Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

The EU has never not been at the debating table, its the UK refusing to make the necessary tough decisions and compromises.

The EU compromise. :think:

Seems as they are making Eire the UK's problem. Because Eire refuses to budge.

With Spain sitting in the wings.......

andrewf75

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The EU compromise. :think:

Seems as they are making Eire the UK's problem. Because Eire refuses to budge.

With Spain sitting in the wings.......

Northern Ireland is the UK's problem surely?

All the EU is doing is looking after its external border and protecting its single market. We are the ones who want to simultaneously be separate from the SM and not have a border!

What more could the EU do? They're happy for NI to be in the single market or the whole UK to be in it or to have a backstop while we agree trade terms long term

buglawton

andrewf75 wrote: »

The EU has never not been at the debating table, its the UK refusing to make the necessary tough decisions and compromises.

We could probably already have a Canada deal or a Norway deal. What has held things up is us pretending we can have our cake and eat it. That won't change once we're outside the EU negotiating....

The EU is prioritising the integrity of the single market and they have no further margin for compromise. Whereas the UK has a load of arbitrary and contradictory red lines

A Norway deal would not end FOM.

Seems that May has rejected Canada style deals due to reasons of her own internal logic, best explanation I can find is:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-canada-free-trade-deal-agreement-theresa-may-break-up-united-kingdom-a8554741.html

One of these would be likely under a Canada-style FTA because it would not preserve frictionless trade between the EU and UK and would require border checks.

smipsy

andrewf75 wrote: »

What more could the EU do?

give Britain everything it asks for, because Britain is Britain, and therefore deserves everything just by being Britain.

however, EU does the same, so it's madness either way. but the painful truth which the most will never admit to is that EU's sting is bigger and sharper. we can all hide under whatever cover we desire, but that is the truth.

and David vs Goliath scenarios which turn out that way belong in two places only, fantasy and Hollywood.

andrewf75

buglawton wrote: »

A Norway deal would not end FOM.

Seems that May has rejected Canada style deals due to reasons of her own internal logic, best explanation I can find is:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-canada-free-trade-deal-agreement-theresa-may-break-up-united-kingdom-a8554741.html

I'm well aware of the downsides to the Norway option, but the point is that if we insist on ruling out the kind of close deals that the likes of Norway, Switzerland have, then that has consequences. i.e we need a border in Ireland and we won't have "frictionless trade"

We're still pretending that we can have our cake and eat it. There is a tough choice to make and whatever way we go there are pros and cons. Yet we fail to acknowledge the cons!

Herzlos

buglawton wrote: »

By contrast the UK, especially with it's separate floating currency and rather global outlook, is quite well placed to weather the storm.

How do you come to that conclusion? WTO means we lose access to most services and a huge chunk of economy. If we could transfer all our trade from the EU to RoW then we'd maybe be able to weather it.

We go WTO and the EU 27 will soon be at the deal-making table again.

We'd be in more of a hurry to come to a deal, but I agree in that if we go WTO we might actually see a reasonable deal happen, assuming the UK can figure out what it wants.
It's also worth noting that once we've left, A50 stops applying and the EU isn't required to negotiate a trade deal with us.

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

Northern Ireland is the UK's problem surely?

The objections are coming from the EU side. Seems if the UK is the only party proactively seeking a solution. After all even an amendment to the text would be acceptable to the DUP and many MP's.

buglawton

andrewf75 wrote: »

I'm well aware of the downsides to the Norway option, but the point is that if we insist on ruling out the kind of close deals that the likes of Norway, Switzerland have, then that has consequences. i.e we need a border in Ireland and we won't have "frictionless trade"

We're still pretending that we can have our cake and eat it. There is a tough choice to make and whatever way we go there are pros and cons. Yet we fail to acknowledge the cons!

it's going to be a curious situation if no deal/WTO. The UK would only put up physical checks if smuggling from ROI were rampant. But price differences are going to be minimal. So we don't. But the EU will lean on ROI to do just that. Boot on the other foot, etc.

gfplux

So many posters seem to have forgotten that Britain wants to leave the EU.
Britain wanted a transition deal of 2 years and got 21 months.
Britain wanted its cake and eat it with red lines and got nothing. However after two years of negotiations has a deal but the Parliament will not agree to it, because....
Britain has a land border with the EU and together with the EU want to preserve the Good Friday agreement.
The back stop is there in the agreement as the short term solution but is seen as such a huge hurdle by the British Parliament.
Frankly the reasons are spurious because Parliament is playing politics.

Crashing out without a deal will be hugely damaging to both Britain and the EU and those that think that imposed WTO trading terms either good or neutral have no idea. They rejected expert views before the referendum and now dismiss the experts now when they say trading under (imposed) WTO rules will be negative for BOTH industry, farming and the consumer.
This is like arguing with a flat earther. Despite almost every experts predictions WTO keeps being mentioned as a economic neutral opportunity.

Enterprise_1701C

It is Blair that his been desperately trying to stop Brexit, it is he and his cronies that suggested to Barnier et all that they should play hardball and make the deal as unappetising as possible, he told them he could stop Brexit. It shows just how little he thinks of the British public.

It is worth noting that Tusk made his disgruntled speech not long after the turn around in Parliament. After the deal had been rejected by such a massive amount in parliament they thought they had won, but instead they had lost, and he knew that when he made that infantile speech.

Apparently, some time ago, One of his cronies, the philosopher AC Grayling, was even caught on camera telling the European Parliament's Brexit chief Guy Verhofstadt: "What would help the Remain movement in the UK is if the EU is very, very tough and uncompromising on a deal."

I know a lot of you will shout "but it's from the Express", but it is no different to quoting from other papers. It makes for interesting reading, thought he remoaners will shout that it is lies. One thing I do believe is that Blair will do anything to stay in the eu, he wants to be president of the eu and destroying a country by forcing it to stay in the eu will not stand in his way.

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1085094/brexit-news-tony-blair-donald-tusk-eu-deal-theresa-may