Neil Warnock on Brexit: I cannot wait to get out of the EU!

[boromike85]

Then I genuinely don't see the point you were trying to make. I thought you were saying that because time pressure yielded a positive result in the WA the same could happen again. But if you're just saying there were changes then that point isn't really made.

The point is that they said that under no circumstances would the WA be re-opened but it was. Their "no circumstances" aren't the same as impossible. Under no circumstances can we have X, Y or Z means they don't want to do something but it isn't impossible, we'd probably have to concede something in return as is the way with any negotiation.

How is it exceptionalism to recognise that our trade deal will be different to others? The US were negotiating a trade deal before Trump scuppered it. Do you think they were going to get the bog standard Canada/Turkey/Norway deals that already exist or was it going to be bespoke, including some things that have never been included in any other deals before, due to recognising the advantages of trade between the two parties? After the US we are the biggest trade partner (in terms of balance) so why aren't we an exceptional case?

 

[Adi_Dem]

The point is that they said that under no circumstances would the WA be re-opened but it was. Their "no circumstances" aren't the same as impossible. Under no circumstances can we have X, Y or Z means they don't want to do something but it isn't impossible, we'd probably have to concede something in return as is the way with any negotiation.

They reopened the WA to accept changes that benefitted them!! I would have thought it unnecessary to add ‘unless it’s to our benefit’ to their stated position

Honestly, as far as weak arguments go thats a cracker!

How is it exceptionalism to recognise that our trade deal will be different to others? The US were negotiating a trade deal before Trump scuppered it. Do you think they were going to get the bog standard Canada/Turkey/Norway deals that already exist or was it going to be bespoke, including some things that have never been included in any other deals before, due to recognising the advantages of trade between the two parties? After the US we are the biggest trade partner (in terms of balance) so why aren't we an exceptional case?

I didn’t argue that it wouldn’t be different. You implied we would be somehow ‘preferred’. We won’t be. I point to the evidence of what is happening in front of our eyes in support of that. But besides that, we were discussing the question of exceptionalism in the context of getting a comprehensive trade deal done in the next few months which as I’ve said simply isn’t grounded in reality.

 

[boromike85]

They reopened the WA to accept changes that benefitted them!! I would have thought it unnecessary to add ‘unless it’s to our benefit’ to their stated position

Honestly, as far as weak arguments go thats



I didn’t argue that it wouldn’t be different. You implied we would be somehow ‘preferred’. We won’t be. I point to the evidence of what is happening in front of our eyes in support of that. But besides that, we were discussing the question of exceptionalism in the context of getting a comprehensive trade deal done in the next few months which as I’ve said simply isn’t grounded in reality.

They currently have no incentive to offer us preferential treatment because we still have the option of falling back to their terms. They are pressuring us into taking that option. Once we are out we are like any other 3rd party and we would be preferred. You genuinely think that they would not give a little here and there to get access to a trade balance of £130bn pa?

 

[Adi_Dem]

They currently have no incentive to offer us preferential treatment because we still have the option of falling back to their terms. They are pressuring us into taking that option. Once we are out we are like any other 3rd party and we would be preferred. You genuinely think that they would not give a little here and there to get access to a trade balance of £130bn pa?

We are already out. We signed a WA that set out the parameters of our future relationship. Giving a little here and there doing a lot of heavy lifting again here! The EU want a deal with the U.K. it goes without saying. But they won’t do so at the expense of the fundamental principles of the EU. So no we won’t be treated all that exceptionally.

As an aside could you tell me about the £130bn figure you quote?

 

[boromike85]

We are already out. We signed a WA that set out the parameters of our future relationship. Giving a little here and there doing a lot of heavy lifting again here! The EU want a deal with the U.K. it goes without saying. But they won’t do so at the expense of the fundamental principles of the EU. So no we won’t be treated all that exceptionally.

As an aside could you tell me about the £130bn figure you quote?

Figure taken from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_European_Union

 

[Adi_Dem]

Figure taken from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_European_Union

Those figures don't include trade in services, which skews them completely.

 

[Lefty]

Figure taken from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_European_Union

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/

 

[boromike85]

Those figures don't include trade in services.

Correct, apologies. I just took the data from the first search result.

The point still stands though, the balance is still £72bn. The Canada deal doesn't include services and their goods trade is much smaller than ours. Undoubtedly services vs goods will be the angles on the trade deal because we need access for services and they need access for goods because we have the alternative of buying goods from anywhere in the world once we're out of the EU but we are of course at risk of losing services.

 

[Adi_Dem]

Correct, apologies. I just took the data from the first search result.

