Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Good comparison, china, workers rights nill

Eu, slavery on the up. Ace
You've got that wrong - again.

UK, slavery on the up. British politicians have been the leading lot to diminish workers rights and protection in the EU. And yet your very own personal approach is that you want everything for free or at least as cheep as possible. Your middle name surely must be 'double standards'.
 
You've got that wrong - again.

UK, slavery on the up. British politicians have been the leading lot to diminish workers rights and protection in the EU. And yet your very own personal approach is that you want everything for free or at least as cheep as possible. Your middle name surely must be 'double standards'.
Think you'll find brits want everything for free in the uk. You want good services and low taxes, take a look at yourselves .
 
Yep, just read it. Baffling how some people seem to quite genuinely think May would be any more competent at dealing with this than any of the opposition leaders.

I interpret it quite differently. That the EU have reacted so badly to informal preliminary discussions says to me that they are more concerned about Britain crashing out of the EU than I thought. I read in The Economist that the German's are especially concerned about us not paying the 'divorce bill' as they think it will largely fall onto their toes to make up the shortfall.

It also shows that they want to play hardball, taking a conciliatory approach, like so many on here want us to, is a terrible idea IMO.

I think Downing Street will be quietly encouraged by the reaction.
 
Food and drink in the supermarket has not gone up by 10-20% since the vote, that is complete rubbish.

It's very simple maths that if your currency devalues by 20% then your imports will go up by 20%. Even British produce has gone up though, presumably because there is now greater demand from abroad with the weaker pound.

Loss Leaders likes milk have gone up by about 10%, smart price tinned tomatos have gone up from 25p to 29p. Supermarkets have publically argued with suppliers about it and suppliers have responded by having smaller packets or less quality. Branded tinned tomatoes have less tomatoes and more tomato juice. Frozen chicken now has more water added.

So yes I'd say real inflation 15-20% is about right.

The whole tariff / quota situation is currently hear say, nothing is concrete to what will happen. The UK import quite a lot from Europe, I can't see why the EU would hinder one of its biggest customers by increasing prices through tariffs as the UK will just go elsewhere. At the moment this is just a stance the EU is putting up to ensure they receive the 'divorce payment'.

No it isn't, May has taken us out of the single market and there is no trade deal. Until a trade deal is done tarriffs will be in place once Brexit hits and WTO Tarrifs will automatically be in place. Trade deals are very complicated and can take a decade to complete, especially ones with financial services, which is the most important part of UK exports.

The UK also need a majority vote of EU countries to get any trade deal through. There's also the problem that if BREXIT is a success, then other countries may follow suit. So it's not in the EUs interest for BREXIT to be successful.

Again with the banks, I know of some banks that have opened new branches in EU countries but as yet they have not confirmed moving their main headquarters to the EU from the UK. If this was to happen the UK are bound to offer incentives to stay, as they are already doing with lower corporation tax.

Some have relocated head offices prior to Brexit even hitting. Unless a free trade agreement including financial services is agreed more will leave.

You're right that the divorce payment and an annual payment to the EU maybe Britain's saving grace here. The 'no parallel talks' stance is not allowing that right now.
 
I interpret it quite differently. That the EU have reacted so badly to informal preliminary discussions says to me that they are more concerned about Britain crashing out of the EU than I thought. I read in The Economist that the German's are especially concerned about us not paying the 'divorce bill' as they think it will largely fall onto their toes to make up the shortfall.

It also shows that they want to play hardball, taking a conciliatory approach, like so many on here want us to, is a terrible idea IMO.

I think Downing Street will be quietly encouraged by the reaction.

Being clear that you're not agreeing to a divorce payment without a trade agreement is all well and good. May's stance should have been clear, Britain will only agree to pay divorce payments under the provision that a trade deal is agreed. However saying 'we don't need to pay this legally' is ill informed. She doesn't seem to care about a trade deal, she's simply saying what she wants and not offering anything in return which isn't the way you do deals and make agreements.

You have to ask what the end game is? Does Britain lose it's financial institutions and other multinationals to Germany and France because of tarriffs? If I was France or Germany I'd happily sacrifice some losses in British exports if I could lure these lucrative companies to my country and benefit from their job creation and tax payments.
 
Being clear that you're not agreeing to a divorce payment without a trade agreement is all well and good. May's stance should have been clear, Britain will only agree to pay divorce payments under the provision that a trade deal is agreed. However saying 'we don't need to pay this legally' is ill informed. She doesn't seem to care about a trade deal, she's simply saying what she wants and not offering anything in return which isn't the way you do deals and make agreements.

You have to ask what the end game is? Does Britain lose it's financial institutions and other multinationals to Germany and France because of tarriffs? If I was France or Germany I'd happily sacrifice some losses in British exports if I could lure these lucrative companies to my country and benefit from their job creation and tax payments.

