to adapt with new/emerging needs/requirements. In fact, what better way to secure the continued existence and strengthen support for the "project" from its members, than gradual/as necessary "reforms"? Self preservation and success sound like pretty good motives to me. Just because *you want* it to fail, doesn't mean that they'll indulge you
Of course it’s changed since its creation and will continue to do so. It’s only half way through the project and won’t stop until until there is a one government United States of Europe. Or that’s the plan anyway. It won’t be derailed from that objective but it won’t work. And self preservation? Of what? They don’t want to preserve what they’ve already got. Without trying to be condescending, you don’t understand what the EU is
Self preservation of its existence, "reformed"/evolved or not.
I appreciate the non condescending feeling. Please briefly explain to me what your perception of the EU is and what don't they want to preserve in what they've already got.
The EU is a plutocracy. And what is the point of preserving a half built house, so to speak.
The single market, the Maastricht Treaty, the single currency and the stability and growth pact combined to impose policies of deregulation, privatisation, anti labour rules, regressive tax regimes, and cuts to welfare and financialisation. The ECB is committed by Treaty to favour deflation over growth, to prohibit state aid to stricken industries and enforce austerity measures. Regarding the Euro, Europe’s main creditor Germany has trampled over values like democracy and national sovereignty and left a vassal state (Greece) in ruins. Then there is the ECJ which issued rulings that the workers right to strike was subordinate to employers right to do business freely.
Democracy needs a people for whom government is of, by and for. Without it all you have is inter-elite management, treaty law and money grubbing. Such as the EU.
To coin a phrase from Labour-
EU, for the few, not the many "For discussion's sake and rather than dissecting each of the points mentioned individually, let's assume they are true. All those things were not concocted behind closed doors by 1 or 2 individuals and then forced upon 28 member states representatives and, in consequence, populations. Not only everything is proposed/discussed/etc amongst all member states and then agreed or not agreed but also countries, who apply to join at any given point, do so with the understanding that they'll have to abide by what had already been agreed before they joined, otherwise there's not much point in joining at all. I won't elaborate further because I noticed (despite not having read all the replies yet) that this exact issue is being discussed on the commerce thread and I don't want to repeat things that have possibly already been mentioned, as well as not continuing a conversation on the exact same issue on two threads simultaneously. I replied on here briefly to acknowledge your response since you took the time to write it. We'll probably meet "next door" (aka the commerce thread) to continue this discussion further, if required. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Nothing will work with the EU. We should just walk away." ...and what? | |||
"Nothing will work with the EU. We should just walk away. ...and what?" keep walking I guess...... | |||
| |||
"And wait for them to come to us. The Germans in particular want a deal!" If we walk away, that's the end of the negotiations. | |||
| |||
"I don't think Andy understands what negotiations are." That is often one of the best options in negotiations. You obviously don’t know how to negotiate. Sit, roll over, there’s a good boy | |||
"I don't think Andy understands what negotiations are. That is often one of the best options in negotiations. You obviously don’t know how to negotiate. Sit, roll over, there’s a good boy" Yeah, it's like divorcing your wife because you want her to pay more attention to you. | |||
| |||
"I don't think Andy understands what negotiations are. That is often one of the best options in negotiations. You obviously don’t know how to negotiate. " I wouldn't consider your judgement to be sound, so your opinion carries little weight. But, I wonder if Andy, or you, have any idea what BATNA is in relation to negotiation.... I fucking doubt it. | |||
| |||
"Spoke with my local m p today ....within 1 week they will have the 48 mps....for no confidence vote in May....get on x" We should preserve this post in amber. So if this doesn't come to pass we can point and laugh. | |||
"I don't think Andy understands what negotiations are. That is often one of the best options in negotiations. You obviously don’t know how to negotiate. I wouldn't consider your judgement to be sound, so your opinion carries little weight. But, I wonder if Andy, or you, have any idea what BATNA is in relation to negotiation.... I fucking doubt it." Lol I think you are the one getting confused there. And the point still stands | |||
| |||
