Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[K13]

The thing is, @K13, that going out with no deal is by no means an end to anything. It's the start of a new negotiation process where the UK has to negotiate a trade deal with... the EU (and every single other country and trade bloc you want to trade with). All trade will happen on WTO terms until trade deals have been put in place (the EU's recent deal with Japan took about ~6 years to get through). WTO terms are about as bad as it gets so you'll surely want new deals in place (which will take years). The problem with having to negotiate new deals is that is that you're not part of a large trade bloc any longer and will have to negotiate from a position of desperation and with very little leverage compared to a few years ago. This is also why a lot of people are fairly confident in saying that the UK have fecked themselves over. There's no way the UK will get better trade deals from a position of weakness. Add to that that the UK can't agree with themselves what they want anyway.
So yeah, the work doesn't end at all with no deal, it'll be much more difficult getting favourable terms and the people in charge are either mostly interested in power and their own wealth, utterly incompetent or both.

I have heard this argument many times but again looking at it from the other side whilst being on your side many believe it will make trade negotiation stronger because it is a 1 on 1 deal rather than all the EU.

To suggest it will be more difficult if we don't have a deal does not necessarily stack up. I appreciate it is not the same but when buying I have found that being a free agent gets me a better deal.

I am sure there are people interested in power/wealth - you get them in all walks of life but there are in my opinion many dedicated public servants as MPS as well.

 

[golden_blunder]

The silent majority should be renamed the sleeping majority. They need to wake up and get in the game!

 

[K13]

If someone has a scenario where we come out economically stronger, I'd love to hear it. What I want to hear though is actual details, not just 'we can trade with anyone we want!' sunny uplands bullshit.

Equally looking at it from both sides would you be willing to bet your mortgage that we won't come out stronger. Even the economists who have the skill and tools to predict future markets can not agree.

We have heard how long trade deals have taken but we don't know why they have taken such a long time. Both sides can use that uncertainty to their advantage.

 

[K13]

The silent majority should be renamed the sleeping majority. They need to wake up and get in the game!

I suppose that very much depends on which side they enter the game. If they enter on the wrong side for you what then?

 

[golden_blunder]

I suppose that very much depends on which side they enter the game. If they enter on the wrong side for you what then?

That’s fine, I just feel that people are burying their heads thinking politicians will resolve the biggest issue in their lifelines. There’s too much faith in these people, many of them look beaten already

 

[Jacko21]

I know it's been done to death, but it was assumed (by virtually everyone, I reckon) that we would have a negotiated deal by the time we left the EU. It's unbelievable that we've ended up in this situation so late in the day.

A deal has been negotiated. But nobody can stomach it.

Getting any deal through Parliament was always going to be a struggle because of May's refusal to make it a cross-party effort and because accepting any deal meant staunch Brexiteers wouldn't get the 'clean break' they crave and remainers would lose any chance they had of overthrowing the result. Throw in party-politics, career politicians and an increasing amount of bitterness and division and what you have is gridlock.

If you still believe your preferred option is on the table, why agree to anything else? Better to stall a bit in the hope that the winds of change blow your way. MP's can talk all they like about how they're acting in the interests of the people, but they all have an opinion on how they want this to end. The longer this has dragged on, the more encouraged both factions have become. This should've all been headed off at the pass.

 

[Kentonio]

Equally looking at it from both sides would you be willing to bet your mortgage that we won't come out stronger.

Absolutely, I like free money.

We have heard how long trade deals have taken but we don't know why they have taken such a long time. Both sides can use that uncertainty to their advantage.

Yes we do know why they have taken so long, there is absolutely zero confusion over that. They take so long because they include hugely complicated trade details that can have huge effects on domestic production, export and import of a huge range of products. No-one wants to sign a detail that sounds great, only to find out a month later that they just accidentally wiped out their agriculture sector, or flooded their market with cheap products that destroy their manufacturing base in a particular sector. This stuff has to be closely studied, intense consultations carried out with relevant interests and stakeholders, and questions of standards and potential impacts examined in painstaking detail. Then they have to negotiate every clause with the other country/countries who might have very different requirements/desires and all that has to be horse traded which takes years. If someone is signing a trade deal quickly it generally means they're desperate.

