Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[devilish]

Poland is largely Catholic, remember the unexpected election of a Polish Pope around the time of Lech Walensa. This was building momentum for Poland to exit the Soviet Union and less than thirty years later they are being told to accept 'third' world immigrants with a different religious culture possibly violent to other religions ( the jury is out on this one it is not black and white IMO).
I do accept the Polish immigrants would need some thought though surely Germany, France and others would soak up some of that excess labour especially if they take business from the City of London.

I agree the richer countries do pose the bigger risk unless Britain reaches out to the likes of Poland behind back doors to force their hand for what @PedroMendez eloquently poses above as the possible move towards a second tier 'flexible union'.

Re Italy I don't think they have been facing the immigrant crisis for years and years, I think that has been Greece yet I do agree they have that problem in the last couple of years and that larger nations should have been lending a hand. I think the problem was there was a political mindset to allow this immigration into the EU. Cheap labour or other less obvious and possibly sinister motives, I'm not sure. On the surface what seemed strange was that a lot of the asylum seekers all had modern phones showing them the route to take. For me it suggested certain NGO's were encouraging this and dishing out phones with instructions. Italy is primarily a target because the West decided to take out Gadhafi and Libya is close to Italy.

The West has never wanted Africa to be successful and EU loans to Africa had strict conditions and coincidentally Gadhafi was hoarding gold with the intention of setting up a Pan-National African Bank.

I don't think the Brexit immigration factor was just about Eastern European immigration I think it was just against large scale immigration from everywhere yet any debates about this turned towards the ECHR as telling us we could not stop it, so in people's minds the EU was seen as the barrier to preventing all types of immigration and not just from the EU. I don't think most people are against foreigners it just seems too much has happened too quickly.

There's plenty of points here. So please don't mind me putting them in bullet points

a-Poland had benefited great with EU membership. FOM meant millions of immigrants could leave their country and seek jobs elsewhere. Meanwhile Unrestricted access to the Single market had made Poland quite appealing to many industries who move factories there while still retaining access to the single market. For that to be a success, Poland had to invest heavily on its infrastructure something the EU had also helped about by injecting millions of foreign taxpayer's money into Poland.

b- As you said Poland is a largely Catholic country. I visited the place twice and Pope John Paul II is a hero there. As a person whose history in Catholicism is far older then Poland's I happen to know quite a lot of this pope. I assure you the man must be turning in the grave knowing that his country is refusing to lend a hand to these immigrants especially after how much help Poland had found from the very countries whose now asking Poland to help them themselves.

c- So lets put focus on the nitty gritty shall we? The EU is asking Poland to take less then 10k immigrants or pay a fine. By the looks of it the most definite way to avoid that is for Poland to article 50. There's currently 2m Polish in Germany alone so from a purely immigration number balance perspective then we're better off without Poland's mandatory burden sharing and out of the EU

d- I don't know what the UK can ever offer to Poland that may be as appealing to EU membership especially considering that the centre piece of Brexit was to take control over immigration + stop giving contributions into the EU budget. These are 2 of the main reasons why Poland had prospered in the past few years. Maybe the UK might finance Poland itself and allow FOM to its people in the UK? I doubt it will happen though.

e- The UK immigration rates shot up when Eastern Europe entered the EU. Prior to that it was mostly about immigrants moving to one country to another to earn new experiences or because of the lifestyle. That kept numbers relatively low because the majority of people tend to prefer living closer to family and enjoy the lifestyle then were born in the first place then move abroad. Its only after Eastern Europe were given EU membership that the floodgates opened and I am the first to admit that this caused an issue. Which makes me wonder. Considering Poland's reliance on FOM and solidarity + the fact that this FOM is currently under attack. Is it worth for Poland to put further strains on that regard? After all if Poland does gain control over its borders then others will seek that as well. And why stop on immigrants from Africa especially considering that for most countries the biggest influx of immigrants doesn't come from the South but from the East?

e- In 2016 alone Italy saved 181.4k immigrants from sea as opposed to Greece 174.4k. I concede that the EU had been very slow in conceding that unrestricted irregular immigration is indeed a problem. However unless we start allowing people to die at sea or we close borders with Italy and let them handle all the problem by themselves (the latter is known as Dublin III regulation and which exactly what the UK and Poland want) then this is a European problem and can never be solved by individual states. Luckily we're finally waking up to this issue and coming up with solutions. Turkey's deal has reduced the immigration to Greece quite significantly and a makeshift deal with Libya has helped at the other end.

