brexit

[brightonr]

BBC commentary of the pointless Lords debate shows this from that muppet Adonis :

Labour peer Lord Adonis sets out the circumstances he believes are required for a second referendum to take place.

He says the choice should be "a straight choice between the government's deal and remaining in the EU", adding that "there should not be a no deal option, because no deal does not exist."

Social media should be regulated, he says, and the franchise should be extended to 16 and 17 year olds, with particular consideration taken to ensure students are able to vote.

Makes me sick, this bloke. Him, both Campbell’s, Khan, Umunna, Soubry, Clarke and the rest of those who insist upon knowing better than everyone else.

[Blobbers]

BBC commentary of the pointless Lords debate shows this from that muppet Adonis :

Labour peer Lord Adonis sets out the circumstances he believes are required for a second referendum to take place.

He says the choice should be "a straight choice between the government's deal and remaining in the EU", adding that "there should not be a no deal option, because no deal does not exist."

Social media should be regulated, he says, and the franchise should be extended to 16 and 17 year olds, with particular consideration taken to ensure students are able to vote.

Makes me sick, this bloke. Him, both Campbell’s, Khan, Umunna, Soubry, Clarke and the rest of those who insist upon knowing better than everyone else.

Students were allowed to vote only they were either too stoned in a field somewhere listening to crap music or couldn't be arsed to get out of bed.
The idea that 16 and 17 year olds solving a political need is too laughable to debate.

[Itsonlyagame]

Can you imagine a countries political decision making being influenced by people who base their lives around watching keeping up with the Kardashians and love island.
Naff off.

[fisnik]

Think the simplest negotiating tactic from here on in would be to state that for every week that passes before the EU sign up to what we want, then £2.5bn comes off of the divorce payment. That should concentrate their minds into finding a solution to their made up problems.

The outcome cannot be any worse than a “no deal” scenario, which we may well be heading for anyway if they keep playing games. Unfortunately, I don’t think Mrs May has the bottle to embark on such a straightforward approach. Can’t see the point of allowing the uncertainty and the bedwetting it appears to be causing, to go on any longer.

Biggest mistake was to allow the EU to dictate the timetable and sequence of events from the outset, believing that they were ever going to act honourably.

The 40bn is not a goodwill gesture that the UK is making, in order get a good deal. That is money that this government and previous government have committed to paying years ago and they signed off on those contracts. This is before we even thought of leaving.

In any case in the grand scheme of things I do not think the EU is too as bothered about the the 40bn as it is about the Irish border and protecting the single market. If we were to go with threats of not paying they would say "suit yourself, clock is ticking". I wouldn't be surprised that even if we had a no deal we will probably be taken to court or voluntarily pay the vast majority of the 40bn ourselves. If you're looking to sign new trade deals the last thing you wanna do is to look like someone who breaks their word and reneges on previous contracts.

[brightonr]

The 40bn is not a goodwill gesture that the UK is making, in order get a good deal. That is money that this government and previous government have committed to paying years ago and they signed off on those contracts. This is before we even thought of leaving.

In any case in the grand scheme of things I do not think the EU is too as bothered about the the 40bn as it is about the Irish border and protecting the single market. If we were to go with threats of not paying they would say "suit yourself, clock is ticking". I wouldn't be surprised that even if we had a no deal we will probably be taken to court or voluntarily pay the vast majority of the 40bn ourselves. If you're looking to sign new trade deals the last thing you wanna do is to look like someone who breaks their word and reneges on previous contracts.

It’s called “taking back control”. Not of our laws in this regard, but of the negotiation.

Of course the money is partly what we have committed to, although don’t forget the contributions to their assets that we have already helped pay for. But we have also committed to finding solutions, whereas the EU, as usual, are committed to obstructing progress. Just another way of attempting to keep us imprisoned.

Should have been much tougher from the start, but that doesn’t prevent us from being tough now. The Irish border need not be an issue. We already have the exact same rules and regulations on goods as the rest of the EU. And unless we have good reason to change them, there is no threat to their precious single market. And if we do hvae good reason, then leaving is fully justified.

[Gtleighsr3]

end of day its not our country,its big corperations whom own all the goodies,we just renters of the land

[fisnik]

It’s called “taking back control”. Not of our laws in this regard, but of the negotiation.

Of course the money is partly what we have committed to, although don’t forget the contributions to their assets that we have already helped pay for. But we have also committed to finding solutions, whereas the EU, as usual, are committed to obstructing progress. Just another way of attempting to keep us imprisoned.

Should have been much tougher from the start, but that doesn’t prevent us from being tough now. The Irish border need not be an issue. We already have the exact same rules and regulations on goods as the rest of the EU. And unless we have good reason to change them, there is no threat to their precious single market. And if we do hvae good reason, then leaving is fully justified.

For some reason you have little squares in your post instead of apostrophes.

Anyway taking back control in a negotiation isn't really possible as the whole point is to get two parties to agree. Unless you get the other party to be happy with your suggestion you're not in control. At the moment there's no agreement and no one is in control of the negotiations I guess.

I understand where you're coming from but at the end of the day the EU is going to do whatever is best for them in this. Just like we're going to do whatever is best for us. Why would they do us a favour? Why do we need to ask them for one?

They will never, ever believe us that we will not change any of our regulations in the future. Why should they believe us? Why would we leave if we didn't want to change our regulations. Why go through all this hassle if we won't? And even if they did believe us and gave us a deal, what if we did end up changing our rules and regulations later what comeback have they got? What court could they go to? Too late then, they already gave us a deal and we could gain an advantage on their industry through our lower regulations.

