|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Legal, who do you think would look to leave the Union if the UK got a bad deal?
Spain? Italy? Greece? All of them would be hurt much worse by an EU-exit then the EU will. (particularly financially)
I think the EU recognizes the much bigger threat of the UK getting special treatment (by having full market access without full freedom of movement) and the reaction to that from other nations who want the same deal (restrict immigration).
|
On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic.
Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project.
So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't.
And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. There's very little real strength in the EU's position.
|
On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups.
I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway.
Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance.
Im already lolling at the fact that half our clients have already started moving customs brokerage offices to the Netherlands and France (FRANCE !!?!?! Everyone hates brokerage there, you really done fucked up there if they are picking the French over you). The ones who can really afford the restructuring are making plans for Luxembourg. Its depressingly hilarious.
I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke.
|
On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence.
Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?"
Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation (or especially so one where there are many more tenants available than viable houses) than a union-nation one.
On October 07 2016 00:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Legal, who do you think would look to leave the Union if the UK got a bad deal?
Spain? Italy? Greece? All of them would be hurt much worse by an EU-exit then the EU will. (particularly financially)
I think the EU recognizes the much bigger threat of the UK getting special treatment (by having full market access without full freedom of movement) and the reaction to that from other nations who want the same deal (restrict immigration).
I don't think that it would be that any one country would be inclined to leave if the UK gets a bad deal. In fact, as far as I see the UK isn't really too popular with the rest of the union. The more likely scenario is simply that it would create some bad blood, would create a precedent of the EU being a union held together by the threat of punitive measures rather than mutual benefit, and will lead to countries that will be more inclined to leave the next time the EU has a weak bargaining position due to some crisis or other (an inevitability because crises will always occur). Basically it will just make the next crisis of faith (or the continuation of this one, if it really turns out to be that bad) even bigger and more existential.
|
bardtown, why are you still under the delusion that UK will have access to the single market without giving EU freedom of movement? It is not a threat from the EU, it is simply the conditions that the EU give. The terms are identical, be it Norway or Switzerland.
As for the EU budget, the sheer economic benefits to government, and to the vast majority of people within the EU more than makes up what is paid. And please, stop saying "we". You don't represent the UK government, you don't represent UK, you don't represent me.
|
On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke.
Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry.
It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price.
On October 07 2016 01:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
bardtown, why are you still under the delusion that UK will have access to the single market without giving EU freedom of movement? It is not a threat from the EU, it is simply the conditions that the EU give. The terms are identical, be it Norway or Switzerland.
As for the EU budget, the sheer economic benefits to government, and to the vast majority of people within the EU more than makes up what is paid. And please, stop saying "we". You don't represent the UK government, you don't represent UK, you don't represent me.
Best to know what you're talking about before you accuse me of being deluded. Access to the single market != membership of the single market. Every country has access to varying degrees. Like I said earlier, I expect a Canadian style deal. No freedom of movement, access limited in some respects.
|
On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price.
No it benefits Britain, and benefits the EU when Britain feels like it. Thats not exactly fair terms. Unless that whole bit about Immigration being a fundamental issue in driving Brexit was bullshit and now everyone changed their minds..
Its also funny how the word sovereignty is thrown around in different contexts and takes shape or meaning convenient to its usage in a particular argument.
I could come up with 10 different things for what it means to you at this point on how you've used it since the vote.
|
On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. This dog/landlord analogy is getting out of hand. It was an anology about the ridiculousness of bardtown's claims. Why stretch it into something it isn't? Legalord, tell me, how does your stretching of the initial analogy relate to UK and the EU?
|
On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. [..].
Just a minor question, wasn't 50% of the "out" argument that all the money that flows into the EU is kept in British hands (NHS-bus and so on)? The other 50% being: ![[image loading]](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/06/16/Farage_addresses_the_media_during_a_national_poste-xlarge_trans++jJeHvIwLm2xPr27m7LF8mTWU-KwRaHvlaJXY1texVLQ.jpg)
And keep it civil guys 
Also, I HIGHLY contest the assumption that the decision to "do the Brexit" has been made by people informed about the consequences of their decision. Because they are not even remotely clear now, 3 months after the referendum!
|
On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price.
That doesn't make any sense. Access to the single market means having to adhere to the rules of the single market, thus a little loss of sovereignity, as it is in all trading agreements. Stop your delusion already that UK will have access to the single market, yet retaining every single preferences you desire. At this point you are just typing out wishful thinking without reason as if this will occur.
|
On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
bardtown, why are you still under the delusion that UK will have access to the single market without giving EU freedom of movement? It is not a threat from the EU, it is simply the conditions that the EU give. The terms are identical, be it Norway or Switzerland.
