TM deal needed a handful of labour mps to approve it and had they done so we would have achieved a deal and the labour mps most likely have retained their seats
Nah she's wrong. Labour fucked this badly, it was on the table for the softest of Brexits for the People's Vote and they went shit or bust because they were too busy in-fighting. As a Brexit voter it was hard to believe at the time because I was resigned to getting a Brexit I didnt want, but seemingly now there are 2 brilliant options on the table that I could have never imagined a few years ago.
TM deal needed a handful of labour mps to approve it and had they done so we would have achieved a deal and the labour mps most likely have retained their seats
Nah she's wrong. Labour fucked this badly, it was on the table for the softest of Brexits for the People's Vote and they went shit or bust because they were too busy in-fighting. As a Brexit voter it was hard to believe at the time because I was resigned to getting a Brexit I didnt want, but seemingly now there are 2 brilliant options on the table that I could have never imagined a few years ago.
No, you are wrong. May's deal was far from soft Brexit, since it involved SM and CU exit. And voting through her version of the WA risked offering carte blanche to her likely successor to negotiate an even harder Brexit FTA. Most Labour MPs voted for a real soft Brexit option (EEA) in the indicative votes but that was vetoed by Tory MPs. Personally I see little difference between May's deal and where we are now, especially as May's deal might well have ended up somewhere like this anyway - I mean, Johnson has tried to renegotiate his own exit deal, I am sure he would have torn up what May agreed to.
May's deal only took us out of the SM and CU in the same way as we are de jure out of the SM and CU today - but most people would rightly acknowledge we haven't really left the SM and CU yet de facto.
May's deal would have de facto kept us trapped in the SM and CU until we negotiated an alternative with the EU. That is why leavers hated it.
The difference between May's deal and today is that today the SM and CU provisions expire so we can 'no deal' in a 21 days time - in May's deal they didn't expire and we'd be in the backstop indefinitely.
Good. EU have blinked here and it is remarkable they even thought the fishing one might be a goer. Good to have that stricken down before the Council meeting tonight.
Good. EU have blinked here and it is remarkable they even thought the fishing one might be a goer. Good to have that stricken down before the Council meeting tonight.
If we don't get a deal, and not having a deal is bad, then the responsibility for that is all Johnson's and the other Brexit cheerleaders.
They said a deal would be easy. They said life would be great without a deal.
Attempts to blame the EU are as risible as they are predictable.
What if life is great without a deal? What then?
You guys never seem to acknowledge that is a possibility.
It's statistically possible that some of the water molecules in my coffee will suddenly congeal into a lump of ice floating in the hot coffee. But ...
Yet you are a fan of Scotland taking potentially an even more extreme step. Within he arguments for indy, there is a lot of 'when we have independence it may be a bit rough in the beginning but we'll be unleashing Scotland's potential etc.'. I don't expect you to be ideologically on board with Brexit but I would expect a Sindy fan to at least have the imagination to appreciate there may be a bigger and better outcome to all this.
May's deal only took us out of the SM and CU in the same way as we are de jure out of the SM and CU today - but most people would rightly acknowledge we haven't really left the SM and CU yet de facto.
May's deal would have de facto kept us trapped in the SM and CU until we negotiated an alternative with the EU. That is why leavers hated it.
The difference between May's deal and today is that today the SM and CU provisions expire so we can 'no deal' in a 21 days time - in May's deal they didn't expire and we'd be in the backstop indefinitely.
This is true - the backstop would stay in place until alternative arrangements could be found on Ireland. Various bullshit fantasies were proposed by Tory foamers to avoid the need to have a border, but the reality was that its impossible.
This is also the reality for the UK / EU border in 3 weeks time. Doing what we insist we are doing means we have to have full customs and standards checks. Problem being that we can't do that without bringing the border to a grinding halt. The same technological impossibility that nixed the backstop is the same impossibility that sinks trade under your preferred no deal...
I see the PB Tories are getting ready to appoint Admiral HYFUD to lead the war to teach Europe a lesson by jingo...
It is like watching four year olds....
Yes, this is noticeable. And if we do actually No Deal - which we won't - there will be a determined appeal to jingoism in order to keep the campfires burning. The question is, will there be enough if it? Leavers in general have large reserves of this sentiment, true, but it's by no means all of them and it's not unlimited. Many are softies. Others will have their resolve sorely tested by the damage and inconvenience caused to themselves and their loved ones.
The other serious miscalculation the EU are making is that the UK will simply come back to the negotiating table a few weeks/months after it happens but everyday we spend in no deal the cost of it increases and it becomes more difficult to justify going back if the terms on offer are the same or worse.
If we no deal I expect it will be 2-3 years before we seriously open up negotiations for a trade deal and they will be in the back of the queue as APAC becomes a much better bet for a services based economy.
Yep, I don't expect any quick recommencement of negotiations. Both parties will start to look away from each other.
Hasn't it been muted UK will scrap all EU tariffs on US goods from 1st January and make an application to join TPPA
I think that as we exit transition that we have to drop the US tariff as the EU is the only party authorised by the WTO for them. The US is not obliged to reciprocate, as the UK is included in their punitive tariff.
The whole mess is the fault of no one else but this current government and those that voted for it.
May's deal only took us out of the SM and CU in the same way as we are de jure out of the SM and CU today - but most people would rightly acknowledge we haven't really left the SM and CU yet de facto.
May's deal would have de facto kept us trapped in the SM and CU until we negotiated an alternative with the EU. That is why leavers hated it.
The difference between May's deal and today is that today the SM and CU provisions expire so we can 'no deal' in a 21 days time - in May's deal they didn't expire and we'd be in the backstop indefinitely.
This is true - the backstop would stay in place until alternative arrangements could be found on Ireland. Various bullshit fantasies were proposed by Tory foamers to avoid the need to have a border, but the reality was that its impossible.
This is also the reality for the UK / EU border in 3 weeks time. Doing what we insist we are doing means we have to have full customs and standards checks. Problem being that we can't do that without bringing the border to a grinding halt. The same technological impossibility that nixed the backstop is the same impossibility that sinks trade under your preferred no deal...
Necessity is the mother of invention. Just get on with it and find a solution afterwards if need be.
If we don't get a deal, and not having a deal is bad, then the responsibility for that is all Johnson's and the other Brexit cheerleaders.
They said a deal would be easy. They said life would be great without a deal.
Attempts to blame the EU are as risible as they are predictable.
What if life is great without a deal? What then?
You guys never seem to acknowledge that is a possibility.
It's statistically possible that some of the water molecules in my coffee will suddenly congeal into a lump of ice floating in the hot coffee. But ...
Yet you are a fan of Scotland taking potentially an even more extreme step. Within he arguments for indy, there is a lot of 'when we have independence it may be a bit rough in the beginning but we'll be unleashing Scotland's potential etc.'. I don't expect you to be ideologically on board with Brexit but I would expect a Sindy fan to at least have the imagination to appreciate there may be a bigger and better outcome to all this.
I did point out today the option of letting Scotland be in the EU while remaining in the UK. As the Nirish are getting, as is being very pointednly observed in Scotland.
Reduces the incentives to rush towards a deal - those eggs have already broken now.
Is there no subject you don't know nothing about?
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
What other nations get isn't relevant. That's the argument of a child. England was never going to get the same deal as other countries due to its size, proximity and already high degree of economic integration.
You're right we ought to be able to get a better one, not a worse one. But that's fine we can take the same.
Otherwise if you're saying its important not to be undercut by your neighbours why do you want a trade deal with a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? Presumably we should by that logic want protectionism against the EU until they meet our standards while seeking out preferential trade deals with further abroad instead.
That you can't see the hypocrisy is damning.
Where do you get the idea from that the minimum wage is an EU competence? A quick Google shows that each Member State sets its own minimum wage, ranging from €1.95 per hour in Bulgaria to €12.36 per hour in Luxembourg.
So as I said the minimum in the EU is €1.95
And they're supposed to be worried about us undercutting them? Are you seriously trying to take the piss? That is ridiculous.
You said "a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour". Does the bloc have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? No, it doesn't. One of its Member States does - Bulgaria.
Anyway, the whole idea that the Bulgaria's minimum wage is of any importance at all is itself absurd. God only knows why you're making such a big deal of it.