"I don't think Andy understands what negotiations are. That is often one of the best options in negotiations. You obviously don’t know how to negotiate. I wouldn't consider your judgement to be sound, so your opinion carries little weight. But, I wonder if Andy, or you, have any idea what BATNA is in relation to negotiation.... I fucking doubt it. Lol I think you are the one getting confused there. And the point still stands " Oh dear. Well, if you're too lazy, it's Best Alternative To a Negotiate Agreement. Now, in the UK's case the best alternative to an agreement is the hard brexit - where the UK exits with no deal, falls subject to WTO rules, and puts the GFA in jeopardy. So, if that's your BATNA, in what universe is walking away a strong negotiating move? | |||
"I don't think Andy understands what negotiations are. That is often one of the best options in negotiations. You obviously don’t know how to negotiate. I wouldn't consider your judgement to be sound, so your opinion carries little weight. But, I wonder if Andy, or you, have any idea what BATNA is in relation to negotiation.... I fucking doubt it. Lol I think you are the one getting confused there. And the point still stands Oh dear. Well, if you're too lazy, it's Best Alternative To a Negotiate Agreement. Now, in the UK's case the best alternative to an agreement is the hard brexit - where the UK exits with no deal, falls subject to WTO rules, and puts the GFA in jeopardy. So, if that's your BATNA, in what universe is walking away a strong negotiating move?" Backtracking every time  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Because walking away, we get more than the EU get " You'd certainly get more economic damage, and more chance of terrorism. So, yes, true. But not desirable, I would have thought. | |||
"Because walking away, we get more than the EU get " I don't understand. The UK leaving changes very little for the EU - it still has all pillars of the single marketing operating between 27 states. 8 per cent of exports from the EU27 go to the 27, and those may become uncompetitive through WTO tariffs. The UK loses all the existing co-operation and agreements, not just with 27 states but with every country around the world when it comes to trade. 40-odd per cent of UK exports go to the EU27, and those may become uncompetitive by adding WTO tariffs. 100 per cent of UK exports become subject to WTO tariffs because the UK no longer has any trade agreements with anyone. What does the UK get by walking away? Apart from blue passports, of course. | |||
"Would the EU just walk away?" If we tell then we are ending the negotiations, yes they would take us at our word. If the EU said that we will leave the EU at the end of the 2 year period with or without a deal would you believe them, or just think they are playing a silly game? | |||
"Because walking away, we get more than the EU get I don't understand. The UK leaving changes very little for the EU - it still has all pillars of the single marketing operating between 27 states. 8 per cent of exports from the EU27 go to the 27, and those may become uncompetitive through WTO tariffs. The UK loses all the existing co-operation and agreements, not just with 27 states but with every country around the world when it comes to trade. 40-odd per cent of UK exports go to the EU27, and those may become uncompetitive by adding WTO tariffs. 100 per cent of UK exports become subject to WTO tariffs because the UK no longer has any trade agreements with anyone. What does the UK get by walking away? Apart from blue passports, of course." Of course there are things we would lose. But as 60% of our world trade and rising, is already under WTO rules, what would be the problem? And as a single large economy we can negotiate our own improved deals around the world. What does the EU gain by our walking away? Sweet FA. That is why they want to negotiate. Or maybe it’s because they are all such kind, lovely benevolent people? | |||
"Because walking away, we get more than the EU get I don't understand. The UK leaving changes very little for the EU - it still has all pillars of the single marketing operating between 27 states. 8 per cent of exports from the EU27 go to the 27, and those may become uncompetitive through WTO tariffs. The UK loses all the existing co-operation and agreements, not just with 27 states but with every country around the world when it comes to trade. 40-odd per cent of UK exports go to the EU27, and those may become uncompetitive by adding WTO tariffs. 100 per cent of UK exports become subject to WTO tariffs because the UK no longer has any trade agreements with anyone. What does the UK get by walking away? Apart from blue passports, of course. Of course there are things we would lose. But as 60% of our world trade and rising, is already under WTO rules, what would be the problem? And as a single large economy we can negotiate our own improved deals around the world. What does the EU gain by our walking away? Sweet FA. That is why they want to negotiate. Or maybe it’s because they are all such kind, lovely benevolent people?" Is 60% under WTO or with non EU companies we have an agreement with via the EU? If it’s WTO today and WTO tomorrow, there’s no benefit here. Your argument is any damage from the loss of the EU may, over time, decrease. But with no economic benefit. The EU has to negotiate as part of article 50. And because they aren’t seeing this as a zero sum game they may be seeing the possibility of a win win. This doesn’t mean they will accept a position which means greater loss than their walk away position. | |||
| |||
