Brexit Begins

The BBC report the words exchanged rather differently. According to the Beeb May didn't say she needed a deal to defend back home but rather: The prime minister made a personal appeal to her EU counterparts at a working dinner last night, telling them that "we must work together to get to an outcome that we can stand behind and defend to our people". Her we would include Rutte and not make Rutte an exception.

Interesting too that Merkel is beginning to thaw when she has been the most stubborn until now:

Quote:

---

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said there were "encouraging" signs of progress in Brexit negotiations and suggested formal trade talks could begin in December - when EU leaders are next scheduled to meet.She said the process was progressing "step by step" despite British media reports that negotiations were not advancing.
"I have absolutely no doubt that if we are all focused - and the speech in Florence made a contribution towards that - we can achieve a good result," she said.
"From my side there are no indications at all that we won't succeed."

---

As I've thought all along the last thing the Germans actually want is for talks to fail as they would be the ones in the end who are lumped with the bill. This is completely different to the Greek talks years ago as the Greeks were recipients while we are the benefactors and he who pays the piper calls the tune. If we were recipients it would be a case of here is the deal now sign on the dotted line but being the ones holding the purse strings changes things somewhat.

Interesting that Tusk now is thawing too calling talk of deadlock "exaggerated" whereas Macron seems to be trying to be bad cop and the most negative demanding more money.

Hardly a shock to anyone that the Frogs want money but the key remains as it always was Merkel and her bad election disaster has left her needing to concentrate more at home than abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The BBC report the words exchanged rather differently. According to the Beeb May didn't say she needed a deal to defend back home but rather: The prime minister made a personal appeal to her EU counterparts at a working dinner last night, telling them that "we must work together to get to an outcome that we can stand behind and defend to our people". Her we would include Rutte and not make Rutte an exception.

Interesting too that Merkel is beginning to thaw when she has been the most stubborn until now: As I've thought all along the last thing the Germans actually want is for talks to fail as they would be the ones in the end who are lumped with the bill. This is completely different to the Greek talks years ago as the Greeks were recipients while we are the benefactors and he who pays the piper calls the tune. If we were recipients it would be a case of here is the deal now sign on the dotted line but being the ones holding the purse strings changes things somewhat.

---

Now, have a guess: Who was there during the dinner? The BBC correspondent or the Dutch PM? I would bet that the guy who actually heard her say the words knows better than the guy who got briefed about what she said.

Merkel's comments are typical Merkelian 'wir schaffen das' as opposed to panicking over not being able to control the process. Other than that she hasn't promised anything beyond 'we'll move to phase 2 after we've achieved sufficient progress on phase one. If not now, then December should be possible. As for 'the bill', the Germans won't be picking that one up at all. Not if you pay and not if you don't. Also no idea what you mean with an 'election disaster' in Germany.

Can you link to an article which quotes Rutte saying that he said that please? Because you weren't at the dinner either so currently we have the BBC correspondent's reporting of words and your reporting of words not the Dutch PM's reporting.

If we leave without a deal and leave a big black hole in the EU's finances then who is going to pick up the tab for that? Will we see the Germans paying more or the recipients of our largess receiving less?

Merkel performed much worse than expected in the German elections losing 65 seats, nearly 9% of her vote share, underperforming all opinion polls and leaving her requiring a very unstable Jamaican coalition that is going to make her life far more difficult than it has been under a Grand Coalition or in a simple alliance with the FDP (which was feasible based on the opinion polls a month before the election). Her parties result was the worst since 1949.

You completely overestimate the role Brexit plays in our news. Also, if you guys make the headlines it has always been about how little movement there is on your side. And you're completely overestimating Merkel's words.

For instance, if she says about a politician that he has her complete and utter confidence that usually is the death knell for said politician.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Can you link to an article which quotes Rutte saying that he said that please? Because you weren't at the dinner either so currently we have the BBC correspondent's reporting of words and your reporting of words not the Dutch PM's reporting.

If we leave without a deal and leave a big black hole in the EU's finances then who is going to pick up the tab for that? Will we see the Germans paying more or the recipients of our largess receiving less?