Yes as a bloc their minimum wage is €1.95 - minimum by definition means the minimum anywhere in the bloc not all of it.
The reason it is of importance is because quite self-evidently it is acceptable in a market for different countries to have different labour laws or standards. Which is why the UK should not sign the mad LPF provisions the EU want us to sign - they don't even have the same LPF as we do today.
You are being quite ridiculous. The LPF doesn't imply that every single law needs to be identical between the participants, just that a certain subset of them are. The minimum wage is not part of this subset. It is not part of the LPF, and I've no idea why you seem to think it should be.
Why shouldn't it?
Why should any be but not that one? Other than that is what the EU wants, can you give a logical explanation why tax rates should be more a part of an LPF than a minimum wage?
Quite. Isn't paying a (significantly) lower minimum wage exactly an example of the 'social dumping' that the EU finds so objectionable?
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
“ no more fishing waters” don’t we need to sell our catches to them, and import what we need from them? Our waters are not full of the fish we need. Although cod can enjoy our waters, they dont tend to swim into it.
If no deal is bad chaos and a New PM signs up for a deal to bring it to a close, that’s likely brexit tried, failed, done with forever, in terms of being able to win elections on it instead lose elections on it.
There is a global market for frozen fish, we buy the fish we like primarily from Iceland and Norway both of whom have just inked fresh trade deals with us allowing for the trade of fish with both nations without quotas or tariffs.
Additionally, if we have the fish and the EU want to buy it they'll need to change their rules so they can buy the fish.
The thing about no deal is that it requires a lot of upfront investment and cost, once that's done there really isn't much need for a deal and it becomes a "nice to have". What the French position is at the moment is to try and make the cost of no deal as high as possible so that it may be a year or two before the UK sees anything like normality.
Once we no deal it will be no deal for at least a few years.
Years???
Boris does not have the support back home for no deal chaos for years with promise 2 years it will be okay., not in his party, not in the country. 4 or 5 months no deal chaos, British public opinion can take no more, Boris replacement signs up to the EU bottom line and brings the chaos to a close.
It’s our biggest trading partner. You reckon we can replace them trading elsewhere? That’s like for real you believe that?
We don't need to, trade doesn't stop without a deal. We'll still be able to trade with them even without one.
Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That’s your statement. I credit you with it being factual. Kudos for that much, as you said to me the other day.
But what do you actually mean by that, it’s a position of strength for us?
yes, the UK certainly does buy more from the 27 than the other way round.
The UK had a bilateral trade deficit to the tune of £67bn in 2017. That breaks down to a larger deficit of £95bn for goods, but a surplus of £28bn for services.
The first thing that leaps out is we are dependent on getting things in. That’s not a weak position for EU, if, as result of brexit, it’s turns out just as easy for them to sell elsewhere? That’s a dangerous assumption you are making of their dependency on us?
More seriously for your intellect though, EU's economy is so much larger, so you would expect the stat you trotted out, Yet at the same time impact of no deal for the EU economy as a whole the impact would be rather small. That’s just basic economic logic isn’t it, tiny place buys more from big place than other way round doesn’t mean big place dependent on tiny place?
Looking at it like this the basic logic of your statement is just insane? Isn’t it?
Reduces the incentives to rush towards a deal - those eggs have already broken now.
Is there no subject you don't know nothing about?
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
Less to play for than there used to be. That's the point, the longer we get through this disruption the less there is to play for.
The other serious miscalculation the EU are making is that the UK will simply come back to the negotiating table a few weeks/months after it happens but everyday we spend in no deal the cost of it increases and it becomes more difficult to justify going back if the terms on offer are the same or worse.
If we no deal I expect it will be 2-3 years before we seriously open up negotiations for a trade deal and they will be in the back of the queue as APAC becomes a much better bet for a services based economy.
Yep, I don't expect any quick recommencement of negotiations. Both parties will start to look away from each other.
Hasn't it been muted UK will scrap all EU tariffs on US goods from 1st January and make an application to join TPPA
I think that as we exit transition that we have to drop the US tariff as the EU is the only party authorised by the WTO for them. The US is not obliged to reciprocate, as the UK is included in their punitive tariff.
The whole mess is the fault of no one else but this current government and those that voted for it.
Many are content with no deal and to be honest it seems unstoppable now and time alone will be the judge of its success or otherwise
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
It does matter if the EU is being unreasonable because as you say we can either accept that or walk away.
If the EU is being reasonable we should strive to get an agreement, if its possible.
If the EU is being unreasonable then that gives more justification to walking away.
Do you disagree with that philosophy?
I have always said our choice is to accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or to walk away with no deal. It's not a philosophical point, it's a practical one grounded entirely in cold hard reality. Politically, the government will clearly seek to blame the EU for the failure of the negotiation and that may well work for a few news cycles. We will then move to the delivery of the triumphant outcome from a no deal that the government has promised us.
This simply isn't true. The EU has negotiated and compromised, as has the UK, we've got 97-98% of the way there - we are simply unable to close the final gap.
The give away is your second sentence which clearly puts any blame on the failure of negotiations on the UK, and none on the EU. This is emotionally influenced. I think the EU (and, remember, I've always supported a Deal and had no problem with a LPF) isn't being rational in going for a 30-40% UK cut of fish (a big win), fairness on state aid interpretations on both sides of the channel and lighting tariffs and governance arbitration thereof.
On virtually everything else I think the UK and EU are fully aligned in a fair deal.
They are being way too sensitive and hardline - and it might blow the whole thing out of the water. The only thing I think the UK is being too persnickety on is locking in some of the current LPF standards, where we're never going to move away from them anyway.
Yes, I do blame this government for not understanding the cold, hard reality of negotiating with a party that has a stronger hand.
Mr. Carnyx, ironic, given it was only a few years ago the SNP were campaigning for Scotland to leave the EU.
Come now, Mr D - that is nonsense and you do know it. That was the interpretatioon placed on Induref 1 by the No Campaign, who repeatedly told us that the only way to remain in the EU was to vote No. And now?
I see the PB Tories are getting ready to appoint Admiral HYFUD to lead the war to teach Europe a lesson by jingo...
It is like watching four year olds....
Yes, this is noticeable. And if we do actually No Deal - which we won't - there will be a determined appeal to jingoism in order to keep the campfires burning. The question is, will there be enough if it? Leavers in general have large reserves of this sentiment, true, but it's by no means all of them and it's not unlimited. Many are softies. Others will have their resolve sorely tested by the damage and inconvenience caused to themselves and their loved ones.
I am increasingly of the opinion that a No Deal Brexit is needed to settle this for once and for all. The fact that it is diametrically opposite to what I want no longer has a bearing on the matter. Getting a Deal will just prolong this nonsense.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
Reduces the incentives to rush towards a deal - those eggs have already broken now.
Is there no subject you don't know nothing about?
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
Yeah tbh, I expected it to be much higher than just 14% it looks like specific Euro denominated assets so far which makes sense, and not even all of them.
As I've said previously, I'm not sure that having the City outside of the tent pissing and lobbing shit into it is going to go as well as the French are hoping. I also note that the biggest beneficiaries of that shift in assets have been Frankfurt, Dublin and Amsterdam. So far Paris doesn't even figure.
TM deal needed a handful of labour mps to approve it and had they done so we would have achieved a deal and the labour mps most likely have retained their seats
Nah she's wrong. Labour fucked this badly, it was on the table for the softest of Brexits for the People's Vote and they went shit or bust because they were too busy in-fighting. As a Brexit voter it was hard to believe at the time because I was resigned to getting a Brexit I didnt want, but seemingly now there are 2 brilliant options on the table that I could have never imagined a few years ago.
TM deal needed a handful of labour mps to approve it and had they done so we would have achieved a deal and the labour mps most likely have retained their seats
Nah she's wrong. Labour fucked this badly, it was on the table for the softest of Brexits for the People's Vote and they went shit or bust because they were too busy in-fighting. As a Brexit voter it was hard to believe at the time because I was resigned to getting a Brexit I didnt want, but seemingly now there are 2 brilliant options on the table that I could have never imagined a few years ago.
No, you are wrong. May's deal was far from soft Brexit, since it involved SM and CU exit. And voting through her version of the WA risked offering carte blanche to her likely successor to negotiate an even harder Brexit FTA. Most Labour MPs voted for a real soft Brexit option (EEA) in the indicative votes but that was vetoed by Tory MPs. Personally I see little difference between May's deal and where we are now, especially as May's deal might well have ended up somewhere like this anyway - I mean, Johnson has tried to renegotiate his own exit deal, I am sure he would have torn up what May agreed to.
