Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Full bodied red said:
Which is why I said perhaps India....

And one option for a very quick set of new Trade Deals is simply for the UK to join EFTA, which currently has its own deals ( not the EU's deals ) with 27 different Trading Partners.

And yes, as far as BREXIT goes, I'm always optimistic....

I agree with you in part - just that my intuition tells me that it will be much easier and quicker for the UK to agree / sign Trade Deals with USA, Japan, China and Commonwealth countries than for the EU to agree / sign Trade Deals with these same countries.

Negotiations will be one-to-one and not one-to-twentyseven+wallonia+whoever-else-wants-something-for-themseleves-out-of-the-deal....

Or are you hinting that any of the EU's existing Trade Partners who try to do a deal with a non-EU member UK will be sent by the EU ' Au coin, face au mur' for daring to do seperate deals with the UK ?
Click to expand...

They can apply to join EFTA, if accepted then presumably the EEA and back to a similar situation without a vote

You talk of one to one deals rather than 27 but the advantage there is you're talking to 27 countries at once whereas on a one to one basis you'd have 27 negotiating teams if you wished to talk to 27 other countries.

Other than the logistics and agreements side of matters, what I am even more intrigued to know is what the UK will sell to these "other" countries that they aren't selling already remembering that they do trade with other countries already, I'm not saying yourself, but there are certainly some who give the impression that the UK only currently deals with the EU and are prevented from dealing with other countries.
The USA is currently UK's top market and China is 4th - Cars Oil and Gold are the main exports of the UK as it is and the USA and China are the biggest importers of British cars
 
Paul the Wolf said:
They can apply to join EFTA, if accepted then presumably the EEA and back to a similar situation without a vote

You talk of one to one deals rather than 27 but the advantage there is you're talking to 27 countries at once whereas on a one to one basis you'd have 27 negotiating teams if you wished to talk to 27 other countries.

Other than the logistics and agreements side of matters, what I am even more intrigued to know is what the UK will sell to these "other" countries that they aren't selling already remembering that they do trade with other countries already, I'm not saying yourself, but there are certainly some who give the impression that the UK only currently deals with the EU and are prevented from dealing with other countries.
The USA is currently UK's top market and China is 4th - Cars Oil and Gold are the main exports of the UK as it is and the USA and China are the biggest importers of British cars
Click to expand...

The UK trades in surplus with the rest of the world it is not beyond the realms of possibility that without the hindrance of the CAP protectionist measures better trade deals for our other goods and services, more important to the UK than others inside the EU might well be made.

It's not certain though.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The UK trades in surplus with the rest of the world it is not beyond the realms of possibility that without the hindrance of the CAP protectionist measures better trade deals for our other goods and services, more important to the UK than others inside the EU might well be made.

It's not certain though.
Click to expand...

But forgetting any tariffs or hindrances or current deals, what would be those other goods and services be
 
Yes. I agree the EFTA thing could be a slippery slope....

But I reckon it's a possibility that is worth thinking through.

Could the UK be a member of EFTA without the follow-on of EEA ? I've no idea. Would or do the EU's tentacles stretch sufficiently inside EFTA that they could influence EFTA members to reject a UK application for membership ? Quite possibly. But I reckon it's an option that is worth considering....

As for the one-to-one....The one-size-must-fit-all approach of the EU's Trade deals is the very reason that it takes the EU so bloody long to do these deals. Cutting a deal where only two parties are involved compared to where 28 different parties are involved and looking after their own interests just has to be easier, no ?

And yes, I agree also with your comments about the UK's Trade outside the EU. Post BREXIT, hopefully this will continue at the same levels, and given the current reduced FX value for the £ and the potential of FTA's with USA and China ( and, for me at least, even more hopefully with Japan ) then there is enough of a reason to hope that the almost certain the drop off in trade with the EU might be partially compensated with increased exports to these markets. I've no idea whether reduced tariffs would increase sales volumes of car exports from the UK - perhaps. Gold ? Unlikely I would have thought, but I really don't know.

