Don't know exactly, but at least we will see what we are getting, rather than just pouring it down the Brussels 'Gravy-train' track
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Don't know exactly, but at least we will see what we are getting, rather than just pouring it down the Brussels 'Gravy-train' track
Aye, take back control: let's spend it bribing companies to stay doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?
In May et al to deliver?
Hah, Hah, you really are a pessimist aren't you, please keep your responses coming I'm having a brilliant time!
It’s not pessimistic, is game theory. Every party will always try to get the most optimal result the other party allows him to have. Obviously, the extent you are able to influence that is by the amount of bargaining power you have. In our sense here, it’s economical strength and size of market that determined your bargaining power.
Trade negotiations aren’t happy sit-ins were everyone hops around joyfully trying to get the best result for everyone. Countries have agendas and push them. You want to be able to push back as much as possible.
Example: the UK is in dire need of trade deals. Let’s take the US, as it’s the most obvious because neither China nor India have any real benefits from entering trade negotiations with the UK (unless the UK really gives up a lot of stuff). Now, the US will try to push their chlorined chicken into the UK as that is what the food lobby demands. How do we know that? They tried it with the EU as well. They also wanted to keep out certain kinds of cheese from the US. The EU, having much more leverage as the UK would have on its own, got its cheese in and the chickens out. Of course we gave up some other stuff, hell, of course. The thing is that you have to imagine such negotiations as people playing poker. And all of Europe together just has more chips to play with than the UK and thus, is more likely to win more matches. It’s pretty likely the UK would have just given in in the case I mentioned here, or, if it didn’t, had to give up even more in some other matter. Maybe DNA modified crops or whatever.
Thank you kind sir for the compliment.
They know she won't - and UKIP hope she doesn't because if she did then the consequences will bite them in the backside and Farage will be no more.
Thought you were done here old man.
I've been trying to explain that to him for quite some time to no avail. Trade deals are done by technical people who are paid alot of money to fully exploit any weaknesses shown by their opponents to their advantage. Trump (From all people) won't just handle a great trade deal to the UK just because he likes teddy bear Farage.
A- He can't (congress has a big say on the matter)
B- He won't. America first and all that.
The UK acted as the US 'voice' in the EU, something it benefitted greatly from. Unfortunately Brexit meant that this leverage is now gone. Will the US still act kindly towards an ally it doesn't really need anymore? Well, the Kurds, the Southern Vietnamese and Saddam has quite an experience to share regarding that.
The EU remains the UK's best bet for a good trade deal. We can't really choose our neighbours and close proximity is still extremely important in various industries (Ex perishable goods).
It still stuns me that we voted to leave and it stuns me even more that we are going to carry on despite it becoming obvious that we voted for a mirage. Now that the mirage has evaporated we are still running towards what is now obviously a sheer cliff. This is feckwittery on a scale that even the US voting in the Molester-in-Chief can't top.
I am not surprised at all. Too many politicians has banked over Brexit. If Brexit end, then their career will go to the pits too.
Sure there's a big chance of Brexit ruining the country but that will take years. By that time people like Davis (68), Farage and Johnson (53), Hammond and May (61) will either be retired or close to retirement age. They won't be suffering the consequences of their actions that's for sure.
Really, and there's me thinking that's exactly what they are, perhaps not the 'happy' bit or the 'joyful' bit, but certainly attempting to get the best for those involved. Of course in bi-lateral agreements its much easier than where there are 28 parties on one side and only one party on the other. Size of market is an issue, of course it is, but trade deals come in all shapes and sizes and are rarely one dimensional.
My word, you are full of surprises, I don't play poker much but I don't remember it requiring negotiations, 'bluffing' may be, keeping a straight face, making 'blind bets', may be, but can't say I remember negotiations being involved, but I will bow to your superior knowledge. Tell me who is the dealer in this trade negotiations/poker game scenario and are the odds stacked against, or for the house?
Last edited:
Yes, it means we own the 'gravy train', determine its pouring rate, who is sitting at the table and we can take it off the menu any time we like!
What does that mean, can you give a me a non exhaustive list of things you will control and couldn't?
The dealer doesn't matter here. It's basically a allegory to how every matter at hand is both random and calculable. Every matter discussed is one game of poker. You can go in with as much chips into each match as you want, but overall, your amount of chips is limited. You will have to decide which matches are the most important to you and invest your chips accordingly.
Relative to each other, the UK got 2600 chips. The US got 18000.
Who do you think is going to win more matches.
Because this is wrong fundamentally. You want to gain as much access to the others market as possible while protecting your own as much as possible. It's not about winning every singe match, as that would damage one econmy hurting yours in return as well. So of course every trade deal will, in the end, benefit both to some degree. Question always is: who is going to profit more? And the UK surely won't get trade deals favourable to them.