May's deal only took us out of the SM and CU in the same way as we are de jure out of the SM and CU today - but most people would rightly acknowledge we haven't really left the SM and CU yet de facto.
May's deal would have de facto kept us trapped in the SM and CU until we negotiated an alternative with the EU. That is why leavers hated it.
The difference between May's deal and today is that today the SM and CU provisions expire so we can 'no deal' in a 21 days time - in May's deal they didn't expire and we'd be in the backstop indefinitely.
We are not de jure outside of the SM and CU, we are explicitly still inside them until year-end! Have you even looked at the Withdrawal Agreement?
I see the PB Tories are getting ready to appoint Admiral HYFUD to lead the war to teach Europe a lesson by jingo...
It is like watching four year olds....
Yes, this is noticeable. And if we do actually No Deal - which we won't - there will be a determined appeal to jingoism in order to keep the campfires burning. The question is, will there be enough if it? Leavers in general have large reserves of this sentiment, true, but it's by no means all of them and it's not unlimited. Many are softies. Others will have their resolve sorely tested by the damage and inconvenience caused to themselves and their loved ones.
I am increasingly of the opinion that a No Deal Brexit is needed to settle this for once and for all. The fact that it is diametrically opposite to what I want no longer has a bearing on the matter. Getting a Deal will just prolong this nonsense.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
It does matter if the EU is being unreasonable because as you say we can either accept that or walk away.
If the EU is being reasonable we should strive to get an agreement, if its possible.
If the EU is being unreasonable then that gives more justification to walking away.
Do you disagree with that philosophy?
I have always said our choice is to accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or to walk away with no deal. It's not a philosophical point, it's a practical one grounded entirely in cold hard reality. Politically, the government will clearly seek to blame the EU for the failure of the negotiation and that may well work for a few news cycles. We will then move to the delivery of the triumphant outcome from a no deal that the government has promised us.
This simply isn't true. The EU has negotiated and compromised, as has the UK, we've got 97-98% of the way there - we are simply unable to close the final gap.
The give away is your second sentence which clearly puts any blame on the failure of negotiations on the UK, and none on the EU. This is emotionally influenced. I think the EU (and, remember, I've always supported a Deal and had no problem with a LPF) isn't being rational in going for a 30-40% UK cut of fish (a big win), fairness on state aid interpretations on both sides of the channel and lighting tariffs and governance arbitration thereof.
On virtually everything else I think the UK and EU are fully aligned in a fair deal.
They are being way too sensitive and hardline - and it might blow the whole thing out of the water. The only thing I think the UK is being too persnickety on is locking in some of the current LPF standards, where we're never going to move away from them anyway.
Yes, I do blame this government for not understanding the cold, hard reality of negotiating with a party that has a stronger hand.
No attempt to answer the point.
How predictable, and disappointing.
Your point was that I - and I quote - put "any blame on the failure of negotiations on the UK, and none on the EU". I was largely agreeing. The talks have failed up to now because the UK has failed to understand the basic point: they have a better hand than we do and we will only get a deal they want to give us. This has always been the case and will continue to be so.
I am increasingly of the opinion that a No Deal Brexit is needed to settle this for once and for all. The fact that it is diametrically opposite to what I want no longer has a bearing on the matter. Getting a Deal will just prolong this nonsense.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
“ no more fishing waters” don’t we need to sell our catches to them, and import what we need from them? Our waters are not full of the fish we need. Although cod can enjoy our waters, they dont tend to swim into it.
If no deal is bad chaos and a New PM signs up for a deal to bring it to a close, that’s likely brexit tried, failed, done with forever, in terms of being able to win elections on it instead lose elections on it.
There is a global market for frozen fish, we buy the fish we like primarily from Iceland and Norway both of whom have just inked fresh trade deals with us allowing for the trade of fish with both nations without quotas or tariffs.
Additionally, if we have the fish and the EU want to buy it they'll need to change their rules so they can buy the fish.
The thing about no deal is that it requires a lot of upfront investment and cost, once that's done there really isn't much need for a deal and it becomes a "nice to have". What the French position is at the moment is to try and make the cost of no deal as high as possible so that it may be a year or two before the UK sees anything like normality.
Once we no deal it will be no deal for at least a few years.
Years???
Boris does not have the support back home for no deal chaos for years with promise 2 years it will be okay., not in his party, not in the country. 4 or 5 months no deal chaos, British public opinion can take no more, Boris replacement signs up to the EU bottom line and brings the chaos to a close.
It’s our biggest trading partner. You reckon we can replace them trading elsewhere? That’s like for real you believe that?
We don't need to, trade doesn't stop without a deal. We'll still be able to trade with them even without one.
Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That’s your statement. I credit you with it being factual. Kudos for that much, as you said to me the other day.
But what do you actually mean by that, it’s a position of strength for us?
yes, the UK certainly does buy more from the 27 than the other way round.
The UK had a bilateral trade deficit to the tune of £67bn in 2017. That breaks down to a larger deficit of £95bn for goods, but a surplus of £28bn for services.
The first thing that leaps out is we are dependent on getting things in. That’s not a weak position for EU, if, as result of brexit, it’s turns out just as easy for them to sell elsewhere? That’s a dangerous assumption you are making of their dependency on us?
More seriously for your intellect though, EU's economy is so much larger, so you would expect the stat you trotted out, Yet at the same time impact of no deal for the EU economy as a whole the impact would be rather small. That’s just basic economic logic isn’t it, tiny place buys more from big place than other way round doesn’t mean big place dependent on tiny place?
Looking at it like this the basic logic of your statement is just insane? Isn’t it?
Are France really going to want chaos at their end of the ports too?
Are the French really going to want to stop their own exports to us?
The only nation with a significant trade deficit with us is I believe Ireland - who are keen on a deal.
So yes it is a strength, because the reality is that cold hard self-interest will mean that the French and others in the EU will want to facilitate their own exports getting to us. They will want to facilitate us giving them cash by spending money with them.
Chaos will be temporary and transient, it won't last until there is a deal.
As for your "EU's economy is so much larger" comment that is mad. No you would not expect automatically that would mean a trade surplus, there is no reason to say that. The EU have more consumers we can sell to. We have a net trade surplus for instance with the USA, not a trade deficit with them.
Reduces the incentives to rush towards a deal - those eggs have already broken now.
Is there no subject you don't know nothing about?
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
Yeah tbh, I expected it to be much higher than just 14% it looks like specific Euro denominated assets so far which makes sense, and not even all of them.
As I've said previously, I'm not sure that having the City outside of the tent pissing and lobbing shit into it is going to go as well as the French are hoping. I also note that the biggest beneficiaries of that shift in assets have been Frankfurt, Dublin and Amsterdam. So far Paris doesn't even figure.
Ha! In your face France! Most of the business we have lost has gone elsewhere! We are winning!
May's deal only took us out of the SM and CU in the same way as we are de jure out of the SM and CU today - but most people would rightly acknowledge we haven't really left the SM and CU yet de facto.
May's deal would have de facto kept us trapped in the SM and CU until we negotiated an alternative with the EU. That is why leavers hated it.
The difference between May's deal and today is that today the SM and CU provisions expire so we can 'no deal' in a 21 days time - in May's deal they didn't expire and we'd be in the backstop indefinitely.
This is true - the backstop would stay in place until alternative arrangements could be found on Ireland. Various bullshit fantasies were proposed by Tory foamers to avoid the need to have a border, but the reality was that its impossible.
This is also the reality for the UK / EU border in 3 weeks time. Doing what we insist we are doing means we have to have full customs and standards checks. Problem being that we can't do that without bringing the border to a grinding halt. The same technological impossibility that nixed the backstop is the same impossibility that sinks trade under your preferred no deal...
Necessity is the mother of invention. Just get on with it and find a solution afterwards if need be.