Oil ? That's an interesting one - I've always thought / believed that much of the unlove for the UK inside the EU ( politicians, not people ) is down to jealousy that the UK had the benefit of a reasonable oil and gas industry the past couple of decades, while France and Germany didn't. Just me, perhaps, but....

Anyway - had a good holiday at NOT Costa del Fleetwood, lol....
 
Full bodied red said:
Yes....Well ( too, even ) aware that it'll need new deals with those currently covered by EU membership.

But can't believe that the UK isn't already 'talking' to some of the more important countries already ( despite the EU forbidding this !! ) and that once out of the EU, a new deal can be agreed and signed ( based on the existing EU deal - copy / paste / change names ) within a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

The UK outside of the EU is weaker, any deal we sign will be worse than one we have with these nations as part of the EU's trade deals
 
Kentonio said:
It could not have merely sat out WW2, the British spanned the globe and it was tied into complex relationships with countries everywhere. Even if Britain had totally betrayed its international agreements (other than just the few we chose to abandon) and refused to be drawn into the initial conflict, then it would have been pulled in later at a point where Germany had already defeated its other enemies. Entering when we did allowed the greatest opportunity to stop the threat to British interests.



Italy started out as allies of Germany, then after the overthrow of Mussolini joined the Allies. Italy lost far more in the war than we ever did. It's relevant because the whole 'we gave so much, we lost so much' line sounds extremely hollow when you place our situation against those of our neighbouring European countries.

The point I'm making is that Britain was in a fortunate position which meant we didn't face invasion, and as a result didn't suffer anything like the abysmal consequences that countries all across the continent did. Great for us as Brits, but unfortunately its led to a superiority complex whereby too many British people equate Britain coming through it as a country how it did as a sign that we're special or some great warriors for justice. It also leads to people engaging in the kind of historical revisionism that suggests we could have just sat it out if we wanted but instead we chose to fight the evil Nazis and save democracy etc. It's poppycock.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are going with the Italy references. Italy had been fascist since the 20s and, in the WWI era, had changed sides late in the day in a very cynical land grab against Austria in an attempt to solidify what was still an artificial country. And while I do not endorse British exceptionalism and cringe at "12 German Bombers" type behaviour, Britain did give up more than most European countries. It had been top dog for 150 years to 1914 and was still a big player in 1940. I don't really see the comparison with countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland who were 20 year old entities that had emerged from centuries of German and/or Russian domination. Britain could have struck a deal with Hitler in 1940, however shameful it may have been.

The relevance of all this in 2017? - there is no sense in the UK of "Europe" (i.e. the EU) as a saviour or a civilising force. It's just business and, while I think staying in would have been the right decision for reasons of self-interest, feel a European identity and loathe the likes of Farage, the sad truth is that there is really nothing more than "trade" for many British people - no fear of a return to fascism, war, Russian domination etc - just a business arrangement.
 
Full bodied red said:
I agree with you in part - just that my intuition tells me that it will be much easier and quicker for the UK to agree / sign Trade Deals with USA, Japan, China and Commonwealth countries than for the EU to agree / sign Trade Deals with these same countries.

Negotiations will be one-to-one and not one-to-twentyseven+wallonia+whoever-else-wants-something-for-themseleves-out-of-the-deal....

Or are you hinting that any of the EU's existing Trade Partners who try to do a deal with a non-EU member UK will be sent by the EU ' Au coin, face au mur' for daring to do seperate deals with the UK ?
Click to expand...

No, I'm telling you that you have to forget about the current agreements because the UK won't have the same things to offer, namely access to the EU market and by that I'm talking about companies and households not Brussels.

As for your first point, it's pointless because the EU isn't desperate to have special deals with those countries, the EU don't want fast deals.
 
Rams said:
Hardly an opinion, more of a fact based upon the size of the economies.
Click to expand...

Obviously I don't dispute that economies of the combined EU is bigger than the UK alone....But size isn't everything. Well, I hope it isn't !!

