Brexit - Deal or No Deal?

[highspeed990]

Mate, honestly, are you actually a Remainer doing a parody of leaver clichés?

I doubt all the people who voted remain are stupid, they are simply misguided, though there are exceptions. How does it benefit us to pay money to the EU?

 

[telstarbox]

Because it means the UK can trade with the other 27 countries without taxes on imports and exports.

 

[DarloRich]

I doubt all the people who voted remain are stupid, they are simply misguided, though there are exceptions. How does it benefit us to pay money to the EU?

You can not, honestly, be that detached from reality can you?

 

[cactustwirly]

I doubt all the people who voted remain are stupid, they are simply misguided, though there are exceptions. How does it benefit us to pay money to the EU?

The same could be said about Brexit voters...

Because it means the UK can trade with the other 27 countries without taxes on imports and exports.

Which provides the basis for a lot of jobs and tax revenue, which far exceeds the amount we pay for membership.
Remember most of GDP (80%) is the trade of financial services between us and other European countries.
There are also a lot jobs in the manufacturing of parts for european factories, brexit may make these uneconomical because it would be harder and more expensive for these parts to reach the factories.

 

[highspeed990]

We've been trading with countries for centuries without EU dictatorship, and will continue to do so, how is that detached? German companies want a good deal with the UK, as do many European companies.

 

[cactustwirly]

We've been trading with countries for centuries without EU dictatorship, and will continue to do so, how is that detached? German companies want a good deal with the UK, as do many European companies.

But not in financial services, or parts for a European production chain (like Airbus, Ford etc)
Without the EU, banks in the city would have to apply for financial passports for each country individually.

Oh without a transition period/good deal, UK airlines will not be able to fly after we leave the EU.
An EU organisation deals with the safety of airlines instead of the CAA, so if we end up with no deal, there won't be enough time to create our own safety agency in the CAA.

 

[najaB]

Yes, as you said just a few posts above. And as I replied, one element that we bring to the table when we're concluding a long term deal is the fact that Europe won't want to be separated from London in the short term.

I agree, but it isn't really that strong a bargaining point as the EU is better position to weather short-term pain than we are.

 

[Dave1987]

The EU isn't keen for us to go at all, and will be keen to do a deal. It's just that lots of remainers take EU negotiation stances as gospel rather than the political bluffing that they are.

I believe the EU are keen to come to an amicable arrangement but at the end of the day they know that the EU single market is a far more appealing to the wider world than the UK market. You only have to look at the whole Canada - EU deal that has just been ratified. May wants to tag onto it with a similar deal for the UK. The Canadians are keen for a UK deal post Brexit but they have said we will not get the same deal as the EU as the UK is a far smaller market. The EU are not bluffing at all! They are well aware of how much pain they can cause the UK Government by simply denying "passporting" rights to UK financial services to the EU. You cannot have your cake and eat it. The EU have their principles and the UK has punched above its weight in the world for a very long time. It is only when the Japanese say that they invested vast amounts in the UK because of the access to the single market you realise the UK is merely a small island on the corner of Europe soon to be put in our place now we have quit one of the biggest markets in the world!

 

[cactustwirly]

I believe the EU are keen to come to an amicable arrangement but at the end of the day they know that the EU single market is a far more appealing to the wider world than the UK market. You only have to look at the whole Canada - EU deal that has just been ratified. May wants to tag onto it with a similar deal for the UK. The Canadians are keen for a UK deal post Brexit but they have said we will not get the same deal as the EU as the UK is a far smaller market. The EU are not bluffing at all! They are well aware of how much pain they can cause the UK Government by simply denying "passporting" rights to UK financial services to the EU. You cannot have your cake and eat it. The EU have their principles and the UK has punched above its weight in the world for a very long time. It is only when the Japanese say that they invested vast amounts in the UK because of the access to the single market you realise the UK is merely a small island on the corner of Europe soon to be put in our place now we have quit one of the biggest markets in the world!

I agree totally, it's just a same that Brexiteers can't see that.
They've got soem rose tinted spectacles on: just because we were a superpower 100 years ago, doesn't mean that we're going to magically get trade deals.

 

[highspeed990]

But not in financial services, or parts for a European production chain (like Airbus, Ford etc)
Without the EU, banks in the city would have to apply for financial passports for each country individually.

Oh without a transition period/good deal, UK airlines will not be able to fly after we leave the EU.
An EU organisation deals with the safety of airlines instead of the CAA, so if we end up with no deal, there won't be enough time to create our own safety agency in the CAA.

If we export something to India, and those goods pass through the EU, they include that in the 80% figure.