Which is fine if you don't need a solution to start with. Nor is it the case that our border will be unique - plenty of EU border crossings with a fraction of the traffic that have day long queue times. So yeah, lets just do it and find a solution to our completely unique problem. Its not like anyone else has faced this problem and already found a solution, so it won't take us very long.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Labour councillors turned on Sadiq Khan last night while discussing the Mayor’s latest plans to move City Hall from the centre of London to the East End’s Royal Docks. Despite Khan’s own planning policy saying new developments should be car-free, plans for the new London Assembly building include two dedicated mayoral car parking spaces, a hypocrisy one Labour councillor branded “outrageous” during a Zoom meeting last night. “Two Car Sadiq” – echos “Two Jags Prescott”…
While the mayor’s team claim the hypocritical plans are due to security reasons, the Labour councillor chairing the meeting, Daniel Blaney, said the excuse was “completely baffling” and suggested Khan follows the approach of previous mayors Ken Livingston and Boris Johnson who managed to travel by public transport and bike.
The Labour councillors were so outraged they “couldn’t let this go” and called a vote on a motion that would scrap the mayor’s parking spots, which lost by one vote.
Also interesting to note that the UK signed a pretty comprehensive trade deal with Singapore that opens up trade in digital and financial services as well as goods.
Amazing that the UK hasn't been struggling to sign these trade deals with essentially similar terms to what we are proposing with the EU and the other nations are happy to do the deals.
Re LPF. It's a choice between tariffs now, or tariffs when actually diverging. Where exactly is the attraction in the former? It could be considered a delayed No Deal mechanism, to be used when it actually becomes advantageous.
Reduces the incentives to rush towards a deal - those eggs have already broken now.
Is there no subject you don't know nothing about?
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
Less to play for than there used to be. That's the point, the longer we get through this disruption the less there is to play for.
I think you should see this as a process not an event that is not going to be arrested on any particular date. Increasingly the centre of gravity will shift. London as the EU's financial centre is not going to change any time soon but it will be diminished gradually over time as the pull towards being onshore in the EU increases.
Also interesting to note that the UK signed a pretty comprehensive trade deal with Singapore that opens up trade in digital and financial services as well as goods.
Amazing that the UK hasn't been struggling to sign these trade deals with essentially similar terms to what we are proposing with the EU and the other nations are happy to do the deals.
Its as if the EU what to try and punish the UK for something and send a message to others....
Also interesting to note that the UK signed a pretty comprehensive trade deal with Singapore that opens up trade in digital and financial services as well as goods.
Amazing that the UK hasn't been struggling to sign these trade deals with essentially similar terms to what we are proposing with the EU and the other nations are happy to do the deals.
Almost as if the EU has another agenda than actually doing trade.....
Also interesting to note that the UK signed a pretty comprehensive trade deal with Singapore that opens up trade in digital and financial services as well as goods.
Amazing that the UK hasn't been struggling to sign these trade deals with essentially similar terms to what we are proposing with the EU and the other nations are happy to do the deals.
Almost as if the EU has another agenda than actually doing trade.....
You say that like it's some sort of dirty secret. Of course they have an agenda - who is saying otherwise?
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
I don't understand people's objection of the LPF requirements the EU want to put in the FTA. Whether they trade with us and under what conditions is their sovereign decision, just as it is for us. They are simply saying that if we do things that they don't like then they reserve the right to put barriers to trade in place. That doesn't stop us doing the things they don't like, or indeed constrain us in any way. The EU is just saying, if things change then we will revisit the extent of market access. Brexiteers seem to be saying, we don't want the EU to have the right to maybe trade with us on less generous terms in the future, so we're going to force them to definitely trade with us on less generous terms right now. It's bizzare.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
I lot of people don't understand what is about to happen because they think it was sorted out in January.
A lot don't understand what is about to happen because they never understood what they were voting for. They are due to find out.
"Deal" or "no deal", January is going to be the first time that Brexit actually means something rather than some abstract concept. It's going to be the first time where anything actually changes.
It is only after that will we see public support shift in any meaningful direction.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
What utter nonsense, except for the last bit. I very much learn from the very sensible David Herdson. I very, very rarely disagree with him.
Where you are confused is that you seem to think that understanding that we are in a weak position is the same as siding with the EU. Reality is reality, wishing it otherwise isn't saying everything the EU does is reasonable. In fact I've never said that - the EU have made lots of mistakes: misjudging the UK political realities, and above all screwing up the negotiations by their insistence on negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement, defining the transition, before either side had the faintest idea what we were supposed to be transitioning to. I'm pretty sure I've called that 'brain-dead' on numerous occasions, which is hardly a resounding endorsement.
But we are where we are. And it is the UK which is going to be very hard hit by it. That is the dispassionate reality, and, as far the damage to the UK is concerned, the fault lies with our own government. EU politicians will have to deal with any blame from their own voters on the damage done to EU economies. That's entirely their business, but the damage done to the UK is the responsibility of the UK government, by definition.
It's not utter nonsense. You are just having an emotional reaction to my challenge.
I'm not confused in the slightest and never have been. You shouldn't confuse disagreement with your position and analysis as "confusion", which is rather arrogant and unlike you.
The sad truth is I see no nuance whatsoever in your analysis on the EU from you. None. And I never have done. You've never criticised a single angle or position they've taken, as far as I can see. I, however, have done both and have been consistent in criticising both the UK and the EU sides when I think it's warranted. David Herdson and even Alastair Meeks have both managed this - you haven't.
As you know, I agree with you the relative merits on May's Deal. So I am capable of seeing the balance of advantage and also of interest. Your only response on the point of EU reasonableness is to say that any position they adopt is "reality".
Well, that makes sense if you see the UK as a supplicant in this - for whom a deal is utterly essential and for which the EU isn't fussed - but we know that's not true. The EU isn't as God-like as you think it is. And No Deal is a lose-lose for both parties, which is why they've been negotiating and compromising repeatedly.
As for blame, well, there will be some who blame the UK entirely, others who blame the EU and others who blame both.
My sympathies would lie with the last. And, sadly, the rancour and fall-out will last for years.
Reduces the incentives to rush towards a deal - those eggs have already broken now.
Is there no subject you don't know nothing about?
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
Less to play for than there used to be. That's the point, the longer we get through this disruption the less there is to play for.
I think you should see this as a process not an event that is not going to be arrested on any particular date. Increasingly the centre of gravity will shift. London as the EU's financial centre is not going to change any time soon but it will be diminished gradually over time as the pull towards being onshore in the EU increases.
To some degree yes, but there will be bigger gains made elsewhere. What will actually happen in the longer term is that the EU itself will diminish gradually in economic importance and the portion of that will be reflected in finance as well.
One of the best things about our industry is that physical distance makes no difference in the client base. We will be the first to benefit from a global outlook and to a certain extent I know we are, at least from the outlook of a Japanese bank which has mostly Asia focused clients.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
Do you not have any sausages? Or did you buy sausages from elsewhere and just not Aldi?
If the latter then it might be Aldi's fault you bought someone else's sausages instead of theirs yes.
We do have trade deals. If we don't get one with Europe so be it, we don't want one at any price.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
I don't understand people's objection of the LPF requirements the EU want to put in the FTA. Whether they trade with us and under what conditions is their sovereign decision, just as it is for us. They are simply saying that if we do things that they don't like then they reserve the right to put barriers to trade in place. That doesn't stop us doing the things they don't like, or indeed constrain us in any way. The EU is just saying, if things change then we will revisit the extent of market access. Brexiteers seem to be saying, we don't want the EU to have the right to maybe trade with us on less generous terms in the future, so we're going to force them to definitely trade with us on less generous terms right now. It's bizzare.
Yep, as David Gauke notes: "The Govt position is that it’s intolerable to enter into an agreement where there’s a possibility that, at some point in future, tariffs & quotas on EU trade will apply. So we’ll leave on WTO terms & tariffs & quotas on EU trade will apply immediately. And we’ll prosper mightily."
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
“ no more fishing waters” don’t we need to sell our catches to them, and import what we need from them? Our waters are not full of the fish we need. Although cod can enjoy our waters, they dont tend to swim into it.
If no deal is bad chaos and a New PM signs up for a deal to bring it to a close, that’s likely brexit tried, failed, done with forever, in terms of being able to win elections on it instead lose elections on it.
There is a global market for frozen fish, we buy the fish we like primarily from Iceland and Norway both of whom have just inked fresh trade deals with us allowing for the trade of fish with both nations without quotas or tariffs.
Additionally, if we have the fish and the EU want to buy it they'll need to change their rules so they can buy the fish.