 

[JPRouve]

e- In 2016 alone Italy saved 181.4k immigrants from sea as opposed to Greece 174.4k. I concede that the EU had been very slow in conceding that unrestricted irregular immigration is indeed a problem. However unless we start allowing people to die at sea or we close borders with Italy and let them handle all the problem by themselves (the latter is known as Dublin III regulation and which exactly what the UK and Poland want) then this is a European problem and can never be solved by individual states. Luckily we're finally waking up to this issue and coming up with solutions. Turkey's deal has reduced the immigration to Greece quite significantly and a makeshift deal with Libya has helped at the other end.

It's important to clearly say that Spain, France, Italy, Malta and Greece are the only countries that actually care about external border control, the other countries don't care because they aren't on the first line. And you are right when you say that this problem can't be solved by individual states but you also know what a "Union" solution would mean, it would mean that members don't have control of their borders. We would be very close from the feared European super state.

 

[devilish]

It's important to clearly say that Spain, France, Italy, Malta and Greece are the only countries that actually care about external border control, the other countries don't care because they aren't on the first line. And you are right when you say that this problem can't be solved by individual states but you also know what a "Union" solution would mean, it would mean that members don't have control of their borders. We would be very close from the feared European super state.

Well immigrant traffickers are now toying with the black sea route which will affect Romania too. Not to forget that if the Ukrainian crisis descend into chaos then Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia might end up at the very front line. I don't think that having a common immigration policy can ever be considered as a European super state. After all we already have something of that kind in place (Dublin III). The only difference is that the latter heavily staked against the Southern European countries while mandatory burden sharing is fairer.

 

[JPRouve]

Well immigrant traffickers are now toying with the black sea route which will affect Romania too. Not to forget that if the Ukrainian crisis descend into chaos then Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia might end up at the very front line. I don't think that having a common immigration policy can ever be considered as a European super state. After all we already have something of that kind in place (Dublin III). The only difference is that its heavily staked against the Southern European countries

It's a legal thing, an actuak common immigration policy lead by an actual common border control administration means that the members recognize a common territory, common borders, common citizens and the EU(Schengen area) already shares a substantial part of the sovereignty, I just kind of gave you the attributes of a state in constitutional Law. And we don't have an actual common immigration policy at the moment anyone can do what he wants these are still multilateral agreements which is highly inefficient for obvious reasons like lack of financial means and lack of willingness.

I agree with the first part though, people need to keep in mind that immigrant traffickers makes millions and it's near impossible to have airtight borders, at some point they will just invest in better material in order to increase their efficiency and they will do it in the Bosphorus and in Mediterranean sea.

 

[The Outsider]

It's important to clearly say that Spain, France, Italy, Malta and Greece are the only countries that actually care about external border control, the other countries don't care because they aren't on the first line. And you are right when you say that this problem can't be solved by individual states but you also know what a "Union" solution would mean, it would mean that members don't have control of their borders. We would be very close from the feared European super state.

Similarly when Trump visited questioning why NATO countries were not spending at least 2% of GDP on defence it turned out only three were, UK, Poland and Greece. Poland probably because of historic Russian fear and Greece probably because of historical enmity with Turkey. The UK we know is case alone.
So Greece get's hit twice.

@devilish interesting to get your take on the new proposed route through the Black Sea and this kind of relates to a snapshot of a current affair program I caught about Bulgaria. Bulgaria was experiencing most young people leaving remote areas to move to cities and other countries yet the people questioned got quite upset when it was suggested they could help to take in the refugees from Africa and Middle East insisting they had their own particular culture and religion.

