Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Full bodied red said:
Yes....Well ( too, even ) aware that it'll need new deals with those currently covered by EU membership.

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

They can't have any formal talks but surely they are talking as May has already informally approached India, Australia , the USA and others.
But the countries they will be dealing with will want things in return as has already been suggested such as the Visa issue with India.
Just getting admitted to the WTO as a separate country is going to take time as they're currently in that as part of the EU.

This is not taking into account the lack of experienced negotiators in the UK.

I suspect you are extremely over-optimistic that any deal will be done quickly
 
devilish said:
I never said that it was difficult (or if I said it, apologies since its the wrong term). I only said that its lengthy. It take time for 27 countries to come out with a consensus. I mean look at the UK. There's arguments everyday and TM is having to face a new issue from Scotland, gibraltar or Northern Ireland every fortnight. That despite these regions has as much administrative power as Napoleon had when he was in St Helens.

However change does happen and its happening in front of our eyes. I remember when Malta first argued about the problem of immigration. Jeez we had Malmstorm coming to Malta calling everyone a racist, simply because we dared saying that the Dublin 2 treaty is crap. These days everyone agrees with it and countries barely enforce the Dublin 2 treaty anymore (apart from the Brits of course, who love immigrants as long as they are far away from Blighty). Hopefully in the next few years this treaty will be thrown in the very bin it belongs too.
Click to expand...

I think Cameron's failure to obtain what he'd hoped for when trying to negotiate a better deal with the EU (before the referendum), opened peoples eyes to how little influence we have in Brussels. And so I think we are both agreeing here that Cameron had mis sold the referendum choice, as there would be little hope of reform. There's actually a greater chance of reform as a result of us voting to leave, because of the consequences. Had Brussels known what the result of the referendum had been, and the consequences of it, we may have got a better arrangement.

And I hope its a massive success. However any country will consider the strategy of closing the door (or cover it with redtape and tariffs) to the continent that very country belongs to as madness. Trump toyed with the idea when he threatened to scrap the NAFTA deal and he backtracked from that furiously.

The deal the UK has with the EU is unprecedented and allow all sort of business to prosper that wont be able to do so if the UK wasn't part of the EU. For example car parts from all over Europe can move freely in and out of the UK to be used to manufacture cars in UK plants and then sold the EU. That can only be achieved because

a- the UK is in close proximity of Europe. Its not worth for a UK company to buy parts from lets say Australia
b- the EU allows unrestricted access to its markets.
Click to expand...

The UK would not pay tariffs on what it buys, and therefore car parts could freely come into the country from anywhere in the world as long as they align with EU regulations. What we export to the EU could be hit with tariffs, but as already stated, this could be offset by the membership fees no longer paid.


Not to forget that EU membership allows access to non EU markets (ie trade deals signed by the EU) which were signed from a position of strength. That will soon be gone (for the UK).

Surely the UK can try to sign trade deals and I bet it will be able to sign quite a few of them. However I am a bit sceptical whether they will be as effective as EU membership in terms of access and geography. Please bear in mind that the 3 biggest markets in the world (India, China and the US) happen to be way more protective then the EU.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait and see. At this moment in time we don't even know what kind of arrangement we'll have with the EU.
However, let's say that we strike a free trade deal with the US, and we are able to import a good percentage of American cars and trucks. This creates thousands of jobs in America, boosts their economy, and gives us more competitive options. Everyone's a winner. If the EU can't be this reasonable because they insist on free movement of people, it is their fault for hindering the prosperity of their member states..


Malta was the most bombed country during WW2. One of my grandparents died during the war and the rest nearly starved to death. All Maltese citizens who survived the mess were granted the George Cross for Valour. However it would be crazy to say that Malta or the UK were able to defeat the Nazis. The Nazis were hammering us until the US entered war and were defeated in Russia by Russians. We're lucky that Mr Mad man decided to invade them instead of us or else we would be defeated in a spectacularly humiliated way

The same will happen if Mr Putin decided to invade Europe (UK included) and Mr Trump decides to close an eye to it.
Click to expand...

A country that's fought against an evil regime with everything it has, should not be considered as being bailed out when it receives help. Let's not forget the fact that America didn't enter the war out of hatred for the nazis and pity for us, Japan attacked the US, and it was Germany that declared war on America. They didn't come to our rescue, they joined us in a cause that was right.

That's the thing. Trade and defense are two totally different matters altogether. One can agree on one and disagree on the other. The US had been Europe's biggest ally for most of last century. Europe trade deal with the US is not close to EU membership. Now if you mix the two then you're risking ending up isolated further. It would also mean that Europe will have no choice but to proceed to a common EU army which would make the UK even less important
Click to expand...

Sentiments between nations will affect cooperation. It's a fact of life.

There's no doubt that the US (or any other country for all that matter) will sit down with the UK (or any other country for all that matter) to discuss trade deals. The EU itself had committed itself to that. However the devil is in the detail. What will be offered? Under such circumstances the big fish tend to eat the small fish. For example Switzerland had to commit itself to open its market to China immediately. However China reserved the right to delay the Swiss entrance to certain market for years and sometimes decades.