The thing about no deal is that it requires a lot of upfront investment and cost, once that's done there really isn't much need for a deal and it becomes a "nice to have". What the French position is at the moment is to try and make the cost of no deal as high as possible so that it may be a year or two before the UK sees anything like normality.
Once we no deal it will be no deal for at least a few years.
Years???
Boris does not have the support back home for no deal chaos for years with promise 2 years it will be okay., not in his party, not in the country. 4 or 5 months no deal chaos, British public opinion can take no more, Boris replacement signs up to the EU bottom line and brings the chaos to a close.
It’s our biggest trading partner. You reckon we can replace them trading elsewhere? That’s like for real you believe that?
We don't need to, trade doesn't stop without a deal. We'll still be able to trade with them even without one.
Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That’s your statement. I credit you with it being factual. Kudos for that much, as you said to me the other day.
But what do you actually mean by that, it’s a position of strength for us?
yes, the UK certainly does buy more from the 27 than the other way round.
The UK had a bilateral trade deficit to the tune of £67bn in 2017. That breaks down to a larger deficit of £95bn for goods, but a surplus of £28bn for services.
The first thing that leaps out is we are dependent on getting things in. That’s not a weak position for EU, if, as result of brexit, it’s turns out just as easy for them to sell elsewhere? That’s a dangerous assumption you are making of their dependency on us?
More seriously for your intellect though, EU's economy is so much larger, so you would expect the stat you trotted out, Yet at the same time impact of no deal for the EU economy as a whole the impact would be rather small. That’s just basic economic logic isn’t it, tiny place buys more from big place than other way round doesn’t mean big place dependent on tiny place?
Looking at it like this the basic logic of your statement is just insane? Isn’t it?
Are France really going to want chaos at their end of the ports too?
Are the French really going to want to stop their own exports to us?
The only nation with a significant trade deficit with us is I believe Ireland - who are keen on a deal.
So yes it is a strength, because the reality is that cold hard self-interest will mean that the French and others in the EU will want to facilitate their own exports getting to us. They will want to facilitate us giving them cash by spending money with them.
Chaos will be temporary and transient, it won't last until there is a deal.
As for your "EU's economy is so much larger" comment that is mad. No you would not expect automatically that would mean a trade surplus, there is no reason to say that. The EU have more consumers we can sell to. We have a net trade surplus for instance with the USA, not a trade deficit with them.
The chaos wont be in France as we're going to be waving lorries through remember. The government is not going to purposely delay our imports.
Are we really back to calling voters thick / clueless again?
We had an referendum and two GEs, where voters have been told time and time again about the dangers of no-deal and that it was a real possibility, by the opposition and the media, day in, day out.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Ah but there's no Sainsbury's, Lidl, or Tesco in my fictional town. Aldi is the only game in town without a long drive. I am therefore left with no sausages.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
Do you not have any sausages? Or did you buy sausages from elsewhere and just not Aldi?
If the latter then it might be Aldi's fault you bought someone else's sausages instead of theirs yes.
We do have trade deals. If we don't get one with Europe so be it, we don't want one at any price.
The point has gone way over your head. We're discussing fault, not whether I can buy sausages from elsewhere.
I lot of people don't understand what is about to happen because they think it was sorted out in January.
A lot don't understand what is about to happen because they never understood what they were voting for. They are due to find out.
The parents of one of my friends are awesome, they say in 2016 they voted on stopping free movement to the UK from EU, the vote wasn't about stopping the free movement of UK citizens visiting the EU, because they EU didn't have a referendum on that.
So come next year they are going on the regular trips around Italy and Spain.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Ah but there's no Sainsbury's, Lidl, or Tesco in my fictional town. Aldi is the only game in town without a long drive. I am therefore left with no sausages.
But we do have trade deals with other nations besides the EU. Including some in Europe.
So yes it is Aldi's loss, if you spend your money elsewhere.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
“ no more fishing waters” don’t we need to sell our catches to them, and import what we need from them? Our waters are not full of the fish we need. Although cod can enjoy our waters, they dont tend to swim into it.
If no deal is bad chaos and a New PM signs up for a deal to bring it to a close, that’s likely brexit tried, failed, done with forever, in terms of being able to win elections on it instead lose elections on it.
There is a global market for frozen fish, we buy the fish we like primarily from Iceland and Norway both of whom have just inked fresh trade deals with us allowing for the trade of fish with both nations without quotas or tariffs.
Additionally, if we have the fish and the EU want to buy it they'll need to change their rules so they can buy the fish.
The thing about no deal is that it requires a lot of upfront investment and cost, once that's done there really isn't much need for a deal and it becomes a "nice to have". What the French position is at the moment is to try and make the cost of no deal as high as possible so that it may be a year or two before the UK sees anything like normality.
Once we no deal it will be no deal for at least a few years.
Years???
Boris does not have the support back home for no deal chaos for years with promise 2 years it will be okay., not in his party, not in the country. 4 or 5 months no deal chaos, British public opinion can take no more, Boris replacement signs up to the EU bottom line and brings the chaos to a close.
It’s our biggest trading partner. You reckon we can replace them trading elsewhere? That’s like for real you believe that?
We don't need to, trade doesn't stop without a deal. We'll still be able to trade with them even without one.
Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That’s your statement. I credit you with it being factual. Kudos for that much, as you said to me the other day.
But what do you actually mean by that, it’s a position of strength for us?
yes, the UK certainly does buy more from the 27 than the other way round.
The UK had a bilateral trade deficit to the tune of £67bn in 2017. That breaks down to a larger deficit of £95bn for goods, but a surplus of £28bn for services.
The first thing that leaps out is we are dependent on getting things in. That’s not a weak position for EU, if, as result of brexit, it’s turns out just as easy for them to sell elsewhere? That’s a dangerous assumption you are making of their dependency on us?
More seriously for your intellect though, EU's economy is so much larger, so you would expect the stat you trotted out, Yet at the same time impact of no deal for the EU economy as a whole the impact would be rather small. That’s just basic economic logic isn’t it, tiny place buys more from big place than other way round doesn’t mean big place dependent on tiny place?
Looking at it like this the basic logic of your statement is just insane? Isn’t it?
Are France really going to want chaos at their end of the ports too?
Are the French really going to want to stop their own exports to us?
The only nation with a significant trade deficit with us is I believe Ireland - who are keen on a deal.
So yes it is a strength, because the reality is that cold hard self-interest will mean that the French and others in the EU will want to facilitate their own exports getting to us. They will want to facilitate us giving them cash by spending money with them.
Chaos will be temporary and transient, it won't last until there is a deal.
As for your "EU's economy is so much larger" comment that is mad. No you would not expect automatically that would mean a trade surplus, there is no reason to say that. The EU have more consumers we can sell to. We have a net trade surplus for instance with the USA, not a trade deficit with them.
Nice non answer.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That statement yourself and John redwood trots out implies EU dependency on us (hence we hold all the cards, they have to give in negotiation)
But is that really true? Do you actually believe it? Yes or no.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
“ no more fishing waters” don’t we need to sell our catches to them, and import what we need from them? Our waters are not full of the fish we need. Although cod can enjoy our waters, they dont tend to swim into it.
If no deal is bad chaos and a New PM signs up for a deal to bring it to a close, that’s likely brexit tried, failed, done with forever, in terms of being able to win elections on it instead lose elections on it.
There is a global market for frozen fish, we buy the fish we like primarily from Iceland and Norway both of whom have just inked fresh trade deals with us allowing for the trade of fish with both nations without quotas or tariffs.
Additionally, if we have the fish and the EU want to buy it they'll need to change their rules so they can buy the fish.
The thing about no deal is that it requires a lot of upfront investment and cost, once that's done there really isn't much need for a deal and it becomes a "nice to have". What the French position is at the moment is to try and make the cost of no deal as high as possible so that it may be a year or two before the UK sees anything like normality.
Once we no deal it will be no deal for at least a few years.
Years???
Boris does not have the support back home for no deal chaos for years with promise 2 years it will be okay., not in his party, not in the country. 4 or 5 months no deal chaos, British public opinion can take no more, Boris replacement signs up to the EU bottom line and brings the chaos to a close.
It’s our biggest trading partner. You reckon we can replace them trading elsewhere? That’s like for real you believe that?
