Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[earthJoker]

I say any agreement is more valuable to you.

[Hazir]

Wow, I am impressed. Now I started thinking that even a deal with Switzerland is more important to the EU than to Switzerland. Oh.. wait.. no .. I don't.

[earthJoker]

1st we talk about the UK.
2nd, you clearly missed the bold part of the quote.

[Hazir]

1st we talk about the UK.
2nd, you clearly missed the bold part of the quote.

1st. like I would believe you are just talking about the UK. 2nd, that doesn't make any difference.

[earthJoker]

Believe what you want. And yes it makes a difference. You can not seriously imply any deal is more valuable to the UK no matter what. That's totally insane.

[RandBlade]

Well said. The rump EU is for today possible the most important of the many, many, many trade deals we are now going to negotiate. But it's far from the only one or all that is important. The idea of any deal being acceptable to us is nonsense too.

[Hazir]

Believe what you want. And yes it makes a difference. You can not seriously imply any deal is more valuable to the UK no matter what. That's totally insane.

No it is not, size matters when you talk about trade (alone) we have a market of 450 million on offer, they don't.

[Hazir]

Well said. The rump EU is for today possible the most important of the many, many, many trade deals we are now going to negotiate. But it's far from the only one or all that is important. The idea of any deal being acceptable to us is nonsense too.

And you are marginally more important to us that Turkey I guestimate. We'd prefer a good deal with you over no deal, but no deal isn't going to be unsurmountable.

[earthJoker]

No it is not, size matters when you talk about trade (alone) we have a market of 450 million on offer, they don't.

You market of 450 million is good and nice, but it only go as far as the cost for the access for it don't outweigh the benefits.

[Hazir]

You market of 450 million is good and nice, but it only go as far as the cost for the access for it don't outweigh the benefits.

We're back in blue skies territory again?

[earthJoker]

[RandBlade]

And you are marginally more important to us that Turkey I guestimate. We'd prefer a good deal with you over no deal, but no deal isn't going to be unsurmountable.

You clearly haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about then

[Flixy]

I don't disagree with that. The EU doesn't need the deal. Nether the UK. Fortunately we have fallbacks like the WTO. But just because you don't need something, it doesn't mean it isn't prefeable. It's pretty much like sex, you can live without it, but do you really want to live without it? And of course it should only be made if both agree with the terms to have it.

And to complete the analogy if you ate desperate for it you can always get it at a high cost

What makes you think that one implies the other? Look, I don't say that the talks between the UK and the EU couldn't fail, of course they can, but I find it rather pessimistic to assume that they will.

I don't think that per se, it really depends on how the negotiations will go. It's just that a lot of the leave campaign give the impression that they can get whatever they want and the EU will take that deal, and that is definitely not true. I'm pretty positive a deal will happen, as that is the best for all, but I'm also pretty sure the UK won't get the same trade benefits they have now when they want to cancel just the things they don't like.

[Aimless]

That is a misinterpretation of article 50 that is addressed by those who've discussed the matter.

[earthJoker]

That is a misinterpretation of article 50 that is addressed by those who've discussed the matter.

What? By Whom?

[RandBlade]

I don't think that per se, it really depends on how the negotiations will go. It's just that a lot of the leave campaign give the impression that they can get whatever they want and the EU will take that deal, and that is definitely not true. I'm pretty positive a deal will happen, as that is the best for all, but I'm also pretty sure the UK won't get the same trade benefits they have now when they want to cancel just the things they don't like.

It depends if you're talking about ignorant talking heads or polemic politicians with no credibility, or the British government. I think the government is acting with great maturity right now and despite some hysteria from the likes of Hollande and Hazir are acting with traditional British spirit of "keep calm and carry on".

[Hazir]

keep calm and carry on with what?

[Flixy]

It depends if you're talking about ignorant talking heads or polemic politicians with no credibility, or the British government. I think the government is acting with great maturity right now and despite some hysteria from the likes of Hollande and Hazir are acting with traditional British spirit of "keep calm and carry on".

Problem is when the government does that but doesn't make its case for the public, giving them false hopes. Which is I guess fine for them as long as they lose, otherwise you end up backtracking on their promises, say, within hours after the results come in. I wouldn't be surprised if the process takes too long people will get pissed off and feel betrayed. Nobody campaigned loudly on "we're going to leave two years after we think it's a reasonable time to stay the process which may be well in the future". (And that's besides the point that they did loudly campaign on promises they know they can't all deliver - and yes I an aware that's a general problem in politics).

