Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[BigJoe#1]

Rather than always looking at our problems, which I totally agree we need to do but not exclusively, why aren't people asking themselves can the EU survive without our cash? In other words are Germany and France wealthy enough to keep the whole of Europe afloat. Make no mistake, the EU need our money as much as people say we need their Business.

 

[mcfc1632]

Excellent news if true.

Now before the usual suspects jump all over that comment - it does not mean that I want us to end contributions / walk away etc. - it is just that I have been saying for months that the EU needs to be aware that we have both the option and the will to use it if pushed too far.

Even just leaking that out will have positive impact on our negotiating position

 

[mcfc1632]

Rather than always looking at our problems, which I totally agree we need to do but not exclusively, why aren't people asking themselves can the EU survive without our cash? In other words are Germany and France wealthy enough to keep the whole of Europe afloat. Make no mistake, the EU need our money as much as people say we need their Business.

I have been saying this for months - but have been told that this is not the case

Some people, for reasons that escape me, just do not want to consider that the EU has any weaknesses in these negotiations

Stephen Fry thinks that it is a form of Stockholm Syndrome

 

[Len Rum]

Excellent news if true.

Now before the usual suspects jump all over that comment - it does not mean that I want us to end contributions / walk away etc. - it is just that I have been saying for months that the EU needs to be aware that we have both the option and the will to use it if pushed too far.

Even just leaking that out will have positive impact on our negotiating position

Not one of your better posts.
I assume you know who owns the site where that article is published.
We are not going to stop our contributions while we remain part of the EU.
The article seems to imply ( without making it clear) that the cessation of contributions will happen if we ' walk away first' which I assume means repealing the EEC act of 1972 before the end of the two year period of Article 50 and simply informing the EU we have left. Then we move straight to WTO with no preparation. We are not going to do that, if Brexit talks break down we would need as much time as possible to implement measures to avoid the cliff edge.
Consequently the leaking out of that news will have no impact at all on anyone.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Not one of your better posts.
I assume you know who owns the site where that article is published.
We are not going to stop our contributions while we remain part of the EU.
The article seems to imply ( without making it clear) that the cessation of contributions will happen if we ' walk away first' which I assume means repealing the EEC act of 1972 before the end of the two year period of Article 50 and simply informing the EU we have left. Then we move straight to WTO with no preparation. We are not going to do that, if Brexit talks break down we would need as much time as possible to implement measures to avoid the cliff edge.
Consequently the leaking out of that news will have no impact at all on anyone.

You seem assume that the EU will be unaffected or even better off when we leave. I would beg to differ.

Can you for one moment consider how the EU will survive if we were to withdraw our payments (not saying that's what we'd do, but if we did). Even when we go, if we go leaving on good terms and buy our way out, do you think France and Germany could keep the whole of Europe afloat.... it aint gonna be a walk in the park. They are going to struggle.

 

[mcfc1632]

Not one of your better posts.
I assume you know who owns the site where that article is published.
We are not going to stop our contributions while we remain part of the EU.
The article seems to imply ( without making it clear) that the cessation of contributions will happen if we ' walk away first' which I assume means repealing the EEC act of 1972 before the end of the two year period of Article 50 and simply informing the EU we have left. Then we move straight to WTO with no preparation. We are not going to do that, if Brexit talks break down we would need as much time as possible to implement measures to avoid the cliff edge.
Consequently the leaking out of that news will have no impact at all on anyone.

Nope – I did not look beyond the comments set out in Joe’s post – I assume that they were lifted from the article - ?? Who are the site owners that you refer?

That was all I needed to do to justify my comments – you will be well aware that I have been saying that we need that option for months.

Re leaking out that we would be prepared to progress options to walk away will not have an impact?. Well I have said for months that we need that as a option – you have said for months it cannot/will not happen.

We will just have to continue to differ in our opinions. That said, I cannot see how that gives you any ‘high ground’ on the issue. Months ago the chance of a viable walk away option seemed highly remote. In recent months the veto amendment has been defeated – an election to secure a stronger mandate has been triggered and there has been the start of the ‘face-off’ which has seen the EU leaders become decidedly less ‘chipper’ than they were.

