Brexit negotiations

[Scott-Copywriter]

Could be worse. Could be that nice Mr Corbyn doing the negotiations.

Corbyn would have Keir Starmer in charge of negotiations, who is actually one of the top barristers in the country.

He's the ex-Director of Public Prosecutions and previously the head of the Crown Prosecution Service. I'd much rather have him doing it instead of David Davis.

Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that Brexit under Corbyn would be far better for the country. He's nowhere near as obsessed with a "hard Brexit" as Theresa May. It would be softer, with more of an emphasis on citizen rights and the economy, and with much less of an immigration obsession.

It's strange to say that Labour would prioritise the economy more than the Conservatives, but that's exactly what would happen. It's clear that the cabinet is divided, and the only person in that cabinet who has said anything resembling common sense regarding the economy is Philip Hammond.

The very worrying thing is that even his obviously sensible suggestions, such as a three-year transition deal, are being shot down by backbench MPs.

 

[Mr D]

And what will the EU prioritise?
Do not forget there is another side in this negotiation with an agenda likely far different from Britain.

No matter how soft or hard (such terms are fairly meaningless) our politicians want things they will not get to decide what happens, only what the instructions to the negotiators we are using are.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

And what will the EU prioritise?
Do not forget there is another side in this negotiation with an agenda likely far different from Britain.

EU integrity, first and foremost.

They can't afford to see another exit similar to that of the UK. Economic damage can be dealt with over time, but if another big nation leaves, it could spell the end of the EU as we know it.

 

[Cobby]

How do you know the qualifications of the Brexit team of negotiators and any other departments concerning Brexit or are you just quoting some newshound from the papers

The foreign office is one department that has good diplomacy experience, educationally highly qualified personnel some of which I understand are placed within the new departments

I didn't think you lot were interested in experts anymore...

So we plan to walk away. No single market. No customs union. No tying of our hands. We need to be free to properly explore deals with the rest of the world, do whatever we want with tarriffs, drop our tax to 0% if we so desire .... forge a new economic path.

But the Leave argument is and has consistently been, 'The Will Of The People'. This definitely isn't that...

 

[Chris Ashdown]

With the EU demands that all Countries follow the four main principles, and we flatly refuse to allow the free movement of people, please can somebody explain how we get a soft exit yet still leave and if you accept free movement you also accept the European Court which again would be a massive stumbling point for all

 

[Newchodge]

With the EU demands that all Countries follow the four main principles, and we flatly refuse to allow the free movement of people, please can somebody explain how we get a soft exit yet still leave and if you accept free movement you also accept the European Court which again would be a massive stumbling point for all

Come again?

The EU requires that all member states and those who sign up like Norway observe the 4 freedoms.

IF we flatly refuse to accept free movement of people we are out without any protection of our economy, or our envirnomental protections or our employment protections or anything else. That's obvious.

Negotiation is about trying to find the best deal available. In the circumstances that seems like a good idea.

 

[Mr D]

Best deal available from what the other side will agree to.
A great deal for us that is voted down by someone on the other side leaves us begging for an extension which the same people can vote down or else coming out as we are without agreements.

 

[Cobby]

With the EU demands that all Countries follow the four main principles, and we flatly refuse to allow the free movement of people

'We' don't; a minority percentage of those who voted leave "flatly refuse" it.

Secondly, "we", as in 'The Government', also don't "flatly refuse" it - they have no position on it at all right now because they haven't yet decided where they stand on any of the details (even the big ones).

 

[Clinton]

Weather in Britain = Rain
Weather in Europe = Lucifer

Another reason why we shouldn't be leaving Europe! If we leave the EU our weather is going to keep deteriorating to the point where winter, harsh winds and flu extend to last all year.

(Remember, you heard it here first, and before the Guardian makes this argument on their site)

 

[MBE2017]

Many in the UK are panicking what will happen without an agreement to our economy, strangely the various EU members have exactly the same worries, since the UK will area hue advantage in negotiating new trade deals as a single country compared to the ultra slow EU getting 27 different countries in agreement to do the same.

The nightmare scenario for the EU is what the UK would do without an agreement on trade, deals would be made very quickly out of necessity around the world, giving first mover advantage to the UK, and possibly increasing our competitivity way above the EU.

At the moment, no-one knows what is happening, people need to calm down a bit and take negotiation tactics in the spirit they are meant, purely for public consumption to try and undermine our position in these negotiations.

 

[Gecko001]

The nightmare scenario for the EU is what the UK would do without an agreement on trade, deals would be made very quickly out of necessity around the world, giving first mover advantage to the UK, and possibly increasing our competitivity way above the EU.

The nightmare scenario would be we would not reach an agreement on the settlement, never mind trade. The EU will not discuss trade before a settlement is agreed.

The nightmare scenario will be that we will not have done the work on coming to a decision the difficult issues such as on what we want on free movement and our relationship with the EU institutions after we have left such as ECJ etc. It could mean that we will end leaving the EU only in name more or less with very little changing.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Many in the UK are panicking what will happen without an agreement to our economy, strangely the various EU members have exactly the same worries, since the UK will area hue advantage in negotiating new trade deals as a single country compared to the ultra slow EU getting 27 different countries in agreement to do the same.