Oh and no both sides will not use that to their advantage. Any potential trade partners already have a raft of existing trade deals and a new deal with the UK is going to enhance their trade. The UK meanwhile will have no trade deals and be desperate to find some. Which of those do you imagine is going to be happy to sit and wait?

The only potential trade partner who is going to be losing trade from no deal (other than us) is the EU, and gosh isn't that going to be a fun negotiation when we've just spent 3 years hurting their economies, treating them with hostility, and quite possibly refusing to pay money we owe them. Oh and of course they're only losing a small part of their trade, and will be more than capable of leaving us sitting sweating in order to get the best deal possible from us.

 

[K13]

That’s fine, I just feel that people are burying their heads thinking politicians will resolve the biggest issue in their lifelines. There’s too much faith in these people, many of them look beaten already

I do sympathise. It must be very hard if you feel that Parliament is constantly on the opposite side of what you want from them. I can see you are very passionate.

I hoped there would be a win:win for both sides but the last 3 years have shown that to be a pipe dream. I would personally like us to stay connected in some form but I feel because it has got so toxic the hardliners - with Farage - will dig their heels in and will cause even more damage if this is delayed.

 

[Maticmaker]

I know it's been done to death, but it was assumed (by virtually everyone, I reckon) that we would have a negotiated deal by the time we left the EU. It's unbelievable that we've ended up in this situation so late in the day.

Yes I tend to agree, I don't think many people thought in stark/binary terms, even though that was how the question was put, at least not until May issued her "No deal is better than a bad deal" statement. It then was distilled into, a) Remainers believing she would revoke A50 if a 'bad deal' was the only thing on offer, whereas; b) leavers assumed we would just leave if no deal could be agreed. The waves parted and we are now about to be washed up on the shore. Depending on how you see things, the UK is going to experience catastrophic change, or as my old mum said, receive a sharp kick up the backside to get you going!

 

[Jacko21]

That’s fine, I just feel that people are burying their heads thinking politicians will resolve the biggest issue in their lifelines. There’s too much faith in these people, many of them look beaten already

More would get involved if they were remunerated to the tune of £79,000 + expenses.

I say that in jest, but plenty take the view that it's the job (literally) of MP's to resolve this - they've been given an instruction, 'why should I be asked to vote again' etc etc...

The indicative votes fiasco earlier this year laid bare just how unlikely it is that MP's will sort this amongst themselves - it would appear they need someone to make the decision for them. Right now, Boris is doing that, in the most controversial fashion imaginable. If he fails, then the decision might fall on the electorate, again. Unless of course a deal is passed at the eleventh hour because MPs feel backed into a corner with time having run out.

 

[K13]

Yes we do know why they have taken so long, there is absolutely zero confusion over that. They take so long because they include hugely complicated trade details that can have huge effects on domestic production, export and import of a huge range of products. No-one wants to sign a detail that sounds great, only to find out a month later that they just accidentally wiped out their agriculture sector, or flooded their market with cheap products that destroy their manufacturing base in a particular sector. This stuff has to be closely studied, intense consultations carried out with relevant interests and stakeholders, and questions of standards and potential impacts examined in painstaking detail. Then they have to negotiate every clause with the other country/countries who might have very different requirements/desires and all that has to be horse traded which takes years. If someone is signing a trade deal quickly it generally means they're desperate.

Oh and no both sides will not use that to their advantage. Any potential trade partners already have a raft of existing trade deals and a new deal with the UK is going to enhance their trade. The UK meanwhile will have no trade deals and be desperate to find some. Which of those do you imagine is going to be happy to sit and wait?

The only potential trade partner who is going to be losing trade from no deal (other than us) is the EU, and gosh isn't that going to be a fun negotiation when we've just spent 3 years hurting their economies, treating them with hostility, and quite possibly refusing to pay money we owe them. Oh and of course they're only losing a small part of their trade, and will be more than capable of leaving us sitting sweating in order to get the best deal possible from us.