As for the EU budget, the sheer economic benefits to government, and to the vast majority of people within the EU more than makes up what is paid. And please, stop saying "we". You don't represent the UK government, you don't represent UK, you don't represent me. Best to know what you're talking about before you accuse me of being deluded. Access to the single market != membership of the single market. Every country has access to varying degrees. Like I said earlier, I expect a Canadian style deal. No freedom of movement, access limited in some respects.
Ok right, yes Britain will have access to the EU market, it can sell it goods there and the EU can sell its goods in Britain. That will happen 100%.
Both sides would also have to pay import costs.
It will also benefit the EU more because they have a wider variety of goods available and the UK needs EU goods more then the other way around (Because the UK is not self-sufficient and EU goods will still be cheaper for the UK then alternatives because of distance).
The EU will also get new deals quicker then the UK, from the rest of the world. Because the EU is a bigger market and negotiators are in limited supply.
The bigger cost is all the international companies who are currently in the UK who depend on the free movement of goods/services to the rest of the EU. They will no longer have access to that and will therefor pack up and leave for any EU country because the cost of moving is lower then the cost of trading across the EU border.
A big example of this is the financial sector in London.
|
On October 07 2016 01:13 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. [..]. Just a minor question, wasn't 50% of the "out" argument that all the money that flows into the EU is kept in British hands (NHS-bus and so on)? The other 50% being: And keep it civil guys
Nope. That's the way Remainers like to characterise it, but the number one issue was sovereignty by some margin. Immigration was 2nd, and if I remember correctly something like... 3% of Leave voters put the economy as their #1 reason, as opposed to some huge proportion for Remain. Can't remember how high exactly but it could have been 90%. I think there was a pretty clear consensus that Brexit was an economic risk even amongst Leavers.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsUJmIYWgAQQZCz.jpg:large)
On October 07 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. On October 07 2016 01:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
bardtown, why are you still under the delusion that UK will have access to the single market without giving EU freedom of movement? It is not a threat from the EU, it is simply the conditions that the EU give. The terms are identical, be it Norway or Switzerland.
As for the EU budget, the sheer economic benefits to government, and to the vast majority of people within the EU more than makes up what is paid. And please, stop saying "we". You don't represent the UK government, you don't represent UK, you don't represent me. Best to know what you're talking about before you accuse me of being deluded. Access to the single market != membership of the single market. Every country has access to varying degrees. Like I said earlier, I expect a Canadian style deal. No freedom of movement, access limited in some respects. Ok right, yes Britain will have access to the EU market, it can sell it goods there and the EU can sell its goods in Britain. That will happen 100%. Both sides would also have to pay import costs. It will also benefit the EU more because they have a wider variety of goods available and the UK needs EU goods more then the other way around (Because the UK is not self-sufficient and EU goods will still be cheaper for the UK then alternatives because of distance). The EU will also get new deals quicker then the UK, from the rest of the world. Because the EU is a bigger market and negotiators are in limited supply. The bigger cost is all the international companies who are currently in the UK who depend on the free movement of goods/services to the rest of the EU. They will no longer have access to that and will therefor pack up and leave for any EU country because the cost of moving is lower then the cost of trading across the EU border. A big example of this is the financial sector in London.
Obviously it will happen... And the EU is notoriously bad at negotiating trade deals. It's very hard to please 28 countries who all have different ambitions and vulnerabilities.
|
On October 07 2016 01:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. This dog/landlord analogy is getting out of hand. It was an anology about the ridiculousness of bardtown's claims. Why stretch it into something it isn't? Legalord, tell me, how does your stretching of the initial analogy relate to UK and the EU?
The UK needs the EU, in that in the current state of affairs the disruption of their trade arrangement will be very painful for the UK. The EU needs the UK, in that it is a large contributing member whose loss would not go unnoticed, to put it lightly. The EU makes the correct observation that the UK has the weaker hand in these negotiations because while the EU will suffer badly, the UK will suffer much worse from a bad break. However, the mistake here is in assuming that because the UK will suffer worse, that it will necessarily fall in line to avoid the damage of a bad break, and therefore the EU should take a hard line on negotiations. That's a mistake because it clearly isn't true - the EU needs the UK and it will either have to realize that it needs to make a deal, or suffer the consequences of failing to do so.
|
On October 07 2016 01:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. That doesn't make any sense. Access to the single market means having to adhere to the rules of the single market, thus a little loss of sovereignity, as it is in all trading agreements. Stop your delusion already that UK will have access to the single market, yet retaining every single preferences you desire. At this point you are just typing out wishful thinking without reason as if this will occur.
