Neverending Story 3: The Ongoing Brexit Thread

An outright evil man. Now with Britain out the blockade for a super state is gone.

https://www.politico.eu/article/spds-martin-schulz-wants-united-states-of-europe-by-2025/

 

Dude, the UK just rolled over and basically accepted all the EU requirements. Case closed....

 

My statement in the post you're arguing with, was...

If I had to guess I'd say we're heading for a typical EU fudge where everything apparently changes but, in reality, it's almost exactly the same as it is now.​

... is correct then?

Or are you simply confirming what we already knew... that you HAVE no point. You're just having a maunder.

If you haven't got anything intelligent to say, (i.e. which would normally be defined as something that relates to something somebody else has said), maybe you should just keep quiet.

Just a thought

 

I'm curious how the tabloids and Tories will react when their free trade fantasy is pushed aside by realpolitiks. China and the US will demand their pound of flesh for easy access to their markets. I'm sure they will find a way to blame the EU.

 

Wow...Are you triggered?
I am not arguing with any particular statement, I am calling you out for the overall nonsense from the beginning about Brexit...From the "going back to WTO rules to not paying the divorce fees" etc...It is obvious now that your government has rolled over, despite all the bravados including yours..... From the get go, as I have and other always said, the EU had the upper hand on this and the UK will have to swallow their pride and do as they are told....Sorry if reality bites now!

 

A few comments to your comments:

-Generally, when we're talking about "access" we're talking about the same level of access provided via the current EU arrangement. When I say "we", I'm referring to political shorthand the pols are using, the BBC generally uses, etc. It could have been described more specifically, but it is understood in the doc by the audience in the terms in which I'm referring. From the document you cite: "Norway and Switzerland aren’t members of the European Union. But they both access the single market." This is consistent with Wright's definition of access. The US has access to the market too, but that's not what the authors of your link (or almost anyone else discussing it) are referencing when they say access.

-It's important to refer to how that the current degree of Single Market access would be made available. This is referenced in the "bespoke" comment. What Wright is saying here is that in his view, the current level of access is unlikely to be attained by something that deviates from the current arrangement. In other words, it's not likely to be a Swiss style system. It's not even going to be a Norway style system. It's going to be something with a higher degree of regulatory harmonization than Norway-EU. The UK and the EU will both lose, but the EU has prioritized integrity of the EU (and its associated regulations) over economic consequences of taking a more hard line in the divorce. Presumably,they view this as worth the additional cost as it serves as a deterrent to possible future departures of EU member states.

In other words, this dream that the UK is going to negotiate something better than what they would achieve within the EU is not likely.

 

Well I always felt that England would end up with some type of deal similar to Norway.

Obviously that still means having to enforce EU regulations on products and other relaxed rules on blocking movement of people.

It seems that the Brexit people wanted more than that.

 

So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing... understood!

So can we assume you're just woffling around the subject, then, as you normally do, with vague and imprecise interjections based on absolutely NO understanding of the issues?

What about 'going back to WTO rules'? What are you saying?

Are you claiming that I said we should do that? If so I'd like you to prove it by quoting exactly where I made that statement.

Again, where did I say we should do that? I said the house of lords report had said there is no legal basis for doing that but that we would probably do it because it's not a legal matter. It's a political and economic one.

So you're now reduced to simply telling bald-faced lies about me, are you?

We'll be paying a 'divorce bill' of around £34-39Bn BUT it will be over a period of several decades, (40 years is the figure I've heard mentioned because it's partly for pension rights for EU employees). Over that same period, assuming we'd carried on paying at the same rate, we WOULD have paid approximately £400Bn.

So, yeah... you're right... we'll ONLY be saving some £360Bn

TBH, though, quite why you want to turn this into a personal attack on me, (a person who voted for remain and ALWAYS thought it was the better option to remain in the EU), I DON'T know. I've made every effort to explain the situation to you, calmly and rationally, on several occasions, but you seem to think international relations should be some sort of morality tale where the guilty are punished for their transgressions.

I thought you'd achieved a reasonable understanding of my poisition...

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/ne...g-brexit-thread.2029301/page-86#post-35403681

Was I wrong?

The position going forward is likely to be quite straightforward.

We won't be paying as much money every year as we did, (i.e. like Norway), BUT we won't be having any say in setting the rules of the EU, (again, like Norway). We almost certainly WILL have a trade agreement and it will be pretty much the same as the one we've already got. We're already opted out of several areas the EU wanted us involved in such as the euro currency, the Schengen agreement, the working hours directive, etc. etc. and the chances of us now joining those has disappeared entirely. So the blanket statement we have to do what we're told is obvious nonsense.

 

If there is any negative economic consquence for the Eurozone then it got swallowed by the boom we're going through for the almost 7th straight year

 

Equating Germany to the eurozone or EU is not a good look.

 

Saying there will be negative economic consquence neither when it has been debunked before in this thread. Only Ireland will be hit in a noticable way. But then again if you dont take the 13 billion in taxes from Apple you dont deserve any better deal

 

Yeah, I just wanted to make the point that what people mean when they use the term 'access' can be rather 'elastic', that's all.