I think that the trend is towards my position

Edit to say - atually that last bit of your post seems poorly thought through IMO.

 

[CityStu]

Not one of your better posts.
I assume you know who owns the site where that article is published.
We are not going to stop our contributions while we remain part of the EU.
The article seems to imply ( without making it clear) that the cessation of contributions will happen if we ' walk away first' which I assume means repealing the EEC act of 1972 before the end of the two year period of Article 50 and simply informing the EU we have left. Then we move straight to WTO with no preparation. We are not going to do that, if Brexit talks break down we would need as much time as possible to implement measures to avoid the cliff edge.
Consequently the leaking out of that news will have no impact at all on anyone.

You assume that doing that means no preparation. The original article indicates that we are currently preparing for that possibility, as we should be doing in case a final deal can't be agreed.

The leak indicates that we both aren't scared of going to WTO trade and could be willing to pull the rug out from under the EU within the 2 year article 50 period. The EU won't like either of those.

 

[mcfc1632]

You assume that doing that means no preparation. The original article indicates that we are currently preparing for that possibility, as we should be doing in case a final deal can't be agreed.

The leak indicates that we both aren't scared of going to WTO trade and could be willing to pull the rug out from under the EU within the 2 year article 50 period. The EU won't like either of those.

Also, an election that returns a much increased majority paves the way for the repeal as required. It is not desirable - but without the option to walk away the EU can just continue to play hard ball.

No deal is indeed better than a bad deal. The implications for the EU are more serious than some on here want to acknowledge - the EU are probably starting to digest this risk for the first time. Probably explains why Tusk looks physically sick all the time recently

 

[Len Rum]

You assume that doing that means no preparation. The original article indicates that we are currently preparing for that possibility, as we should be doing in case a final deal can't be agreed.

The leak indicates that we both aren't scared of going to WTO trade and could be willing to pull the rug out from under the EU within the 2 year article 50 period. The EU won't like either of those.

Well dropping out of the EU suddenly could mean that as we no longer subject to EU laws our goods wouldn't conform to EU regulations, regulated services wouldn't comply with the appropriate EU directives and of course we would outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ ( which oversees legal trade matters and disputes and without which or some other mutually agreed supranational court trade cannot take place within the EU) ,all of which I guess would mean trade in these goods and services would come to a grinding halt immediately.
PS WTO isn't really the issue here, nobody trades with the EU under WTO terms.

 

[The perfect fumble]

You seem assume that the EU will be unaffected or even better off when we leave. I would beg to differ.

Can you for one moment consider how the EU will survive if we were to withdraw our payments (not saying that's what we'd do, but if we did). Even when we go, if we go leaving on good terms and buy our way out, do you think France and Germany could keep the whole of Europe afloat.... it aint gonna be a walk in the park. They are going to struggle.

All the major players are locked, some might say imprisoned, by the positions they find themselves in. If Yanis Varoufakis is right and I believe he is, then there's not the slightest possibility of a favourable outcome for all parties, not because they don't desire it, but because they are incapable of delivering it, they are locked in to a mind set that makes it impossible.....

 

[CityStu]

Well dropping out of the EU suddenly could mean that as we no longer subject to EU laws our goods wouldn't conform to EU regulations, regulated services wouldn't comply with the appropriate EU directives and of course we would outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ ( which oversees legal trade matters and disputes and without which or some other mutually agreed supranational court trade cannot take place within the EU) ,all of which I guess would mean trade in these goods and services would come to a grinding halt immediately.
PS WTO isn't really the issue here, nobody trades with the EU under WTO terms.

All of our goods and services currently comply with EU regulations as we're in the EU. We won't leave the EU and suddenly be non-compliant with all of their directives.

What it does mean is that businesses who don't want to trade with the EU could be given more flexibility with less stringent regulations, meaning lower costs. Obviously, I'd trust the government to ensure that these new standards are still adequate, but even so the market can decide that.

 

[The perfect fumble]

All of our goods and services currently comply with EU regulations as we're in the EU. We won't leave the EU and suddenly be non-compliant with all of their directives.