The 10k immigrant to Poland sounds very small and as a number should not really cause problems unless the debate is polarised over there. The alternative take is that 80% of migrants are single men and that they have been sexually harassing German and Swedish women and worse. It claims the media and authorities try very hard not to link this to migrants and refugees. Now whether this is true, it is the perception that is probably important.

 

[JPRouve]

That is not a NATO or even a military problem, it's a home office problem. Also the 2% rule doesn't mean much, what matters is your actual military capacities.

 

[The Outsider]

The UK did pick&chose to some extend and I agree that this is became a problem. Other countries - especially in eastern Europe and
Why should the Baltic's agree to subsidize richer countries "to save them"?

It's all nice and dandy that Macedonia wants to join the union, but without being disrespectful: they are politically and economically tiny compared to Europe. The UK alone was as big as the smallest 15-20 EU members. The big southern European countries struggle to carry themselves. They can't stabilise the EU. If the small and medium sized net-payers would contemplate to leave it would be the end of the EU. It's still a long way but there is huge dissatisfaction and the UK leaving (many of them saw the UK as the powerful nation that stand up for shared values/ideas) will only strengthen these voices.
Forcing deeper integration now against their interests is a ticking bomb.

Pedro,
I assume you meant 'poorer' rather than richer.
Interesting to hear your take about UK picking and choosing as believe the UK only used the veto once in 2011. Did you have other examples in mind?

I kind of think the UK is playing a game of dare with the EU, the veto was used to protect the City interest (banking, insurance etc) and now the financial questions with the EU appear to remain over tariff free access to the EU for this financial interest. If we don't get that the UK political parties face potential political suicide if they cannot control immigration which suggests to me hard Brexit is most likely.

I guess if this does happen the knock-on effect, with Italy being the third largest European economy and facing Greek type scenario. Unless Italy can turn things around it would only leave France and Germany to hold the Union together and both those countries have growing 'right wing' political movements.

I liked your idea of a flexible union yet for this to work a subscription would need to be paid and paid in effect for EU enlargement with countries like Macedonia and continued support for poorer countries.

I echo your, 'Forcing deeper integration now against their interests is a ticking bomb.'

 

[The Outsider]

That is not a NATO or even a military problem, it's a home office problem. Also the 2% rule doesn't mean much, what matters is your actual military capacities.

In the real world I agree, and possibly the detail in this 2% meant buying US weapons. I say that as the UK Column have been saying that in not renewing military contracts with BAE and Rolls Royce we are not only at risk of losing our independent military capability we are also at risk of getting dead ducks like the F-35 US fighter plane.

 

[devilish]

It's a legal thing, an actuak common immigration policy lead by an actual common border control administration means that the members recognize a common territory, common borders, common citizens and the EU(Schengen area) already shares a substantial part of the sovereignty, I just kind of gave you the attributes of a state in constitutional Law. And we don't have an actual common immigration policy at the moment anyone can do what he wants these are still multilateral agreements which is highly inefficient for obvious reasons like lack of financial means and lack of willingness.

I agree with the first part though, people need to keep in mind that immigrant traffickers makes millions and it's near impossible to have airtight borders, at some point they will just invest in better material in order to increase their efficiency and they will do it in the Bosphorus and in Mediterranean sea.

Europe is a rich continent and because of it its constantly under risk of unsustainable irregular immigration. The Western and Northern European countries might think it wont affect them but it will. Borders can't be constantly monitored 24/7, countries may refuse to play to the rules of the incredibly biased Dublin regulation (Greece had done that) and countries might even opt to give full citizenship/temporary visas to immigrants. Currently Malta is overrun by immigrants coming from Italy and we're supposed to have better controls on that as we do not share borders with anyone. Im pretty sure France, Austria and co suffer from that too.