There are over 40 trade deals with 70 countries that need to be done. I believe some have been done already to some degree.

You could say that or you could also say that this could open new avenues.

Our biggest trade is with the US. We take far less from them than they buy from us. We export nearly twice as much as we import so lots of avenues there to explore if we need to import.

We import the most from Germany but we export a fair amount as well - if they start to increase tariffs then surely we will as well.

Other import/export partners - evenly balanced based on what we export/import.

It sounds as though you think this is war and that they will try and starve us of imports by raising prices.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I know it's been done to death, but it was assumed (by virtually everyone, I reckon) that we would have a negotiated deal by the time we left the EU. It's unbelievable that we've ended up in this situation so late in the day.

But Brexiters had no plan to start with.
Then May came along with the cake and eat it plan.
Corbyn said he had a better cake and eat it plan.
Some people want the UK's economy to crash.

In the meantime there never has been a solution to the Irish border other than the UK(or Northern Ireland) staying in the Customs Union and Single Market.

Notwithstanding all of the above, many people think they would have had a trade deal thrown in.

I don't see how they would ever come to an agreement unless the British politicians stop lying.

 

[Kentonio]

It sounds as though you think this is war and that they will try and starve us of imports by raising prices.

Other countries will do whatever is necessary to secure the best possible deal for their own citizens. That's one of the issues I have with so many leavers, they act as if every country should bend over backwards for the UK, but the UK should be free to feck over whoever they like.

Last I checked we've already cost the other EU countries billions with Brexit preparations, money they would far, far rather be spending making their own citizens lives better. We're now talking about not paying our commitments and walking away leaving them holding the bill. Do you not realize that at some point if the UK keeps poking them, they are going to bite back?

 

[Florida Man]

I fear that the actual affects won't be known for another decade or so, when debt is skyrocketed and our public services have all been sold off. Unfortunately by that point a big chunk of people will have forgotten how good it used to be and accept their shit lives as being commonplace.

Switch out a couple of words and this could fit into the United forum.

 

[K13]

Other countries will do whatever is necessary to secure the best possible deal for their own citizens. That's one of the issues I have with so many leavers, they act as if every country should bend over backwards for the UK, but the UK should be free to feck over whoever they like.

Last I checked we've already cost the other EU countries billions with Brexit preparations, money they would far, far rather be spending making their own citizens lives better. We're now talking about not paying our commitments and walking away leaving them holding the bill. Do you not realize that at some point if the UK keeps poking them, they are going to bite back?

I know a few leavers and I think that must be the press because all this empire argument never entered their thoughts. They just wanted us to be free of the extra layer of government. As a remainer we have some very good healthy debates and learn't alot from each stance.

From what I have read in the extreme right sided broadsheets is that it is a threat. Of course you have to be prepared to follow that through. If we have damaged their citizens to date I am not sure why they would prolong that agony by making trade difficult which would surely harm their own long prospects as well because imports and exports are both key.

I suppose if we are looking at an eg of a country that has been damaged economically then Iceland is probably a good fit. When all looked to be stacked against them their shoots of recovery have been so impressive and how many expected that? They even beat us as football.

 

[Simbo]

No one knows as it has never been done before. What if equally it turns out to be the best thing we have ever done. Plenty believe it will be just as plenty believe it is a horrible idea.

Nobody knows? If a country unilaterally rips up every single international trade deal overnight, deals the entire countries' economy and industry is built on, YOU THINK NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN?????

You think knowbody knows what effect customs checks on every lorry entering the country will have? Today they flash their EUR1 form and they go straight through. From Nov 1st every lorry needs to prove VAT & Duty has been paid on whatever goods are in the back. I don't know the extent of the delays this will cause or how long it'll take to implement a system to streamline it but I KNOW it's bad news and you can be damn sure this current government does know and refuses to tell you.

There are people out there that know exactly what the supply and demand is of all pharmacutilcal products supplied to the UK, they know the half-life of all these products and they know the damage done from each day of delay.

You think nobody knows whats going to happen in N. Ireland when border checks begin? You think the Scottish people don't know exactly which way things are headed?

Give me a break.