It's actions like that which leads to 'politicians' like Trump of you ask me.

[LittleFuzzy]

I didn't say that it was preferable, I said it was indispensible as a negotiating tool.

I would like to remind the posters in this thread that you are not the negotiators. You do not need to take any kind of "stance" for negotiation purposes, you will have absolutely zero effect on the negotiations, whatever they may be, no matter what you post here. Which means you can go ahead and just be honest about how negotiations are going to go. So kindly cut out all the posturing bullshit. You aren't the EU or the UK.

[RandBlade]

Problem is when the government does that but doesn't make its case for the public, giving them false hopes. Which is I guess fine for them as long as they lose, otherwise you end up backtracking on their promises, say, within hours after the results come in. I wouldn't be surprised if the process takes too long people will get pissed off and feel betrayed. Nobody campaigned loudly on "we're going to leave two years after we think it's a reasonable time to stay the process which may be well in the future". (And that's besides the point that they did loudly campaign on promises they know they can't all deliver - and yes I an aware that's a general problem in politics).

It's actions like that which leads to 'politicians' like Trump of you ask me.

Next General Election is 2020. So long as we are either out or clearly on the way out (eg an election called to ratify a proposal) I think any delay will be excused. Hence why I think a 2019 Brexit is most likely.

[Hazir]

Next General Election is 2020. So long as we are either out or clearly on the way out (eg an election called to ratify a proposal) I think any delay will be excused. Hence why I think a 2019 Brexit is most likely.

I can assure you I will sign up to holding a referendum against ratification if the EU side is going to sign up to a deal thatbholds the entire EU hostage again.

[Khendraja'aro]

And to complete the analogy if you ate desperate for it you can always get it at a high cost


I don't think that per se, it really depends on how the negotiations will go. It's just that a lot of the leave campaign give the impression that they can get whatever they want and the EU will take that deal, and that is definitely not true. I'm pretty positive a deal will happen, as that is the best for all, but I'm also pretty sure the UK won't get the same trade benefits they have now when they want to cancel just the things they don't like.

Indeed. And access to the market comes with strings attached. One of those strings: Free migration of workers. And, whoops, there goes one of the main argument of the Brexiteers.

The name of this string is Gleipnir

[RandBlade]

I can assure you I will sign up to holding a referendum against ratification if the EU side is going to sign up to a deal thatbholds the entire EU hostage again.

Good for you.

Indeed. And access to the market comes with strings attached. One of those strings: Free migration of workers. And, whoops, there goes one of the main argument of the Brexiteers.

The name of this string is Gleipnir

Being members of the Single Market has that string. I'd be OK accessing the market as members (ie the Swiss or Norway model) but there are other options available too (aka the Sweden model, the Turkey model etc) that don't have free migration.

[Aimless]

Which "Sweden model", specifically?

[RandBlade]

Sorry, did a long shift yesterday and wrote that afterwards tired. It was meant to be "Canada model".

Looks like negotiations (which funnily enough have already started despite no A50 yet) are already pointing towards a form of Single Market membership outside the EU with an enhanced temporary restriction on free movement, based on Cameron's deal but going a bit further: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-seven-years - I wonder who could have predicted that

[Hazir]

The Guardian has been posting a lot of rubbish recently, mostly adding up to Brexit isn't Brexit.
Even that 'idea' is just giving you 7 years as new EEA member to not allow free movement from the get-go. After that period you'd still materially be in exactly the same position as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland.

If this deal needs ratification I will support a referendum on it in The Netherlands, and I will vote against it.

[Aimless]

Maybe they're hoping to exit fully or renegotiate after the seven years are up. Not sure this counts as negotiations.

[RandBlade]

Seven years will help with transition to new arrangements, just like your nation had seven years to adjust to enlargement of the union did it not? Which is precisely why the number seven is discussed.

[Khendraja'aro]

Sorry, did a long shift yesterday and wrote that afterwards tired. It was meant to be "Canada model".

Looks like negotiations (which funnily enough have already started despite no A50 yet) are already pointing towards a form of Single Market membership outside the EU with an enhanced temporary restriction on free movement, based on Cameron's deal but going a bit further: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-seven-years - I wonder who could have predicted that

You will not get that. Let me repeat that: No fricking chance in hell. And I'd also vote against the Island Apes getting a special deal once again.

You get the same deal as Norway or Switzerland. Nothing more.

[RandBlade]

We'll see ...