But the EU has an economy of $16.5 trillion, a population of 500 million people and represents almost a quarter of global GDP.

It may be large and difficult to work with, but it's an incredibly lucrative market for any country - far more than the UK which is a fraction of the size.

And what you've suggested is a downfall is actually a benefit for any country on the other side. They would much prefer to negotiate with 27 nations at the same time instead of each one individually. It's a 27-for-1 deal. In practice, it's far, far quicker.

The nightmare scenario for the EU is what the UK would do without an agreement on trade, deals would be made very quickly out of necessity around the world, giving first mover advantage to the UK, and possibly increasing our competitivity way above the EU.

The much more likely outcome of this is the UK negotiating less favourable deals out of desperation. There's a good reason they take 5-10 years on average (even country-to-country). Both sides try to get the best deals for themselves when it comes to quotas, tariffs and the opening up of visa restrictions.

The worst-case scenario for the UK would be if it goes into the negotiations when the other sides know that we're desperate for trade deals and need them quickly. They could put forward much more favourable terms for themselves and know that the UK can't afford to play the long game.

It's worth bearing in mind that the world is finite in size. The 7 largest economies in the world, counting the EU as one, account for 75% of global GDP. If we don't get good deals with them, there aren't many more places to turn.

 

[Mr D]

Many in the UK are panicking what will happen without an agreement to our economy, strangely the various EU members have exactly the same worries, since the UK will area hue advantage in negotiating new trade deals as a single country compared to the ultra slow EU getting 27 different countries in agreement to do the same.

The nightmare scenario for the EU is what the UK would do without an agreement on trade, deals would be made very quickly out of necessity around the world, giving first mover advantage to the UK, and possibly increasing our competitivity way above the EU.

At the moment, no-one knows what is happening, people need to calm down a bit and take negotiation tactics in the spirit they are meant, purely for public consumption to try and undermine our position in these negotiations.

Until we start getting some trade deals done - and they can take time - we are at a major disadvantage.
And the countries we will negotiate with will know it.

We may want trade deals very quickly out of necessity but we are only one side of the negotiation.

 

[Cobby]

It's worth bearing in mind that the world is finite in size. The 7 largest economies in the world, counting the EU as one, account for 75% of global GDP. If we don't get good deals with them, there aren't many more places to turn.

The other thing that pops up frequently is the description of the UK as the world's 5th largest economy. That's technically true, but it's not a linear progression up that chart, and I don't know what that chart will look like for 2017 but I wouldn't be surprised to find we've slipped.

Anyway, in real terms, we are way behind the leader and there's a much bigger jump between us and Germany in 4th place (32% increase) than there is between France in 6th place and us (7% increase).

Arguing that "with the 5th largest economy, everyone will want a trade deal and we're in the strongest position" is somewhat pointless since the strength of that economy comes (depending on your view either partly or largely) from our membership of the EU. I mean, even working in real numbers, our economy just isn't that significant compared to the big markets like the EU, but it seems like even more of an empty gesture to try and argue "with the 12th largest economy in the world, everyone will want a trade deal."

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Whilst a trade deal will be fantastic it is a long term aim, but without one we can still trade a large amount of goods without much extra costs until they come good just like we always have

 

[Mr D]

And subject to standard tariffs on imports.
Currently we are part of EU trade deals with countries. Presumably those trade deals providing better deal than standard tariffs. Afterwards we will not be part of those deals. You think possibly we could be worse off regarding selling stuff into those countries?

 

[Cobby]

And subject to standard tariffs on imports.
Currently we are part of EU trade deals with countries. Presumably those trade deals providing better deal than standard tariffs. Afterwards we will not be part of those deals. You think possibly we could be worse off regarding selling stuff into those countries?

...and importing stuff. Those tariffs will be incorporated into the supply chain rather than them being a 'societal expense' as it were (e.g. membership fees), and people will see the price of their goods rise directly, while standards (esp. food and animal welfare) are likely to fall. The double whammy of a shrunken economy will hurt everyone, but especially those already struggling.

 

[KM-Tiger]

 

[Jeff FV]

 

[Paul Norman]

For me, this post wins this thread.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Interesting survey:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/...ted-on-backing?utm_term=.xhmQgDpVp#.hxk58MJGJ

 

[MBE2017]

...and importing stuff. Those tariffs will be incorporated into the supply chain rather than them being a 'societal expense' as it were (e.g. membership fees), and people will see the price of their goods rise directly, while standards (esp. food and animal welfare) are likely to fall. The double whammy of a shrunken economy will hurt everyone, but especially those already struggling.

Once again more hysteria, no-one as yet knows what the future will bring, but the price of goods rising and standards falling are not a definite, indeed food reducing in costs could be more accurate.

Whilst the economy might shrink, it might also increase, so far the project fear scare stories have not materialised as so many experts and politicians warned everyone of before the referendum.

The current tariffs might be replaced by others, or not at all. Time for more accuracy in people's posts rather than constant doom mongering.

If the future was so easy to predict, why not win this weeks lottery?