What it does mean is that businesses who don't want to trade with the EU could be given more flexibility with less stringent regulations, meaning lower costs. Obviously, I'd trust the government to ensure that these new standards are still adequate, but even so the market can decide that.

If we left the EU today, then tomorrow all those UK services, all those UK widgets, all those UK everything that were traded freely within the EU, would immediately be non compliant, despite the fact they are identical in every way to the goods and services that were traded without restriction 24 hours earlier.

 

[bluethrunthru]

All of our goods and services currently comply with EU regulations as we're in the EU. We won't leave the EU and suddenly be non-compliant with all of their directives.

What it does mean is that businesses who don't want to trade with the EU could be given more flexibility with less stringent regulations, meaning lower costs. Obviously, I'd trust the government to ensure that these new standards are still adequate, but even so the market can decide that.

Yes they would be the same but would not comply without the paperwork to prove it. Thats the issue of access to the single market. Because we are a member we comply because we are signed up to comply and are subject to audit and fines by the EU if as a member our goods and services don't comply.

Once outside the EU that paperwork that proof to accompany the finished product is what will add to the cost add to the difficulty in trading with the EU and affect our competitiveness. And thats without any tariffs. The way round that is to get access to the single market but that comes at a cost which is being thrashed out right now. Either way there is no cost free break even answer

 

[BigJoe#1]

All the major players are locked, some might say imprisoned, by the positions they find themselves in. If Yanis Varoufakis is right and I believe he is, then there's not the slightest possibility of a favourable outcome for all parties, not because they don't desire it, but because they are incapable of delivering it, they are locked in to a mind set that makes it impossible.....

I reckon the EU will find it much more difficult to remain unanimous than for The UK.

If we have any sense we will be chipping away at their unity which I think will be quite easy to do.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I reckon the EU will find it much more difficult to remain unanimous than for The UK.

If we have any sense we will be chipping away at their unity which I think will be quite easy to do.

Based on what? All evidence is to the contrary. All 27 remaining members agreed with startling rapidity to adopt the stance they did. In fact Brussels, which is used to prolonged waffle, dither and fudge from its members, was astonished how fast the 27 agreed to it.

If anything positions have hardened and this isn't just pre-negotiation posturing.

 

[i kne albert davy]

If we left the EU today, then tomorrow all those UK services, all those UK widgets, all those UK everything that were traded freely within the EU, would immediately be non compliant, despite the fact they are identical in every way to the goods and services that were traded without restriction 24 hours earlier.

So if we were to leave the EU today all those goods services and widgets the EU supplies and trades freely in Great Britain no longer meet British standards despite the fact they are identical in every way to the goods and services that were traded without restriction 24 hours earlier. What a result that will be, perhaps it will slow down the £60 billion we lose every year in dealings with them.

 

[i kne albert davy]

Based on what? All evidence is to the contrary. All 27 remaining members agreed with startling rapidity to adopt the stance they did. In fact Brussels, which is used to prolonged waffle, dither and fudge from its members, was astonished how fast the 27 agreed to it.

If anything positions have hardened and this isn't just pre-negotiation posturing.

The one that matters told them to obviously.

 

[mcfc1632]

So if we were to leave the EU today all those goods services and widgets the EU supplies and trades freely in Great Britain no longer meet British standards despite the fact they are identical in every way to the goods and services that were traded without restriction 24 hours earlier. What a result that will be, perhaps it will slow down the £60 billion we lose every year in dealings with them.

Reading these last few posts provides a demonstration of the impasse on here.

They can all be seen as 'factually correct', but the pro-EU posters seem to be only ever able to see things from the worst POV for the UK.

Yes - at this point - the EU position on whether UK goods meet their standards could require 'paperwork' to be produced that would be a major burden

All fair enough - but statements of the obvious and of course reflecting the Remainer need to project the pitiful UK getting nothing and the mighty EU getting everything from the negotiations.

Lets be fanciful from the pro-Brexit viewpoint:

Scenario: That because the UK products and services currently meet EU standards, then the EU accepts that all trade should just continue on a basis of the status quo – on a basis of presumed compliance, subject to audit and tariff-free.

Ok fanciful, but reflecting one end of a spectrum.