We don't need to, trade doesn't stop without a deal. We'll still be able to trade with them even without one.
Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That’s your statement. I credit you with it being factual. Kudos for that much, as you said to me the other day.
But what do you actually mean by that, it’s a position of strength for us?
yes, the UK certainly does buy more from the 27 than the other way round.
The UK had a bilateral trade deficit to the tune of £67bn in 2017. That breaks down to a larger deficit of £95bn for goods, but a surplus of £28bn for services.
The first thing that leaps out is we are dependent on getting things in. That’s not a weak position for EU, if, as result of brexit, it’s turns out just as easy for them to sell elsewhere? That’s a dangerous assumption you are making of their dependency on us?
More seriously for your intellect though, EU's economy is so much larger, so you would expect the stat you trotted out, Yet at the same time impact of no deal for the EU economy as a whole the impact would be rather small. That’s just basic economic logic isn’t it, tiny place buys more from big place than other way round doesn’t mean big place dependent on tiny place?
Looking at it like this the basic logic of your statement is just insane? Isn’t it?
Are France really going to want chaos at their end of the ports too?
Are the French really going to want to stop their own exports to us?
The only nation with a significant trade deficit with us is I believe Ireland - who are keen on a deal.
So yes it is a strength, because the reality is that cold hard self-interest will mean that the French and others in the EU will want to facilitate their own exports getting to us. They will want to facilitate us giving them cash by spending money with them.
Chaos will be temporary and transient, it won't last until there is a deal.
As for your "EU's economy is so much larger" comment that is mad. No you would not expect automatically that would mean a trade surplus, there is no reason to say that. The EU have more consumers we can sell to. We have a net trade surplus for instance with the USA, not a trade deficit with them.
France isn't negotiating a deal. As a new border country they will be obligated to impose EU laws and processes like any of the existing members with an external border. Romania doesn't get to choose if it runs an external border or not and neither does France.
What I do assume is that the French will be more efficient than say the Latvia / Russia 30 hours to cross border I posted a screen grab of yesterday. Then again they will have many multiples the volume of traffic and a sea crossing to manage. And a long-standing reputation for customs twattery back when they used to have to do so.
Someone is going to have to invent a new way of doing customs and standards checks. The normal way - paperwork and eyeball checks is too slow even if the paperwork goes on a computer. No other physical border has yet found a solution despite huge volumes crossing some of them between major economies. But as England is uniquely brilliant we'll probably find it easy.
Until we do the chaos will be anything but transient as the people who know anything about it would tell you if you didn't insist you had all the belief you needed thankyou.
Reduces the incentives to rush towards a deal - those eggs have already broken now.
Is there no subject you don't know nothing about?
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
Yeah tbh, I expected it to be much higher than just 14% it looks like specific Euro denominated assets so far which makes sense, and not even all of them.
As I've said previously, I'm not sure that having the City outside of the tent pissing and lobbing shit into it is going to go as well as the French are hoping. I also note that the biggest beneficiaries of that shift in assets have been Frankfurt, Dublin and Amsterdam. So far Paris doesn't even figure.
I also think that there are a few EU central bankers thinking "oh shit" about the clearing if London doesn't get its 18 months.
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
I should think he'll be exhausted, after dreaming about controlling fish all night.
But happy. I see him manning a trawler on Jan 1st and helping to land that symbolic first fish of the new era. What will it be? A perch? Whatever, let's hope it's a whopper.
A perch is a freshwater fish
A large haddock on a Scottish fishing vessel is more likely
Yes, thanks. That's what I meant - a large haddock. Point is, it will be the first one caught by us outside the dominion of the EU and there will be a real symbolism in the event and the moment. I expect it to be televised, as was the first Covid jab for the same reason. Being totally serious here (although not about the John Redwood involvement obviously).
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
I don't understand people's objection of the LPF requirements the EU want to put in the FTA. Whether they trade with us and under what conditions is their sovereign decision, just as it is for us. They are simply saying that if we do things that they don't like then they reserve the right to put barriers to trade in place. That doesn't stop us doing the things they don't like, or indeed constrain us in any way. The EU is just saying, if things change then we will revisit the extent of market access. Brexiteers seem to be saying, we don't want the EU to have the right to maybe trade with us on less generous terms in the future, so we're going to force them to definitely trade with us on less generous terms right now. It's bizzare.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
I don't understand people's objection of the LPF requirements the EU want to put in the FTA. Whether they trade with us and under what conditions is their sovereign decision, just as it is for us. They are simply saying that if we do things that they don't like then they reserve the right to put barriers to trade in place. That doesn't stop us doing the things they don't like, or indeed constrain us in any way. The EU is just saying, if things change then we will revisit the extent of market access. Brexiteers seem to be saying, we don't want the EU to have the right to maybe trade with us on less generous terms in the future, so we're going to force them to definitely trade with us on less generous terms right now. It's bizzare.
Yes, I think it's the governance over that for divergence in the LPF, for either the UK or the EU, that's in dispute.
Personally, I agree with you - I don't see why a can-kick isn't a solution to that with a "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" approach - but if they're proposing unilateral lightning tariffs (where it hurts us most) if they want to up standards in some LPF areas in future, and we don't automatically follow suit, then I'd say that's not acceptable.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
It does matter if the EU is being unreasonable because as you say we can either accept that or walk away.
If the EU is being reasonable we should strive to get an agreement, if its possible.
If the EU is being unreasonable then that gives more justification to walking away.
Do you disagree with that philosophy?
I have always said our choice is to accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or to walk away with no deal. It's not a philosophical point, it's a practical one grounded entirely in cold hard reality. Politically, the government will clearly seek to blame the EU for the failure of the negotiation and that may well work for a few news cycles. We will then move to the delivery of the triumphant outcome from a no deal that the government has promised us.
This simply isn't true. The EU has negotiated and compromised, as has the UK, we've got 97-98% of the way there - we are simply unable to close the final gap.
The give away is your second sentence which clearly puts any blame on the failure of negotiations on the UK, and none on the EU. This is emotionally influenced. I think the EU (and, remember, I've always supported a Deal and had no problem with a LPF) isn't being rational in going for a 30-40% UK cut of fish (a big win), fairness on state aid interpretations on both sides of the channel and lighting tariffs and governance arbitration thereof.
On virtually everything else I think the UK and EU are fully aligned in a fair deal.
They are being way too sensitive and hardline - and it might blow the whole thing out of the water. The only thing I think the UK is being too persnickety on is locking in some of the current LPF standards, where we're never going to move away from them anyway.
Yes, I do blame this government for not understanding the cold, hard reality of negotiating with a party that has a stronger hand.
No attempt to answer the point.
How predictable, and disappointing.
Your point was that I - and I quote - put "any blame on the failure of negotiations on the UK, and none on the EU". I was largely agreeing. The talks have failed up to now because the UK has failed to understand the basic point: they have a better hand than we do and we will only get a deal they want to give us. This has always been the case and will continue to be so.
Ministers still do not believe we don't hold all the cards.
Raab in denial this morning claiming the average 5% on food prices outlined by the Chairman of Tesco yesterday in the event of no deal is just plain wrong. Raab couldn't himself give a figure.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
“ no more fishing waters” don’t we need to sell our catches to them, and import what we need from them? Our waters are not full of the fish we need. Although cod can enjoy our waters, they dont tend to swim into it.
If no deal is bad chaos and a New PM signs up for a deal to bring it to a close, that’s likely brexit tried, failed, done with forever, in terms of being able to win elections on it instead lose elections on it.
There is a global market for frozen fish, we buy the fish we like primarily from Iceland and Norway both of whom have just inked fresh trade deals with us allowing for the trade of fish with both nations without quotas or tariffs.
Additionally, if we have the fish and the EU want to buy it they'll need to change their rules so they can buy the fish.
The thing about no deal is that it requires a lot of upfront investment and cost, once that's done there really isn't much need for a deal and it becomes a "nice to have". What the French position is at the moment is to try and make the cost of no deal as high as possible so that it may be a year or two before the UK sees anything like normality.
Once we no deal it will be no deal for at least a few years.
Years???
Boris does not have the support back home for no deal chaos for years with promise 2 years it will be okay., not in his party, not in the country. 4 or 5 months no deal chaos, British public opinion can take no more, Boris replacement signs up to the EU bottom line and brings the chaos to a close.
