Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Germany won't lose 7.6% of it's exports.

I agree and we won't lose all are exports. So the truth as to what would happen if we reverted to WTO rules, is somewhere in between.

Thrugelmir

always_sunny wrote: »

Is that why the UK is pushing for these trade deals with the EU?

The UK simply wishes to discuss a future relationship that ie mutually beneficial on many levels. Whereas the EU is fixatated with a view that that the UK is going to roll over to any demands made. A plan that may well back fire as time passes. Mrs May appears to have been vindicated with her initial assessment. As obviously had an inside view of the workings of the EU. Along with their treatment of Cameron.

Rusty_Shackleton

cogito wrote: »

The EU's propaganda mouthpiece in the UK, the Guardian, is at it again with another non-story.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/30/uk-confusion-and-hesitation-means-brexit-talks-unlikely-to-move-on

They can always find some non-entity in the EU to spout the nonsense that their remoaner readers want to hear.

Seriously? Presumably youre also of the opinion that anyone anti-brexit is a traitor as well? You completely undermine anything sensible you might otherwise say when you come out with statements like that not to mention the use of the word 'remoaner'

ukcarper

always_sunny wrote: »

Germany has said before that they will not jeopardise the EU for the UK.
It's not whether they are happy to lose the UK market, is whether the British market is worth risking the EU.
That's the argument that Conrad and Co keep bringing up, let's wait and see what happens.

That's not what you said and I'm sure Germany don't want to jeopardise the EU but that's not the same as refusing to make compromises to save UK market or a large part of it.

I don't believe we will get all that we want, but also think in the end a compromise will be reached.

Thrugelmir

cogito wrote: »

If there's no agreement on trade with the EU, we should simply say to them that there will be no tariffs on their goods.

Why not? Be good for the UK Treasury.

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree and we won't lose all are exports. So the truth as to what would happen if we reverted to WTO rules, is somewhere in between.

It'd be something like a problem for Germany; a headache for the UK; and an opportunity writ large for the likes of Korea or Japan. Just imagine the discount motors they could shift here.

Rusty_Shackleton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK simply wishes to discuss a future relationship that ie mutually beneficial on many levels. Whereas the EU is fixatated with a view that that the UK is going to roll over to any demands made. A plan that may well back fire as time passes. Mrs May appears to have been vindicated with her initial assessment. As obviously had an inside view of the workings of the EU. Along with their treatment of Cameron.

Do you actually believe thats what the UK wants? Here was me thinking that the reason we want to discuss it all at once is so we can use the leverage of paying any sort of financial settlement in exchange for a trade deal and compronises on the part of the EU that suit the UK. If thats the case, do you not think the EU are absolutely entitled to think the UK should settle its bill in good faith... We settle the end of our relationship with the EU as a member, then we move on to the future relationship - we should probably start setting a better tone for the future relationship, given the weak hand we clearly have.

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Do you actually believe thats what the UK wants? Here was me thinking that the reason we want to discuss it all at once is so we can use the leverage of paying any sort of financial settlement in exchange for a trade deal and compronises on the part of the EU that suit the UK. If thats the case, do you not think the EU are absolutely entitled to think the UK should settle its bill in good faith... We settle the end of our relationship with the EU as a member, then we move on to the future relationship - we should probably start setting a better tone for the future relationship, given the weak hand we clearly have.

How would you suggest we set a better tone, agree to pay £100 billion.

Rusty_Shackleton

ukcarper wrote: »

How would you suggest we set a better tone, agree to pay £100 billion.

Silencing Boris Johnson and others who cant help but speak before thinking would be an excellent start... No harm in trying to be respectful towards those youre negotiating with. The government currently seems more interested in bravado for the tabloids and brexiters, rather than trying get along with the EU. Good for the conservative party, not for the country.

As for the settlement, putting forward a position paper on how we think what we owe should be calculated wouldnt go amiss. Remember, these negotiations are for and about the UK, we instigated it, so when theres a lack of preparedness or an attitude of 'constructive ambiguity' its kind of understandable that the EU is getting p**sed off... From their perspective we're just wasting their time.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Will it profitability though for companies such as BMW.

Yes. We'll just pay more for them. The cost is largely hidden behind a PCP anyway.