Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

wunferall

gfplux, the very first rule of selling is ................ understand your customer.


According to fullfact, only between 5% & 8% of UK business exports to the EU. So it looks like UK businesses already understand their customers, as by far most rely upon UK trade.

Despite your negativity you must surely realise that no contact with prospective customers = no sales. It's no use sitting thinking "I can't". ALL the best salespeople are go-getters with a positive outlook. Nobody says it is (or will be in the future) easy but it can be done. Just as it has been done for centuries.

Herzlos

wunferall wrote: »

I'm sorry but :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You need to tell Barnier & co that they're "happy with not having a border". It's pretty clear that they are not.

Only because leaving the customs union is one of our red lines. If we went the with the Norway model there would be no need for a border.

You're conflating what they want, and what they want within the parameters we've set.

iro

Herzlos wrote: »

Only because leaving the customs union is one of our red lines. If we went the with the Norway model there would be no need for a border.

You're conflating what they want, and what they want within the parameters we've set.

Herzthingy?

Genuinely, no disrespect but I have not witnessed such a stream of economic illiteracy in a long time.

.string.

It's really clear that we will loose some of our trade with the EU.

It's also really clear we will not loose all of it.

Would anyone hazard a guess (learned estimate would be better) as to what percentage we would have to make up in order to counter the loss.

I'll start with a guess of 15 to 20%.

Herzlos

It really depends on how hard a brexit we get. In name only might not cost us much at all.

iro wrote: »

Herzthingy?

Genuinely, no disrespect but I have not witnessed such a stream of economic illiteracy in a long time.

Is that because you don't understand or don't agree with it?

Do you think we can have 2 different sets of product regulations with no border between them? Or that there would be no need for a border if we stayed within the single market/customs union?

esuhl

Pauciloquent_1 wrote: »

No, really it isn't.
There is no international law saying countries must have borders, that's how the EU has the Schengen area for example.

If the UK says it wants no border but the EU wants a border then it is, bluntly, up to the EU to put one in place.

But we have legally-binding agreements with EU.

If the border was with any old country with whom we had no formal treaties, we could just leave the border unguarded and let the neighbouring country sort out the problem if they wanted.

In order to leave the EU, both parties must come to an agreement on the terms. Thus if the EU don't agree to an open border, then we can't have one.

It's nothing to do with different laws or product regulations.

Herzlos

I'm not struggling at all; you just don't get it.

The UK can say anything it wants but it doesn't magically make it true. The EU don't think about proposals for a seamless border aren't good enough. We need to either convince them they are wrong of convince them to use another option, or we've agreed to regulatory alignment, which doesn't require the border.


That the EU are saying we need a border and a workable plan, are because we're insisting on a condition that rules or having no border (regulatory divergence).

I can't think of any good examples here to illustrate.

Enterprise_1701C

esuhl wrote: »

But we have legally-binding agreements with EU.

If the border was with any old country with whom we had no formal treaties, we could just leave the border unguarded and let the neighbouring country sort out the problem if they wanted.

In order to leave the EU, both parties must come to an agreement on the terms. Thus if the EU don't agree to an open border, then we can't have one.

It's nothing to do with different laws or product regulations.

The eu are digging their heals in, hoping to force us to stay in the single market, they would not agree to any solution proposed by the UK because they are idiots and think they will get away with forcing us to stay in the eu as their cash cows. If they do they will end up with a very annoyed country on their hands, and I am pretty sure we would become more and more disruptive to their aims.

I think what might happen is if they keep digging their heals in they will end up with us telling them to do one and leaving full stop, they can then deal with having to impose a border and explaining it to Ireland.

All they have to do is admit that we might actually know what is needed in Ireland and let us get on with it, but they do not want us to get on with it, simple.

wunferall

esuhl wrote: »

But we have legally-binding agreements with EU.

If the border was with any old country with whom we had no formal treaties, we could just leave the border unguarded and let the neighbouring country sort out the problem if they wanted.

In order to leave the EU, both parties must come to an agreement on the terms. Thus if the EU don't agree to an open border, then we can't have one.

It's nothing to do with different laws or product regulations.

No, your understanding is flawed.

The UK is leaving the EU. The EU cannot force any extra-EU country to maintain a border, regardless of your understanding. Treaties may cover borders but any such treaty must be agreed by both parties, and until any treaty is agreed then each country is responsible for how it chooses to handle its own borders.

In order to leave the EU the UK could just walk. I'm not advocating this but it is nonetheless true. In that instance the UK could unilaterally decide to have open borders where it wished. The EU can not enforce its rules or desires on another non-member country. (Be honest, the EU has enough trouble getting member countries to stick to their rules.)

wunferall

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not struggling at all; you just don't get it.

The UK can say anything it wants but it doesn't magically make it true. The EU don't think about proposals for a seamless border aren't good enough. We need to either convince them they are wrong of convince them to use another option, or we've agreed to regulatory alignment, which doesn't require the border.


That the EU are saying we need a border and a workable plan, are because we're insisting on a condition that rules or having no border (regulatory divergence).

I can't think of any good examples here to illustrate.

No, YOU don't get it.

The UK are leaving the EU. Thus unless the UK agrees, the EU can not force the UK to abide by any of it's rules.

Is that simple enough?