Ok so let me also explain why a Canada style deal is absurd for Britain, (as someone who works in brokerage and logistics).
Firstly. Britain is in Europe and Canada is not, obvious duh but the geography here is a pretty important factor in terms of transit times and the appeal of most merchandise/commodity trading. No surprise then that Britain probably has like 10 times the volume that Canada does.
There are 10's of thousands of British firms that are closely integrated with the EU, Canada basically just has like multinationals. Your Wolsely's, your Philips and so on. And believe it or not after 25 years of single market alot of these thousands of firms have developed their operations to rely on the specialization and the division of labour that the EU has provided. These companies dont need a trade agreement, they need integration because thats what they are modeled on.
Canadas agreement is a casual trade agreement at best. Its what you do when you both have some trade but not really enough to tighten controls. Its mostly large commodity and multinational merchandise to hasten movement of essential merchandise (agriculutral products, building materials etc)
The movement of goods and services between the EU and the UK is massive compared to that and also alot more service oriented. And so therefore the possibilities of losing and gaining are alot more significant.
CETA overall is pretty insignificant to job growth and creation. It benefits both countries in a limited capacity and doesnt really harm anyone. That is simply a function of the volume of trade.
If someone thinks they are going to get a CETA style trade agreement with the UK thats an absolute joke and actually quite delusional.
On October 07 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. This dog/landlord analogy is getting out of hand. It was an anology about the ridiculousness of bardtown's claims. Why stretch it into something it isn't? Legalord, tell me, how does your stretching of the initial analogy relate to UK and the EU? The UK needs the EU, in that in the current state of affairs the disruption of their trade arrangement will be very painful for the UK. The EU needs the UK, in that it is a large contributing member whose loss would not go unnoticed, to put it lightly. The EU makes the correct observation that the UK has the weaker hand in these negotiations because while the EU will suffer badly, the UK will suffer much worse from a bad break. However, the mistake here is in assuming that because the UK will suffer worse, that it will necessarily fall in line to avoid the damage of a bad break, and therefore the EU should take a hard line on negotiations. That's a mistake because it clearly isn't true - the EU needs the UK and it will either have to realize that it needs to make a deal, or suffer the consequences of failing to do so.
I think its a false expectation that the EU really really wants the UK to fall in line. At this point they just want to move on and if the UK wants to leave they have to operate like someone whose moved on and not have a toxic on/again off/again where are we at relationship. Either you stay or its a clean hard break. Its not complicated to understand.
|
On October 07 2016 01:22 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:13 Artisreal wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. [..]. Just a minor question, wasn't 50% of the "out" argument that all the money that flows into the EU is kept in British hands (NHS-bus and so on)? The other 50% being: And keep it civil guys Nope. That's the way Remainers like to characterise it, but the number one issue was sovereignty by some margin. Immigration was 2nd, and if I remember correctly something like... 3% of Leave voters put the economy as their #1 reason, as opposed to some huge proportion for Remain. Can't remember how high exactly but it could have been 90%. I think there was a pretty clear consensus that Brexit was an economic risk even amongst Leavers. [image edited out] Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make.
If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement.
Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. On October 07 2016 01:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
bardtown, why are you still under the delusion that UK will have access to the single market without giving EU freedom of movement? It is not a threat from the EU, it is simply the conditions that the EU give. The terms are identical, be it Norway or Switzerland.
As for the EU budget, the sheer economic benefits to government, and to the vast majority of people within the EU more than makes up what is paid. And please, stop saying "we". You don't represent the UK government, you don't represent UK, you don't represent me. Best to know what you're talking about before you accuse me of being deluded. Access to the single market != membership of the single market. Every country has access to varying degrees. Like I said earlier, I expect a Canadian style deal. No freedom of movement, access limited in some respects. Ok right, yes Britain will have access to the EU market, it can sell it goods there and the EU can sell its goods in Britain. That will happen 100%. Both sides would also have to pay import costs. It will also benefit the EU more because they have a wider variety of goods available and the UK needs EU goods more then the other way around (Because the UK is not self-sufficient and EU goods will still be cheaper for the UK then alternatives because of distance). The EU will also get new deals quicker then the UK, from the rest of the world. Because the EU is a bigger market and negotiators are in limited supply. The bigger cost is all the international companies who are currently in the UK who depend on the free movement of goods/services to the rest of the EU. They will no longer have access to that and will therefor pack up and leave for any EU country because the cost of moving is lower then the cost of trading across the EU border. A big example of this is the financial sector in London. Obviously it will happen... And the EU is notoriously bad at negotiating trade deals. It's very hard to please 28 countries who all have different ambitions and vulnerabilities.