Banks applying for separate financial passports is not an issue.

And the very thought of airline services being suspended because of Brexit is preposterous, European airliners are applying for licenses to operate in the UK.

There is also no reason why we can't carry on import tax free trade without the EU.

 

[WelshBluebird]

And the very thought of airline services being suspended because of Brexit is preposterous, European airliners are applying for licenses to operate in the UK.

This just shows how little you actually know. It isn't about airlines licenses. You probably don't even know what the EASA is do you?
I'll give you a tip - it is the organisation that deals with aviation safety across the EU, including the UK. We do not have an equivalent in the UK, and creating one will take time and money. If we leave the EU with no deal, then we also leave the EASA. Do you see the problem yet?

 

[cactustwirly]

This just shows how little you actually know. It isn't about airlines licenses. You probably don't even know what the EASA is do you?

Most people don't, so here's an educational video for you...

 

[highspeed990]

May I ask you to prove the stats, even one? For example the 80% of trade is with the EU? I've explained how they sway the figures but go ahead and prove me wrong. It's usually the remainers making statements so the onus is on you to prove these facts are from a reliable and unbiased source who wouldn't want to benefit the EU by lying.

 

[cactustwirly]

May I ask you to prove the stats, even one? For example the 80% of trade is with the EU? I've explained how they sway the figures but go ahead and prove me wrong. It's usually the remainers making statements so the onus is on you to prove these facts are from a reliable and unbiased source who wouldn't want to benefit the EU by lying.

That isn't what I said...
I actually said the trade of financial services makes up 80% (sorry it turns out it's 79%) of our economy

The Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...4/uk-economy-seven-things-need-to-know-ons-g7

1. There has been a marked postwar shift in economic power from manufacturing to services. In 1948, British industry (including manufacturing, oil and gas extraction, and utilities) accounted for 41% of the British economy. By 2013, it was just 14%.

At the same time the services sector's share of the economy has risen from 46% to 79%

It was written in 2014, 2 years before the referendum so there shouldn't be any Brexit bias

I would like to point out that most of the services sector is dependent on trade with the EU.

 

[NSEFAN]

We've been trading with countries for centuries without EU dictatorship, and will continue to do so, how is that detached? German companies want a good deal with the UK, as do many European companies.

The EU is more than just a mutually-beneficial trade agreement. It does other things (the airline safety example given above is just one of these things). Lots of effort goes into setting common standards, such as for consumer products. All these things require employing people to set and maintain standards.

These might seem superfluous to you, but when we leave the EU, some of these things will now need UK-versions to oversee. Some of the money that we've saved by leaving the EU will instead be spent on duplicating something which already existed. In other cases such as product standards, we will have lost the ability to control these whilst also having to conform to them if we want to sell products to EU countries. Again this might not be important to you but it can be important to a UK manufacturer who is looking to be competitive in the EU. Meanwhile, the UK is just one of many markets for the German manufacturer, so if the UK decides to be awkward and make conflicting standards out of sheer cussedness, they have a much better chance of finding new markets than us with our own bespoke set of rules

Of course we could instead end up with cushy deals with the USA or China, but these will almost certainly require either us compromosing on our own standards (food quality etc), or allowing more natives of our new trading partners to come and work in the UK. Given that immigration and sovereignty were both major points in the EU referendum, it's dissapointing that more people didn't recognise how they'll actually be screwed over by voting to leave.

 

[highspeed990]

I will check out the points and links provided. I would also like to thank the people who are able to have a respectful debate. Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, as I don't view people with political views different to that of mine as enemies, and I'm glad it is mutual.

 

[DarloRich]

I will check out the points and links provided. I would also like to thank the people who are able to have a respectful debate.

You aren't debating. You are simply making ill educated and childish statement lacking any real substance. Please provide some evidence to back up your views.

If it's the government, I'm not interested. If it's someone else, most organisation saying stuff like this are known to take backhanders from the EU and cheat.

You are the one who said you were not prepared to consider governmental statistics or statements (from either side) because they are all biased. It is clear you have no idea what The European Medicines Agency is or does. It is clear you have no idea what bodies like EASA do or why. it is clear you have little understanding of how the EU or its component bodies work.

It is really pointless trying to engage in debate when your view seems to be to dismiss any information that does not support your point of view. I assume it will all simply be dismissed as "fake news". Ignorance and pigheadedness makes debate difficult. That is doubly so when your "opponent" holds simplistic childish views based on the worst guff published by the worst of UK newspapers.

