No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

JC9

lvader wrote: »

The EU have yet to negotiate in good faith. a no deal actually forces them to negotiate and if they don't you then concentrate with trade elsewhere.

In what aspect do you believe they haven't negotiated in good faith so far?
I agree, it would force them to begin negotiating future trade agreements, but I think it's fair to say that these negotiations would happen with the UK in a weaker position than we are now. Whilst concentrating trade elsewhere will be useful, it doesn't seem feasible to ignore the EU when it currently accounts for over 40% of our exports.

JC9

Fran_Klee wrote: »

The terminology is actually a bit misleading in that the only "deal" is that we pay the EU a huge sum of money supposedly for prior commitments; nothing whatsoever regarding future trade.
So already there is no "deal", just a bill.

Without going into the "if's" and "but's" or the rights and wrongs, paying the EU however many tens of billions of pounds without any itemised bill, much less any promise of favourable future trade and other relationships is in all probability not a very good idea.

After over three years of basically bickering from both sides, anybody can surely see that the EU have approximately zero intention of allowing any sort of preferential future relationship between themselves and the UK beyond those that exist between the EU and any other non-EU country.

Sadly Ivader is absolutely correct.
The EU hoped that the UK would pay many billions without the offer of anything in return.
Refusing to do so demonstrates the UK's determination to put our interests first and not the EU's which will make the EU reconsider their attitudes to future relationships with our country.

Since so far the EU have offered approximately zero, that can only be a positive.

The "divorce bill" (circa £33 billion) has been agreed by the UK and EU; it accounts for the UK's contribution to EU annual budgets and financing liabilities up until 2020, as well as any outstanding commitments. But obviously this isn't binding until a withdrawal agreement is reached.

Don't you think we should honour these financial commitments? It doesn't hinge on future trade deals or agreements, it's simply what the UK owes based on valuations agreed through negotiations. They do not owe us anything in return for this payment as far as I understand, why do you think they do?

I agree, both sides have bickered unproductively for far too long but I believe that refusing to pay the bill would reflect poorly on the UK. Whilst it might show determination, it would also make the UK look financially unreliable and untrustworthy to the many other countries we want to strike trade agreements with.

qwert_yuiop

lvader wrote: »

The EU have yet to negotiate in good faith. a no deal actually forces them to negotiate and if they don't you then concentrate with trade elsewhere.

Concentrate with trade elsewhere? I can see the EU 27 from my kitchen window.
A quick poll here-

- Do you think it is more feasible for me and my neighbours to trade with: (a) county Louth
Or (b) japan



Anyone who would make a statement like that clearly doesn’t have to make their living in the world of trade and business. Absurd.

Sailtheworld

lvader wrote: »

The EU have yet to negotiate in good faith. a no deal actually forces them to negotiate and if they don't you then concentrate with trade elsewhere.

A deal has already been negotiated in good faith.

The deal Boris is after just needs some movement on the backstop (because he pretended it was important as he headed towards Downing Street) and then he can present May's deal as though butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

If it wasn't for the Tory Game of Thrones we could've been out and sunning ourselves on the uplands months ago.

nicknameless

Sailtheworld wrote: »

A deal has already been negotiated in good faith.

The deal Boris is after just needs some movement on the backstop (because he pretended it was important as he headed towards Downing Street) and then he can present May's deal as though butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

If it wasn't for the Tory Game of Thrones we could've been out and sunning ourselves on the uplands months ago.

Careful - let's not let facts get in the way of hyperbole :rotfl:

lvader

Sailtheworld wrote: »

A deal has already been negotiated in good faith.

The deal Boris is after just needs some movement on the backstop (because he pretended it was important as he headed towards Downing Street) and then he can present May's deal as though butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

If it wasn't for the Tory Game of Thrones we could've been out and sunning ourselves on the uplands months ago.

How blind are you to think the EU negotiated in good faith? Really.

Old_Git

it dosent have to be Boris or no deal and crash out .
The original Idea of the backstop was for Northern Ireland only.
It included GB as the government relied on the DUP .
As the government has a minus 20 and counting then the DUP are no longer needed .
The Northern Ireland only backstop needs to be revisited .

Boris deal will not pass the EU or Parliament .Then Boris will blame the EU for blocking it .

Sailtheworld

lvader wrote: »

How blind are you to think the EU negotiated in good faith? Really.

If/ when Boris puts May's deal with some sort of change on the backstop back in front of parliament and it passes what will you do?

Hail the glorious leader or call him out for going along with a deal negotiated in bad faith?

It's a rhetorical question.

Herzlos

lvader wrote: »

How blind are you to think the EU negotiated in good faith? Really.

Assuming they haven't been negotiating in good faith already (I'd disagree, they've given us plenty of slack to waste their time), what makes you think they'll suddenly start changing their negotiating tactic once we're on the outside?


Until we leave, A50 requires them to negotiate with us, and we can carry on largely as usual. Once we leave then there's nothing forcing them to negotiate with us at all and we'll have put ourself in a much weaker position. We can't strong-arm them *now*, how are we going to do it from WTO?

Malthusian

Polls close at 1.30pm today and it's looking like a 63 / 37 majority prefer thousands of people dying in the streets due to medication shortages, over confiscation of assets from landlords, businesses and independent schools.

Never let it be said that the DebHo board isn't full of selfish Tory I'm-alright-Jack slum landlords looking after their interests.