Merkel performed much worse than expected in the German elections losing 65 seats, nearly 9% of her vote share, underperforming all opinion polls and leaving her requiring a very unstable Jamaican coalition that is going to make her life far more difficult than it has been under a Grand Coalition or in a simple alliance with the FDP (which was feasible based on the opinion polls a month before the election). Her parties result was the worst since 1949.

---

If you want to know what Rutte said, I suggest you brush up on your Dutch, go to the NPS website and watch the 8 o'clock news of yesterday. There you can hear him say it yourself.

He says that he smirked?

https://medium.com/@MrWeeble/who-act...s-1b6127ce33c6

UK to Mauritania: O captain, my captain!

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/statu...48990827589632

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-heaton-harris


#DPRUK

Mauritania welcomes UK to world's most exclusive trade club:

https://medium.com/@MrWeeble/who-act...s-1b6127ce33c6

In the case of the US, half the value of all exported goods and a third of the value of imported goods is traded under the auspices of one of their 20 or so FTAs. The US doesn't have what it takes to hang with Mauritania .

Yes the very purpose of exiting was to free ourselves up to sign FTAs which the EU has conspicuously failed to do.

Of the non-European nations with larger economies than our own we haven't got a single FTA with any of them. Australia has an FTA with all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes the very purpose of exiting was to free ourselves up to sign FTAs which the EU has conspicuously failed to do.

Of the non-European nations with larger economies than our own we haven't got a single FTA with any of them. Australia has an FTA with all of them.

---

This is just ignorant or deliberately misleading. As a member of the EU, you are already a member of a huge market that gives you better terms--wrt trade--than pretty much any other major FTA currently in force anywhere in the world. As a part of the EU, you are also party to the EU's FTAs and bilateral trade agreements--and provisional FTAs--with a host of non-EU countries. But, more importantly, there is only one WTO member in the world that currently solely trades under WTO rules. The vast majority of WTO members rely on trade agreements, with large players being especially reliant on regional agreements ie. with their closest neighbours.

You are being ignorant or deliberately misleading.

The fact that only one WTO member trades on WTO rules is neither here nor there since nobody relevant [neither myself nor the government] is proposing that. We want trade deals not just WTO terms. As I said, the very purpose of leaving is to sign trade deals not to revert to WTO terms.

The fact that we were a member of a so-called huge market is not good enough given that the so-called huge market is vastly diminishing as a proportion of the global economy. In 1980 the then-EEC made up nearly a third of the global economy. Within a decade it is likely to be less than a 10th of the global economy. Europe is sclerotic and failing, we demand more than just our small minded parochial little continent.

The fact that you dismiss America as not our being our "closest neighbours" when Manchester to New York is 5,367 km - whereas Australia has a free trade deal with their "close neighbour" of America ... when Melbourne [where I used to live] to Los Angeles [closest American city] is 12,766 km demonstrates your small-minded little Europe mentality. The United States is the world's largest economy and is both geographically and economically close to us, why should we not trade with them on better than WTO terms?

There's a big world out there outside your puny continent, embrace it.

Your belittling of WTO is really ironic given that the fact we want to escape being on trapped on WTO terms with the vast majority of the global economy is the very point of liberal Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The fact that only one WTO member trades on WTO rules is neither here nor there since nobody relevant [neither myself nor the government] is proposing that. We want trade deals not just WTO terms. As I said, the very purpose of leaving is to sign trade deals not to revert to WTO terms.

---

Many commentators are now pretending that trading under WTO rules is no big deal, a position that is not consistent with the fact that almost no country in the world currently trades under WTO rules if it can be avoided.

Quote:

---

The fact that we were a member of a so-called huge market is not good enough given that the so-called huge market is vastly diminishing as a proportion of the global economy. In 1980 the then-EEC made up nearly a third of the global economy. Within a decade it is likely to be less than a 10th of the global economy. Europe is sclerotic and failing, we demand more than just our small minded parochial little continent.

---

This rant is pretty far-removed from reality but sure bro.