I reckon there'll be plenty of countries who'll be ready to discuss Trade Deals directly with the UK who have previously found the EU to be too difficult / impossible to agree a Trade Deal with. An informal grouping of non-EU partners, USA / UK / China / Japan / Singapore / Australia, without the bollocks of political and social integration, will eventually comfortably outsize the EU. How soon this will happen, who knows ? But it's lazy to think that the protectionist EU can and will remain immune to what the rest of the world's economies are doing in a world of increasing globalisation.

JPRouve said:
No, I'm telling you that you have to forget about the current agreements because the UK won't have the same things to offer, namely access to the EU market and by that I'm talking about companies and households not Brussels.

As for your first point, it's pointless because the EU isn't desperate to have special deals with those countries, the EU don't want fast deals.
Click to expand...

Your first comment - I don't really understand the point you're making....Again, please.

Your second comment - you can say that again.....Seven years just for Canada, wasn't it, ?
 
Mozza said:
I'll bring it down to your level.

If I were a merchant going to a trade show I'd expect to pay more to exhibit goods to a show expecting 600 potentiol customers as opposed to one with 60
Click to expand...

And I will add that you would give a better discount to a customer that takes a 100 pieces than someone taking 1.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Stupid statements like this are totally useless without the reasoning to back it up.
Click to expand...

It is obvious. The bigger you are the better the deal you get. That is why big supermarket chains can often sell things to the public at a price below the wholesale price to small operators. In the case of trade deals this is even more the case because trade is a 2 way street.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Stupid statements like this are totally useless without the reasoning to back it up.
Click to expand...

It seems logical to me and not stupid. The bigger your market, the more leverage you have, and the better deal you get. What do you think will happen if the UK attempts to get a trade deal with China? We'll get battered compared to the sort of deal we could get as part of the EU.
 
JPRouve said:
And I will add that you would give a better discount to a customer that takes a 100 pieces than someone taking 1.
Click to expand...

Wibble said:
It is obvious. The bigger you are the better the deal you get. That is why big supermarket chains can often sell things to the public at a price below the wholesale price to small operators. In the case of trade deals this is even more the case because trade is a 2 way street.
Click to expand...

Tarrou said:
It seems logical to me and not stupid. The bigger your market, the more leverage you have, and the better deal you get. What do you think will happen if the UK attempts to get a trade deal with China? We'll get battered compared to the sort of deal we could get as part of the EU.
Click to expand...

As an analogy: I work for a small company in the retail sector and we are part of a buying consortium i.e. we group our buying power with other companies in order to achieve better cost terms to enable us to compete with national size companies.

Being part of the consortium has been very good for us but whenever one of the other companies in the consortium grows to a certain size they always leave.

They leave when their turnover and buying power is still a fraction of the consortium as a whole. They do this because when you are part of a consortium you sacrifice flexibility and control. There is a trade off between shear financial might and the flexibility and control to make deals on your own terms and better tailored to your own needs, rather than as a compromise, in the case of the EU, to the satisfaction of 27 countries.

A deal that doesn't look as attractive in term of pure numbers can still be more profitable.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
As an analogy: I work for a small company in the retail sector and we are part of a buying consortium i.e. we group our buying power with other companies in order to achieve better cost terms to enable us to compete with national size companies.

Being part of the consortium has been very good for us but whenever one of the other companies in the consortium grows to a certain size they always leave.

They leave when their turnover and buying power is still a fraction of the consortium as a whole. They do this because when you are part of a consortium you sacrifice flexibility and control. There is a trade off between shear financial might and the flexibility and control to make deals on your own terms and better tailored to your own needs, rather than as a compromise, in the case of the EU, to the satisfaction of 27 countries.

A deal that doesn't look as attractive in term of pure numbers can still be more profitable.
Click to expand...

What would be your opinion if a company that was obviously not large enough or influential enough to go out on their own had decided to because the workers decided to vote to leave after years of the management blaming their own failings on the consortium?
 