It’s our biggest trading partner. You reckon we can replace them trading elsewhere? That’s like for real you believe that?
We don't need to, trade doesn't stop without a deal. We'll still be able to trade with them even without one.
Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That’s your statement. I credit you with it being factual. Kudos for that much, as you said to me the other day.
But what do you actually mean by that, it’s a position of strength for us?
yes, the UK certainly does buy more from the 27 than the other way round.
The UK had a bilateral trade deficit to the tune of £67bn in 2017. That breaks down to a larger deficit of £95bn for goods, but a surplus of £28bn for services.
The first thing that leaps out is we are dependent on getting things in. That’s not a weak position for EU, if, as result of brexit, it’s turns out just as easy for them to sell elsewhere? That’s a dangerous assumption you are making of their dependency on us?
More seriously for your intellect though, EU's economy is so much larger, so you would expect the stat you trotted out, Yet at the same time impact of no deal for the EU economy as a whole the impact would be rather small. That’s just basic economic logic isn’t it, tiny place buys more from big place than other way round doesn’t mean big place dependent on tiny place?
Looking at it like this the basic logic of your statement is just insane? Isn’t it?
Are France really going to want chaos at their end of the ports too?
Are the French really going to want to stop their own exports to us?
The only nation with a significant trade deficit with us is I believe Ireland - who are keen on a deal.
So yes it is a strength, because the reality is that cold hard self-interest will mean that the French and others in the EU will want to facilitate their own exports getting to us. They will want to facilitate us giving them cash by spending money with them.
Chaos will be temporary and transient, it won't last until there is a deal.
As for your "EU's economy is so much larger" comment that is mad. No you would not expect automatically that would mean a trade surplus, there is no reason to say that. The EU have more consumers we can sell to. We have a net trade surplus for instance with the USA, not a trade deficit with them.
Nice non answer.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That statement yourself and John redwood trots out implies EU dependency on us (hence we hold all the cards, they have to give in negotiation)
But is that really true? Do you actually believe it? Yes or no.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
I don't understand people's objection of the LPF requirements the EU want to put in the FTA. Whether they trade with us and under what conditions is their sovereign decision, just as it is for us. They are simply saying that if we do things that they don't like then they reserve the right to put barriers to trade in place. That doesn't stop us doing the things they don't like, or indeed constrain us in any way. The EU is just saying, if things change then we will revisit the extent of market access. Brexiteers seem to be saying, we don't want the EU to have the right to maybe trade with us on less generous terms in the future, so we're going to force them to definitely trade with us on less generous terms right now. It's bizzare.
The point is that the LPF is open ended and they can gradually make the terms of trade worse unilaterally until there's not much value in the deal.
Trade deals include lots of LPF provisions, all of our other trade deals include them. The difference is that they are fixed in time unless both parties agree to change them and if one party decides to act unilaterally to undermine that then post action arbitration is the standard recourse with arbitration led tariff allowances. What the EU are proposing is to say "if we make our single market uneconomic, the UK must follow". It's completely ridiculous.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
What's particularly amusing about this post is that you actually think it's a clever analogy.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
Do you not have any sausages? Or did you buy sausages from elsewhere and just not Aldi?
If the latter then it might be Aldi's fault you bought someone else's sausages instead of theirs yes.
We do have trade deals. If we don't get one with Europe so be it, we don't want one at any price.
The point has gone way over your head. We're discussing fault, not whether I can buy sausages from elsewhere.
But in the real world there are, and that is also reflected in global trade.
Reduces the incentives to rush towards a deal - those eggs have already broken now.
Is there no subject you don't know nothing about?
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
Less to play for than there used to be. That's the point, the longer we get through this disruption the less there is to play for.
I think you should see this as a process not an event that is not going to be arrested on any particular date. Increasingly the centre of gravity will shift. London as the EU's financial centre is not going to change any time soon but it will be diminished gradually over time as the pull towards being onshore in the EU increases.
To some degree yes, but there will be bigger gains made elsewhere. What will actually happen in the longer term is that the EU itself will diminish gradually in economic importance and the portion of that will be reflected in finance as well.
One of the best things about our industry is that physical distance makes no difference in the client base. We will be the first to benefit from a global outlook and to a certain extent I know we are, at least from the outlook of a Japanese bank which has mostly Asia focused clients.
I worked for one of those for a while (made it tricky to answer the regulatory tickboxes such as "has your employer ever been prosecuted for....")
And yes of course to the physical distance thing. As to the gains, financial services are nothing if not resourceful and I'm sure the UK will be very creative. But it will undoubtedly handicap itself by being offshore to the EU.
Also the most worrying thing for the City (where Dictum Meum Pactum is a founding principle) might be the damage done by having a govt ponder (if not it seems actually acting on) breaking international treaties.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
What's particularly amusing about this post is that you actually think it's a clever analogy.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
What's particularly amusing about this post is that you actually think it's a clever analogy.
It's clever because it's true.
Indeed. It is true that we are currently spending vast amounts of money with a vast trade deficit with the EU.
It is true that if the EU cuts off their nose to spite their face that some of that money might be redirected elsewhee instead.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
It does matter if the EU is being unreasonable because as you say we can either accept that or walk away.
If the EU is being reasonable we should strive to get an agreement, if its possible.
If the EU is being unreasonable then that gives more justification to walking away.
Do you disagree with that philosophy?
I have always said our choice is to accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or to walk away with no deal. It's not a philosophical point, it's a practical one grounded entirely in cold hard reality. Politically, the government will clearly seek to blame the EU for the failure of the negotiation and that may well work for a few news cycles. We will then move to the delivery of the triumphant outcome from a no deal that the government has promised us.
This simply isn't true. The EU has negotiated and compromised, as has the UK, we've got 97-98% of the way there - we are simply unable to close the final gap.
The give away is your second sentence which clearly puts any blame on the failure of negotiations on the UK, and none on the EU. This is emotionally influenced. I think the EU (and, remember, I've always supported a Deal and had no problem with a LPF) isn't being rational in going for a 30-40% UK cut of fish (a big win), fairness on state aid interpretations on both sides of the channel and lighting tariffs and governance arbitration thereof.
On virtually everything else I think the UK and EU are fully aligned in a fair deal.
They are being way too sensitive and hardline - and it might blow the whole thing out of the water. The only thing I think the UK is being too persnickety on is locking in some of the current LPF standards, where we're never going to move away from them anyway.
Yes, I do blame this government for not understanding the cold, hard reality of negotiating with a party that has a stronger hand.
No attempt to answer the point.
How predictable, and disappointing.
Your point was that I - and I quote - put "any blame on the failure of negotiations on the UK, and none on the EU". I was largely agreeing. The talks have failed up to now because the UK has failed to understand the basic point: they have a better hand than we do and we will only get a deal they want to give us. This has always been the case and will continue to be so.
Ministers still do not believe we don't hold all the cards.
Raab in denial this morning claiming the average 5% on food prices outlined by the Chairman of Tesco yesterday in the event of no deal is just plain wrong. Raab couldn't himself give a figure.
Of course it's wrong. How could the chair of Tesco know anything about food prices? It's just ridiculous to think he knows more than Raab.
Joe Anderson, the mayor of Liverpool, has announced he will step aside from the role following his arrest by detectives investigating allegations of bribery and witness intimidation linked to building deals in the city.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
I don't understand people's objection of the LPF requirements the EU want to put in the FTA. Whether they trade with us and under what conditions is their sovereign decision, just as it is for us. They are simply saying that if we do things that they don't like then they reserve the right to put barriers to trade in place. That doesn't stop us doing the things they don't like, or indeed constrain us in any way. The EU is just saying, if things change then we will revisit the extent of market access. Brexiteers seem to be saying, we don't want the EU to have the right to maybe trade with us on less generous terms in the future, so we're going to force them to definitely trade with us on less generous terms right now. It's bizzare.
The point is that the LPF is open ended and they can gradually make the terms of trade worse unilaterally until there's not much value in the deal.
Trade deals include lots of LPF provisions, all of our other trade deals include them. The difference is that they are fixed in time unless both parties agree to change them and if one party decides to act unilaterally to undermine that then post action arbitration is the standard recourse with arbitration led tariff allowances. What the EU are proposing is to say "if we make our single market uneconomic, the UK must follow". It's completely ridiculous.
