If we vote for Brexit what happens

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cogito wrote: »

the EU's insulting demand that the ECJ should have jurisdiction.

You seem to have a real obsession with hating absolutely everything about the EU.

Can you provide a single valid reason why the ECJ is not an appropriate or competent authority in this matter?

Tromking

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You seem to have a real obsession with hating absolutely everything about the EU.

Can you provide a single valid reason why the ECJ is not an appropriate or competent authority in this matter?

...because foreign nationals resident in a country no longer wanting to be under the umbrella of EU institutions, should accept the jurisdiction of the courts of that nation.

Herzlos

Rinoa wrote: »

So you think EU bailiffs will sail across the channel, enter UK factories, seize plant and machinery and sail back to the EU?

It's an interesting thought gflux

No, but I'm assuming they'd be able to apply an additional tariff somewhere and make us pay it over the first 80bn transactions. Or just tell us that they won't sign the deal until we pay what we owe.

Herzlos

vivatifosi wrote: »

Out of interest over what period? We had recorded much higher sales in March due to an anomaly as a result of massive increases in VED, which has reduced April sales. If over a year, that would be more worrying.

It's quarter to quarter, so almost definitely the VED change in the UK, I'm not sure what the cause in the EU is though.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Let's see if they can replace the lost British sales and at competitive pricing.
I suspect that Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia etc. will not pay the premiums achieved in the UK car market.;)

Why do you think that the emerging markets can't afford to buy luxury cars? Or that the only cars we buy from the EU are expensive.

Nice attempt to twist what was actually said.
Who said they are already losing their jobs?

You're right, jobs haven't been lost but sales are already down, unless they recover we've lost about 20% of our "threat".

"Give us a good deal because we buy EU160bn of cars from you" has, well, 20% less clout than "Give us a good deal because we buy EU200bn of cars from you".

I think there's something else going on though, because we only buy about 11% of the EU's car output, which means a 20% drop to us should only cause a 2.2% drop in EU output, rather than the 6%.

Like I've said a few times, even if UK car sales half (because they won't drop to zero), the EU car market is going to be taking a relatively small hit, about 5.5% which is less than the hit it's taken due to whatever has caused this decline.

a 5.5% (or even an 11%) drop in sales is going to be painful, but I don't see it bringing down any of the EU car companies, especially if sales are growing on their doorstep.

I think the decline will indeed be short-lived - but where are these EU-made cars going that were not sold in the UK, then?
Lithuania and such, eh?
:rotfl:

I have shown how UK is making record numbers and selling more outside the EU.
The lower pound makes UK-made cars more attractive.
If the EU tries to change this through (lack of?) trade agreements it will affect them too.
Because one in three UK car sales are from Germany; what about France & the others?[/QUOTE]

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

1. We are, but that's not the point. We're never going to agree on that.

2. I'm not talking about our assymetric position, I'm just saying that we're asking for what we already know is impossible; we want the full benefits of being part of the club, but with none of the responsibilities (membership fees, following the rules), and we want to split up the 4 key principles of the EU. We're asking for some sort of super-special deal that is so much better (from our POV) to any other deal, which being a poor deal for the EU and would directly lead to it's downfall because everyone else would want the same cake-and-eat it deal, then with no-one paying or following the rules it'd collapse.

We can get a Canada deal, in probably the same time it took Canada to get the deal, but it's significantly worse than what we have already.

I don't have any inside knowledge of the EU, but it's so blindingly obvious.

How about this; if we get a deal that's better than the Canadian deal, I'll PM Conrad my forum account details so that he can disable my account in a way I can't restore, and I'll donate £20 to a charity of his choice.

Why do you endlessly ignore the fact Canada was not aligned in terms of rules and standards, and not an existing free trade deal as we are? Thier deal took a long time from a point of ground zero, not an established significant free trading partner.


Also Ive never said we will get EXACTLY the same deal as now, but a good enough deal, but with all the benefits full independence affords.

Conrad

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Let's see if they can replace the lost British sales and at competitive pricing.
I suspect that Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia etc. will not pay the premiums achieved in the UK car market.;)



Nice attempt to twist what was actually said.
Who said they are already losing their jobs?


I think the decline will indeed be short-lived - but where are these EU-made cars going that were not sold in the UK, then?
Lithuania and such, eh?
:rotfl:

I have shown how UK is making record numbers and selling more outside the EU.
The lower pound makes UK-made cars more attractive.
If the EU tries to change this through (lack of?) trade agreements it will affect them too.
Because one in three UK car sales are from Germany; what about France & the others?

Yes and in addition to facing a potential loss of an important market they're also facing Trumps NATO bill (2%of GDP for all members) and the bill for the loss of the UKs EU club fee.

Once again we are not a weak petetioner.

cogito

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You seem to have a real obsession with hating absolutely everything about the EU.

Can you provide a single valid reason why the ECJ is not an appropriate or competent authority in this matter?

I do not hate everything about the EU, don't be ridiculous. That's nearly the same as accusing you of fawning adoration of the EU and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.

As for my point. Suppose I wanted to emigrate to the USA. I say to the US authorities that I want to live in your country but if I have any issues, my country's laws must prevail over yours. I would be laughed out of the country. The EU's absurd demand requires that their citizens rights should trump those of the host country. Which country could possibly agree to that?

And can you provide a single valid reason why UK law is not an appropriate or competent authority?

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Why do you think that the emerging markets can't afford to buy luxury cars? Or that the only cars we buy from the EU are expensive.
....

You get a pretty good guide from looking at the figures from a pan European fleet provider.

I can tell you right now that the figures are stacked significantly towards a few key countries, and I reckon anyone here can guess which they might be.

Obviously, as GDP per capita improves in places like Poland, then they will be able to buy more cars, but it's going to take some time.

kabayiri

gfplux wrote: »

...
What opinions do people have on the order of the agenda, will negotiations go on in parallel and most important WHAT will be on the agenda, how many points are there to discuss after the first three?
...

Personally, I'd put everything in to the mix.

EU citizens rights; the exit bill; physical borders; everything.

This is no time for soft sentiment. We want things; the EU want things. Once the consequences of no deal become crystal clear for both sides the appetite to negotiate will be there.