Brexit negotiations thread

[Lord Football]

My take on the 'Divorce Bill' is that whilst it cannot legally be enforced, the UK will have a duty towards certain schemes / projects etc and it is likely that some interests might well be worth keeping hold of.

I doubt that even the most fervent remainer is able to explain or breakdown how the EU arrives at figures that have been anywhere between 30 - 100 billion Euro's.

Ultimately there is a fine dividing line between what can be considered a 'liability', against what may be termed a commitment ...I disagree with Lord Footballs use of the word debt.

If the UK has liabilities then in turn it can only follow the EU has also, a good example would be UK capital held in the ECB.

My personal view would be to offer 30 billion less their liabilities towards us...and also to include 2 years transition.

Or to let the whole matter go to a 3rd party body to adjudicate on what if any the UK should pay.

There may be some legally niceties around not paying the "divorce bill". It may not be legally enforceable. But, we wont be getting a free trade deal or access to any free markets or any transition without us making some form of payment agreement. That's pretty much already been said by D Davies.

You are right to disagree with my use of the word debt, I was attempting to keep this simple. So.... "Commitments" would have been a better word.

The debt, ie what we owe in "own resources" is a completely different thing and to the best of my knowledge not included in the "divorce bill".

Neither figure can, at this stage, be accurately identified. The EU seem to be putting the divorce bill in the region of €36bn and that's likely to be the starting point for negotiations. I gather, the UK Government's own figure isn't much difference from this (but I cannot for the life of me remember where I read that).

Not sure what this 3rd Party would be you refer to. The ECJ adjudicate on all matters EU, and we wont be recognising that. You can imagine the furore from the likes of Rees-Mogg if we left it up to them!!!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40922177

We're after a "temporary customs union" now I see.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...exit-says-headhunter-financial-services-uk-eu

Brexit's causing problems in the city.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...he-crash-discredited-ango-us-democratic-model

Will Hutton combines criiticsm of the 207/8 "Atlantic" crash with the fervent hope that the EU can provide a solution.

"It now falls to the derided European Union to carry the torch for best combining democracy with a productive capitalism that works for all."

 

[Shrimpside Teaser]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40922177

We're after a "temporary customs union" now I see.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...exit-says-headhunter-financial-services-uk-eu

Brexit's causing problems in the city.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...he-crash-discredited-ango-us-democratic-model

Will Hutton combines criiticsm of the 207/8 "Atlantic" crash with the fervent hope that the EU can provide a solution.

"It now falls to the derided European Union to carry the torch for best combining democracy with a productive capitalism that works for all."

Strewth, man, do you not have any views of your own?

 

[Bielzibubz]

Strewth, man, do you not have any views of your own?

:hilarious:Do you need to ask?

No, he doesn't. Which is why I stopped trying to have an intelligent, reasoned debate with the man yonks ago :smile: If he does reply without a quote he invariably countering without actually countering what's been said and resorts to humourless quips and at all other times he lets the Guardian do his thinking and talking for him.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Strewth, man, do you not have any views of your own?

:hilarious:Do you need to ask?

No, he doesn't. Which is why I stopped trying to have an intelligent, reasoned debate with the man yonks ago :smile: If he does reply without a quote he invariably countering without actually countering what's been said and resorts to humourless quips and at all other times he lets the Guardian do his thinking and talking for him.

Yes I do.I'm anti-Brexit (for many of the reaons given in the Guardian articles I've quoted).Fortunately, Brexit is unlikely to impact on me or my family in any significant way.However,I fear it will indeed do so for future generations of Brits.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lieves-transition-period-necessary-for-brexit

What the polls show.Interesting.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Yes I do.I'm anti-Brexit (for many of the reaons given in the Guardian articles I've quoted).Fortunately, Brexit is unlikely to impact on me or my family in any significant way.However,I fear it will indeed do so for future generations of Brits.

We know you're anti Brexit. We know you agree with the vast majority of everything the Guardian puts into print. That's a given. However, your constant posting of Gaurdian links and the fact you never seem to be able to put your own thoughts into type, regardless of whether they've been put into print professionally by someone else or not, give the impression, and quite rightly so in my opinion, that you don't or can't actually think and express yourself sufficiently on these subjects and rely on others to do it for you. Either that or you're just too damn lazy lol

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

We know you're anti Brexit. We know you agree with the vast majority of everything the Guardian puts into print. That's a given. However, your constant posting of Gaurdian links and the fact you never seem to be able to put your own thoughts into type, regardless of whether they've been put into print professionally by someone else or not, give the impression, and quite rightly so in my opinion, that you don't or can't actually think and express yourself sufficiently on these subjects and rely on others to do it for you. Either that or you're just too damn lazy lol

Interesting that you quote a post of mine that doesn't contain a Guardian link rather than comment on my last post (on opinion polls that does).

Here's an Obsever link for you on the ECJ.https://www.theguardian.com/politic...n-court-of-justice-theresa-may-foolish-attack

Quite happy to plead "guilcup" to the "lazy" charge.:winking:

 

[Lord Football]

isn't the Observer just the Sunday Guardian??

 

[Bielzibubz]

[/B]

Interesting that you quote a post of mine that doesn't contain a Guardian link rather than comment on my last post (on opinion polls that does).

