[Merged]Brexit stuff

[GB9]

It's not me that's denying, I just posted the link, it's all the economists and not least Tory government ministers who are looking to torpedo Brexit.

Nigel Farage has used his Ukip conference speech to accuse Tory ministers of fighting to remain in the EU | The Independent

You need to consider why all these analysts and politicians think a humiliating climb down from Brexit is possible.

For example could this be the reason ?

Britain will be irrelevant to China after Brexit, warns former French economy minister Emmanuel Macron | The Independent

or the fact that Greenland still exports almost everything to the EU 30 years after leaving because no-one else has any interest in buying its goods ?

It was the bloke on the video I was accusing of being in denial.

And stating some french ex minister in the Indy is hardy impartial, is it?

So what would happen if there were a climb down? Massive swing to UKIP. Another vote. An increased majority to leave?

The EU Commission is still acting like a jilted lover that thinks their ex can't survive without them. If they had any sense they would be asking what was wrong and how do we fix it. Instead they are insisting we can't live without them, we'll be sorry and come crawling back. That usually makes people harden their views, not soften them.

[jamesbrown]

What other "bargaining chips" are there? (I'm not questioning whether that is one, I'm asking you to list all the things the UK has that could be used for bargaining)
What do you mean by a "hard brexit"? Is that breaking all ties with the other European nations? Something else?

The bargaining chips are mutual self-interest; economic, defence, social and cultural. Is it really sensible for the EU to risk it's major defence partner (by far), second largest economy, and a country with such close social and cultural ties? Perhaps they will, but that was, indeed, one of the reasons I voted for Brexit.

By hard-Brexit, I mean the absolute worst case scenario where we leave after 2 years without a compromise agreement in any of the main areas (four freedoms, common programmes and budget contributions, residency rights etc.) or an agreement to extend the discussions, and without a path forward for a trade agreement.

[sasguru]

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because we have the fifth largest economy, the fifth largest defence budget, and we're the first major economy to meet the UN's 0.7% GNI aid target, for starters.

Of course, Brexit threatens all of that

Ah yes that old trick of implying that the fifth largest economy (actually 6th now post Brexit ) is anywhere close to the top 2.
The EU economy (either the largest or 2nd largest in the world) is at least 6 times larger than the UK economy.
The US defence budget is greater than the next few countries put togther or something similar.

[WTFH]

The bargaining chips are mutual self-interest; economic, defense, social and cultural. Is it really sensible for the EU to risk it's major defence partner (by far), second largest economy, and a country with such close social and cultural ties? Perhaps they will, but that was, indeed, one of the reasons I voted for Brexit.

"Mutual self-interest" is not a bargaining chip. Your arguments are based on how you think those in Europe are supposed to react.
What can we offer to bargain, not to threaten?
What is our reason for wanting to bargain? What do we want to achieve from it?

By hard-Brexit, I mean the absolute worst case scenario where we leave after 2 years without a compromise agreement in any of the main areas (four freedoms, common programmes and budget contributions, residency rights etc.) or an agreement to extend the discussions, and without a path forward for a trade agreement.

So, are you saying you consider "hard Brexit" a bad/worst case option?
What is a good scenario in your opinion?

[jamesbrown]

Ah yes that old trick of implying that the fifth largest economy (actually 6th now post Brexit ) is anywhere close to the top 2.
The EU economy (either the largest or 2nd largest in the world) is at least 6 times larger than the UK economy.
The US defence budget is greater than the next few countries put togther or something similar.

The EU is no more an economy than the northern hemisphere. Not even the Eurozone is a proper economy. That's precisely the problem with the EU, it's a political project, not an economic one, and the two are completely intractable. The political project will collapse (witness Luxembourg and Hungary in recent days ) before they reach the essential requirement for a unified market, namely full fiscal integration and a transfer of wealth from north to south (specifically, from Germany).

[sasguru]

On a different note, its funny no one mentions UK debt and deficits.
At 91% (debt/GDP ratio) and with fiscal probity abandoned as a Tory policy I suspect we'll soon be over the 100% ratio that effectively reduces growth (due to the cost of debt servicing) and makes us more like of the Med countries than a Northern Eueopean one.
Hard Brexit will certianly cause the foreign investors who fund it to think twice.