 

[Moonshot]

In the event of a " no deal " , does anyone know how the NHS are planning to deal with a nursing shortage should incumbent EU nationals in the NHS upsticks and return home?

 

[DarloRich]

Talk of 'commitments' and 'obligations' in the above few posts somewhat misses the point. These are not easily-definable terms, and it is not always easy to distinguish between obligations of the EU and obligations of the member states.

For any 'court of law' (actually more likely an international arbitration panel) to make a ruling, it would need to identify where and how the UK has entered into a binding obligation to make a payment. The starting point is that Article 50 contains nothing about exit payments and clearly provides for the treaties to cease to apply on departure.

So where might a UK commitment have come from? The member states have agreed a multi-year funding framework (i.e. a contributions budget) which expires in 2020. I think there is a decent argument, rooted in basic fairness, that the UK should see out the remaining years of that funding framework. This is what lies behind T-May's suggestion that we continue paying during the beginning of our transition period.

There are also good arguments to say that the UK should pay for the ongoing costs (e.g. pensions) of British MEPs and Commissioners, who were only entitled to those pensions because the UK was a member of the EU and entitled to appoint those individuals.

It is far less clear that the UK should pay for things like expected CAP and regional development payments which have been budgeted beyond the multi-lateral funding framework. These are not UK commitments at all, but EU commitments. The EU's argument is that any future commitments made by the EU should be shared between the EU27 and the UK. This does not appear to have a basis in law - see the House of Lords committee opinion on this - and is really a consequence of the EU making pledges before calculating how they will be paid for in the next multi-year funding framework. It is conceivable that we might agree to contribute to these, but there would need to be a cost-benefit analysis done as to whether the payments were worth the benefits that we derive by way of trade deals.

I happen to think that it would not actually be too difficult to justify some of these payments, which is why I think the EU is starting to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to talk about the benefits which we may receive in exchange for payments. They gambled on a strategy of trying to force the UK to agree to large voluntary payments upfront. T-May's weakness is actually perversely damaging to the EU, because she simply cannot come back to the country and say that she has voluntarily spent billions with nothing in return.

The parties need to agree the easy wins (pensions, etc), declare 'sufficient progress', and just agree to come back to the divorce bill later. The EU could, I'm sure, recover quite a lot of their desired funds through transition period payments and/or EFTA-style contributions to programmes.

In the midst of of the childish wibble this is a very good post.

 

[najaB]

You can not, honestly, be that detached from reality can you?

(S)he thinks it's okay to jump through a train window if the door doesn't open, so anything's possible!

 

[najaB]

In the event of a " no deal " , does anyone know how the NHS are planning to deal with a nursing shortage should incumbent EU nationals in the NHS upsticks and return home?

Apparently they'll have £350M a week to spend on hiring non-EU replacements.

 

[highspeed990]

You aren't debating. You are simply making ill educated and childish statement lacking any real substance. Please provide some evidence to back up your views.



You are the one who said you were not prepared to consider governmental statistics or statements (from either side) because they are all biased. It is clear you have no idea what The European Medicines Agency is or does. It is clear you have no idea what bodies like EASA do or why. it is clear you have little understanding of how the EU or its component bodies work.

It is really pointless trying to engage in debate when your view seems to be to dismiss any information that does not support your point of view. I assume it will all simply be dismissed as "fake news". Ignorance and pigheadedness makes debate difficult. That is doubly so when your "opponent" holds simplistic childish views based on the worst guff published by the worst of UK newspapers.

The government is biased yes, so are a lot of organisations. I don't need to prove the opposite of the statements you make. You need to prove them. I try to consider all points of view, which is why I am looking up statements some members provided, and the links.

 

[highspeed990]

(S)he thinks it's okay to jump through a train window if the door doesn't open, so anything's possible!

Typical remainer. 'Oh Oh I don't know what to say, but he did say this unrelated thing days earlier, that proves him wrong!' You're no different to liberals bringing up politician's pasts to try and turn people against them. Pathetic.

 

[najaB]

Typical remainer. 'Oh Oh I don't know what to say, but he did say this unrelated thing days earlier, that proves him wrong!' You're no different to liberals bringing up politician's pasts to try and turn people against them. Pathetic.

I'm merely pointing out that your posts haven't demonstrated a high degree of critical thinking though, of course, you might well be completely different in person. Saying that, I'm not sure that referring to someone as a 'Typical remainer' really helps prove otherwise.

 

[highspeed990]

I'm merely pointing out that your posts haven't demonstrated a high degree of critical thinking though, of course, you might well be completely different in person. Saying that, I'm not sure that referring to someone as a 'Typical remainer' really helps prove otherwise.