The UK was extremely important for the US because through the UK, the US had a meaningful vote (+ a veto) in Europe. Now that is gone.
Click to expand...

Well let's see. We do not know how things will pan out. As you have said, you would like to see us prosper massively by trading globally free of EU restriction. This is what we're aiming for.
 
I think Cameron's failure to obtain what he'd hoped for when trying to negotiate a better deal with the EU (before the referendum), opened peoples eyes to how little influence we have in Brussels. And so I think we are both agreeing here that Cameron had mis sold the referendum choice, as there would be little hope of reform. There's actually a greater chance of reform as a result of us voting to leave, because of the consequences. Had Brussels known what the result of the referendum had been, and the consequences of it, we may have got a better arrangement.
Click to expand...

I think that Brexit was the result of a catfight within the Tory party which went out of hand. Alternatively Cameron was extremely stupid to think that changes will happen so quickly. No one, not even Germany can achieve that

The UK would not pay tariffs on what it buys, and therefore car parts could freely come into the country from anywhere in the world as long as they align with EU regulations. What we export to the EU could be hit with tariffs, but as already stated, this could be offset by the membership fees no longer paid.
Click to expand...

If the Economy get a hit than the government will simply have to find a way to make money. Tarriffs is decent way to do so. Also parts comes in and out of the UK/EU so that will be hit by tariffs the other way. That (+ selling the entire product) will make prices go high and the UK uncompetitive. There's a reason why Tory donor Sir Andrew Cook had threatened to stop donations unless there's assurances that the UK will have unrestricted access to the single market, which is pretty much, what TM is promising to the automobile industry.


We'll have to wait and see. At this moment in time we don't even know what kind of arrangement we'll have with the EU.
However, let's say that we strike a free trade deal with the US, and we are able to import a good percentage of American cars and trucks. This creates thousands of jobs in America, boosts their economy, and gives us more competitive options. Everyone's a winner. If the EU can't be this reasonable because they insist on free movement of people, it is their fault for hindering the prosperity of their member states..
Click to expand...

You would want to sell your products in the US not buying them. There's no other trade deal that give as much access to a market to the EU and such deal wont be signed by the most protectionist president in US history.

A country that's fought against an evil regime with everything it has, should not be considered as being bailed out when it receives help. Let's not forget the fact that America didn't enter the war out of hatred for the nazis and pity for us, Japan attacked the US, and it was Germany that declared war on America. They didn't come to our rescue, they joined us in a cause that was right.
Click to expand...

A European country shouldnt jump ship when Europe is in need either especially when such a thing is happening because the Tory party wanted to remain in power. Regarding WW2 The US entered war because of Pearl Harbour but Pearl Harbor occured because the US gave the Japanese no choice (those sanctions would have crippled the empire in a couple of months).

In my opinion the 2 WWs are a badge of dishonour for Europe. Such a small continent should be working together (which is the scope of the EU) not go to war with one another only to have other bailing us out.

Sentiments between nations will affect cooperation. It's a fact of life.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, its the UK whose leaving Europe. No one is kicking the UK out

Well let's see. We do not know how things will pan out. As you have said, you would like to see us prosper massively by trading globally free of EU restriction. This is what we're aiming for.
Click to expand...

Of course I do. I love this place and its people. They might not know anything about football :p but they are very nice people


.
 
Full bodied red said:
Yes....Well ( too, even ) aware that it'll need new deals with those currently covered by EU membership.

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

You can't really do that because the other countries won't have or might not have the same perks in return. One of the problem for the UK is that the nature of their economical relationship with the EU will have a huge influence on the nature of the deals they will have with other countries. It is important for other countries to know if their goods and services can easily and cheaply go to the continent, for example.
 
MoskvaRed said:
True but the English Channel did not miraculously appear in 1940, and Britain had always planned accordingly with an emphasis on a huge navy and a much smaller army. As mentioned elsewhere, it could have sat out WWII and preserved at least the illusion of global power for longer.
Click to expand...

It could not have merely sat out WW2, the British spanned the globe and it was tied into complex relationships with countries everywhere. Even if Britain had totally betrayed its international agreements (other than just the few we chose to abandon) and refused to be drawn into the initial conflict, then it would have been pulled in later at a point where Germany had already defeated its other enemies. Entering when we did allowed the greatest opportunity to stop the threat to British interests.

Will Absolute said:
This is an odd interpretation of WW2. The Italians were allies of Germany, for God's sake! The other countries you mention were involved because they were invaded! Britain could have chosen to make a separate peace and sit it out. It didn't.
Click to expand...