Here's an Obsever link for you on the ECJ.https://www.theguardian.com/politic...n-court-of-justice-theresa-may-foolish-attack

Quite happy to plead "guilcup" to the "lazy" charge.:winking:

Ahh, but your reply, the one you attribute my quote to, didn't ask you for an opinion on any political or social issue. It asked you a specific question. Why would the Guardian have a story about an opinion of your? :winking: That's something I'd imagine even the Guardian would struggle to formulate a story about.

Anyway, back on topic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

Here's some good news for you to gripe and moan about for the next month of Sunday's just as you lot have been doing for the past God knows how long :smile:

 

[Lord Football]

Ahh, but your reply, the one you attribute my quote to, didn't ask you for an opinion on any political or social issue. It asked you a specific question. Why would the Guardian have a story about an opinion of your? :winking: That's something I'd imagine even the Guardian would struggle to formulate a story about.

Anyway, back on topic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

Here's some good news for you to gripe and moan about for the next month of Sunday's just as you lot have been doing for the past God knows how long :smile:

I am going to pick up on that. I don't think its news, its an opinion written by a Brexit economist commission by Brexiteers.

If you work for a tobacco company and you ask an analyist to write you a report about the dangers of tobacco, as sure as eggs is eggs it will minimise the issue (and that actually happened in Australia).

The report has some huge gaps and makes some massive assumptions, all of which, in the real world wont happen.

The two obvious things.....

...it talks about removing tariffs to benefit global trade. As things stand we currently have NO tariffs with the EU (by far our biggest trading partner) nor with any of the countries involved in the 52 Free Trade Agreements are part of. So, essentially, he is saying his Brexit solution will bring about pretty much what we already have. Now of course you could argue that we don't have a FTA with China, and Brexit would allow us to do so, but there are very good reasons why.

... protectionism. Free trade is great in many instances, but sometimes its not. In China you can manufacture pretty much anything for a fraction of the cost. If you allow imports of Chinese bikes costing £10, you put out the UK bike manufacturers who can't make them for less £100. So, great if you want to buy a bike, not so good if you make them. And China makes everything. So you do need tariffs and duties.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

isn't the Observer just the Sunday Guardian??

Technically that's correct.But those of us who've been around a bit remember it as an independent Sunday.It still is I believe in theory,editorial control etc

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I am going to pick up on that. I don't think its news, its an opinion written by a Brexit economist commission by Brexiteers.

If you work for a tobacco company and you ask an analyist to write you a report about the dangers of tobacco, as sure as eggs is eggs it will minimise the issue (and that actually happened in Australia).

The report has some huge gaps and makes some massive assumptions, all of which, in the real world wont happen.

The two obvious things.....

...it talks about removing tariffs to benefit global trade. As things stand we currently have NO tariffs with the EU (by far our biggest trading partner) nor with any of the countries involved in the 52 Free Trade Agreements are part of. So, essentially, he is saying his Brexit solution will bring about pretty much what we already have. Now of course you could argue that we don't have a FTA with China, and Brexit would allow us to do so, but there are very good reasons why.

... protectionism. Free trade is great in many instances, but sometimes its not. In China you can manufacture pretty much anything for a fraction of the cost. If you allow imports of Chinese bikes costing £10, you put out the UK bike manufacturers who can't make them for less £100. So, great if you want to buy a bike, not so good if you make them. And China makes everything. So you do need tariffs and duties.

Quite true.Just to even up the balance, the stories Sir Paul Jenkins has been leaking recently, hardly qualify as "news" either.Opinion certainly.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-this-autumn-will-be-dashed-says-slovenian-pm

Slovenia talking sense.

 

[Shrimpside Teaser]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-this-autumn-will-be-dashed-says-slovenian-pm

Slovenia saying what I want to hear.

Some might say...

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Some might say...

Ha! When even little Slovenia have a casting vote you just know the negotiations are going to be tough.:winking:

 

[Shrimpside Teaser]

Ha! When even little Slovenia have a casting vote you just know the negotiations are going to be tough.:winking:

I would have thought that most voters, leave or remain, were expecting negotiations to be tough. What I don't get is why a minority of Remainers, like the Guardian and yourself, seem to be hoping things go very badly. Well to be fair I do get it - you want to be able to say 'told-you-so'. I suppose the better off can afford the luxury of Brexit going badly. It will be the worse off who will suffer but to middle-class Guardian-reading socialists, those sort of people are not actually people at all, just mere statistics, to be used as cannon fodder in the 'the cause'.

ps A typically patronising sneer about Slovenia

 

[Lord Football]

I would have thought that most voters, leave or remain, were expecting negotiations to be tough. What I don't get is why a minority of Remainers, like the Guardian and yourself, seem to be hoping things go very badly. Well to be fair I do get it - you want to be able to say 'told-you-so'. I suppose the better off can afford the luxury of Brexit going badly. It will be the worse off who will suffer but to middle-class Guardian-reading socialists, those sort of people are not actually people at all, just mere statistics, to be used as cannon fodder in the 'the cause'.

ps A typically patronising sneer about Slovenia

Speaking as one of those socialist people, I was right with you until you got personal. No need for it, really. You even say "the worse off will suffer", which beggars the question - why did they vote for it in the first place. That I expect will be the great unanswered question. But I digress.

We desperately need the best deal we can possibly, because the reality is that not having a deal is going to be dreadful for the vast majority of people.

As I've said earlier, regardless of whether you were "in" or "out", those arguments are done. We need to get on with this, we need to give business the clearest steer possible as to how it will work and we need make sure we have contingencies in place in case we don't get what we want / need.

We should be hoping that negotiations don't fail.......