Like I said reneging on the money isn't really going to fly and it would look bad to any future trading partner we're looking to strike a deal with. I don't think they're bothered. It's a weak card to play and most probably counter productive. I don't think claiming a share of the EU assets would work either. We're the ones leaving and giving up the club and the government would have brought that up if there was something to it.

[brightonr]

In relation to regulations, there are very good reasons why we may want to change them in future. Those being that already, in many cases, the standard of manufactured goods in this country far exceeds what is requird by the EU. If they are happy with inferior standards, then that’s up to them. Perhaps they should accept that we have higher standards and change accordingly.

[fisnik]

So what's the point of leaving? We might as well join the EEA then. Like Norway and Switzerland.

[brightonr]

So what's the point of leaving? We might as well join the EEA then. Like Norway and Switzerland.

Because we are much better off without them. I doubt the EU will even exist in 20 years time.

[fisnik]

Oh it probably will exist and even if it didn't something very much like it would. I take it you're ok with a no deal if at the end of the negotiations? Just out of curiosity what is your preferred outcome?

[brightonr]

Oh it probably will exist and even if it didn't something very much like it would. I take it you're ok with a no deal if at the end of the negotiations? Just out of curiosity what is your preferred outcome?

Standard free trade deal with no silliness from either side regarding border issues. Not overly keen on Mrs May’s idea, but maybe she’s playing the long game.

No deal is fine, apart from obvious never ending mass bedwetting from the remain voters. Awkward for a year or so, but common sense would prevail in time.

Not personally one to panic over ridiculous scare stories. And very pleased to hear No. 10 confirm that “no deal” wouldn’t be the end of “Strictly”.

[fisnik]

Standard free trade deal with no silliness from either side regarding border issues. Not overly keen on Mrs May’s idea, but maybe she’s playing the long game.

No deal is fine, apart from obvious never ending mass bedwetting from the remain voters. Awkward for a year or so, but common sense would prevail in time.

Not personally one to panic over ridiculous scare stories. And very pleased to hear No. 10 confirm that “no deal” wouldn’t be the end of “Strictly”.

A free trade agreement would involve having zero tariffs but you would still have non tariff barriers and checks (e.g. different airbag standards, children's toys, fireworks, etc) so it wouldn't be friction-less trade which would mean no solution to the Ireland border. Also not a solution to Airbus, BMW and every other multinational manufacturing giant. Without the backstop the EU won't agree to even a free trade agreement so it would be no deal. Don't think it'll come to no deal as May hasn't got it in her to take it that far but you never know. We'll have to see where it goes.

I think if it comes to no deal than it would be more than just awkward as the infrastructure in place currently is set up for the rules we have currently with EU. That is ports and airports, motorways, customs terminals, staff, etc. We need time to put that in place before the changes take effect.

In any case Patrick Minford the economist so loved by Brexiteers has himself said that we'll have to give up manufacturing after Brexit and lower all regulations and focus on the service sector like banking and insurance etc. If it comes to no deal the best way to go would be with a Singapore style low tax, no workers rights, low regulation economy and try to emulate that. It's definitely the best plan to take after a no deal but whether we'd succeed is a different matter.

You say that common sense would prevail in a no deal scenario but that means we'd be putting ourselves at the mercy of the common sense of the rest of the EU and hope that their common sense prevails and they don't insist on every little rule being enforced. It would not be taking back control.

[Gtleighsr3]

as other said,the EU is not as strong as it thinks,France Germany are ok,Italy Greece Spain all in trouble.Thing will collapse sooner or later or be just france germany and some ex eastern block countries left.

[brightonr]

A free trade agreement would involve having zero tariffs but you would still have non tariff barriers and checks (e.g. different airbag standards, children's toys, fireworks, etc) so it wouldn't be friction-less trade which would mean no solution to the Ireland border. Also not a solution to Airbus, BMW and every other multinational manufacturing giant. Without the backstop the EU won't agree to even a free trade agreement so it would be no deal. Don't think it'll come to no deal as May hasn't got it in her to take it that far but you never know. We'll have to see where it goes.

I think if it comes to no deal than it would be more than just awkward as the infrastructure in place currently is set up for the rules we have currently with EU. That is ports and airports, motorways, customs terminals, staff, etc. We need time to put that in place before the changes take effect.

In any case Patrick Minford the economist so loved by Brexiteers has himself said that we'll have to give up manufacturing after Brexit and lower all regulations and focus on the service sector like banking and insurance etc. If it comes to no deal the best way to go would be with a Singapore style low tax, no workers rights, low regulation economy and try to emulate that. It's definitely the best plan to take after a no deal but whether we'd succeed is a different matter.

You say that common sense would prevail in a no deal scenario but that means we'd be putting ourselves at the mercy of the common sense of the rest of the EU and hope that their common sense prevails and they don't insist on every little rule being enforced. It would not be taking back control.

What differing standards are you referring to? They are currently the same, are they not?

As for the motor trade or Airbus, we’re hardly going to be independently changing the spec of BMW components. Nothing actually needs to change unless the EU decide to put up barriers. In my opinion, the reality of that and the consequences for their member states will become clearer as the weeks pass. Not sure if the EU are stupid enough to create havoc among the economies of the “net contributors”, but if they are, it can only hasten it’s demise. Can’t see Germany and France being too keen on keeping the rest afloat even more than they are doing already.

I guess time will tell.