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

The point I'm making is that Britain was in a fortunate position which meant we didn't face invasion, and as a result didn't suffer anything like the abysmal consequences that countries all across the continent did. Great for us as Brits, but unfortunately its led to a superiority complex whereby too many British people equate Britain coming through it as a country how it did as a sign that we're special or some great warriors for justice. It also leads to people engaging in the kind of historical revisionism that suggests we could have just sat it out if we wanted but instead we chose to fight the evil Nazis and save democracy etc. It's poppycock.
 
Kentonio said:
It could not have merely sat out WW2, the British spanned the globe and it was tied into complex relationships with countries everywhere. Even if Britain had totally betrayed its international agreements (other than just the few we chose to abandon) and refused to be drawn into the initial conflict, then it would have been pulled in later at a point where Germany had already defeated its other enemies. Entering when we did allowed the greatest opportunity to stop the threat to British interests.



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

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

So you accept without Britain's efforts Germany would have won?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
So you accept without Britain's efforts Germany would have won?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Britain provided a huge amount of lives and materials to the war effort, and also an invaluable staging ground for the later re-invasion of the continent, relieving some of the pressure from the Soviets. I'm not saying Britain didn't play a huge part, I just get pissy when people use it to advance a narrative of British exceptionalism.
 
Kentonio said:
Absolutely. Britain provided a huge amount of lives and materials to the war effort, and also an invaluable staging ground for the later re-invasion of the continent, relieving some of the pressure from the Soviets. I'm not saying Britain didn't play a huge part, I just get pissy when people use it to advance a narrative of British exceptionalism.
Click to expand...

We were the exception in 1940 though as everyone else was on Hitler's side, beaten or maintaining neutrality.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
They can't have any formal talks but surely they are talking as May has already informally approached India, Australia , the USA and others.
But the countries they will be dealing with will want things in return as has already been suggested such as the Visa issue with India.
Just getting admitted to the WTO as a separate country is going to take time as they're currently in that as part of the EU.

This is not taking into account the lack of experienced negotiators in the UK.

I suspect you are extremely over-optimistic that any deal will be done quickly
Click to expand...

Which is why I said perhaps India....

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

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


JPRouve said:
You can't really do that because the other countries won't have or might not have the same perks in return. One of the problem for the UK is that the nature of their economical relationship with the EU will have a huge influence on the nature of the deals they will have with other countries. It is important for other countries to know if their goods and services can easily and cheaply go to the continent, for example.
Click to expand...

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

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

Or are you hinting that any of the EU's existing Trade Partners who try to do a deal with a non-EU member UK will be sent by the EU ' Au coin, face au mur' for daring to do seperate deals with the UK ?
 
Kentonio said:
Absolutely. Britain provided a huge amount of lives and materials to the war effort, and also an invaluable staging ground for the later re-invasion of the continent, relieving some of the pressure from the Soviets. I'm not saying Britain didn't play a huge part, I just get pissy when people use it to advance a narrative of British exceptionalism.
Click to expand...

I hate to keep saying that 'I heard someone on Radio 4' but I heard a historian on Radio 4 the other day and he said Germany lost the war as soon as they went into the Soviet Union to capture raw materials pretty early in the war. The other interesting and surprising thing he said was that British munition production was far more efficient than German and that the German were pretty poor at it.
 
Rams said:
Wooooaah a gigantic 0,6%. Not that's in any better in the rest of Europe mind. But it's far too early to be able to judge the effect of Brexit. That will become apparent in years from now.
Click to expand...

I am only posting the same surveys and economic data you used to paint a picture of catastrophe. I'm only here to give balance to the force.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I hate to keep saying that 'I heard someone on Radio 4' but I heard a historian on Radio 4 the other day and he said Germany lost the war as soon as they went into the Soviet Union to capture raw materials pretty early in the war. The other interesting and surprising thing he said was that British munition production was far more efficient than German and that the German were pretty poor at it.
Click to expand...

The first part is basically true. German intelligence dramatically underestimated the size of Soviet battle ready forces (I still wonder whether that was not entirely accidental. German intelligence was surprisingly home to quite a lot of anti-Nazi feeling), but there's plenty of debate about whether they could still have finished the Soviets off if Hitler hadn't insisted on interfering with the invasion plans. He stalled the assault towards Moscow and of course then the whole thing bogged down in the face of an unexpectedly atrocious Russia winter. You'd have to describe Barbarassa as him taking a wildly irresponsible gamble at the most generous interpretation. Then again he had no experience and had been winning wildly irresponsible gambles for a number of years by that point. He achieved what he did by stepping outside the rules and attempting things serious politicians and military leaders would never have thought practical or possible. The wheels were bound to come off sooner or later and reality come crashing in.

He's right about the materials production btw, I can't remember the exact figures but Germany didn't ramp up to maximum production until very late in the war if I recall correctly, well after the point where it was clearly lost. They were in many ways a wildly inefficient regime.
 
Full bodied red said:
Which is why I said perhaps India....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you fail to see the point that because the EU is highly oriented to its interior market, they don't need to make compromises which is why they don't make deals with a number of countries. The EU like the US don't need those deals, if they are good for them they will take them otherwise they won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.