Thank you for the link.
Very interesting indeed! What a torn public opinion.
A majority (57%) of those with a university degree voted to remain, as did 64% of those with a higher degree and more than four in five (81%) of those still in full time education. Among those whose formal education ended at secondary school or earlier, a large majority voted to leave.
White voters voted to leave the EU by 53% to 47%. Two thirds (67%) of those describing themselves as Asian voted to remain, as did three quarters (73%) of black voters. Nearly six in ten (58%) of those describing themselves as Christian voted to leave; seven in ten Muslims voted to remain.
Also you should really mind, that they were give these 3 answers and were asked to rank them. No more than that.
That reduces the validity in relation to my claim by quite a bit 
|
Being more educated is often used as a proxy for "smarter" but it also almost always means "more closely tied to the status quo" by virtue of the fact that said status quo is what gives them their jobs.
The academic community, for example, is overwhelmingly pro-EU, but one may wonder if funding is the reason more so than principle. Research funding is one thing that the EU specifically, and big government in general, actually does very well.
|
On October 07 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
Being more educated is often used as a proxy for "smarter" but it also almost always means "more closely tied to the status quo" by virtue of the fact that said status quo is what gives them their jobs.
The academic community, for example, is overwhelmingly pro-EU, but one may wonder if funding is the reason more so than principle. Research funding is one thing that the EU specifically, and big government in general, actually does very well.
I did not want to imply that leave voters = stupid, remain voters = smart.
I merely wanted to show how torn the UK is pictured in that poll.
Not just by education or heritage, if you look at the cited poll, also young and old, working and retired...
|
On October 07 2016 01:26 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make.
If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement.
Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. That doesn't make any sense. Access to the single market means having to adhere to the rules of the single market, thus a little loss of sovereignity, as it is in all trading agreements. Stop your delusion already that UK will have access to the single market, yet retaining every single preferences you desire. At this point you are just typing out wishful thinking without reason as if this will occur. Ok so let me also explain why a Canada style deal is absurd for Britain, (as someone who works in brokerage and logistics). Firstly. Britain is in Europe and Canada is not, obvious duh but the geography here is a pretty important factor in terms of transit times and the appeal of most merchandise/commodity trading. No surprise then that Britain probably has like 10 times the volume that Canada does. There are 10's of thousands of British firms that are closely integrated with the EU, Canada basically just has like multinationals. Your Wolsely's, your Philips and so on. And believe it or not after 25 years of single market alot of these thousands of firms have developed their operations to rely on the specialization and the division of labour that the EU has provided. These companies dont need a trade agreement, they need integration because thats what they are modeled on. Canadas agreement is a casual trade agreement at best. Its what you do when you both have some trade but not really enough to tighten controls. Its mostly large commodity and multinational merchandise to hasten movement of essential merchandise (agriculutral products, building materials etc) The movement of goods and services between the EU and the UK is massive compared to that and also alot more service oriented. And so therefore the possibilities of losing and gaining are alot more significant. CETA overall is pretty insignificant to job growth and creation. It benefits both countries in a limited capacity and doesnt really harm anyone. That is simply a function of the volume of trade. If someone thinks they are going to get a CETA style trade agreement with the UK thats an absolute joke and actually quite delusional. Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. This dog/landlord analogy is getting out of hand. It was an anology about the ridiculousness of bardtown's claims. Why stretch it into something it isn't? Legalord, tell me, how does your stretching of the initial analogy relate to UK and the EU? The UK needs the EU, in that in the current state of affairs the disruption of their trade arrangement will be very painful for the UK. The EU needs the UK, in that it is a large contributing member whose loss would not go unnoticed, to put it lightly. The EU makes the correct observation that the UK has the weaker hand in these negotiations because while the EU will suffer badly, the UK will suffer much worse from a bad break. However, the mistake here is in assuming that because the UK will suffer worse, that it will necessarily fall in line to avoid the damage of a bad break, and therefore the EU should take a hard line on negotiations. That's a mistake because it clearly isn't true - the EU needs the UK and it will either have to realize that it needs to make a deal, or suffer the consequences of failing to do so. I think its a false expectation that the EU really really wants the UK to fall in line. At this point they just want to move on and if the UK wants to leave they have to operate like someone whose moved on and not have a toxic on/again off/again where are we at relationship. Either you stay or its a clean hard break. Its not complicated to understand.