The point still stands though, the balance is still £72bn. The Canada deal doesn't include services and their goods trade is much smaller than ours. Undoubtedly services vs goods will be the angles on the trade deal because we need access for services and they need access for goods because we have the alternative of buying goods from anywhere in the world once we're out of the EU but we are of course at risk of losing services.

I don't think the point does stand. We won't be treated preferentially because we are in any way exceptional. They don't need us more than we need them. In fact the very opposite of that is true. We do not and never have held all the cards. We are literally seeing this unfold in front of our eyes.

 

[boromike85]

I don't think the point does stand. We won't be treated preferentially because we are in any way exceptional. They don't need us more than we need them. In fact the very opposite of that is true. We do not and never have held all the cards. We are literally seeing this unfold in front of our eyes.

There is no needing them/us more just the fact that it is beneficial for both parties to have a trade deal. The EU is not a single entity though. The EU is a trading bloc and as a whole, yes, they can do without our trade but the millions of companies within the EU won't be happy (or survive) if we no longer buy their goods. We don't buy anything from the EU, we buy goods from businesses that are based in the EU. Will all of those people and businesses be so pro-EU when they lose their jobs/businesses because they took a principled stand to not allow a trade deal? No, of course not. They will do what is needed to be done to ensure that those jobs and businesses don't just vanish. £300bn+ must be propping up a lot of businesses.

 

[Ziggy]

As long as succession is lawfully achieved...

The Spanish Government will NOT veto Scottish accession to the European Union – and it has been repeating that message for years.

 

[Adi_Dem]

There is no needing them/us more just the fact that it is beneficial for both parties to have a trade deal. The EU is not a single entity though. The EU is a trading bloc and as a whole, yes, they can do without our trade but the millions of companies within the EU won't be happy (or survive) if we no longer buy their goods. We don't buy anything from the EU, we buy goods from businesses that are based in the EU. Will all of those people and businesses be so pro-EU when they lose their jobs/businesses because they took a principled stand to not allow a trade deal? No, of course not. They will do what is needed to be done to ensure that those jobs and businesses don't just vanish. £300bn+ must be propping up a lot of businesses.

It's all just fantasy. It's the extrapolation of the 'German car makers will force the EU's hand and give us a deal'. As I've said, the EU and its members want a deal. They won't however, cross their stated red lines. They can't. And since our own government has made promises that the EU either will or already has compromised those red lines and compounded that by not bothering to read (judging by IDS' nonsense today) the WA and instead believing what they have been told it says the idea that we can get to a free trade agreement without barriers is wishful thinking at best.

 

[boromike85]

It's all just fantasy. It's the extrapolation of the 'German car makers will force the EU's hand and give us a deal'. As I've said, the EU and its members want a deal. They won't however, cross their stated red lines. They can't. And since our own government has made promises that the EU either will or already has compromised those red lines and compounded that by not bothering to read (judging by IDS' nonsense today) the WA and instead believing what they have been told it says the idea that we can get to a free trade agreement without barriers is wishful thinking at best.

I'm not expecting there to be no barriers. I'm just expecting those barriers to be inconsequential in the long term. Short term there will be friction but that'll be ironed out over time.

I'm expecting there to be a free trade deal without freedom of movement, like Canada or Japan, with regulatory alignment (in the majority of cases), minimal border checks and freedom to make trade deals with 3rd parties (again like Canada or Japan).

 

[Adi_Dem]

Short term there will be friction but that'll be ironed out over time.

Another sentence doing some seriously heavy lifting. If that's what you're expecting then you're in for a shock, depending on your definition of short term.

I'm expecting there to be a free trade deal without freedom of movement, like Canada or Japan, with regulatory alignment (in the majority of cases), minimal border checks and freedom to make trade deals with 3rd parties (again like Canada or Japan).

Well, let's hope that expectation is met. I see precious little evidence in support of such a hope though. Just the opposite in fact.

 

[boromike85]

Another sentence doing some seriously heavy lifting. If that's what you're expecting then you're in for a shock, depending on your definition of short term.

I don't really have a definition. Immediately there will be the maximum friction which will gradually lessen over time. It might not be as good as frictionless for several years but it will get to a point where it is merely inconvenient within a few months because what are the issues really; timing and cost. Things that are not desirable but aren't disastrous.

Well, let's hope that expectation is met. I see precious little evidence in support of such a hope though. Just the opposite in fact.

It is a possibility though, which I think you agree. If it isn't impossible then why would you be so certain it won't happen (other than the incompetence of our government and the EU being spitefully punitive).