 

[K13]

Nobody knows? If a country unilaterally rips up every single international trade deal overnight, deals the entire countries' economy and industry is built on, YOU THINK NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN?????

You think knowbody knows what effect customs checks on every lorry entering the country will have? Today they flash their EUR1 form and they go straight through. From Nov 1st every lorry needs to prove VAT & Duty has been paid on whatever goods are in the back. I don't know the extent of the delays this will cause or how long it'll take to implement a system to streamline it but I KNOW it's bad news and you can be damn sure this current government does know and refuses to tell you.

There are people out there that know exactly what the supply and demand is of all pharmacutilcal products supplied to the UK, they know the half-life of all these products and they know the damage done from each day of delay.

You think nobody knows whats going to happen in N. Ireland when border checks begin? You think the Scottish people don't know exactly which way things are headed?

Give me a break.

Your caps make you seem a little aggressive which I am sure you are not.

Brexit has not been done before - that is surely a fact and that is what my point related to.

All my other points and stance have been recounted already today.

 

[Simbo]

Your caps make you seem a little aggressive which I am sure you are not.

Brexit has not been done before - that is surely a fact and that is what my point related to.

All my other points and stance have been recounted already today.

Not normally agressive no, but I am angry, I care about this country.

 

[K13]

Not normally agressive no, but I am angry, I care about this country.

So do I. I am a remainer as well.

The point I have been trying to make - perhaps badly - is that if the 48% had accepted that we are going to leave then perhaps we would have had a better opportunity to get a 'soft' brexit. Yesterday at the London march there were calls for 'stop brexit'. That should have been nipped in the bud by all parties as soon as the vote was known because it is antagonistic.

Now because MPS have nailed their colours to the mast we have a situation where any soft option looks unlikely. Both the extreme right and left have taken over jostling for power.

 

[diarm]

Your caps make you seem a little aggressive which I am sure you are not.

Brexit has not been done before - that is surely a fact and that is what my point related to.

All my other points and stance have been recounted already today.

You don't know what will happen if I burn down your house but I'd imagine you don't think it would be good.

Imagine if I'd told you 3 years ago I was going to burn down your house on the 29th August 2019, but by that date, I was going to build you a mansion to replace it.

When you asked if the council were going to grant permission for this mansion I'd assured you all that would be easy and you'd believed me.

Imagine now that we had reached today with no mansion built, a council displaying no intention to grant planning permission and me at your doorstep with a petrol can and a box of matches.

Would you step aside, eager for it all just to be over with? After all, its not my fault the mean old council are refusing to let us build your mansion.

Who knows, you've never had your house burned down before. You might be better off with the new found sense of freedom, released from the trappings of domestic life.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Am I entirely wrong in thinking that BoJo has pulled pretty much the same thing Darth Sidious did at the start of the clone wars?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

So do I. I am a remainer as well.

The point I have been trying to make - perhaps badly - is that if the 48% had accepted that we are going to leave then perhaps we would have had a better opportunity to get a 'soft' brexit. Yesterday at the London march there were calls for 'stop brexit'. That should have been nipped in the bud by all parties as soon as the vote was known because it is antagonistic.

Now because MPS have nailed their colours to the mast we have a situation where any soft option looks unlikely. Both the extreme right and left have taken over jostling for power.

What would be a"soft brexit" for you?

 

[Siorac]

I suppose if we are looking at an eg of a country that has been damaged economically then Iceland is probably a good fit. When all looked to be stacked against them their shoots of recovery have been so impressive and how many expected that? They even beat us as football.

I suggest you should pick a country that is not a member of the EFTA and the EEA and Schengen...

 

[K13]

What would be a"soft brexit" for you?

Similar to Switzerland - they trade using single market.

Freedom of movement - but realise that would be very contentious.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Get on with it.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Similar to Switzerland - they trade using single market.

Freedom of movement - but realise that would be very contentious.

Yes is in Schengen but has a border for goods etc which would not solve the Irish border question and would still cause chaos in Dover. Then of course you have the problem of the Tories and Labour both ruling out freedom of movement.
I don't believe there is an answer and nor does parliament as they will never agree on one type of solution.