When people talk about a Canada style deal they don't mean copying and pasting CETA, they just mean a bespoke trade deal outside the single market. The EU will be able to negotiate some things in their favour, shout loudly about them and then quietly make some concessions to the UK in return. It will get past all the posturing and rhetoric and get deep into the real details about industries, tariffs and regulations. If/when it gets to this point, the EU actually will have the stronger hand.
|
On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one.
For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement.
If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be.
There are 4 options here:
- convince the other members to make an exception for you
- convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether
- continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions
- leave
The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will.
|
On October 07 2016 01:41 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:26 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 01:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make.
If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement.
Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. That doesn't make any sense. Access to the single market means having to adhere to the rules of the single market, thus a little loss of sovereignity, as it is in all trading agreements. Stop your delusion already that UK will have access to the single market, yet retaining every single preferences you desire. At this point you are just typing out wishful thinking without reason as if this will occur. Ok so let me also explain why a Canada style deal is absurd for Britain, (as someone who works in brokerage and logistics). Firstly. Britain is in Europe and Canada is not, obvious duh but the geography here is a pretty important factor in terms of transit times and the appeal of most merchandise/commodity trading. No surprise then that Britain probably has like 10 times the volume that Canada does. There are 10's of thousands of British firms that are closely integrated with the EU, Canada basically just has like multinationals. Your Wolsely's, your Philips and so on. And believe it or not after 25 years of single market alot of these thousands of firms have developed their operations to rely on the specialization and the division of labour that the EU has provided. These companies dont need a trade agreement, they need integration because thats what they are modeled on. Canadas agreement is a casual trade agreement at best. Its what you do when you both have some trade but not really enough to tighten controls. Its mostly large commodity and multinational merchandise to hasten movement of essential merchandise (agriculutral products, building materials etc) The movement of goods and services between the EU and the UK is massive compared to that and also alot more service oriented. And so therefore the possibilities of losing and gaining are alot more significant. CETA overall is pretty insignificant to job growth and creation. It benefits both countries in a limited capacity and doesnt really harm anyone. That is simply a function of the volume of trade. If someone thinks they are going to get a CETA style trade agreement with the UK thats an absolute joke and actually quite delusional. On October 07 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. This dog/landlord analogy is getting out of hand. It was an anology about the ridiculousness of bardtown's claims. Why stretch it into something it isn't? Legalord, tell me, how does your stretching of the initial analogy relate to UK and the EU? The UK needs the EU, in that in the current state of affairs the disruption of their trade arrangement will be very painful for the UK. The EU needs the UK, in that it is a large contributing member whose loss would not go unnoticed, to put it lightly. The EU makes the correct observation that the UK has the weaker hand in these negotiations because while the EU will suffer badly, the UK will suffer much worse from a bad break. However, the mistake here is in assuming that because the UK will suffer worse, that it will necessarily fall in line to avoid the damage of a bad break, and therefore the EU should take a hard line on negotiations. That's a mistake because it clearly isn't true - the EU needs the UK and it will either have to realize that it needs to make a deal, or suffer the consequences of failing to do so. I think its a false expectation that the EU really really wants the UK to fall in line. At this point they just want to move on and if the UK wants to leave they have to operate like someone whose moved on and not have a toxic on/again off/again where are we at relationship. Either you stay or its a clean hard break. Its not complicated to understand. When people talk about a Canada style deal they don't mean copying and pasting CETA, they just mean a bespoke trade deal outside the single market. The EU will be able to negotiate some things in their favour, shout loudly about them and then quietly make some concessions to the UK in return. It will get past all the posturing and rhetoric and get deep into the real details about industries, tariffs and regulations. If/when it gets to this point, the EU actually will have the stronger hand.
Again, yes the EU and UK will have a trade deal at the end of the brexit. Be it hard or soft. No one here is denying that.
What we are saying is that a normal style trade deal is a terrible thing for Britain because of all the international firms who are based in the UK for the sole reason that it gave them unrestricted access to the EU single market. Aka 0 tariffs/import costs.
Many (if not all) of these companies will move large parts (if not all) of their UK business out of the country into another EU countries because the benefit of trading within the EU single market is so great.
That will be the big damage to the UK economy and the EU will not feel a single thing from it. It will even be good for the EU because that is new jobs for people inside whatever country they end up relocating to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1728
881
233
EPT