Your optimism is admirable, but you have got to wonder if you have ever been outside of your house. Just look at how NAFTA has completely killed the agricultural sector of Mexiko, which wanted to defend it but ultimately had to give up because they just didn't have enough leverage. Look at China: everyone knows they use their market power to force companies to give up technology to them to copy. Even the US and the EU have a hard time fighting this. And you really think the UK on their own will have better chances to reach deals about that? Let me tell you the truth: the Chinese don't give a feck about the UK on their own. Their economy, in absolute numbers, grow about four times the amount of the whole GDP of the UK today in the past 10 years. They've gone from 2,2 trillion to 12 trillion. The UK as a whole? 2,6. You really think they would even be willing to enter talks while May is crying about Chinese companies profitting from a artificially undervalued currency?
What we can control:
Who we make deals with, when we make deals, how much we want to invest, for how long, when we renew deals or replace them, is that ok for now? The point is we don't have to ask 27 others if its OK.
What we can't control:
We can't control the weather, the outcome of World Cup Competition bids, who is elected Pope....I'm sure there are many other things, hope these will do for now?
But...you always controlled those things. And you never had to ask any other country if that's okay. They probably didn't like always like it, but hey, you don't give a shit about that anyway. The UK was always on the forefront of ignoring agreements and getting exemptions from them.
Answered your own question my friend, we will decided, when to put up and when to shut up!
This is nonsense, we will win some and lose some that's true, but we have the flexibility to do as we see fit and not be corralled by the 27 other countries in the EU
I understand your argument that could be boiled down to a 'good biggn' beats a good littlen' any day' The problem is that looking to the future, as I did in an earlier post, China (who is able to plan in 50 year cycles) is on course to be the major economic force in the world by the end of the 21st century, only the US can stop that, but the Trump effect will either boost that chance, or blow it out of the water, (suppose it depends if he wins a second term) just maybe South East Asia combined might act as a break on China, but not the EU, as things stand its still too fragmented, too moribund, too incompetent and the disparity between its internal economies is too great for a true powerhouse of a European Unified state to emerge in time.
The only chance the EU has is to move towards and USE post-haste, with Germany/France (depends on how successful Macron is in his reforms) being the driving force and using the power of the euro-zone as a conduit for reform. Britain stands in the way of that, we will never give up the pound sterling and join the euro-zone, we already have opt outs, we will demand more opt pouts in future, so, from the EU's perspective they would be better off without us.
We have enough wealth and investment potential to work alongside, but not part of the EU, together but separate we can make a difference on the world stage. Britain will make deals on its own that will aid the EU, providing there is a deal in place between us to kick-it all off. As Tusk said if there is no deal there are no winners only losers, for once I agree with him!
Last edited:
To add to what fcbforever wrote, you need to remember that it's not a 1v1 negotiation where both sides have the exclusivity of a production, first every deal is made with at least one third party in mind even if it doesn't sit around the table which means that you try to create or protect your leverages and the bigger your investment and purchasing capabilities are the stronger your leverages are.
Also you need to keep in mind that there isn't a single thing that the UK exclusively produce, every deal they will make will be challenged by a third party directly or indirectly, there isn't a scenario where you are going to sit around a table with the upper end, you will have to accept the rules coming from bigger markets and offer better deals to small markets than bigger markets would be willing to give.
Also you need to keep in mind that there isn't a single thing that the UK exclusively produce, every deal they will make will be challenged by a third party directly or indirectly, there isn't a scenario where you are going to sit around a table with the upper end, you will have to accept the rules coming from bigger markets and offer better deals to small markets than bigger markets would be willing to give.
Last edited:
The moment you are out you are a competitor and will be bullied. Paris and Frankfurt are already droling at the perspective of cutting parts out of Londons financial sector. It's happening, it's happening now.
And I really don't think you understand what I was telling you. Yes, you can chose where to not put your chips. But quite frankly, you just have way less of them way now. Which means you can't chose where to "put up" as you wish. You will have to eat what's being offered. Because yes, the big fish eat the small. And the UK is pretty small. No natural resources, aging society, no manufacturing sector to speak off. India, Mexiko, Vietnam, Brazil, Nigeria, those countries are out there to get you.
For all the EU's failures, it still managed to get a pretty decent trade deal from the US (even if Trump destroyed that now) and for all the "fragmentation" it showed that it is willing to speak with a unified voice even on such little things like French cheese.
This is what frustrates me with Brexiteers. Blind optimism and a total disregard of reality sometimes. This isn't some shenanigans I'm coming up with. This is game theory and economics, not ... vodoo. People way smarter than me or you have studied trade deals, trade relations and its consequences. This is the whole reason people seek to combine as free trade areas, which have greatly benefitted their participants. The EU, as a economic institution, is so succesfull other parts of the world are trying to emulate it. ASEAN, MERCOSUR. They are based on the same principles.
Yet, for the first time in history, a country decided to leave such a mutually benefitial agreement, willfully giving up influence, and people are just sitting there saying "nah, this will be AWESOME because REASONS".
You haven't given one reason why there is a chance of Britain suceeding. Not one that is based on any facts. Its just basless assumptions and blind optimism.
Exatly. Take the automotive sector. Whos regulations do you think the UK will have to follow. Theirs? Thus forcing others to follow? Why would anyone, you are a small market, the US market is 5 times your size, their car production likely by even more. You wan't to export there, play by their rules.