The flaw is that we won't get flexibility (however that might be of benefit to a country) and on average we will get a worse deal than being part of the EU. Especially as we do so much trade with the EU which will become harder/more expensive/lower volume. And then there is the lag between leaving the EU and any new trade deal being negotiated and enacted. Typically this takes years or even decades and with the rise of Trump and the right worldwide protectionism and not free trade will be the order of the day.
 
Pexbo said:
What would be your opinion if a company that was obviously not large enough or influential enough to go out on their own had decided to because the workers decided to vote to leave after years of the management blaming their own failings on the consortium?
Click to expand...

:)
 
Pexbo said:
What would be your opinion if a company that was obviously not large enough or influential enough to go out on their own had decided to because the workers decided to vote to leave after years of the management blaming their own failings on the consortium?
Click to expand...

You fail to see the point. The EU has failed to reach meaningful trade deals with a number of countries. As an independent country the UK will be able to reach agreements with countries that the EU is unable to because of it's inherent makeup.

The problem is that we will be on the back foot as we are desperate and we might end up conceding things like environmental protections and employee rights to secure them.

Wibble said:
The flaw is that we won't get flexibility (however that might be of benefit to a country) and on average we will get a worse deal than being part of the EU. Especially as we do so much trade with the EU which will become harder/more expensive/lower volume. And then there is the lag between leaving the EU and any new trade deal being negotiated and enacted. Typically this takes years or even decades and with the rise of Trump and the right worldwide protectionism and not free trade will be the order of the day.
Click to expand...

Well those are your opinions and projections that may or may not come true.

My point is that the flexibility argument you get from people like Daniel Hannan is sound, in the longer term anyway.

I voted remain because I don't think it will be worth it on balance, however. Disentangling from the EU and starting out again is a serious battle.

The EU is like the Hotel California, once you are in you can't ever leave, only we have.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Well those are your opinions and projections that may or may not come true.

My point is that the flexibility argument you get from people like Daniel Hannan is sound, in the longer term anyway.

I voted remain because I don't think it will be worth it on balance, however. Disentangling from the EU and starting out again is a serious battle.

The EU is like the Hotel California, once you are in you can't ever leave, only we have.
Click to expand...

It is hardly drawing a long bow to saw we have made a monumentally bad decision when to comes to trade. It is almost impossible that we won't be significantly worse off.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
You fail to see the point. The EU has failed to reach meaningful trade deals with a number of countries. As an independent country the UK will be able to reach agreements with countries that the EU is unable to because of it's inherent makeup.

The problem is that we will be on the back foot as we are desperate and we might end up conceding things like environmental protections and employee rights to secure them.
Click to expand...

And you fail to see the point that because the EU is highly oriented to its interior market, they don't need to make compromises which is why they don't make deals with a number of countries. The EU like the US don't need those deals, if they are good for them they will take them otherwise they won't.
 
JPRouve said:
And you fail to see the point that because the EU is highly oriented to its interior market, they don't need to make compromises which is why they don't make deals with a number of countries. The EU like the US don't need those deals, if they are good for them they will take them otherwise they won't.
Click to expand...


But you know what happens when there's too much incestuous behaviour in the family ?

The whole family goes quite mad.
 
Full bodied red said:
But you know what happens when there's too much incestuous behaviour in the family ?

The whole family goes quite mad.
Click to expand...

Could you expend on the incestuous nature of the EU, the US or even China? None of them have a lot of special deals with other countries, you will notice that the bigger the market is, the least deal friendly he is, too. Ask yourself why.
 
Mozza said:
I'll bring it down to your level.

If I were a merchant going to a trade show I'd expect to pay more to exhibit goods to a show expecting 600 potentiol customers as opposed to one with 60
Click to expand...

You wouldn't if those 600 customers never bought any of your goods because they were not deemed up to standard. Or restrictions were placed on how many items they could buy due to quotas. Or the domestic supply of your main export is subsidized such that it is uncompetitive in that market.

