The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[chalga]

That is exactly what the UK government should do, if the EU will not play ball. There should be no negotiations. The UK should simply give the EU a take it or leave offer to continue tariff free trading. No freedom of movement, No exit payment. Allow those EU people here before the vote with no criminal convictions, to stay only if they accept the take it or leave it deal.

 

What's stopping the UK government from doing it then?

[Lord Rex]

What's stopping the UK government from doing it then?

The UK politicians are stopping them. The majority of them never wanted the UK to leave the EU in the first place. The general election result means the sore losers will get too much say in the so called negotiations. The people who voted to remain, who don't fully accept the referendum result, should not get any say in the so called negotiations.

[chalga]

The UK politicians are stopping them. The majority of them never wanted the UK to leave the EU in the first place. The general election result means the sore losers will get too much say in the so called negotiations. The people who voted to remain, who don't fully accept the referendum result, should not get any say in the so called negotiations.

 

No,that's just a Brexiteers cop out,the UK government could have done a clean break the day after the referendum,or it could have had a PM that would have committed them to do it ASAP,so using the GE result is just an excuse,that came much later,and if May misjudged and mishandled the mood of the public for the election,that's her mistake.Leaders live or die by such decisions and judgements,and the knock on consequences of getting it wrong just have to be faced up to.May was making all the big speeches about getting behind Brexit,patriotism and giving her a strong hand in talks,now look at the answer she got from the public.The EU has come back to haunt the Tories just when they thought it was in the process of being dead and buried......best get a load of popcorn in,this is going to get very interesting over the next couple of years.

[tzijlstra]

What's stopping the UK government from doing it then?

 

4 million citizens, 3 here, 1 million there.

 

Almost all business leaders.

 

Polls that indicate 60% of people want to retain EU citizenship.

 

An NHS reliant on an EU workforce.

 

Universities reliant on an EU workforce and students.

 

It's quite a long list, but these stand out at the moment of course Lord Rex would just disregard all those facts for 'FREEDOM AND FISH!'

[Lord Rex]

No,that's just a Brexiteers cop out,the UK government could have done a clean break the day after the referendum,or it could have had a PM that would have committed them to do it ASAP,so using the GE result is just an excuse,that came much later,and if May misjudged and mishandled the mood of the public for the election,that's her mistake.Leaders live or die by such decisions and judgements,and the knock on consequences of getting it wrong just have to be faced up to.May was making all the big speeches about getting behind Brexit,patriotism and giving her a strong hand in talks,now look at the answer she got from the public.The EU has come back to haunt the Tories just when they thought it was in the process of being dead and buried......best get a load of popcorn in,this is going to get very interesting over the next couple of years.

What you say is correct, the then UK Prime Minister should have triggered Article 50 on the 24th June 2016. But, you continue to miss my point, which is that the majority of UK politicians from all the main parties, never wanted the UK to leave the EU. If most of our politicians had wanted the UK to leave the EU, then there wouldn't be the nonsense, which is happening now. No cop out from me.

[L00b]

This country has untraded potential that runs into the billions of pounds. It's no secret that the world is racing ahead whilst we sit idle. The EU once accounted for 30% of global GDP back in the 80s. According to the IMF this is expected drop to 15% of global GDP by 2022. The EU commission themselves estimate that 90% of global growth will happen outside their borders.

 

We've got to embrace the wider (wealthier) world. The EU haven't been able to deliver FTAs with Brazil, USA, Middle East, India, and China. We've got to deliver on this ourselves which is why we start formal trade negotiations with the world's largest economy later on this month.

Considering the UK has been steadily doing at least 50% of its export trade outside the EU, whilst still an EU Member, for a good few years, I have to ask: what's stopping the UK from exploiting that 'untraded potential'?

 

FWIW, we've been trading with firms in Brazil (a little), the Middle East (a little), the USA, India and China (tons) <and many other outra-EU places long before FTAs were agreed: Korea, Canada, Japan, OZ, NZ, ...> from here in Sheffield, for over 20 years. Exporting services (handling UK & European IP for Brazilian, UAE, US, Indian, Chinese <etc.> rights owners) and importing services (handling Brazilian, UAE, US, Indian, Chinese <etc.> IP for UK clients through local firms).