Because a lot of them resort to name calling. Granted, a lot of brexiters do. I personally don't insult people unless they do to me, but I might speak rudely about the EU in general. However, people will dismiss my views as stupid, or (like you) find unrelated things to say my critical thinking isn't good. Now, from here on out I won't belittle people, and I expect the same in return. Even if the debate seems ridiculous, going round in circles, stay respectful, and we can learn different arguments from both sides, and why people support them.

 

[highspeed990]

That isn't what I said...
I actually said the trade of financial services makes up 80% (sorry it turns out it's 79%) of our economy

The Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...4/uk-economy-seven-things-need-to-know-ons-g7



It was written in 2014, 2 years before the referendum so there shouldn't be any Brexit bias

I would like to point out that most of the services sector is dependent on trade with the EU.

And also, you didn't say that 80% of our economy was financial services. You said 80% was financial services traded with the EU.

 

[highspeed990]

The EU is more than just a mutually-beneficial trade agreement. It does other things (the airline safety example given above is just one of these things). Lots of effort goes into setting common standards, such as for consumer products. All these things require employing people to set and maintain standards.

These might seem superfluous to you, but when we leave the EU, some of these things will now need UK-versions to oversee. Some of the money that we've saved by leaving the EU will instead be spent on duplicating something which already existed. In other cases such as product standards, we will have lost the ability to control these whilst also having to conform to them if we want to sell products to EU countries. Again this might not be important to you but it can be important to a UK manufacturer who is looking to be competitive in the EU. Meanwhile, the UK is just one of many markets for the German manufacturer, so if the UK decides to be awkward and make conflicting standards out of sheer cussedness, they have a much better chance of finding new markets than us with our own bespoke set of rules

Of course we could instead end up with cushy deals with the USA or China, but these will almost certainly require either us compromosing on our own standards (food quality etc), or allowing more natives of our new trading partners to come and work in the UK. Given that immigration and sovereignty were both major points in the EU referendum, it's dissapointing that more people didn't recognise how they'll actually be screwed over by voting to leave.

It doesn't matter if we conform to their standards, that's fine. We can conform to each country's specified standards. Also, UK is Germany's second biggest market after the USA.

 

[cactustwirly]

And also, you didn't say that 80% of our economy was financial services. You said 80% was financial services traded with the EU.

What I mean't was 80% of our economy was services, the majority of that being with the EU.

The FT (can't quote because it's behind a paywall) says that £89bn (of services) was exported and £63bn was imported from the EU.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjTqrDF3Y7XAhXRJVAKHaffDZ8QFgg6MAM&url=https://www.ft.com/content/602f3674-573a-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e6&usg=AOvVaw2qdMXBoIydfN0VBahN2O1F

 

[DarloRich]

The government is biased yes, so are a lot of organisations. I don't need to prove the opposite of the statements you make. You need to prove them. I try to consider all points of view, which is why I am looking up statements some members provided, and the links.

I am not sure you even understand how debate works. Please provide some evidence to back up your statements.

Because a lot of them resort to name calling. Granted, a lot of brexiters do. I personally don't insult people unless they do to me, but I might speak rudely about the EU in general. However, people will dismiss my views as stupid, or (like you) find unrelated things to say my critical thinking isn't good. Now, from here on out I won't belittle people, and I expect the same in return. Even if the debate seems ridiculous, going round in circles, stay respectful, and we can learn different arguments from both sides, and why people support them.

you haven't made any claims or put forward any arguments - you have simply spouted the most simplistic rubbish. Please do try to back up your statements with some intelligence.

 

[highspeed990]

What I mean't was 80% of our economy was services, the majority of that being with the EU.

The FT (can't quote because it's behind a paywall) says that £89bn (of services) was exported and £63bn was imported from the EU.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjTqrDF3Y7XAhXRJVAKHaffDZ8QFgg6MAM&url=https://www.ft.com/content/602f3674-573a-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e6&usg=AOvVaw2qdMXBoIydfN0VBahN2O1F

Ah I see what you mean now, I shall look into it.

I am not sure you even understand how debate works. Please provide some evidence to back up your statements.



you haven't made any claims or put forward any arguments - you have simply spouted the most simplistic rubbish

I don't mind if you are for or against brexit - However please do try to back up your statements with some intelligence.

I do, and I cannot provide evidence per se, as biased can be subjective. However, we know that the government advised people to vote remain back in 2016, and as the Prime minister voted remain, I don't know whether to trust this current government. However trust and bias is viewed differently by many people, so even if I don't trust the source, I will check it out, and see if other sources say the same thing.