Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

But the point remains that our request to start other discussions due to the length of time it has taken to get this far is a sensible one.

I think it's a bad decision because:
a. We agreed to this order, and we're the ones holding it back
b. If we start talking about trade, we're never going to get the divorce sorted.

If we want to get onto trade, then we need to get our finger out and satisfy the EU about the 3 roadblocks so we can move on. Blaming the EU won't help.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I think it's a bad decision because:
a. We agreed to this order, and we're the ones holding it back
b. If we start talking about trade, we're never going to get the divorce sorted.

If we want to get onto trade, then we need to get our finger out and satisfy the EU about the 3 roadblocks so we can move on. Blaming the EU won't help.

Both sides are holding it back.

Why is that difficult to see?

If the EU's demands are disagreeable then we have to hold it back until they move towards us and we come to a compromise. If there's to be no compromise (which May has already stated we're willing to do in her speech) then there will be no agreement at all will there? So we may as well just get on with leaving now and move to WTO rules.

Filo25

cogito wrote: »

I don't see it as playing hardball at all. It takes two to negotiate and it appears to me that the EU simply aren't engaging in the process. TBH, I never expected that they would move an iota from their position papers as it is not their style to do so. Disengaging from the sham is not playing hardball but a sad recognition that there is no point in hammering your head against a brick wall.

Also, there is no such thing as a hard brexit. Leaving is leaving. Continuing to pay for access to the single market and customs union is not leaving.

Whether I agree with them or not, the EU have set out what they expect from the UK and seem to currently be sticking to that line, that in itself is a negotiating position.

They are under no obligation to move that position (in the way that we have been moving ours), in the same way neither side is under any obligation to come to a deal if they can't find mutually agreeable terms.

As I said in the other thread maybe if No Deal starts to look like a likely outcome, the EU will start to show more flexibility, or might struggle to maintain their relative political unity, or of course they may not.

"No Deal" is a costly option for the EU as well as for the UK, they are just more able to absorb those costs in a much bigger market than the UK would be, it still doesn't make it a desirable outcome for them.

The problem for the UK of course is if we start to play hardball and the cliff edge Hard Brexit starts to look more likely then you are going to start hearing a hell of a lot more from the business lobby, who have actually been relatively restrained thus far, and you are going to start seeing investment decisions being made or not made based on the expectation of a Hard Brexit in 2019, not costless for either side really.

Filo25

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Both sides are holding it back.

Why is that difficult to see?

It doesn't really matter who is holding it back.

Why is that difficult to see?

Only joking!

mayonnaise

The UK was naively hoping that by now the EU negotiating position would be in total turmoil, with individual member states undermining the EU stance in order to protect and advance their individual national agendas.

How what backfired.

cogito

Filo25 wrote: »

Whether I agree with them or not, the EU have set out what they expect from the UK and seem to currently be sticking to that line, that in itself is a negotiating position.

They are under no obligation to move that position (in the way that we have been moving ours), in the same way neither side is under any obligation to come to a deal if they can't find mutually agreeable terms.

As I said in the other thread maybe if No Deal starts to look like a likely outcome, the EU will start to show more flexibility, or might struggle to maintain their relative political unity, or of course they may not.

"No Deal" is a costly option for the EU as well as for the UK, they are just more able to absorb those costs in a much bigger market than the UK would be, it still doesn't make it a desirable outcome for them.

The problem for the UK of course is if we start to play hardball and the cliff edge Hard Brexit starts to look more likely then you are going to start hearing a hell of a lot more from the business lobby, who have actually been relatively restrained thus far, and you are going to start seeing investment decisions being made or not made based on the expectation of a Hard Brexit in 2019, not costless for either side really.

Do you really think that businesses are not preparing for the possibility that there will be no deal and have been doing so for over a year? If I was a shareholder in such a business, it's the least I would expect.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Both sides are holding it back.

Why is that difficult to see?

What I see is that the EU has a stance and keeps asking us for stuff, and we keep failing to provide it. So they are holding it back in that they are holding their ground, whilst we are holding it back by wasting time.

If the EU's demands are disagreeable then we have to hold it back until they move towards us and we come to a compromise.

That's not how negotiations work. If the EU demands are disagreeable, then we need to try and produce counter-offers and push things forward. We can just refuse to talk and let negotiations time out.

If there's to be no compromise (which May has already stated we're willing to do in her speech) then there will be no agreement at all will there? So we may as well just get on with leaving now and move to WTO rules.

I'm sure there will be some compromise, once we provide the EU with something they can work with. They still hold most of the cards, so I expect most of the compromise will need to be UK driven.

I agree we should just go WTO, that's the divorce settled and then we can hopefully either negotiate a new deal or negotiate to rejoin the EU before our economy is irrecoverably damaged.

Arklight

mayonnaise wrote: »

The UK was naively hoping that by now the EU negotiating position would be in total turmoil, with individual member states undermining the EU stance in order to protect and advance their individual national agendas.

How what backfired.

Because the UK has enjoyed such a privileged position in Europe for so long, it is now receiving a very bitter lesson on its actual place in the world.

It needs it, unfortunately. But it is desperately unfair on the very slight majority of people who wanted nothing to do with this lunacy. Which has now degenerated into Tory ministers signing off on a £100 million boat for the Queen to sail around in, impressing the natives to sign trade deals (considering she's 91 I wonder how she feels about extended cruises with Boris Johnson).

Fella

mayonnaise wrote: »

The UK was naively hoping that by now the EU negotiating position would be in total turmoil

It is. The EU are in real danger there of no deal. By any standards that would be an utter failure of negotiations by them. No deal may or may not be a good outcome for the UK. It is emphatically a horrible outcome for the EU.

Herzlos

Fella wrote: »

It is. The EU are in real danger there of no deal. By any standards that would be an utter failure of negotiations by them. No deal may or may not be a good outcome for the UK. It is emphatically a horrible outcome for the EU.

I'm not sure I can follow or agree that argument at all.

Why would a no deal be a horrible outcome for the EU whilst potentially being a good outcome for the UK?