 

[K13]

You don't know what will happen if I burn down your house but I'd imagine you don't think it would be good.

Imagine if I'd told you 3 years ago I was going to burn down your house on the 29th August 2019, but by that date, I was going to build you a mansion to replace it.

When you asked if the council were going to grant permission for this mansion I'd assured you all that would be easy and you'd believed me.

Imagine now that we had reached today with no mansion built, a council displaying no intention to grant planning permission and me at your doorstep with a petrol can and a box of matches.

Would you step aside, eager for it all just to be over with? After all, its not my fault the mean old council are refusing to let us build your mansion.

Who knows, you've never had your house burned down before. You might be better off with the new found sense of freedom, released from the trappings of domestic life.

I don't disagree with your analogy of where we are but what are the options available to us without dismissing the 52% who voted to leave?

 

[Ramshock]

How are you Brits enjoying your fascism?

 

[Simbo]

I tend to believe these last 3 years have proven a soft brexit isn't possible. It's either no-deal or no-brexit, of which the only reasonable option is no-brexit.

Perhaps a Corbyn government would stand a better chance of getting a deal through, with a backstop etc, but he would meet the same obstacles in parliament from the opposite direction and nobody would want to give him the time neccessary to try.

 

[K13]

Yes is in Schengen but has a border for goods etc which would not solve the Irish border question and would still cause chaos in Dover. Then of course you have the problem of the Tories and Labour both ruling out freedom of movement.
I don't believe there is an answer and nor does parliament as they will never agree on one type of solution.

Exactly. They have all had an opportunity to present options but all have been rejected.

Equally I think calling for a new referendum will be very damaging.

 

[K13]

I suggest you should pick a country that is not a member of the EFTA and the EEA and Schengen...

I thought they had recovered through tourism and refusing to pay any creditors?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

How are you Brits enjoying your fascism?

Small price to pay to leave those EU crooks. Not really

 

[nickm]

I tend to believe these last 3 years have proven a soft brexit isn't possible. It's either no-deal or no-brexit, of which the only reasonable option is no-brexit.
.

There was a moment just as May became PM, where she could have tried to form a broader alliance. There would have been remainers who would have supported a soft brexit, she could have pursued losers' consent, there was a good argument for such an approach given the closeness of the result, and many prominent brexiters would have supported it based on their positions in the campaign. But she didn't. She pandered to the extremists with her red lines, ran a deliberately divisive strategy, and fecked it all up.

 

[Kentonio]

From what I have read in the extreme right sided broadsheets is that it is a threat. Of course you have to be prepared to follow that through. If we have damaged their citizens to date I am not sure why they would prolong that agony by making trade difficult which would surely harm their own long prospects as well because imports and exports are both key.

The threat from our side was stupid from the start. We basically said ‘give us what we want, or we’ll blow up our economy. Oh and you’ll be slightly burned in the explosion.’ As a threat, that’s pretty pathetic, which is why no-one in the EU took it seriously. Now they do take it seriously, but are bemused by why we apparently think it would make them cave in.

The EU threat meanwhile has never been spoken out loud by them, because they're trying to be the adults in the room. But make no mistake, the threat is absolutely there. If they think the UK pose a serious risk to the EU, then they will be willing to hurt us to improve their own situation. Which is completely normal and predictable, and exactly what we’d do if the roles were reversed.

 

[Ramshock]

Small price to pay to leave those EU crooks. Not really

famous last bleats

 

[MadMike]

There was a moment just as May became PM, where she could have tried to form a broader alliance. There would have been remainers who would have supported a soft brexit, she could have pursued losers' consent, there was a good argument for such an approach given the closeness of the result, and many prominent brexiters would have supported it based on their positions in the campaign. But she didn't. She pandered to the extremists with her red lines, ran a deliberately divisive strategy, and fecked it all up.

That's fool's gold.

The SNP and Lib Dems were (still are) staunchly pro-Remain and it's extremely unlikely they would have co-operated with a Tory party that instigated the referendum and then campaigned for Brexit while being wagged by its tail from the ERG. Their minimum price for co-operation would have been the same as now, a second referendum, which is anathema to Tory Brexiteers since it risks losing Brexit altogether. You can't consolidate these two stances at all.