Let’s identify the other end of the spectrum, perhaps so severe that it leads to such a bad experience that the UK re-joins the fold with its tail between its legs in a few years.

This would see massive loss of productivity due to the need to prove compliance leading to major loss off trade – imposition of significant tariffs – raping and pillaging of all our services etc.

This feels less fanciful – but really only because we have had the doom and gloom rammed down our throats for all these months from the pro-EU brigade that can only consider things from the POV of their heroes.

So where on this spectrum will the actual outcome lie? – somewhere between of course. It is called negotiations.

We have had months of the EU spouting it’s Billy big bollocks diatribe – all sucked up and applauded by the pro-EU brigade. Recently we get some push-back from the UK and – shock horror – the same people line up to rubbish the UK representatives for their temerity to question the EU supremacy.

Surely, if the – pro-EU brigade could just come out of their bubble for a few moments and look at things objectively – it is surely self-evident that, whilst the EU want to have the outcome closest to their end of the spectrum, the extent to which they move towards a middle ground is all dependent on the strength of the UK’s negotiating hand – with access to our money for a precariously positioned EU being an important factor.

Given we are where we are – preparing to leave the EU - you might expect even the most extreme pro-EU members on here to post in a manner that comments on how the negotiations, whilst they fear the worst, could progress to the best interests of the UK. You could at least be forgiven for expecting to read some posts from them which reflected that they were hoping for the best for the UK.

It seems a sort of perverse tribalism where they are so locked in to their admiration for the EU it over-rides any ability to consider or suggest how the best interests of the UK could be achieved.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Based on what? All evidence is to the contrary. All 27 remaining members agreed with startling rapidity to adopt the stance they did. In fact Brussels, which is used to prolonged waffle, dither and fudge from its members, was astonished how fast the 27 agreed to it.

If anything positions have hardened and this isn't just pre-negotiation posturing.

I'd prefer to wait and see on this one. The population of each nation will influence negotiations. Messages will sent and received.

 

[mcfc1632]

Re the view of EU27 unity, of course this appears to be utterly solid at this moment – my word they should be worried if that was not the case, but why though should this not be considered to be simply pre-negotiations posturing. We see the EU27 heads of state brigaded together – for photo opportunities. They are provided with presentations and given confidence that the EU position is one of supremacy etc. They are required to simply vote through the preparations to commence the negotiations – it costs nothing so far for them to stand and smile for the camera – to break into orchestrated applause after a vote.

But behind the scenes they each have domestic agendas and it is clear, if you care to look rather than just suck up the EU propaganda, that each have their problems.

We hear about elections in Germany and France – but these will not, IMO, affect these negotiations overly. They will be over and a pro-EU candidate returned in the coming months. For them it is the next general elections that will be more of a concern and they will be glad that their elections fell in 2017 and not, let’s say 2019.

But amongst the ‘lesser lights’ of the EU though there is much angst.

Ireland, having just turned from a net beneficiary to a net contributor, are about to face the situation where more than two thirds of their exports go to non-EU countries. We hear much about the border, but there is tremendous angst in Ireland about the outcome of Brexit on its trade. There is even discussion going on that should there be a major fall out with the UK they might have to consider leaving as well – such is the level of their dependency on the UK for exports.

And there is trepidation across many other countries which have domestic manifestos greatly influenced by the level of support they are expecting to receive from the EU. Don’t forget Poland, as just one example, is reported to have already received £250bn since accession – the other more recent joiners want some of that and have received promises. And all other the EU27 members, including Germany, face adverse consequences from a major fall out with the UK.

As I say, it is easy to show unity at this time – they have been promised all will be OK and the UK will be brought to heel – this may not be so certain after all.

Of course with me mentioning the adverse impact on the EU27 the usual suspects will no doubt jump on the post screaming about how much worse it will be for the UK.

Actually, I am not sure that is totally true – it depends on your starting point for comparison.

If you are someone that cannot move on from 23/06, then you will be right to view that things will deteriorate from the trade position at that time.

But if you take the currently EU planned 2019 position as your point of comparison – well they are going to seek to punish us badly anyway – so why pay for that privilege and let the pain all be one-sided?

I am being deliberately simplistic here.