Not to forget that no one knows were tragedy will strike next. A war in Ukraine might lead to millions of refugees spilling in Poland. Would the Poles be happy if the rest of Europe ends up throwing the Dublin regulation book at them and basically told them to sod off and take one for the team? I much doubt it. What about Putin deciding to go deeper in European territory until he finds some real resistance? Sure Nato is supposed to defend them but what if Trump decides he wont? Can we force them? We all know the answer

A stronger european is in better condtions to set up deals with neighbouring countries + might be in better position to defend one another in case of a Russian invasion. That benefits everyone from Norway to Poland, from Italy to Greece, from France to Malta.

 

[Mozza]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(novel)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[Mozza]

Many of those don't need Brexit to happen

 

[Dobba]

Don't worry guys, they've got the real brains on the case.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Many of those don't need Brexit to happen

Well for "Brexit will be a success" to work then it does need to happen!

 

[Sherzad]

 

[Rightnr]

Boris Clownson delivers again. And to think people call the man 'one of the most effective communicators in the UK'. Boggles the mind. Much like most of the Leave campaign people, he's a fraud through and through.

 

[Barca84]

Boris Clownson delivers again. And to think people call the man 'one of the most effective communicators in the UK'. Boggles the mind. Much like most of the Leave campaign people, he's a fraud through and through.

I think you'll find more people call him a cnut.

He's detestable and it's shameful that he holds such a significant position in government.

 

[Rightnr]

I think you'll find more people call him a cnut.

He's detestable and it's shameful that he holds such a significant position in government.

Well, that's what I'd call him if I chose to but I've seen Tories call him that and it just boggles the mind. He visited my workplace a few years ago and I was just rolling my eyes through his lame speech but people loved him because he's... funny? I really don't understand humanity sometimes.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[sullydnl]

I think you'll find more people call him a cnut.

He's detestable and it's shameful that he holds such a significant position in government.

Tbf he does communicate the fact that he's a cnut very effectively.

 

[Adisa]

Lool at the guy who says we should go even if it's a bad deal.

 

[IWat]

He's bang on in the first paragraph. The second is a bit poor though, Boris never said they could/would spent all of it on the NHS, he said "It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS."

This whole £350mil argument is frustrating, because it's in no way a big point in the whole issue yet comes up all the time. If we go with the actual figure of around £270m, it's about £14bil a year, when tax revenues are £700bil it's a drop in an ocean, and at the rate that the NHS swallows money shown below, would make a difference for a few years before more money would need to be found anyway based on the NHS budget needing to keep increasing at the same rate it has historically.

 

[Kentonio]

It's still a long way but there is huge dissatisfaction and the UK leaving (many of them saw the UK as the powerful nation that stand up for shared values/ideas) will only strengthen these voices.
Forcing deeper integration now against their interests is a ticking bomb.

On the flip side, huge numbers of people have seen the ridiculousness of the UK's manner of dealing with Brexit and wanted no part in anything similar. Brexit's main achievement so far has been to increase the popularity of the EU across Europe, not decrease it. As for forcing deeper integration, it's all going to depend on what form that integration takes and what you mean by 'forced'. An EU combined army has been a long time coming, and with the rising threats from the east and increasingly unreliable support from the US seems like an inevitability now. Any more sabre rattling from Putin, and the pressure to form a concrete defence will be hard to resist. As for other forms of integration, we'll just have to see what is actually proposed. Some ideas will be good, others potentially bad.

 

[I Believe]

I actually met a Brexiteer on a who articulated his reasonsing fairly well,

Now there's a surprise, an articulate brexiteer, my goodness what is the world coming too?

I've met a few too, seem to know what they are talking about, I was very impressed, makes you believe it can actually work, very uplifting I thought!

 

[I Believe]

On the flip side, huge numbers of people have seen the ridiculousness of the UK's manner of dealing with Brexit and wanted no part in anything similar.

Think they might do when Germany gets fed up with footing the bill for the EU 'gravy train' on its own and Trump says "Heh you guys in Europe, pay up for your own defence, or take a hike"

 

[Jippy]

Hmm, so talk is that the government is going to offer £30bn as a divorce fee. A step forward, but probably only an opening gambit. Plenty of haggling to come no doubt.