Same for the medical sector etc. etc. They are producing their own medicine and you have more to lose by losin exports to them as they have by losing exports to you. Follow their rules or...lose.
When I said I wouldn't be coming back, I meant to the UK, not to this thread.
It's the best comedy show out there watching the squirming from the Leave side.
Anyway I knew you'd miss me.
Or we can see it differently, if Germany and the UK were to negotiate a deal in 1v1 who has the upper hand? Germany are bigger, richer and more self sufficient. Even if you consider that the difference isn't big, this example should highlight why it's silly to think that somehow Germany with 20 other markets would get worse deals.
But the EU is a sideshow really in all this.
Anyone who has a brain larger than a pea can see that a complete cliff-edge break from the EU will be a monumental disaster for the UK.
And the other alternative is staying in the EU even if not in name, so what was the point.
You can keep telling the Brexiters that they're making an enormous mistake, explaining why they're such idiots, they're not listening, they don't care, they'll come back with this inane drivel being free to make deals, laws, borders, foreigners, saving money etc .
There were two reasons for this, the Tories trying to hold onto power, they were in such trouble and was the last throw of the dice and UKIP having a perfect platform to preach their xenophobia behind a convenient screen.
Problem is it didn't go to plan for neither the Tories nor UKIP. The result should have been close but slightly in favour of Remain. Now the Tories have an impossible job to deliver Brexit without destroying the country and UKIP disintegrated after the referendum, Farage thought he'd got the result he was searching for even the night of the referendum, a close defeat which would have given him more fuel to carry on with his bil,e instead his party all but collapses and he's going to lose his job as an MEP.
Meanwhile all Labour have to do, is just sit quietly by and watch the Tories and UKIP go into meltdown. Corbyn kept very quiet during the referendum, one can see why.
The problem is that in the negotiations with the EU, there really are very few areas where we can choose to 'shut up'. The negotiations are covering vast areas of operations in countless different fields, and we need to resolve them to prevent huge and dramatic catastrophic events hitting us on leaving day. Assuming of course that we want our goods to not pile up and rot on the docks, our planes to be allowed to continue to enter European airspace, our security forces to continue to have access to intelligence from European agencies, our border forces to not be hit by a huge wave of unchecked non-EU immigrants etc etc etc etc etc etc.
The list is terrifyingly long, and we have basically no time to come up with rational solutions for it all. If there's no deal, our only option is to spent vast sums of money desperately trying to plug as many holes as possible to prevent disaster, and any deal we manage to rush through is at best going to give us what we already have but at a higher cost.
It was a sadly all too accurate assessment. As is your above one, with no-one coming out of this a winner, barring the xenophobes and racists.
Oh boy! I can *really* trust the Conservatives to ration that (much reduced) gravy out fairly!
The ones I feel most sorry for are the likes of Cornwall, and farmers, who have been conned into giving up all of their EU protections and funding on the wrong assumption that the Tories will cover their loss. I only wonder how long it will take for he penny to drop.
Now I know you are joking...!!
Its not mutually beneficial, that's why we're leaving, has that not sunk in yet!
Nigel Farage has gone into great lengths to insult the Clintons. I wonder how Global Britain would fare as soon as Trump kicks the bucket and one of Clinton's mates ends up in government.
Stanley, think he meant replying to my posts?
Paul stormed out the other day, fed up with me, but maybe he's got his second wind now, will wait to see if he makes contact!
Wasn’t it Cornish farmers who complained they could lose the regional name protection of some sort of food just to find out this very thing was protected by EU law in the first place?
No surely that honour goes to the French, pick and choose what they want, so they have no problems, maybe Macron will change all that now?
Lets say when he's left office, not kicked the bucket!
Then I would say that along with many others we will be mightily relieved!
Yes Cornish produce including pasties is currently EU protected. But the region receives £60m in EU funding which the Government refused to replace, which was promised by the Leave campaign.
Cornwall voted to Leave by a majority.
*.kicked the bucket - ie metaphorically speaking (ie kicked the bucket on his political career)
I agree on your last comment
Let me update you son, the Chinese don't give a feck about anybody. By the end of the 21st Century they will practically own the world, just maybe the US might hold out, but every body else, including the EU, nothing, no chance!
Quite few people in Cornwall, want to leave the UK, never mind the EU, so what's new?
This really is old news (or fake news) can't you come up with something better, I'm getting bored with this, where is Paul the Wolf, at least he knew how to poke away, not very effective, but at least on the same page?
I wasnt talking to you, I was answering the question above. Do keep up old man.
Ah so you're resorting to childish, xenophobic denigration of Europeans now? I'd have assumed you'd know (or not as it appears) that the French have an extremely strong intelligence service, and have had for centuries. If you give a single feck about British anti-terrorism, you most certainly want the likes of France providing intelligence, just like they want the same from us.
Or you could just act like an idiot Sun reader, and assume that only Britain has things like intelligence agencies and a military.