 

Brexit (which has yet to happen) started killing all that existing export trade for the past 6 months, btw. Non-EU rights owners simply don't believe that we'll still be able to do the European work, no matter how much factual explaining we do. And let's not talk about UK businesses, which went into wait-and-see mode in Q1 2017 and simply turned the innovating taps off with trap-dooring the IP budgets, just like after 2008.

 

German competitors are hoovering that non-EU export potential from us...

 

...and we've only just now been asked by DExEU and DBEIS for detailed input & feedback about the consequences of Brexit for our sector

 

Monty Python couldn't make this up. You are just so f***ed

Edited July 5, 2017 by L00b

[chalga]

What you say is correct, the then UK Prime Minister should have triggered Article 50 on the 24th June 2016. But, you continue to miss my point, which is that the majority of UK politicians from all the main parties, never wanted the UK to leave the EU. If most of our politicians had wanted the UK to leave the EU, then there wouldn't be the nonsense, which is happening now. No cop out from me.

 

No need to have to trigger Article 50,you just go.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/britain-does-not-need-to-trigger-article-50-to-leave-the-eu-2016-11

This line has been swallowed whole by the government, the media and commentators. It is, however, absolute nonsense. Under international law and under Article 50 (1) itself, only notice to leave is necessary.

 

The horror that I feel about this misdirection is compounded by that the fact that if Article 50(2) is ‘triggered’ it implies that the UK government accepts that the EU will decide the conditions of UK’s withdrawal.

 

This has serious consequences. An arbitrary two-year negotiation window; a supreme agency problem between negotiating parties (the European Commission and various powerful governments) and a ratification process that is far from certain. All the while we will be contributing approximately £40bn gross, or £20bn net, to the European project.

Edited July 5, 2017 by chalga

[Hairyloon]

I have to ask: what's stopping the UK from exploiting that 'untraded potential'?

 

Because everybody else is making stuff cheaper and/or better?

 

No need to have to trigger Article 50,you just go.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/britain-does-not-need-to-trigger-article-50-to-leave-the-eu-2016-11...

 

In doing so we would renege on all manner of international agreements and commitments.

Now I don't know how credit ratings are worked out, but I would expect those calculations to take account of how reliable the borrower has proven to have been in the past...

Obviously it won't matter if our credit rating plummets: with the £350 million off the bus we won't be needing to borrow...

Oh, hang on.

[L00b]

Because everybody else is making stuff cheaper and/or better?

I'm holding out for Puggie's answer

 

Before posting his answer, he might want to know that the EU is highly likely to announce an FTA with Japan tomorrow

 

Meaning, if the UK leaves the EU customs union and goes for WTO rules, then an EU purchaser of Japanese cars has a choice of a UK-built one with 10% tariff, or a Japanese-built one with zero tariff. I very much doubt freight costs will make up for 10%, they're usually between $500 and $600 (per car, bulk shipping, oil barrel price-variant) for a Japan-EU trip, and may well fall a bit after the FTA mentioned.

 

Sunderland did vote Leave, so it's safe to assume that they will be alright with this

Edited July 5, 2017 by L00b

[Lord Rex]

No need to have to trigger Article 50,you just go.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/britain-does-not-need-to-trigger-article-50-to-leave-the-eu-2016-11

This line has been swallowed whole by the government, the media and commentators. It is, however, absolute nonsense. Under international law and under Article 50 (1) itself, only notice to leave is necessary.

 

The horror that I feel about this misdirection is compounded by that the fact that if Article 50(2) is ‘triggered’ it implies that the UK government accepts that the EU will decide the conditions of UK’s withdrawal.

 

This has serious consequences. An arbitrary two-year negotiation window; a supreme agency problem between negotiating parties (the European Commission and various powerful governments) and a ratification process that is far from certain. All the while we will be contributing approximately £40bn gross, or £20bn net, to the European project.

It was made perfectly clear before the referendum vote, that if the United Kingdom voted to leave, then Article 50 would be triggered by the Prime Minister. This would have been agreed by the UK Prime Minister and the EU. The time span between the referendum result and Article 50 being triggered, wasn't made clear though. The length of time it took Article 50 to be triggered, was far too long in my opinion and is a contributing factor for the nonsense which is occurring now.