I'm sure that the EU understand her stance. The EU's reaction to an informal meeting has been extraordinary. They even got in touch with the BBC to confirm that it wasn't 'Brussel's gossip'. I don't think it will have the desired effect of trying to undermine her domestically with the election coming up, if that is their reasoning. The Brexit bunch will be delighted with her rattling the EU.

What happened to the EU not caring about a trade deal with the UK? Their heavy handed actions suggest that they are quite worried about something.
 
God it's not even the summer yet and people are already talking about transfers.
 
I'm sure that the EU understand her stance. The EU's reaction to an informal meeting has been extraordinary. They even got in touch with the BBC to confirm that it wasn't 'Brussel's gossip'. I don't think it will have the desired effect of trying to undermine her domestically with the election coming up, if that is their reasoning. The Brexit bunch will be delighted with her rattling the EU.

What happened to the EU not caring about a trade deal with the UK? Their heavy handed actions suggest that they are quite worried about something.

What do you consider to be heavy handed actions?
 
I'm sure that the EU understand her stance. The EU's reaction to an informal meeting has been extraordinary. They even got in touch with the BBC to confirm that it wasn't 'Brussel's gossip'. I don't think it will have the desired effect of trying to undermine her domestically with the election coming up, if that is their reasoning. The Brexit bunch will be delighted with her rattling the EU.

What happened to the EU not caring about a trade deal with the UK? Their heavy handed actions suggest that they are quite worried about something.

They don't seem worried, they seem baffled. There are noe heavy handed actions and there is literally nothing that lets them seem worried. They are just genuinly baffled by how May is overestimating the strenght of her position.
 
What do you consider to be heavy handed actions?

Strategic and damning leaks of an informal dinner and talks that included Junker supposedly saying 'a trade deal is now 10 times less likely to happen' (what drama) and contacting the BBC to confirm the details after Downing Street brushed it off as 'Brussels gossip'.

Negotiations haven't even started!

They don't seem worried, they seem baffled. There are noe heavy handed actions and there is literally nothing that lets them seem worried. They are just genuinly baffled by how May is overestimating the strenght of her position.

They are going to significant lengths to make that point. If they are are so relaxed why bother?

Heavy handed might be the wrong phase but they hardly look an unconcerned party to me.
 
Strategic and damning leaks of an informal dinner and talks that included Junker supposedly saying 'a trade deal is now 10 times less likely to happen' (what drama) and contacting the BBC to confirm the details after Downing Street brushed it off as 'Brussels gossip'.

Negotiations haven't even started!



They are going to significant lengths to make that point. If they are are so relaxed why bother?

So? They act from a position of strenght and bully the player overestimating his cards. Pretty standard. I really do think Brits, yet again, overestimate their own importance. This is just what the EU does to smaller foreign powers.
 
So? They act from a position of strenght and bully the player overestimating his cards. Pretty standard. I really do think Brits, yet again, overestimate their own importance. This is just what the EU does to minor foreign powers.

:lol:

You are obviously judging this from an emotional perspective.

If the EU are using bully boy tactics, as you say, then of course the UK should push back.

The proof is in the pudding, the EU are not acting like they are dealing with an unimportant entity here.
 
Strategic and damning leaks of an informal dinner and talks that included Junker supposedly saying 'a trade deal is now 10 times less likely to happen' (what drama) and contacting the BBC to confirm the details after Downing Street brushed it off as 'Brussels gossip'.

Negotiations haven't even started!

Like fcbforever wrote that's standard. Juncker is a drama queen everyone knows that and he isn't really important(despite his position), Barnier is a lot more important because he is the one actually carrying the members will and the one actually negotiating.
 
:lol:

You are obviously judging this from an emotional perspective.

If the EU are using bully boy tactics, as you say, then of course the UK should push back.

The proof is in the pudding, the EU are not acting like they are dealing with an unimportant entity here.

"Unimportant" is not the same as acknowledging that one economy is roughly 6 times as big as the other one, and the bigger one is rightly baffled that the small one thinks it can dictate the way things go. How's that emotional?
Sorry, you are being emotional here. You seem to desperately searching for signs that this shitshow of an executive somehow has got a working plan when it just doesn't.
 
Last edited:
"Unimportant" is not the same as acknowledging that one economy is roughly 6 times as big as the other one, and the bigger one is rightly baffled that the small one things it can dictate the way things go. How's that emotional?
Sorry, you are being emotional here. You seem to desperately searching for signs that this shitshow of an executive somehow has got a working plan when it just doesn't.

I fully acknowledge that the UK is the junior partner here, it is an inalienable fact. In any negotiation the junior partner should always push back as much as they can to seek a favourable deal.

The idea that the UK should simply wilt and accept all the EU's demands straight away, as a negotiating tactic, is ridiculous.
 