"Because walking away, we get more than the EU get I don't understand. The UK leaving changes very little for the EU - it still has all pillars of the single marketing operating between 27 states. 8 per cent of exports from the EU27 go to the 27, and those may become uncompetitive through WTO tariffs. The UK loses all the existing co-operation and agreements, not just with 27 states but with every country around the world when it comes to trade. 40-odd per cent of UK exports go to the EU27, and those may become uncompetitive by adding WTO tariffs. 100 per cent of UK exports become subject to WTO tariffs because the UK no longer has any trade agreements with anyone. What does the UK get by walking away? Apart from blue passports, of course. Of course there are things we would lose. But as 60% of our world trade and rising, is already under WTO rules, what would be the problem? And as a single large economy we can negotiate our own improved deals around the world. What does the EU gain by our walking away? Sweet FA. That is why they want to negotiate. Or maybe it’s because they are all such kind, lovely benevolent people?" There are very few nations that trade solely under WTO rules, because unsurprisingly trade deals are far more beneficial. But wait - you can just negotiate trade deals. Well considering the clusterfuck that's been made of brexit, I wouldn't hold my breath. And then there's the problem of getting access to the lucrative large markets of the world, the US, the EU, and China. All of whom are larger than the UK, and two of which (the US and China) are protectionist. So, being the weaker party in those negotiations are not likely to work out too well. And any deal that is made with the EU will be inferior to being in the common market, so another less than stellar job there. Oh dear, it's almost like this "no deal" gambit is profoundly stupid. | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever " so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? | |||
| |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ?" Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world | |||
"B Of course there are things we would lose. But as 60% of our world trade and rising, is already under WTO rules, what would be the problem? And as a single large economy we can negotiate our own improved deals around the world. What does the EU gain by our walking away? Sweet FA. That is why they want to negotiate. Or maybe it’s because they are all such kind, lovely benevolent people?" So a market of 60+ million can negotiate better deals than one of 500+ million? OK, I admire your optimism. How many years does it take a negotiate a trade deal? What will the UK give away in order to take from third countries? By walking away, the UK loses every existing trade agreement. Any gains, as you see them, require the agreement of third parties. But of course, the Brexiteers were told that negotiating a deal with the EU would be the easiest deal ever done. The UK Government cannot even negotiate an agreement with itself so I think your optimism about our ability to negotiate with anyone else is, well, just admirable thinking, really. | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world " Everything but arms isn’t WTO. | |||
| |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world " First, its 22%, not 17%. Second, in the intervening years the EU economy has grown, but parts of the rest of the world have grown faster. So, no, not diminishing in importance, because access to an economy that represents 22% of the entire worlds output is a pretty fucking good deal. Numbers - sometimes they're tricky for some people. | |||
"what the fuck do the twats in government and the clowns who voted for these dick wads know about living in a world of trade governed by WTO rules anyway? " Well our international trade Secretary thinks we need import tariffs on bananas to product British banana growers.  | |||
"what the fuck do the twats in government and the clowns who voted for these dick wads know about living in a world of trade governed by WTO rules anyway? Well our international trade Secretary thinks we need import tariffs on bananas to product British banana growers. "that doesn't answer the question ... just what the fuck do the twats in government and the dick wads who voted for them know about living in a world of trade governed by WTO rules anyway? | |||
"what the fuck do the twats in government and the clowns who voted for these dick wads know about living in a world of trade governed by WTO rules anyway? Well our international trade Secretary thinks we need import tariffs on bananas to product British banana growers.
that doesn't answer the question ...
just what the fuck do the twats in government and the dick wads who voted for them know about living in a world of trade governed by WTO rules anyway?"What’s a dick wad? I thought you had to be 18 to use this site? | |||
"what the fuck do the twats in government and the clowns who voted for these dick wads know about living in a world of trade governed by WTO rules anyway? Well our international trade Secretary thinks we need import tariffs on bananas to product British banana growers.
that doesn't answer the question ...
just what the fuck do the twats in government and the dick wads who voted for them know about living in a world of trade governed by WTO rules anyway?