 

[PedroMendez]

Pedro,
I assume you meant 'poorer' rather than richer.
Interesting to hear your take about UK picking and choosing as believe the UK only used the veto once in 2011. Did you have other examples in mind?

I kind of think the UK is playing a game of dare with the EU, the veto was used to protect the City interest (banking, insurance etc) and now the financial questions with the EU appear to remain over tariff free access to the EU for this financial interest. If we don't get that the UK political parties face potential political suicide if they cannot control immigration which suggests to me hard Brexit is most likely.

I guess if this does happen the knock-on effect, with Italy being the third largest European economy and facing Greek type scenario. Unless Italy can turn things around it would only leave France and Germany to hold the Union together and both those countries have growing 'right wing' political movements.

I liked your idea of a flexible union yet for this to work a subscription would need to be paid and paid in effect for EU enlargement with countries like Macedonia and continued support for poorer countries.

I echo your, 'Forcing deeper integration now against their interests is a ticking bomb.'

In the euro-area countries with lower GDP per capita had to pay money to countries with higher GDP per capita.
---
Stuff like the British discount on the budget is "pick&chose". Everyone should pay it's fair share based on the same principles/rules.
----
The knock on effect of the UK leaving is that the balance of power in the EU shifted dramatically. All the decision making processes were designed around two different blocks being able to stop decisions against their interests (that's why the axis Germany-france was so important to overcome this balance). The UK leaving means, that one side lost its strongest country (considering that Germany usually ended up supporting a a middle ground solution).
The next EU reform will represent this change of power, especially when the German government continues to act like it does. The southern European countries and France will try to shift the institutions according to their interests and they'll succeed (only a question of how far they are able to push it). This is going to make various medium sized countries (who are all doing economically fairly well) pretty unhappy.
The visegrad+ countries are already pissed, but Denmark is probably the country we should look at as yardstick for this development.

 

[I Believe]

It is understandable that people keep referring to Brexit as though it is a divorce, with a settlement required between two parties, but the EU is in fact 28 parties! We cannot divorce 27 other countries, its the wrong analogy. To me its more a parting of the ways, the 27 other countries want to go one way, we want to go another, we simply shake hands at the cross roads and go our own ways, we will keep in touch through trade negotiations as these affect everyone. Cheerio, Cheerio Cheerio!

 

[devilish]

It is understandable that people keep referring to Brexit as though it is a divorce, with a settlement required between two parties, but the EU is in fact 28 parties! We cannot divorce 27 other countries, its the wrong analogy. To me its more a parting of the ways, the 27 other countries want to go one way, we want to go another, we simply shake hands at the cross roads and go our own ways, we will keep in touch through trade negotiations as these affect everyone. Cheerio, Cheerio Cheerio!

Its not a divorce but an amicable separation. Of course certain commitments where made and the UK must keep to those commitments. If it refuse then why should the EU trust the UK again by handling it an amicable trade deal? Would you help let alone trust somebody who tried to screw you up? After all the UK will be far more affected by hard brexit then the EU will ever be.

 

[The Outsider]

In the euro-area countries with lower GDP per capita had to pay money to countries with higher GDP per capita.

Still not sure I follow this so, to put into context did Spain have to pay money to Germany?

---
Stuff like the British discount on the budget is "pick&chose". Everyone should pay it's fair share based on the same principles/rules.

By budget I think you mean British Rebate, which started as a protest by Thatcher as so much money was seen to go into the CAP

----
The knock on effect of the UK leaving is that the balance of power in the EU shifted dramatically. All the decision making processes were designed around two different blocks being able to stop decisions against their interests (that's why the axis Germany-france was so important to overcome this balance). The UK leaving means, that one side lost its strongest country (considering that Germany usually ended up supporting a a middle ground solution).
The next EU reform will represent this change of power, especially when the German government continues to act like it does. The southern European countries and France will try to shift the institutions according to their interests and they'll succeed (only a question of how far they are able to push it). This is going to make various medium sized countries (who are all doing economically fairly well) pretty unhappy.
The visegrad+ countries are already pissed, but Denmark is probably the country we should look at as yardstick for this development.

