YellowTaxi
Well-known member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 1,239
Calling him "drunker" really improves your argument, by the way.
But what they are doing is two fold. Making a bitter pill easier to swallow by putting a time limit on it, and as we've seen now, 2 years may not be enough time to negotiate the deal. The spectre of a no deal getting bigger and bigger, or a longer time period to get a trade deal to avoid a backstop? What's worse?
We are rapidly heading to a No Deal that means WTO terms, no £39 billion pay off and immediate trade harder for the EU and the UK. Suddenly, the world opens up to the UK, and while it will incur significant issues...
Not even thinking about German car manufacturers, but you do remind me how EU wide a no deal will hurt, especially when they are teetering on recession. It's the EUs red line that means we are lurching to a no deal because they insisted on this process. Both sides have given and taken in this, for example the EU gave a little on fishing rights.Still waiting on the forlorn hope that the German car companies to come to our rescue then. We were told by the Brexiteers that these negotiations would be easy.
It is our mess, remember May's red lines?! The EU have been consistent on their position and our Govt know the basic principles that the EU and the single market operate on.
By, for example. being able to start on a trade deal 6 months ago, it would enable the UK and EU to see an end to the negotiations and provide a guide to whether the back stop is high or low percentage to come in, thus hopefully reducing the toxicity of it all. The EUs insistence on doing this in the way we have has made a paragraph or two in a 550 page doc a big thing.So in other words, don't make a decision now on how to manage the UK-EU border post-Brexit but pre-Trade Deal - just kick the can down the road for a while longer?
I thought Brexiteers were against can-kicking?
Not even thinking about German car manufacturers, but you do remind me how EU wide a no deal will hurt, especially when they are teetering on recession. It's the EUs red line that means we are lurching to a no deal because they insisted on this process. Both sides have given and taken in this, for example the EU gave a little on fishing rights.
By, for example. being able to start on a trade deal 6 months ago, it would enable the UK and EU to see an end to the negotiations and provide a guide to whether the back stop is high or low percentage to come in, thus hopefully reducing the toxicity of it all. The EUs insistence on doing this in the way we have has made a paragraph or two in a 550 page doc a big thing.
Possibly. Of course we would be able to sell the missing 44% elsewhere, can they? All those countries owe the EU hundreds of billions so losing trade has greater importance, unless you believe they owe so much it will never be paid back so actually its irrelevant.Just some numbers (from 2017, I believe):
6.6% of Portugal's exports were to the UK
6.9% of Spain's exports were to the UK
3.9% of Greece's exports were to the UK
44% of the UK's exports were to the EU
If tariffs make exports so expensive that the importing countries don't bother, it's bad for everyone. But it's not hard to see who's worst affected.
Well yes. If some of our exports to and from the EU are (for example) apples and some of our imports are also apples - which is true - our apples will become more expensive in the EU, thus leaving a gap for the countries in the EU to fill with their produce. Substitute 'apples' for virtually any product and you see the problem. It is more likely that the EU countries will sell to each other to fill any gaps we leave than we will suddenly find new markets for 44% of our exports. Each EU country is potentially losing it's export markets in one country - we are losing ours in 26!Of course we would be able to sell the missing 44% elsewhere, can they?
I work for an American company, currently the UK head office is being massively expanded, sales continue to grow as does the workforce. Would appear Diane Coyle is wrong.Over what period are you claiming that "the UK economy has somehow managed to grow more than the EUs"? if that happened whilst we were amember of the EU that suggests EU membership was economically very positive for the UK. Since the vote? Diane Coyle, Bennett professor of public policy, University of Cambridge disagrees with you
" Significantly. It already is of course. Apart from slower UK growth compared to other OECD economies, the fall in the pound raising the cost of imports will have done at least as much to hammer the high street as other factors like business rates or online competition. Uncertainty has a chilling effect on investment, hiring and spending plans at the best of times. This is not the best of times. It’s hard to believe any business in Britain will sign off on new investments or expansion at present. Of course there might be a short-term boost to sales of essentials before the end of March; I for one am stockpiling, given the number of our politicians who seem to think a no-deal exit is no problem. "
True, its also true we can gain other countries, how many can they gain?Well yes. If some of our exports to and from the EU are (for example) apples and some of our imports are also apples - which is true - our apples will become more expensive in the EU, thus leaving a gap for the countries in the EU to fill with their produce. Substitute 'apples' for virtually any product and you see the problem. It is more likely that the EU countries will sell to each other to fill any gaps we leave than we will suddenly find new markets for 44% of our exports. Each EU country is potentially losing it's export markets in one country - we are losing ours in 26!
True, its also true we can gain other countries, how many can they gain?
The UK Govt, are after an overwhelming expression of dislike of the deal by our Parliament (which is what people like yourself wanted BTW), are attempting to do something to get the deal through before we head to No Deal. If the EU want to keep it as is, good on them but there are consequences to their red lines as there are to ours.Our Govt negotiated an agreement with the EU. The EU aren't the ones trying to change it hence it is our mess.
So, none then?The EU (and therefore currently us)) already have trade agreements with a lot of the countries we will need a deal with.
Why can't they trade with those same countries? Being in the EU does not mean you can only trade in the EU. Any idea that somehow the expanding (but still tiny in comparision with the EU) African markets will suddenly be there to take up the slack or that there any number of countries just waiting for us to be free from the EU to trade with us is just fantasy.True, its also true we can gain other countries, how many can they gain?
The UK Govt, are after an overwhelming expression of dislike of the deal by our Parliament (which is what people like yourself wanted BTW), are attempting to do something to get the deal through before we head to No Deal. If the EU want to keep it as is, good on them but there are consequences to their red lines as there are to ours.
So, none then?
So we have to break our early red lines, but they don't because they are being consistent? Not sure that's how it works.May's deal was a car crash because of her very public, very early red lines and that has led to this situation.
The EU have remained consistent throughout that they won't (and can't anyway) compromise on the principles that the bloc operate on. This has been clear from the start, the EU haven't hidden it. And we are the ones wanting the divorce, the EU don't want us to leave.
So we have to break our early red lines, but they don't because they are being consistent? Not sure that's how it works.
Still, their steadfast insistence on a red line that we can only talk about trade after the separation talks are complete has landed us at an impasse. I hope they like their process when they don't get their 39 billion!
Your anecdote doesn't defeat her data.I work for an American company, currently the UK head office is being massively expanded, sales continue to grow as does the workforce. Would appear Diane Coyle is wrong.