As we now seem to be talking about 'regulatory alignment', (although I see the 'regulatory' bit seems to be dropped), I assume that means any trade deal with the EU would HAVE to allow similar access to that given now.

https://www.ft.com/content/4fddeb2e-7e92-3d81-b0a7-9dfeb6055510

Tbh, it's all rather up in the air atm but the NI border agreement MUST be the same as the ones between the UK mainland and the EU. I can't see how else it could work.

Well, hang on. Up to now we've only been talking about the stuff they all agree upon. Us paying them some money, (as much as possible), and northern Ireland. It remains to be seen if anybody throws a spanner in the works and has to be bought off as happened with the Wallooninans and the Canadian agreement.

But you're right in saying that, in general, they want to keep people from going over the wall... or should that be 'in the warm embrace of the EU'

Do you mean with the EU itself? There was NEVER much likelihood we'd have something better with the EU... it was only ever a matter of whether we'd be able to have some trade deals outside of the EU that were more favourable and replaced, at least in part, some of what we'd lost trading with an element of the EU.

The US and China weren't the likely suspects. It would have been the smaller states.

 

Which is fair enough when you think about it. If we'd come out in '93 or '94, after Maastricht, (as they did), we'd have that deal anyway.

What's so daft about this is that, for their OWN reasons, manufacturers adopt the regulations in the area which they're selling because, otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell their stuff.

Also, there are no generalised rules about freedom of movement, (other than for holidays, business trips, etc.), in the EU. There are rules regarding freedom of movement for employment purposes. I can't just ruck up in Germany and claim their pension. That's not how the world works and it's definitely not how the EU works.

People can travel for a job. if they haven't got one they can be thrown out of a country after 3 months, NOW! Actually, one of the most aggressive in that is Belgium, funnily enough, i.e. the home of Brussels

Some of them did. Some didn't. The truth of the matter is the majority of them don't know WHAT they wanted. They never thought about that carefully.

 

I think you meant to add a “So is...” at the front of the sentence.

When I say “not a good look” I’m not saying that equating the eurozone to Germany is false, even though it is. I’m pointing out that it’s in poor taste for two reasons we don’t need to go into.

As for the EU taking a hit w Brexit. That hasn’t been credibly debunked anywhere. As a matter of fact, most economic analyses suggest that both hard and soft Brexit is a drag on both aggregate EU GDP in the short and intermediate term. That doesn’t mean that it won’t be an economic boost to some EU member states. It also doesn’t mean it will be a long term drag. It also doesn’t mean the EU economy won’t continue to improve/grow. It is merely a modest headwind.

It simply suggests that trade and supply chains are complicated and as such, changing the rules both in a way that increases uncertainty in the short run and in ways that alter supply chains/capital flows is likely to have some transitional detriment.

In the scheme of things, these things aren’t as consequential for the EU as they are for the UK, which is why the EU holds the exit cards.

 

#argumentwasandisdebunked

 

“Far more to lose” means both sides have something to lose. #youcontradictyourself

Keep in mind there are other figures out there from credible institions that place the soft Brexit costs roughly where these hard ones are.

Further, improving metrics 2017-19 doesn’t mean they would not be even better without Brexit. That’s what an incremental impact calculation is for.
#pisspoorlogic #andithoughtyouwereGerman

 

#yesIam

#evidentlynot #oxymoronseeabove

You what -0.2% of GDP means in volkswirtschaft's terms?

 

It means less than zero. By 0.2 pts to be precise. And here’s another projection from the EU itself that carries the drag out as far as 2030. From year 3 onward, the lag should be stabilized at a minimum or partially reversed. Is 0.5 percent the end of the world for Germany? Hardly. But again, you’re equating Germany to all of the Eu. The EU isn’t your Lebensraum. Some areas will be harder hit than others. Some regions within countries will be harder hit too.

All else equal, it would be better to not have to deal with this at all. But we are where we are.

 

You also have problems with the correct application of the term "Lebensraum". I also disagree with the last sentence, it's a really great thing we have to deal with this situation. #eufigures(eurostat)meanjackshitseegreece

 

In all honesty I find BoJo even MORE despicable.

I get the impression that Davis is a 'true believer', (didn't he work for Tate & Lyle who lost the ability for bring in sugar cane back in the day because of the EU?), whereas Johnson's just a journo who HAS no beliefs and could have argued it either way.

But what makes them truly appalling is that, as well as being idiots, they're both bone idle. Davis' 'The dog ate my homework', is just typical of the breed of modern tory.

 

TBH that was always the argument for voting in, even if people understood the EU had problems. Our own decisions about how to organise ourselves as a society and an economy will always make FAR more difference than our relationship to the EU.

Well, assuming we didn't become like north Korea off the coast of Europe. To listen to some people you'd think that's what was being suggested although, with some people, that's exactly what they'd like

 

I gotta hand it to you. You're my go to guy for problem solving!

 

I always thought this was the end goal of the EU anyway. 2025 is preposterous though. Not going to happen.