Never heard of the visegrad before yet makes sense, a Lithuanian friend once told me linguistically there were crossovers between languages in Eastern Europe and normally that is linked to trade, IMO.

Like your analysis above of potential power changes in the EU and their knock-on potential for further disaffection.

 

[Kentonio]

The chaos continues..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-theresa-may-david-davis-boris-a7952756.html

 

[Kentonio]

Think they might do when Germany gets fed up with footing the bill for the EU 'gravy train' on its own and Trump says "Heh you guys in Europe, pay up for your own defence, or take a hike"

Trump mouthing off would do more for European unity than anything.

 

[I Believe]

If it refuse then why should the EU trust the UK again by handling it an amicable trade deal?

It doesn't need to, that's the beauty of a deal, one side defaults the other withdraws and/or retaliates, its the internal pressures from those directly involved in the trade arrangements, the companies/organisations/providers, those with most to lose etc. on both sides which keeps everybody honest. There is very little trust in any sort of deal on trade, its all in black and white (devil in the details you might say etc!).

I like the amicable separation, but both sides have made commitments, so far we've only heard about the UK's to the EU, what about the EU's to the UK? I suspect very little of these details will be made public, because both sides have to 'give and take' and both face hostilities internally if they are seen to 'cock it up'. A deal will be done, but it will be all 'smoke and mirrors'* the EU is good at that (*from personal experience!)

 

[AshfordLad]

It is understandable that people keep referring to Brexit as though it is a divorce, with a settlement required between two parties, but the EU is in fact 28 parties! We cannot divorce 27 other countries, its the wrong analogy. To me its more a parting of the ways, the 27 other countries want to go one way, we want to go another, we simply shake hands at the cross roads and go our own ways, we will keep in touch through trade negotiations as these affect everyone. Cheerio, Cheerio Cheerio!

It is a bit like a divorce in that the 27 others have a high degree of dependence on the UK for budget contributions as well as their balance of trade. Quite similar to a working spouse and the homestayer. Although Germany contributes more cash but it benefits massively from a weak currency and trade surplus so UK could be seen as at earning spouse in such a case.

 

[I Believe]

Trump mouthing off would do more for European unity than anything.

You're having a laugh...Yes?

 

[I Believe]

Although Germany contributes more cash but it benefits massively from a weak currency and trade surplus so UK could be seen as at earning spouse in such a case.

True, but Germany will have to contribute a lot more and once they are the major donator the euro will become ipso-facto the new Deutschemark and carry that currency burden on German exports

 

[AshfordLad]

True, but Germany will have to contribute a lot more and once they are the major donator the euro will become ipso-facto the new Deutschemark and carry that currency burden on German exports

No. In the current Eurozone, Germany will continue to benefit from both the currency and the exports. The Germans could/should just pick up the tab for UKs contributions once UK stops paying and they would still be in the green.
Of course there are other troubles looming like arranging a military budget and the high handedness of the Germans on a lot of social issues but economics on the whole is not such a big worry.

 

[devilish]

It doesn't need to, that's the beauty of a deal, one side defaults the other withdraws and/or retaliates, its the internal pressures from those directly involved in the trade arrangements, the companies/organisations/providers, those with most to lose etc. on both sides which keeps everybody honest. There is very little trust in any sort of deal on trade, its all in black and white (devil in the details you might say etc!).

I like the amicable separation, but both sides have made commitments, so far we've only heard about the UK's to the EU, what about the EU's to the UK? I suspect very little of these details will be made public, because both sides have to 'give and take' and both face hostilities internally if they are seen to 'cock it up'. A deal will be done, but it will be all 'smoke and mirrors'* the EU is good at that (*from personal experience!)