[sasguru]

The EU is no more an economy than the northern hemisphere. .

It is the largest or second largest, wealthiest or 2nd wealthiest single market, though, and as such hugely attractive to the Chinese and Americans.

[jamesbrown]

"Mutual self-interest" is not a bargaining chip. Your arguments are based on how you think those in Europe are supposed to react.
What can we offer to bargain, not to threaten?
What is our reason for wanting to bargain? What do we want to achieve from it?

How is trade a threat? How is security and defence cooperation a threat? Obviously I have an opinion on how they should act, as do you, but I have no expectations on how they will act.

So, are you saying you consider "hard Brexit" a bad/worst case option?
What is a good scenario in your opinion?

Yes, the worst outcome conditionally upon our leaving, but still a better outcome than remaining in the EU.

A good scenario would be a compromise agreement in all areas that are pressing upon our departure, which may involve an ongoing budget contribution to support common programmes that are mutually beneficial (e.g. Horizon 2020) and, most certainly, an agreement on residency rights. A good atmosphere surrounding the negotiation would help (). Practically speaking, this is likely to mean our leaving the single market and the customs union, in order to deliver on the promises w/r to free movement and trade, but preserving cooperation in other areas (security and defense etc). I think there's a good argument for even closer cooperation in some sectors, but this is going to be tough in the financial sector because the French and others are likely to entrench their positions w/r to the City. There's a good argument for equivalence in place of passporting, but there are technical issues to resolve (the risk of departure from equivalence over time). Crucially, I think we need a timetable for a comprehensive trade agreement, which should (in a spirit of cooperation) be much simpler and more comprehensive than the agreement with Canada (for example) since we meet and, in most cases, exceed the regulatory standards of the single market (we proposed many of them). Trade nowadays is not about the common external tariff, but about regulatory standards or so-called "non-tariff barriers". Of course, these standards are becoming more global in scope than regional, which is good in the long-term.

[sirja]

How is trade a threat? How is security and defence cooperation a threat? Obviously I have an opinion on how they should act, as do you, but I have no expectations on how they will act.



Yes, the worst outcome conditionally upon our leaving, but still a better outcome than remaining in the EU.

A good scenario would be a compromise agreement in all areas that are pressing upon our departure, which may involve an ongoing budget contribution to support common programmes that are mutually beneficial (e.g. Horizon 2020) and, most certainly, an agreement on residency rights. A good atmosphere surrounding the negotiation would help (). Practically speaking, this is likely to mean our leaving the single market and the customs union, in order to deliver on the promises w/r to free movement and trade, but preserving cooperation in other areas (security and defense etc). I think there's a good argument for even closer cooperation in some sectors, but this is going to be tough in the financial sector because the French and others are likely to entrench their positions w/r to the City. There's a good argument for equivalence in place of passporting, but there are technical issues to resolve (the risk of departure from equivalence over time). Crucially, I think we need a timetable for a comprehensive trade agreement, which should (in a spirit of cooperation) be much simpler and more comprehensive than the agreement with Canada (for example) since we meet and, in most cases, exceed the regulatory standards of the single market (we proposed many of them). Trade nowadays is not about the common external tariff, but about regulatory standards or so-called "non-tariff barriers". Of course, these standards are becoming more global in scope than regional, which is good in the long-term.

Very well reserached analysis (Has somebody been reading Richard North's monographs?)

I still think we will end up with practically full access to the single market(The EU will need to save face by denying us the same access we have now)We will still be paying into the EU budget but most likely not quite as much as we do now, and it's already being acknowledged in the more realistic parts of the Europe that some form of restriction on free movement will have to be granted to the UK.

My big fear is that the UK is hit in a game of high stakes porker. The EU shout to the roof tops that access to the single market means acceptance of Free movement. The Uk says no way can it accept unrestricted free movement. They argue and bicker, talks breakdown are started again, all this time the clock is ticking, finally the EU 'compromise' by allowing some restriction on free movement, but in return they get their real price, restrictions on the city of London doing Euro denominated business. That has been the prize Paris and Frankfurt have had their eyes on for years and I fear it will be cost of free movement restrictions.

[d000hg]

The EU economy (either the largest or 2nd largest in the world) is at least 6 times larger than the UK economy.

Is that including the UK economy as part of the EU or taking it out first?