 

[Adi_Dem]

I don't really have a definition. Immediately there will be the maximum friction which will gradually lessen over time. It might not be as good as frictionless for several years but it will get to a point where it is merely inconvenient within a few months because what are the issues really; timing and cost. Things that are not desirable but aren't disastrous.

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what will happen without a trade deal, which is where I am pretty certain we are heading. I work with a major logistics and freight forwarder. I can't go into any detail but believe me it will not be merely 'inconvenient' in a matter of months. The economic and logistical consequences of leaving without a deal are going to be catastrophic.

It is a possibility though, which I think you agree. If it isn't impossible then why would you be so certain it won't happen (other than the incompetence of our government and the EU being spitefully punitive).

Again you seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that it is the EU that is going to choose to punish us. We are doing this to ourselves. We are imposing economic sanctions on ourselves. They don't have to do anything for us to shoot ourselves in both feet and the red lines that we say we have simply cannot and will not be compromised on by the EU. You don't need to be an expert on EU law or the basis upon which the EU is built to recognise that.

Anything is possible, of course. But do I believe that this government will deliver anything that is (a) competent, (b) which involves capitulating on all of the things it has expressly said it won't and which it sold the 'deal' on and (c) all in a few months? Absolutely not. No chance whatsoever.

 

[boromike85]

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what will happen without a trade deal, which is where I am pretty certain we are heading. I work with a major logistics and freight forwarder. I can't go into any detail but believe me it will not be merely 'inconvenient' in a matter of months. The economic and logistical consequences of leaving without a deal are going to be catastrophic.



Again you seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that it is the EU that is going to choose to punish us. We are doing this to ourselves. We are imposing economic sanctions on ourselves. They don't have to do anything for us to shoot ourselves in both feet and the red lines that we say we have simply cannot and will not be compromised on by the EU. You don't need to be an expert on EU law or the basis upon which the EU is built to recognise that.

Anything is possible, of course. But do I believe that this government will deliver anything that is (a) competent, (b) which involves capitulating on all of the things it has expressly said it won't and which it sold the 'deal' on and (c) all in a few months? Absolutely not. No chance whatsoever.

I didn't say No Deal. I meant a FTA without a CU like Canada & Japan. There will be delays at the border which wastes time and costs but isn't disastrous, just takes an adjustment to expected delivery times and an increased cost because of the delay.

If the EU refuses to give us a Canada-like deal when we know it is an option that they do offer to 3rd party nations then that is punishing us (and themselves). If we ask for that and they say no then what would the reason be other than punitive? Yes, we have made the decision to leave but it is up to both parties to decide on the best arrangement for both parties that doesn't involve membership.

 

[Adi_Dem]

I didn't say No Deal. I meant a FTA without a CU like Canada & Japan. There will be delays at the border which wastes time and costs but isn't disastrous, just takes an adjustment to expected delivery times and an increased cost because of the delay.

If the EU refuses to give us a Canada-like deal when we know it is an option that they do offer to 3rd party nations then that is punishing us (and themselves). If we ask for that and they say no then what would the reason be other than punitive? Yes, we have made the decision to leave but it is up to both parties to decide on the best arrangement for both parties that doesn't involve membership.

Actually a Canada style deal would have very serious repercussions and the consequences would be felt for a long time. The extent to which people underestimate its impact never ceases to amaze me.

Putting that to one side though I don’t for a minute believe that the EU wouldn’t be open to such a deal. Why wouldn’t they? That’s not the problem at all. The problem is that we have neither the will, competence or government support to ask for such a deal, let alone put one in place within the timeframe we have.

 

[indeedido]

It's all just fantasy. It's the extrapolation of the 'German car makers will force the EU's hand and give us a deal'. As I've said, the EU and its members want a deal. They won't however, cross their stated red lines. They can't. And since our own government has made promises that the EU either will or already has compromised those red lines and compounded that by not bothering to read (judging by IDS' nonsense today) the WA and instead believing what they have been told it says the idea that we can get to a free trade agreement without barriers is wishful thinking at best.

Way back up this thread, I didn't say Free Trade Deal without borders, I said with minimum policing. I was clear.

 

[boromike85]

Why wouldn’t they?

Because they want something as similar to what we currently have which includes free movement, frictionless trade and a contribution. If the other 27 know that you can be a trading partner without contributing to the budget then why would the net contributors stay?

Actually a Canada style deal would have very serious repercussions and the consequences would be felt for a long time. The extent to which people underestimate its impact never ceases to amaze me.

What would they be and why are they insurmountable?