Please note that the UK is the one leaving Europe and not viceversa. That was after being so insistent to get into Europe for access and that was at a tim when the UK was known to be the sick person of Europe. Brexiters will debate that the union they joined was way different to what it is now. There again, they fail to acknowledge that the UK agreed with most of the changes made (including allowing Eastern European countries in) and it could have vetoed every change it disagreed with.

The union is blessed with the richest market in the world. Everyone seems to want a trade deal with the EU which gives it plenty of leverage. Compared to it the UK market is relatively small. Sure the latter buys more than its sells. There again, no EU country is dependent to the UK market (apart from maybe Ireland) while the UK is pretty dependent on the EU (around half of its export goes to the EU)

The EU also has a huge responsibility to all individual states to make sure that such privilege isn’t abused. That is why the few non EU countries who were allowed unrestricted access have to abide to its rules.

The UK could have considered a CETA deal which would have allowed some form of relationship with the EU while retaining most of its ‘sovereignty’. Unfortunately the UK wants far more access to the EU market than that. On the other side of the spectrum, the UK could have opted for an EEA membership or the Swiss model. The UK is against that because it wants to independent from the ECJ and it doesn’t want to give FOM of people. That is strange considering that it contributed greatly to shape the former and in the past was a big fan of the latter. Finally there’s the custom union option which is somehow sitting in the middle. That option was also shot down as the UK is confident that it can do a better job in sealing trade deals then the work of a unified continent

In few words its wobbly government whose littered with Eurosceptics (some of whom are pretty rude about it) and might not be there at the end of the year is expecting a new ‘bold’ deal which would allow the UK to cherry pick on the issues they currently want and discard other things they were previously in favour but they don’t want anymore. On top of that, they aren’t so sure they want to commit themselves on paying the EU budget they have previously agreed with. Ah I almost forget, since leaving the EU without no trade deals in place would be disastrous for the UK, they might, or might not want a transitional trade deal of an undetermined period of time with an undetermined set of rules which the UK will most probably determine beforehand. Good luck with achieving that.

 

[The Outsider]

The UK could have considered a CETA deal which would have allowed some form of relationship with the EU while retaining most of its ‘sovereignty’. Unfortunately the UK wants far more access to the EU market than that. On the other side of the spectrum, the UK could have opted for an EEA membership or the Swiss model. The UK is against that because it wants to independent from the ECJ and it doesn’t want to give FOM of people. That is strange considering that it contributed greatly to shape the former and in the past was a big fan of the latter. Finally there’s the custom union option which is somehow sitting in the middle. That option was also shot down as the UK is confident that it can do a better job in sealing trade deals then the work of a unified continent

In few words its wobbly government whose littered with Eurosceptics (some of whom are pretty rude about it) and might not be there at the end of the year is expecting a new ‘bold’ deal which would allow the UK to cherry pick on the issues they currently want and discard other things they were previously in favour but they don’t want anymore. On top of that, they aren’t so sure they want to commit themselves on paying the EU budget they have previously agreed with. Ah I almost forget, since leaving the EU without no trade deals in place would be disastrous for the UK, they might, or might not want a transitional trade deal of an undetermined period of time with an undetermined set of rules which the UK will most probably determine beforehand. Good luck with achieving that.

CETA is not yet even a done deal if this article still holds valid:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...rexit-trade-deal-justin-trudeau-a7380751.html

When I think of trade deals I think of market access - like the City of London wants access to the European free market - one of the big issues.

Yet when I think of companies like Dyson and JCB I don't think they are looking to arrange a trade deal their concern is for them to sell their wares in the EU?
So without a trade deal will they sell them with the margin dictated by the WTO?
If so their products would be a x% point more expensive?

Do you agree?

 

[I Believe]

UK to cherry pick on the issues they currently want and discard other things

That's it, got it one, not hard to understand is it?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

That's it, got it one, not hard to understand is it?

This is exactly what has been said all along, the UK have one plan and one plan only, "the cake and eat it" plan - despite being told on numerous occasions that they'd better start thinking sensibly. Still hasn't sunk in yet, though, apparently.