What’s a dick wad? I thought you had to be 18 to use this site?"That’s the post you answer ? Even this rant had a point ! | |||
| |||
" What’s a dick wad? I thought you had to be 18 to use this site?" even at your advanced age you're not too old to figure out how to use urban dictionary chap  | |||
" Even this rant had a point !" rant? that is a clear and consise rhetorical question designed to show the idiocy of the bellends who resort to the crass right wing mantra of 'returning' to WTO rules | |||
" What’s a dick wad? I thought you had to be 18 to use this site? even at your advanced age you're not too old to figure out how to use urban dictionary chap "This the same urban dictionary you rubbished when I pointed out and quoted the meaning of 'nonce' according to the urban dictionary (as you didn't appear to know what the real meaning was on another thread a few months ago). What was it you said? Ah yes, you said "go and use a proper dictionary". | |||
" What’s a dick wad? I thought you had to be 18 to use this site? even at your advanced age you're not too old to figure out how to use urban dictionary chap
This the same urban dictionary you rubbished when I pointed out and quoted the meaning of 'nonce' according to the urban dictionary (as you didn't appear to know what the real meaning was on another thread a few months ago).
What was it you said?
Ah yes, you said "go and use a proper dictionary". "what the fuck are you talking about? you have been told time and time again by the mods to not respond to my posts ... now be a good little boy and do as you are told for your own good | |||
| |||
"A politics thread wouldn’t be a politics thread without a bit of name calling and personal vendettas. "or pointing out the short commings of brextremist fuck nuggets for that matter | |||
"A politics thread wouldn’t be a politics thread without a bit of name calling and personal vendettas.
or pointing out the short commings of brextremist fuck nuggets for that matter "So maybe you will tell us which way you voted in the referendum and at at the last election? Though I doubt it. Wouldn’t want to look like a complete loser would you? Oh, hang on... | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows?" Brexiteers certainly don't. " And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? " Again, Brexiteers certainly don't. "Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever " Once again, Brexiteers don't *know* and don't *care* about *how* it's done *in practice* and by not understanding the issues in transitioning from one to the other literally overnight, of course they'll only talk about the distant future because any mention about resolving the problems, that the road into that future is paved with, does not fit with the "brexit means brexit" chant, which in reality is "brexit means no plan for brexit". Or that "the plan for brexit, is brexit". Or some other jingoism like that. P.S. The "forever" could easily (and most probably) turn into "a few years", when other chants will start being heard and they'll sound something like "Brexit meant cesspit, so BritIn to save our skin ". | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? Brexiteers certainly don't. And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Again, Brexiteers certainly don't. Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever Once again, Brexiteers don't *know* and don't *care* about *how* it's done *in practice* and by not understanding the issues in transitioning from one to the other literally overnight, of course they'll only talk about the distant future because any mention about resolving the problems, that the road into that future is paved with, does not fit with the "brexit means brexit" chant, which in reality is "brexit means no plan for brexit". Or that "the plan for brexit, is brexit". Or some other jingoism like that. P.S. The "forever" could easily (and most probably) turn into "a few years", when other chants will start being heard and they'll sound something like "Brexit meant cesspit, so BritIn to save our skin ". " You listen to and repeat too much negativity. As someone else has said (oops repeating someone myself) It can’t be healthy | |||
| |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? Brexiteers certainly don't. And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Again, Brexiteers certainly don't. Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever Once again, Brexiteers don't *know* and don't *care* about *how* it's done *in practice* and by not understanding the issues in transitioning from one to the other literally overnight, of course they'll only talk about the distant future because any mention about resolving the problems, that the road into that future is paved with, does not fit with the "brexit means brexit" chant, which in reality is "brexit means no plan for brexit". Or that "the plan for brexit, is brexit". Or some other jingoism like that. P.S. The "forever" could easily (and most probably) turn into "a few years", when other chants will start being heard and they'll sound something like "Brexit meant cesspit, so BritIn to save our skin ". You listen to and repeat too much negativity. As someone else has said (oops repeating someone myself) It can’t be healthy " Your allways criticising others posts You need to take a long hard look at the tripe you post chap | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? Brexiteers certainly don't. And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Again, Brexiteers certainly don't. Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever Once again, Brexiteers don't *know* and don't *care* about *how* it's done *in practice* and by not understanding the issues in transitioning from one to the other literally overnight, of course they'll only talk about the distant future because any mention about resolving the problems, that the road into that future is paved with, does not fit with the "brexit means brexit" chant, which in reality is "brexit means no plan for brexit". Or that "the plan for brexit, is brexit". Or some other jingoism like that. P.S. The "forever" could easily (and most probably) turn into "a few years", when other chants will start being heard and they'll sound something like "Brexit meant cesspit, so BritIn to save our skin ". You listen to and repeat too much negativity. As someone else has said (oops repeating someone myself) It can’t be healthy " Ah the good old offence as defence whenever someone simply points out facts that aren't cheerleading Brexit  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world " Via the EU we have trade deals with 70 other countries. So this nonsense about a diminishing economic entity is disingenuous at best. | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world Via the EU we have trade deals with 70 other countries. So this nonsense about a diminishing economic entity is disingenuous at best." Can you list them? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world Via the EU we have trade deals with 70 other countries. So this nonsense about a diminishing economic entity is disingenuous at best. Can you list them?" It's actually 173 but who's counting , this is link to the full list and what's covered in each agreement , enjoy the read , http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/ | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world Via the EU we have trade deals with 70 other countries. So this nonsense about a diminishing economic entity is disingenuous at best. Can you list them? It's actually 173 but who's counting , this is link to the full list and what's covered in each agreement , enjoy the read , http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/" This is actually a link to its trade policies for each country or region, not the trade deals it has specifically negotiated with individual countries. The second sentence in the introduction says... "The EU has specific trade policies in place for all its partners and abides by the global rules on international trade set out by the World Trade Organisation." For example, it lists the USA. What's the link to the trade deal that the EU have negotiated with the USA please? | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world Via the EU we have trade deals with 70 other countries. So this nonsense about a diminishing economic entity is disingenuous at best. Can you list them? It's actually 173 but who's counting , this is link to the full list and what's covered in each agreement , enjoy the read , http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/ This is actually a link to its trade policies for each country or region, not the trade deals it has specifically negotiated with individual countries. The second sentence in the introduction says... "The EU has specific trade policies in place for all its partners and abides by the global rules on international trade set out by the World Trade Organisation." For example, it lists the USA. What's the link to the trade deal that the EU have negotiated with the USA please?" Not sure if your arguing the existence of non WTO arrangements or jystvthe number Imagine you can find a list if you follow a trail from here https://fullfact.org/europe/UK-EU-trade-agreements/ | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world Via the EU we have trade deals with 70 other countries. So this nonsense about a diminishing economic entity is disingenuous at best. Can you list them? It's actually 173 but who's counting , this is link to the full list and what's covered in each agreement , enjoy the read , http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/ This is actually a link to its trade policies for each country or region, not the trade deals it has specifically negotiated with individual countries. The second sentence in the introduction says... "The EU has specific trade policies in place for all its partners and abides by the global rules on international trade set out by the World Trade Organisation." For example, it lists the USA. What's the link to the trade deal that the EU have negotiated with the USA please? Not sure if your arguing the existence of non WTO arrangements or jystvthe number Imagine you can find a list if you follow a trail from here https://fullfact.org/europe/UK-EU-trade-agreements/" Thanks for that... The last but one paragraph says... "The EU says it has been or is negotiating deals with the USA, China, and India (among others). It’s unclear how advanced the negotiations are though, and those with the USA have been put on hold." So, it actually says specifically there are no trade deals with the USA, China or India....even though you say there are (they are in the list of 173 you originally referred to). And to the question on the link "how many countries does the EU have an agreement with?", it says "It’s roughly 60-70 outside of the EU. It's not easy to tell exactly how many" So you point to one link that says proves they have 173 agreements in place, then point to another that says it's only 60 or 70. You're asked to provide a link to the trade deal that the EU have negotiated and is in place with the USA, as the USA is on your