Quote:

---

The fact that you dismiss America as not our being our "closest neighbours" when Manchester to New York is 5,367 km - whereas Australia has a free trade deal with their "close neighbour" of America ... when Melbourne [where I used to live] to Los Angeles [closest American city] is 12,766 km demonstrates your small-minded little Europe mentality. The United States is the world's largest economy and is both geographically and economically close to us, why should we not trade with them on better than WTO terms?

There's a big world out there outside your puny continent, embrace it.

---

Australia's top three trading partners are less than half as far away as the US. Two of the US's top three trading partners share a land border with the US. Apart from the US, Japan's top trading partners are in the same region. Ditto for China and South Korea. Neighbouring countries are vital, if for no other reason than out of logistical and practical concerns. It has nothing to do with parochialism, although the accusation is hilarious given your little-Englander views. It will be interesting to see whether your economic jingoism will survive negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement with the US, given the US's current aversion to FTAs and its long-standing policy of wringing every possible concession out of every bilateral agreement while conceding almost nothing in return.

Well, I see now that in good Breximaniac tradition trade agreements have become such a totem for them that any deal is better than no deal for this lot.

Except of course where it concerns their biggest trading partner forever, there they'd rather have a trade war than a trade deal.

I don't want a trade war, I've said all along I want a trade deal with Europe.

If you keep conflating random people's views into one "Breximaniac" composite then of course you'll get conflicting views. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Many commentators are now pretending that trading under WTO rules is no big deal, a position that is not consistent with the fact that almost no country in the world currently trades under WTO rules if it can be avoided.

---

Yet is consistent with how we currently trade with the vast majority of the world economy.

Quote:

---

This rant is pretty far-removed from reality but sure bro.

---

Actually it is entirely factual. If you dispute the figures then provide the "reality" based figures you have. I provided numbers that are a matter of fact and your parochial little Europeanism won't change it.

Quote:

---

Australia's top three trading partners are less than half as far away as the US. Two of the US's top three trading partners share a land border with the US. Apart from the US, Japan's top trading partners are in the same region. Ditto for China and South Korea. Neighbouring countries are vital, if for no other reason than out of logistical and practical concerns. It has nothing to do with parochialism, although the accusation is hilarious given your little-Englander views. It will be interesting to see whether your economic jingoism will survive negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement with the US, given the US's current aversion to FTAs and its long-standing policy of wringing every possible concession out of every bilateral agreement while conceding almost nothing in return.

---

I'm not little-England, I'm global-England. I'm embracing the whole world not a tiny portion of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't want a trade war, I've said all along I want a trade deal with Europe.

If you keep conflating random people's views into one "Breximaniac" composite then of course you'll get conflicting views. :rolleyes:

---

Yeah right, you want a trade deal with people who you think are getting what they had coming when your cabinet ministers abuse and offend them. Because that surely must be the best way to rebuild trust and friendship after shafting us with your harebrained referendum.

Seriously Randy, I don't know who you think you're fooling with your protestations, but I am not one of them.

You shafted us decade after decade marching the EU in a direction we didn't want while taking billions of pounds from us for the privilege - while for a decade here you goaded me about how meaningless the UK was in the EU as we weren't in the Eurozone. How the Eurozone would decide outcomes and future laws by themselves and then apply them to the whole EU without us having a say. Do you not remember that? From what you yourself were saying the logical outcome would be to either join the Eurozone or leave the EU.

Yet supposedly we then shafted you by deciding enough was enough? Cut the crocodile tears, nobody is buying what you're selling anymore.

Yes I want and expect a trade deal as it is in both of our interests. After we leave, the UK will be the EU27's #1 export market, of course it makes sense for you to have a trade deal with us just as the inverse is true.

Don't cut your own nose off to spite your face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You shafted us decade after decade marching the EU in a direction we didn't want while taking billions of pounds from us for the privilege - while for a decade here you goaded me about how meaningless the UK was in the EU as we weren't in the Eurozone. How the Eurozone would decide outcomes and future laws by themselves and then apply them to the whole EU without us having a say. Do you not remember that? From what you yourself were saying the logical outcome would be to either join the Eurozone or leave the EU.

Yet supposedly we then shafted you by deciding enough was enough? Cut the crocodile tears, nobody is buying what you're selling anymore.