I fully acknowledge that the UK is the junior partner here, it is an inalienable fact. In any negotiation the junior partner should always push back as much as they can to seek a favourable deal.

The idea that the UK should simply wilt and accept all the EU's demands straight away, as a negotiating tactic, is ridiculous.

Absolutely. What is baffling us Europeans right now, including Juncker, is the fact that the UK (or, May & gouverment) is not only pushing back, but is instead seemingly expecting the EU to simply wilt and accept all of its demands.

This really is a misconception, nobody expects the UK to just bend over, but right now the UK is acting like it completely dictate what will happening. And now, with a partner 6 times as big you can't do this, you will have to find a middle road if you want to have an agreement in the end.
At the current rate, the UK really just will crash and burn out of the EU because of this stupid way of handling negotiations.
 
I fully acknowledge that the UK is the junior partner here, it is an inalienable fact. In any negotiation the junior partner should always push back as much as they can to seek a favourable deal.

The idea that the UK should simply wilt and accept all the EU's demands straight away, as a negotiating tactic, is ridiculous.

That idea doesn't exist though, for the simple reason that the EU hasn't asked for anything yet. At the moment the problem is that the UK are trying to obtain things that have been excluded by EU members as a whole, I imagine that the UK are just testing the water though since I don't believe that they are idiots, they have been members of the EU for a long time and they know that EU negotiators aren't exactly easy.
 
I'm sure that the EU understand her stance. The EU's reaction to an informal meeting has been extraordinary. They even got in touch with the BBC to confirm that it wasn't 'Brussel's gossip'. I don't think it will have the desired effect of trying to undermine her domestically with the election coming up, if that is their reasoning. The Brexit bunch will be delighted with her rattling the EU.

What happened to the EU not caring about a trade deal with the UK? Their heavy handed actions suggest that they are quite worried about something.

They don't. Rather than being worried it suggests they're following through on their threat to make sure Brexit doesn't work. If they block a trade deal they take big business from Britain into EU nation states. The beomouth will always win in a trade war.
 
That idea doesn't exist though, for the simple reason that the EU hasn't asked for anything yet. At the moment the problem is that the UK are trying to obtain things that have been excluded by EU members as a whole, I imagine that the UK are just testing the water though since I don't believe that they are idiots, they have been members of the EU for a long time and they know that EU negotiators aren't exactly easy.

They have made clear certain sticking points, including the 'divorce bill' which is the bone of contention in this case.
 
That idea doesn't exist though, for the simple reason that the EU hasn't asked for anything yet. At the moment the problem is that the UK are trying to obtain things that have been excluded by EU members as a whole, I imagine that the UK are just testing the water though since I don't believe that they are idiots, they have been members of the EU for a long time and they know that EU negotiators aren't exactly easy.

They have, or at least made it known that the UK will have to pay an exit fee.
 
That idea doesn't exist though, for the simple reason that the EU hasn't asked for anything yet. At the moment the problem is that the UK are trying to obtain things that have been excluded by EU members as a whole, I imagine that the UK are just testing the water though since I don't believe that they are idiots, they have been members of the EU for a long time and they know that EU negotiators aren't exactly easy.

Are you quite sure about this, no signs yet to the contrary.
 
They have made clear certain sticking points, including the 'divorce bill' which is the bone of contention in this case.
They have, or at least made it known that the UK will have to pay an exit fee.

Not really, the UK and the EU have liabilities and it's important for both side to settle them. The UK will either pay their part in advance or legally acknowledge their liabilities. You don't really expect to leave the bill on the table.
 
Not really, the UK and the EU have liabilities and it's important for both side to settle them. The UK will either pay their part in advance or legally acknowledge their liabilities. You don't really expect to leave the bill on the table.

Maybe I misunderstand. Here is my take, and by no means am I saying I agree with the standpoint of the UK.

Both sides have liabilities: Yes
Both sides agree on whos liabilities are bigger (or who would owe who when liabilities are netted): No
The EU say the UK would need to pay up, the UK is taking the stance of disagreeing.
 
Maybe I misunderstand. Here is my take, and by no means am I saying I agree with the standpoint of the UK.

Both sides have liabilities: Yes
Both sides agree on whos liabilities are bigger (or who would owe who when liabilities are netted): No
The EU say the UK would need to pay up, the UK is taking the stance of disagreeing.

I found this helpful and balanced both sides liabilities are acknowledged but look at the last to points, those are the problems.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/brexit-explained/eu-divorce-bill
 
Can someone explain exactly why the EU needs the UK? I don't understand the position of strength the Uk has.
Trade is a plus sum game; both sides win or both sides loose. The UK economy is almost as big as the economy of the 20 smallest EU countries combined. It is not hard to see why both sides benefit from cooperation. Additionally the EU economy is structured along the lines of the single market. So when a big member leaves, that creates a lot of disruption for both sides. The UK is not in a position of strength but in the end the dynamic of these negotiations are the same for both sides: Either both sides minimize detrimental effects or both sides suffer from them. The EU economy is still bigger than the UK economy, so the “per capita” downsides are smaller. Yet the EU is never going to benefit from “punishing” the UK without also hurting themselves.