When you protect the competing interests of 27 countries you pay 27 times the price in countermeasures.

How would you know if that was or wasn't the case when the first stipulation is we do all the trade deals for you and you can't test the theory?
 
JPRouve said:
And you fail to see the point that because the EU is highly oriented to its interior market, they don't need to make compromises which is why they don't make deals with a number of countries. The EU like the US don't need those deals, if they are good for them they will take them otherwise they won't.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you say they don't need to make compromises when in fact the EU has been lurching from crisis to crisis in recent years, it is one Marine Le Pen away from being finished completely. Its poor economic performance and plethora of sick economies undermine your point. If the EU really was in a position to cherry pick then the foundations wouldn't be rocking. Arguably, what the EU needs to secure its future is more flexibility in trade negotiations.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
You wouldn't if those 600 customers never bought any of your goods because they were not deemed up to standard. Or restrictions were placed on how many items they could buy due to quotas. Or the domestic supply of your main export is subsidized such that it is uncompetitive in that market.

When you protect the competing interests of 27 countries you pay 27 times the price in countermeasures.

How would you know if that was or wasn't the case when the first stipulation is we do all the trade deals for you and you can't test the theory?
Click to expand...

You have to meet the standards of every nation you trade in. Knowing one set of standards will fit 27 nations actually makes it easier. If I had to choose between one production run for the UK or one for 27 nations, I'd choose the latter, more customers.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It is interesting that you say they don't need to make compromises when in fact the EU has been lurching from crisis to crisis in recent years, it is one Marine Le Pen away from being finished completely. Its poor economic performance and plethora of sick economies undermine your point. If the EU really was in a position to cherry pick then the foundations wouldn't be rocking. Arguably, what the EU needs to secure its future is more flexibility in trade negotiations.
Click to expand...

And it's not because of the size of the interior market or a lack of offer for the consumers which are the two main reasons to have a special deal with a foreign country, to expand the market and/or the offer. The EU needs a serious reform but it has nothing to do with trade deals, in fact I would suggest the opposite the EU needs to focus on itself, stop the expansion and exploits fully its own market.
 
JPRouve said:
And it's not because of the size of the interior market or a lack of offer for the consumers which are the two main reasons to have a special deal with a foreign country, to expand the market and/or the offer. The EU needs a serious reform but it has nothing to do with trade deals, in fact I would suggest the opposite the EU needs to focus on itself, stop the expansion and exploits fully its own market.
Click to expand...


That is the real disagreement right there. I think that is a massive mistake but now we have left that thinking will prevail.
 
JPRouve said:
And it's not because of the size of the interior market or a lack of offer for the consumers which are the two main reasons to have a special deal with a foreign country, to expand the market and/or the offer. The EU needs a serious reform but it has nothing to do with trade deals, in fact I would suggest the opposite the EU needs to focus on itself, stop the expansion and exploits fully its own market.
Click to expand...

What do you by focusing on itself? Somehow reforming the internal politics of it member states with poor performing economies? If so that will likely destroy the EU too. It is suppossed to be a trading block not an all powerful political superstate. Brexit wouldn't have happened without the ever increasing political unification.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
That is the real disagreement right there. I think that is a massive mistake but now we have left that thinking will prevail.
Click to expand...

Well, we can discuss about it, it's a point that I actually find interesting. Succinctly, what is your POV?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
What do you by focusing on itself? Somehow reforming the internal politics of it member states with poor performing economies? If so that will likely destroy the EU too. It is suppossed to be a trading block not an all powerful political superstate. Brexit wouldn't have happened without the ever increasing political unification.
Click to expand...

I mean that at the moment the EU needs to organize or reorganize its production in terms of services, goods and brains. Organize a "patent industry", reorgarnize it's Universities in order to challenge China and the US in the knowledge industry, it needs to emulate EADS in other strategical domains like telecommunication and energy instead of getting stuck in the perfect competition theory. Those are only examples but the idea is to make those changes at EU scale not just at the national scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.