Yes I want and expect a trade deal as it is in both of our interests. After we leave, the UK will be the EU27's #1 export market, of course it makes sense for you to have a trade deal with us just as the inverse is true.

Don't cut your own nose off to spite your face.

---

We don't need a trade deal with you.

As for me being right about the untenable position you were putting yourself in; congratulations for finally seeing the light on at least that. Don't know if you were very smart about making a bad situation worse though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You shafted us decade after decade marching the EU in a direction we didn't want while taking billions of pounds from us for the privilege

---

Relax mate you recouped your payments many, many times over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

We don't need a trade deal with you.

---

[Citation Needed]

Quote:

---

As for me being right about the untenable position you were putting yourself in; congratulations for finally seeing the light on at least that. Don't know if you were very smart about making a bad situation worse though.

---

I remained hopeful you were wrong until Cameron's renegotiation ended in utter failure and it was only after that when I switched from supporting Remain to Leave. There was no logic in remaining in that situation - can you honestly see any? Do you honestly for one second believe we should have voted to remain in the EU but out of the Euro?

As for making it worse, I fail to see how. You seem to think we are some pipsqueak neighbour that is soon to be irrelevant. For a bit of context the UK once we've left the EU will be economically approximately 5.2 times bigger than the UK. By means of comparison the USA is 12.1 times economically bigger than Canada.

Do you see Canadians clamouring to be ruled by Washington? Are there many looking at Trump and the US Congress and cursing themselves that they have their own self-governance? No? Then why should we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Relax mate you recouped your payments many, many times over.

---

[Citation Needed]

Not that it matters since the big problem was politics anyway. Its helpful to have economics on our side too. Why should we want to be ruled by Brussels any differently than my Canadian in-laws not wanting to be ruled by Washington?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

[Citation Needed]

---

What is it exactly that you dispute? Do you believe the UK's payments to the EU have exceeded its earnings from EU membership? Do you believe the UK's payments have exceeded the value of free trade in goods & services and of free movement?

Yes.

Especially since I think it would be in the EU's interest to maintain Free Trade with its single biggest export market just as the USA has Free Trade with Canada without demanding rule by Washington or tens of billions of dollars in Danegeld.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes.

Especially since I think it would be in the EU's interest to maintain Free Trade with its single biggest export market just as the USA has Free Trade with Canada without demanding rule by Washington or tens of billions of dollars in Danegeld.

---

How much do you believe the UK has paid in direct payments to the EU and how much do you believe it has earned from full access to single market with goods, services, labor etc?

About ten billion per annum net we are paying. That is about ten billion more than we get back on a pure accounting term. Since that ten billion excludes receipts we get back but may not agree with the implementation of (like CAP farm payments) that is a low ball conservative figure to use.

Labour: We get nothing for our money. Absolutely nothing would prevent us from unilaterally allowing free movement if we wanted to without a penny in transfers. Australia and New Zealand have a comparable bilateral free movement agreement without the Kiwis needing to pay the Aussies anything. Many nations have had very liberal immigration policies when it suited them to do so.

Goods and services: I think we should sign an FTA. FTA's don't come with tens of billions of annual payments either.

Can you answer your own question? How much are we getting that we couldn't get with either an FTA or a unilateral or bilateral liberal immigration policy?

I understand now why the negotiations have been moving so slowly. It appears Davis has been banking on support from Czechoslovakia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You are being ignorant or deliberately misleading.

The fact that only one WTO member trades on WTO rules is neither here nor there since nobody relevant [neither myself nor the government] is proposing that. We want trade deals not just WTO terms. As I said, the very purpose of leaving is to sign trade deals not to revert to WTO terms.

---

How fast do you think you'll be able to sign such deals? It sounds as if you believe that such deals are struck instantly.

And completely ignore the fact that the interval between inception and signature of such deals is usually measured in years.

You cannot even strike a deal with us. You guys must be completely deluded if you think that the rest of the world will line up to sign an FTA with you.

Then again, they just might. After all, your negotiators have shown to be completely inept so the guys who are willing to strike a deal probably are willing to bet that they can skin you alive.

Because: a) You negotiators are inept and b) you will desperately need such deals.