 

[Mr D]

It's up to government to impose tariffs. They have said they will default to WTO if no agreement made with the EU on trade.
Do the government get to decide which WTO rates, if any, to apply on imports? Or even not have any import tax?
Or is that a decision that cannot be made by our government alone prior to March 2019?

 

[Newchodge]

It's up to government to impose tariffs.

It is up to our government to impose tariffs on imports to our country after we leave the EU. Our government has no control on tariffs imposed by others on our exports. We can choose to have no tariffs on imports.

 

[Mr D]

Anyone think government will refuse tax income?

I was under the impression that tax on exports arriving elsewhere was a major part of trade deals. If and when we get them.

 

[Cobby]

Once again more hysteria, no-one as yet knows what the future will bring, but the price of goods rising and standards falling are not a definite, indeed food reducing in costs could be more accurate.

Whilst the economy might shrink, it might also increase, so far the project fear scare stories have not materialised as so many experts and politicians warned everyone of before the referendum.

The morning after the vote, a conservative MP (George Eustace maybe?) was on Radio 4 saying that animal welfare standards would have to be lowered to compete with world markets such as South America. That was a *day one admission* by people in charge, not speculation by opposition.

At this point, anyone still flogging the dead horse of "Project Fear" (assuming you mean the one about economic damage which is likely, and not the one about the country suddenly being host to the entire population of Turkey, which was ridiculous) and talking about economic expansion post-exit cannot expect to be taken seriously. Even pro-Leavers talk about us getting back to where we are now, maybe, by 2030. As for the actual economic consequences, it seems it always needs to be repeated when Leavers use the phrase "Project Fear"; *we haven't left yet*.

 

[roydmoorian]

Re the Animal Welfare comments -

The UK is proposing that CCTV be installed in ALL UK slaughterhouses (Which I would wholeheartedly support).

Will the UK therefore ban imports from countries who do not have similar systems installed, or will that just be another Tax on UK food production ?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

What a load of coblers by one person

There is no way we will relax regulations on anything to do with food safety or animal welfare

We gave up competing against low cost manufacturing many years ago as it was impossible for firms to compete, we therefore pressed ahead with high tech manufacturing and the service industry where we could compete very well

Our oil companies are some of the most knowledgeable in deep water recovery, leading Geophysical exploration, Aircraft engines and makers of Airbus wings ( the most difficult part of any aircraft), companies like JCB used around the world and defence, to name a few plus financials

You are right we cannot compete with many countries that's why we buy so much from China, but then have you considered the working conditions they employ or living in a smog filled atmosphere every day

 

[Newchodge]

There is no way we will relax regulations on anything to do with food safety or animal welfare

Unless we want a trade dal with the US, whose food safety and animal welfare standards are way below ours, and whose standards we would have to accept if we want that deal.

 

[Mr D]

What a load of coblers by one person

There is no way we will relax regulations on anything to do with food safety or animal welfare

Except where it forms part of a trade deal.

How much animal welfare do we care about regarding imported food? Do we specify how the eggs are produced in foreign countries?

How much food safety applied to the eggs situation? Did we immediately ban imports of eggs from affected country the moment the problem was known to authorities? Or somehow not do anything until we had imported some?

 

[Mr D]

Unless we want a trade dal with the US, whose food safety and animal welfare standards are way below ours, and whose standards we would have to accept if we want that deal.

And they are quite capable of saying no to a trade deal if we don't accept what they want. Without trade deals what do we have?

 

[Newchodge]

Without trade deals what do we have?

Economic problems.

 

[Mr D]

Economic problems.

On that I think we can agree.

 

[Newchodge]

How much food safety applied to the eggs situation? Did we immediately ban imports of eggs from affected country the moment the problem was known to authorities? Or somehow not do anything until we had imported some?

Food safety applied to the eggs situation. It appears that the situation was caused by producers deliberately ignoring the laws. As I understand it the EU banned the export of eggs from the affected places, so we did not need to do anything about banning imports.

This was a failure of food safety enforcement, not of the regulations themselves.

 

[Mr D]

Perhaps tougher regulations needed? Cannot think this was an accident.

 

[Newchodge]

Perhaps tougher regulations needed? Cannot think this was an accident.

No that is why arrests have been made for criminal activity.

 

[Newchodge]

One of the big mantras about Brexit was 'taking back control'. That the people of Britain would have control of its laws. I said at the time that I thought that WE were not taking back control but handing unfettered control back to a Tory governement with potentially dangerous consequences.

The Great Repeal Bill (what a ridiculously pretentious name) has had a little clause inserted into it:

"There is no right in domestic law on or after exit day to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich."

Francovich is the name of the case that allows British people to sue the British government for losses arising from the government's failure to uphold the law.

I don't believe that those who wanted to take back control wanted to lose control of ensuring their government upheld its own laws.

 

[Mr D]

We are handing unfettered control to whichever party becomes the government. No difference which one it is, they have the capacity to create problems and run roughshod over what people want.
Until the voters decide to change governments.

The voters who voted decided who would be in government (so far) as at March 2019. And onwards.

 

[Newchodge]

And losing the right to sue the government for not applying the law?

 

[Mr D]

Is suing the government of interest to most people?