Labour was not interested in a deal that would see the Tories navigate Brexit unscathed and in power, by sharing the responsibility of the deal with them. Their interest was in a GE so Corbyn can hopefully capitalise on Tory extremism and failure, and sweep in with his social reform program which interests him more than Brexit. Not to mention how incredibly unlikely these two parties are to co-operate given their history, even before their recent moves towards more ideological extremes, unless there is some sort common enemy creating an equal existential threat to both (like say, Nazi Germany and WWII).

The reality is that this outcome was both highly predictable and largely unavoidable from the day A50 was triggered and passed as legislation, with a default status of no-deal Brexit unless a some sort deal is approved by parliament.

 

[Maticmaker]

There would have been remainers who would have supported a soft brexit

Actually I would doubt that, all remainers (as far as I can tell) want to remain and would not want anything less than the deal we have now as a full member of the EU; just as all leavers (again as far as I can tell) would see a so called 'soft Brexit' as BRINO. There maybe a number of people out there who didn't (couldn't or wouldn't) vote one way or the other but who would have settled for some compromise, but this is being wise after the event; unfortunately life's not like that.

Rightly or wrongly the nation participated in large numbers in a binary outcome referendum and that's what we are struck with, rightly or wrongly!

 

[Alex99]

I don't disagree with your analogy of where we are but what are the options available to us without dismissing the 52% who voted to leave?

It was an advisory referendum. Ignoring that it should never have been called in the first place, the correct course of action following a result of Leave (especially one with a majority as slim as we had) would have been to actually have a look at how viable that option was for the country.

As it is, we've ended up with a "Leave at all costs" mentality, with the process started haphazardly, completely ignoring the very likely outcome of this making large swathes of the country much, much worse off.

You don't dismiss the 52% who voted leave, but if this wasn't just about Tory party politics, it would have been very easy for the government to outline a clear and concise plan of analysing the potential impacts and outcomes of leaving the EU (including potential deals and no deal options). Then, if it looked like something the country could benefit from (you know, with some proper planning), should the process of leaving begun. Had the analysis come back and almost universally showed it to be a bad idea (which it has), the government simply shelves the idea with a comment about potentially reviewing the situation in the future.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Theres only one “no deal” and thats “no deal”.

One of the best things about being a country that buys things is you set the tariffs, not the selling country.

So you think BMW, Audi, VW, Mercedes (car and truck division) are going to sit quietly while they get hit with 30% import tariffs on their vehicles?

The UK buys 10% of all BMWs sold on the planet, its only 2% ish less than they sell in their own country.

Taxing them off the road would be a complete disaster for BMW.

We are already pretty much going to destroy the EU fishing industry just by leaving, as they will all be fighting for a much smaller area of fishable water.

Certainly the EU can hurt the UK in some way, and we can hurt it right back, and what you have to remember is, the noise out of Brussels isnt the voice of the public they wont stand losing their jobs because some burt hurt pricks wont get round a table and act like adults.

Cars wouldn't be taken of the road. There would just be a percentage decline in sales. Taking your BMW example, even if its a 50% decline. The UK would still contribute 4% - 5% of BMW car sales.

They could strategically make up for any decline in the current 9.6% of sales to the UK, in their biggest market China (at 25.7% contribution) or the USA.

Crazy to think that this tiny percentage will have enough impact on BMW, to have enough reason to influence the German governments decisions (which in itself is not guaranteed to work even if they try) . Which will then have an impact on the EU decisions (which again is also not guaranteed even if the German government are 100% on board with your theory).

I don't like those odds. Do you?

 

[Ødegaard]

I fear that the actual affects won't be known for another decade or so, when debt is skyrocketed and our public services have all been sold off. Unfortunately by that point a big chunk of people will have forgotten how good it used to be and accept their shit lives as being commonplace.

Don't worry. Us Norwegians (and probably the Danes too) will never let a opportunity to let others know how much better they can have it pass us by.