Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

It's not acceptible to the EU or vaguely workabout regardless of how many MP's agree with it. The whole house could be behind it and it'd still get rejected. Because it's a bad attempt at a compromise.

I'd expect you to say that but publicly rejecting a deal before they have discussed it shows that they think we will cave in and are trying to force their hand. I fear we will leave without a deal and that will harm both sides. OK it will be more of a problem for us but that doesn't alter the fact that it will damage EU.

phillw

ukcarper wrote: »

I'd expect you to say that but publicly rejecting a deal before they have discussed it shows that they think we will cave in and are trying to force their hand. I fear we will leave without a deal and that will harm both sides. OK it will be more of a problem for us but that doesn't alter the fact that it will damage EU.

Publicly rejecting a deal which would damage the EU more than the fallout from us crashing out seems like a reasonable move.

We're trying to force their hand & make them cave, so we can have our cake and eat it.

I thought the will of the people was to leave at any cost, Reese Mogg seems to be planning on a 50 year down turn in the UK economy before it recovers.

cogito wrote: »

Of course it won't. Being subject to EU rules is the same as remaining.

So be happy with economic downturn, loss of jobs, increased food costs, motorways used as car parks for lorries etc. Why do leavers want the benefits of EU membership without the cost?

Just to be clear, the 350 million a week won't cover all the costs of leaving.

kabayiri wrote: »

There has been more undermining of our position back home than I expected.

No there hasn't. There is the euro sceptic "burn the poor" brigade leading a crash out of the EU lfrom the front, with a load of MPs who are against that. Which is exactly as expected, tempt the peasants with promise of riches and then steal it away.

kabayiri wrote: »

How naive....expecting politicians to cooperate!

Why would you expect that? The whole point of leaving the EU is to stop cooperating. If we were a country of cooperation then we would want to be in the EU and playing our part.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

Not bad but stupid. The EU won't compromise on anything and I have no idea why our stupid government is bothering to try.

I'm not sure you understand how negotiations work.

ukcarper wrote: »

I'd expect you to say that but publicly rejecting a deal before they have discussed it shows that they think we will cave in and are trying to force their hand. I fear we will leave without a deal and that will harm both sides. OK it will be more of a problem for us but that doesn't alter the fact that it will damage EU.

But they did discuss it, the last time it was rejected. This new deal is more or less the same max fac that got rejected previously, with some irrelevant changes.



Plus the EU have been pretty clear with what options are available to us, it's not their fault that we keep trying to suggest other stuff.

ukcarper

phillw wrote: »

Publicly rejecting a deal which would damage the EU more than the fallout from us crashing out seems like a reasonable move.

We're trying to force their hand & make them cave, so we can have our cake and eat it.

I thought the will of the people was to leave at any cost, Reese Mogg seems to be planning on a 50 year down turn in the UK economy before it recovers.

I don't agree rejecting a deal outright before discussing it unreasonable and shows a degree of contempt for British people, the cake argument is a just red herring. If they really feel the deal will damage EU they must not be confident that many member states are not happy with EU as is is now.

Yes there are people like Reece Moog who want to leave at any cost and this is counterbalanced by many remain supporters who don't want to leave at all and are pushing for that. What is needed for the people in the middle to come together forgetting party loyalties, unlikely to happen.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how negotiations work.





But they did discuss it, the last time it was rejected. This new deal is more or less the same max fac that got rejected previously, with some irrelevant changes.



Plus the EU have been pretty clear with what options are available to us, it's not their fault that we keep trying to suggest other stuff.

More or less not the same and if MPs from both sides accepted we have to leave and got behind government instead of trying to score points the government might be in a position to give a little more.

Herzlos

Sniping between politicians is certainly a waste of time.



How long should the EU sit on a garbage proposal before rejecting it? Why should the EU waste time trying to placate a group that doesn't hold any of the cards or know what it wants?

Bear in mind everyone already knew that this one would be rejected and why - both for the EU and Eurosceptics.


Though to be honest I don't think there is an option that'd gain a majority support in the UK or be acceptable to the EU, unless a 2nd referendum gave a remain result.


Brexit means too many things to too many people, is hugely contradictory and Mays red lines make things significantly worse. I'd go so far as claiming that it's not possible. If it was, we'd have managed to come up with something by now.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

I think we're becoming sensitised to the sheer inability of the government to deal with brexit.

No one every thought that this would happen but it has.

Seems as if everybody is in melt down..........

Vested interests would appear to be at work.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how negotiations work.

And you think that you do?

If one side repeatedly rejects every proposal, the time has to come when the side being rejected has to say 'ok, we tried. No point in wasting more time. Come to us if you have any ideas. Meanwhile, you can forget about your €39bn'

kabayiri

The clock is running hey.

I was under the impression that the EU side needed any acceptable deal to be bounced around their member states for 5 or 6 months.

So Oct/Nov 2018 latest.

There seems little that is concrete, except for the default exit. They best get working on those border system changes.

Filo25

I know negotiating trade relationships may be new to us, but it isn't to the EU, they have negotiated deals with many countries around the world over the years and have a lot of experience in doing those deals.

What makes anyone think that the EU should offer the UK a far more favourable deal than they have ever seen fit to offer to any other trading partner they have done a deal with in the past?

Maybe simplistic on my part but I see the options for the final deal as

No Deal
Canada style FTA (not the Canada +++ nonsense being mooted) with some kind of fudged resolution for the Irish border
EEA
Or not leaving in the first place (after a second ref)

The British government hasn't even managed to pick one yet.