Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Enterprise_1701C

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

The EU has been consistent on two points:

a) the four freedoms are indivisible, we cannot pick and choose between them
b) if we agree to pay the large sum of money that we owe, negotiations can progress onto trade arrangements

I'm struggling to understand how satisfying (b) benefits us, if (a) is true? Since we are not going to continue with freedom of movement (as even Labour confirms), there is no prospect of a free trade agreement.

Or perhaps we are negotiating with untrustworthy people?

As per your last line.

The eu have been making it up as they go along, there is nothing in section 50 that says we cannot negotiate trade before anything else, equally there is no allowance for "divorce" payment.

TrickyTree83

ilovehouses wrote: »

Every day that passes the current government look less competent and, by comparison, labour look more credible. The outcome will be sub-optimal when people are voting for the least worst option.

Not that a vote for labour is a vote for Marxism - that's hysteria setting in.

You're wrong though.

I'm sure there's plenty of decent people in Labour, but Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, etc... the leader and shadow cabinet are a collection of Marxists and Racists. That is demonstrable, they can be quoted on more than one occasion to demonstrate that. And MI5 tell us that Momentum is lead/driven by Communists.

Labour are still far from credible and the Conservatives are still more competent and credible than any of the 5/6/7/...10 different shadow cabinets Corbyn's had under him since he became leader of the opposition (losing an election in the process). Normally you're quite reasoned, but this faith in Labour comes across as a sermon from the devout rather than an accurate description of reality.

The "right wing" Labour some speak of is only to the right of extreme leftist thinking such as Communism. People who are to the right of Communism should give themselves a pat on the back as I doubt any of those espousing Communist sympathies on this board have ever been to a part of the old USSR where there's been no money to beautify, to see it for yourself and hear what it was really like from the people who lived under it.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

As per your last line.

The eu have been making it up as they go along, there is nothing in section 50 that says we cannot negotiate trade before anything else, equally there is no allowance for "divorce" payment.

There's also nothing to say we have to negotiate it all at once.

Trade agreement is largely dependent on how the divorce works - is there free movement, for instance?

Plus you all seem to be forgetting a key point: The EU proposed a negotiating order on day 1 and we agreed to it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

The EU has been consistent on two points:

a) the four freedoms are indivisible, we cannot pick and choose between them

For continued membership of the single market with the current unrestricted access we benefit from that is correct.

A so called 'free trade agreement' is a much, much worse form of access than single market membership, still subject to some tariffs, usually excluding most services (which are 80% of our economy) and subject to non-tariff barriers such as quotas.

And that would be better than WTO - but much worse than we currently have.

b) if we agree to pay the large sum of money that we owe, negotiations can progress onto trade arrangements

Correct.

At which point we can choose what level of access we want and negotiate accordingly.

Full access - which requires the four freedoms.

Worse access - A trade deal of some description.

Or terrible access - WTO terms.

I'm struggling to understand.

As above - it's quite simple really.

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

Every day that passes the current government look less competent and, by comparison, labour look more credible. The outcome will be sub-optimal when people are voting for the least worst option.

Not that a vote for labour is a vote for Marxism - that's hysteria setting in.

Oh sorry I forgot. Shall we say ‘1970’s socialism’ instead of Marxism?
Does that help?

I agree with you on the govt though. They haven’t been dealt a particularly easy hand though to be fair. Not that that excuses internal issues that are making things worse.

But still, I guess it depends on whether you take the polarised view that if everything isn’t perfect then it must all be dog ****. You and wotsthat should get together if you aren’t the same person

Personally I like to see progress over time and where we are currently is hardly a surprise is it given the nature of the issues.

I’d rather have a govt that defends a position even if it causes delays rather than capitulates. The best we will see at the end of this two years is a transitional deal and some top level issues sorted. And that was always going to be the case because that is what is sensible for both sides.
Transition will sort out the detail and tell us where the balance of uk and eu trade going to go over the following years. There will be no going back in as some seem to think.

If the govt falls all we end up with is a lab-ld-snp coalition. If you think that’s going to be any more stable than the current lot you’re dreaming.

setmefree2

Feels like we've waited forever to get here.

EU leaders pave way for future trade talks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41684111

It's interesting that sterling rates have bearly budged. Seems like the pound only reacts to news from the BoE.

setmefree2

Angela Merkel says there is 'zero indication' Brexit talks will fail

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/angela-merkel-says-has-no-doubt-brexit-deal-will-secured/

always_sunny

setmefree2 wrote: »

Feels like we've waited forever to get here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41684111

It's interesting that sterling rates have bearly budged. Seems like the pound only reacts to news from the BoE.

Get where? What has been achieved?
That's why the pound is in the same place

Filo25

setmefree2 wrote: »

Feels like we've waited forever to get here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41684111

It's interesting that sterling rates have bearly budged. Seems like the pound only reacts to news from the BoE.

I suspect why Sterling hasn't moved much is that for now it is just more positive rhetoric without a clear commitment that talks were moving onto the 2nd phase.

Has Theresa May offered to pay a higher exit bill, which she might struggle to get her party to agree on?

Is this just EU leaders delivering what was rumoured earlier in the week, that they felt they needed to sound more positive on how the talks were going to help shore up May's position for now, and potentially avoid the whole thing falling apart under the weight of increased political chaos in the UK.

Or maybe the EU is compromising on some of its previous requests, or it could be any one of many other potential scenarios.

Until there is more certainty on exactly what is going on I'm not sure we will see big moves in Sterling, the macro data and November BoE probably has more influence.as you say.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

Depends on the nature of the coalition agreement though. The cons / lib dem coalition was stable. Seems unlikely anything could be much less stable than now - a disunited cabinet led by a PM who is on borrowed time and a government propped up by the oddballs of the DUP.

Merkel is in a far more uncertain place. Nor is the EU united. Barnier is little more than a puppet. Daily analysis of speculative facts is pointless. Best to wait for real news.