list of 173, and you provide a link, on Full Fact, to prove your point, that actually says there is no trade deal between the EU and the USA! | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world Via the EU we have trade deals with 70 other countries. So this nonsense about a diminishing economic entity is disingenuous at best. Can you list them? It's actually 173 but who's counting , this is link to the full list and what's covered in each agreement , enjoy the read , http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/ This is actually a link to its trade policies for each country or region, not the trade deals it has specifically negotiated with individual countries. The second sentence in the introduction says... "The EU has specific trade policies in place for all its partners and abides by the global rules on international trade set out by the World Trade Organisation." For example, it lists the USA. What's the link to the trade deal that the EU have negotiated with the USA please? Not sure if your arguing the existence of non WTO arrangements or jystvthe number Imagine you can find a list if you follow a trail from here https://fullfact.org/europe/UK-EU-trade-agreements/ Thanks for that... The last but one paragraph says... "The EU says it has been or is negotiating deals with the USA, China, and India (among others). It’s unclear how advanced the negotiations are though, and those with the USA have been put on hold." So, it actually says specifically there are no trade deals with the USA, China or India....even though you say there are (they are in the list of 173 you originally referred to). And to the question on the link "how many countries does the EU have an agreement with?", it says "It’s roughly 60-70 outside of the EU. It's not easy to tell exactly how many" So you point to one link that says proves they have 173 agreements in place, then point to another that says it's only 60 or 70. You're asked to provide a link to the trade deal that the EU have negotiated and is in place with the USA, as the USA is on your list of 173, and you provide a link, on Full Fact, to prove your point, that actually says there is no trade deal between the EU and the USA! " What you’re doing here is confusing posters. I’ve never made a claim about numbers. Just refuted the claim made by Ben that, other than the Eu, we are on WTO terms with everyone. And given the benefit of negotiating agreements was seen as offsetting losing the EU FTA, accuracy on the starting position feels key. | |||
"WTO today. WTO tomorrow? With everyone? Who knows? And as WTO terms average out at a few percentage points, forget the actual figure, and they are aiming for global free trade, who cares? Leaving the EU is not about the benefit for the next 2, 5, 10 years, it is about the benefit forever so you’re comfortable with saying outside of the EU countries we’re on WTO terms with everyone else ? Yes, what’s the problem? The EU is diminishing in economic importance. In 1973 when we joined as the 8th member, the EU accounted for 31% of world economic output. Today with 28 members it accounts for 17%. We need to be free and flexible and able to act more quickly in a rapidly changing world Via the EU we have trade deals with 70 other countries. So this nonsense about a diminishing economic entity is disingenuous at best. Can you list them?" Yes thanks. | |||
"Today there will be a meeting and may is expected to deliver the plans, how do you think it will go? I reckon some of it wont be accepted such as the third way with the irish border." It would seem that Brexit supporting MPs either want the EU to "see sense" and give us everything we demand or a hard Brexit. We have now seen this demonstrated in the trade bill. Hard Brexit will effect far more than trade. There is a morass of legal and regulatory chaos tied up with it that is being studiously ignored. Centaur and his chums will no doubt say that this presents no problem or will just ignore it as it's a bit complicated. Regardless, this compromise is the "Brexit, means Brexit" that leavers wanted remainers to not mown about and get behind without question. Should we now be complaining about an undefined Brexit or should we still be getting behind it? It has become confusing because we would still be leaving the EU. That's what it said on the ballot paper. That is what will happen it seems. I was under the impression that the EU has one of the highest level of disposable income per head in the world as well as one of the largest economies. Will we make more money as a nation and as individual workers selling high value goods to rich people or lots of low value goods to poor people? Is it cheaper and faster to transport things short distances or long distances? Is it not true that the EU have more trade agreements in place than any other organisation or state? Are many these agreements with the fast growing parts of the world? Do we benefit from them? The world wants to sell to us, but we are already highly indebted both as a state and as individuals. What do we do better than anyone else? What will keep large numbers of our population in well paid work that isn't done anywhere else in the world? What will give us money to spend? We currently have a trade surplus with the USA. Will Trump see that as America winning or losing? What willa winning trade deal look like to the Donald? How many countries trade exclusively on WTO rules? Is it desirable to do so? What happens to domestic companies if we unilaterally drop all tariffs? So many questions. It's almost as if it were complicated. | |||
 | |||
| |||