Ignoring some of the vocal idiots on the European side, European politicians seem to be aware of that. I am actually quite encouraged from what they said so far. They walked back on the 60bn figure and just said, that both sides have to settle promised contribution; that is necessary and reasonable. It is also reasonable to negotiate some of the key issues before moving on towards a new trade deal. Yet the EU was always willing to offer a transition agreement. Overall I was worried, that the EU is trying to push an extra hard bargain, but most of what they said is quite okay. Extensive transparency is also an important issue. Due to the experience with TPIP, the EU is moving towards a level of transparency that is unheard of on national level. I am usually very critical of the EU, but they deserve praise for that and hopefully they are able to set a standard that national governments are going to follow.

The stance of the UK side is a bit confusing in the sense that they still don’t seem to know what they want. Instead of showing good faith and starting to negotiate the details, they are still stuck in campaign mode. 2 years is a very short time and they shouldn’t waste a single day on bullshit.

It almost looks like they want to end up with WTO rules.
 
I found this helpful and balanced both sides liabilities are acknowledged but look at the last to points, those are the problems.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/brexit-explained/eu-divorce-bill

Yes that is what I am saying (again not saying I agree with the UK stance) but my point originally was that the EU has asked for something already or at least drawn their line in the sand by taking the stance that the UK WILL owe a divorce bill.

If the UK stance is that there are other financials which need to be taken into case and can offset such a bill (for instance European Investment Bank capital payments)

Then the UK may disagree.
 
Yes that is what I am saying (again not saying I agree with the UK stance) but my point originally was that the EU has asked for something already or at least drawn their line in the sand by taking the stance that the UK WILL owe a divorce bill.

If the UK stance is that there are other financials which need to be taken into case and can offset such a bill (for instance European Investment Bank capital payments)

Then the UK may disagree.

No the EU has estimated it, which is different from a demand, while the UK don't want to talk about it and seem to say "you can't make us pay". If the UK were acknowledging the subject and were willing to negotiate or discuss about it there would be little problems but it is seemingly not what is happening.

Your second point is basically what should be expected but isn't apparently happening, that type of attitude will be a problem when both sides will meet again for a deal.
 
No the EU has estimated it, which is different from a demand, while the UK don't want to talk about it and seem to say "you can't make us pay". If the UK were acknowledging the subject and were willing to negotiate or discuss about it there would be little problems but it is seemingly not what is happening.

Your second point is basically what should be expected but isn't apparently happening, that type of attitude will be a problem when both sides will meet again for a deal.

Fair enough. Well I can't say I am all that confident about the UK government and their ability to handle these talks well who, knows what will happens.
Since the negotiations haven't yet started though, lets hope its all grandstanding.
 
I expect the UK government's tone to change once the UK general election is over. Domestically battling with the EU is good political currency for them.

Correct me if I am wrong but the real negotiations won't start until late summer regardless?
 
I expect the UK government's tone to change once the UK general election is over. Domestically battling with the EU is good political currency for them.

Correct me if I am wrong but the real negotiations won't start until late summer regardless?

True, but this in itself is quite reckless considering A50's already been activated - they should be working on negotiations now instead of politically pandering to the electorate.
 
I expect the UK government's tone to change once the UK general election is over. Domestically battling with the EU is good political currency for them.

Correct me if I am wrong but the real negotiations won't start until late summer regardless?

Negotiations are supposed to start after the election in June. The clock started ticking when A50 was triggered so three months wasted plus the EU expect to finish talks 6 months before the end of the 2 years to get approval by the EU27.
 
Negotiations are supposed to start after the election in June. The clock started ticking when A50 was triggered so three months wasted plus the EU expect to finish talks 6 months before the end of the 2 years to get approval by the EU27.

I'm pretty sure I heard this on Radio 4 that the negotiations couldn't start because of the French elections and then the EU officials have July as a month when they take annual leave so in real terms it would be later in the summer regardless.
 
I'm pretty sure I heard this on Radio 4 that the negotiations couldn't start because of the French elections and then the EU officials have July as a month when they take annual leave so in real terms it would be later in the summer regardless.

It may well turn out like that and also there are the German elections in September , not a lot of time
 
I'm pretty sure I heard this on Radio 4 that the negotiations couldn't start because of the French elections and then the EU officials have July as a month when they take annual leave so in real terms it would be later in the summer regardless.

Pity the strong stable leadership didn't actually factor that in before activating A50