But the UK doesn't have to follow. It can unilaterally decide not to implement such measures, at the possible cost of increased tariffs or barriers (which would be up for negotiation in practice).
Comments
Only two more episodes left of this season's The Grogu Baby Yoda Show.
Honestly, I'm not sure how I'll cope.
May's deal would have de facto kept us trapped in the SM and CU until we negotiated an alternative with the EU. That is why leavers hated it.
The difference between May's deal and today is that today the SM and CU provisions expire so we can 'no deal' in a 21 days time - in May's deal they didn't expire and we'd be in the backstop indefinitely.
https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1337001196033335297
This is also the reality for the UK / EU border in 3 weeks time. Doing what we insist we are doing means we have to have full customs and standards checks. Problem being that we can't do that without bringing the border to a grinding halt. The same technological impossibility that nixed the backstop is the same impossibility that sinks trade under your preferred no deal...
The whole mess is the fault of no one else but this current government and those that voted for it.
So far around 14% of banking assets have been moved to the EU (mainly FFT). Obviously there is a rump of assets that can't move but still plenty to play for.
https://twitter.com/Kate_M_Proctor/status/1337021928729612289
That’s your statement. I credit you with it being factual. Kudos for that much, as you said to me the other day.
But what do you actually mean by that, it’s a position of strength for us?
yes, the UK certainly does buy more from the 27 than the other way round.
The UK had a bilateral trade deficit to the tune of £67bn in 2017. That breaks down to a larger deficit of £95bn for goods, but a surplus of £28bn for services.
The first thing that leaps out is we are dependent on getting things in. That’s not a weak position for EU, if, as result of brexit, it’s turns out just as easy for them to sell elsewhere? That’s a dangerous assumption you are making of their dependency on us?
More seriously for your intellect though, EU's economy is so much larger, so you would expect the stat you trotted out, Yet at the same time impact of no deal for the EU economy as a whole the impact would be rather small. That’s just basic economic logic isn’t it, tiny place buys more from big place than other way round doesn’t mean big place dependent on tiny place?
Looking at it like this the basic logic of your statement is just insane? Isn’t it?
How predictable, and disappointing.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
As I've said previously, I'm not sure that having the City outside of the tent pissing and lobbing shit into it is going to go as well as the French are hoping. I also note that the biggest beneficiaries of that shift in assets have been Frankfurt, Dublin and Amsterdam. So far Paris doesn't even figure.
Are the French really going to want to stop their own exports to us?
The only nation with a significant trade deficit with us is I believe Ireland - who are keen on a deal.
So yes it is a strength, because the reality is that cold hard self-interest will mean that the French and others in the EU will want to facilitate their own exports getting to us. They will want to facilitate us giving them cash by spending money with them.
Chaos will be temporary and transient, it won't last until there is a deal.
As for your "EU's economy is so much larger" comment that is mad. No you would not expect automatically that would mean a trade surplus, there is no reason to say that. The EU have more consumers we can sell to. We have a net trade surplus for instance with the USA, not a trade deficit with them.
Before that a chemicals company director said the costs of REACH data alone was £1.5m to his small business with No Deal.
2. The EU have offered us a trade deal.
3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages.
2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99.
3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
While the mayor’s team claim the hypocritical plans are due to security reasons, the Labour councillor chairing the meeting, Daniel Blaney, said the excuse was “completely baffling” and suggested Khan follows the approach of previous mayors Ken Livingston and Boris Johnson who managed to travel by public transport and bike.
The Labour councillors were so outraged they “couldn’t let this go” and called a vote on a motion that would scrap the mayor’s parking spots, which lost by one vote.
https://order-order.com/2020/12/10/labour-councillors-turn-on-sadiq-khans-two-car-hypocrisy/
Amazing that the UK hasn't been struggling to sign these trade deals with essentially similar terms to what we are proposing with the EU and the other nations are happy to do the deals.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1337016582334259203
I lot of people don't understand what is about to happen because they think it was sorted out in January.
Brexiteers seem to be saying, we don't want the EU to have the right to maybe trade with us on less generous terms in the future, so we're going to force them to definitely trade with us on less generous terms right now. It's bizzare.
It is only after that will we see public support shift in any meaningful direction.
I'm not confused in the slightest and never have been. You shouldn't confuse disagreement with your position and analysis as "confusion", which is rather arrogant and unlike you.
The sad truth is I see no nuance whatsoever in your analysis on the EU from you. None. And I never have done. You've never criticised a single angle or position they've taken, as far as I can see. I, however, have done both and have been consistent in criticising both the UK and the EU sides when I think it's warranted. David Herdson and even Alastair Meeks have both managed this - you haven't.
As you know, I agree with you the relative merits on May's Deal. So I am capable of seeing the balance of advantage and also of interest. Your only response on the point of EU reasonableness is to say that any position they adopt is "reality".
Well, that makes sense if you see the UK as a supplicant in this - for whom a deal is utterly essential and for which the EU isn't fussed - but we know that's not true. The EU isn't as God-like as you think it is. And No Deal is a lose-lose for both parties, which is why they've been negotiating and compromising repeatedly.
As for blame, well, there will be some who blame the UK entirely, others who blame the EU and others who blame both.
My sympathies would lie with the last. And, sadly, the rancour and fall-out will last for years.
One of the best things about our industry is that physical distance makes no difference in the client base. We will be the first to benefit from a global outlook and to a certain extent I know we are, at least from the outlook of a Japanese bank which has mostly Asia focused clients.
If the latter then it might be Aldi's fault you bought someone else's sausages instead of theirs yes.
We do have trade deals. If we don't get one with Europe so be it, we don't want one at any price.
The chaos will be in Kent.
That's called overplaying your hand.
We had an referendum and two GEs, where voters have been told time and time again about the dangers of no-deal and that it was a real possibility, by the opposition and the media, day in, day out.
And the public decided.
So come next year they are going on the regular trips around Italy and Spain.
Or so they think.
So yes it is Aldi's loss, if you spend your money elsewhere.
“Besides we have a massive trade deficit with them remember”
That statement yourself and John redwood trots out implies EU dependency on us (hence we hold all the cards, they have to give in negotiation)
But is that really true? Do you actually believe it? Yes or no.
What I do assume is that the French will be more efficient than say the Latvia / Russia 30 hours to cross border I posted a screen grab of yesterday. Then again they will have many multiples the volume of traffic and a sea crossing to manage. And a long-standing reputation for customs twattery back when they used to have to do so.
Someone is going to have to invent a new way of doing customs and standards checks. The normal way - paperwork and eyeball checks is too slow even if the paperwork goes on a computer. No other physical border has yet found a solution despite huge volumes crossing some of them between major economies. But as England is uniquely brilliant we'll probably find it easy.
Until we do the chaos will be anything but transient as the people who know anything about it would tell you if you didn't insist you had all the belief you needed thankyou.
Personally, I agree with you - I don't see why a can-kick isn't a solution to that with a "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" approach - but if they're proposing unilateral lightning tariffs (where it hurts us most) if they want to up standards in some LPF areas in future, and we don't automatically follow suit, then I'd say that's not acceptable.
Brexit as a concept is completely owned by Boris and his Government. I suspect he's won't last long unless there is a deal as reality hits.
Raab in denial this morning claiming the average 5% on food prices outlined by the Chairman of Tesco yesterday in the event of no deal is just plain wrong. Raab couldn't himself give a figure.
Trade deals include lots of LPF provisions, all of our other trade deals include them. The difference is that they are fixed in time unless both parties agree to change them and if one party decides to act unilaterally to undermine that then post action arbitration is the standard recourse with arbitration led tariff allowances. What the EU are proposing is to say "if we make our single market uneconomic, the UK must follow". It's completely ridiculous.
And yes of course to the physical distance thing. As to the gains, financial services are nothing if not resourceful and I'm sure the UK will be very creative. But it will undoubtedly handicap itself by being offshore to the EU.
Also the most worrying thing for the City (where Dictum Meum Pactum is a founding principle) might be the damage done by having a govt ponder (if not it seems actually acting on) breaking international treaties.
Senior Brexiteers lied and lied and lied again.
It is true that if the EU cuts off their nose to spite their face that some of that money might be redirected elsewhee instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/10/liverpool-mayor-joe-anderson-to-step-aside-following-arrest