olle wrote:

By the way; UK employs 50 000 staff to handle customs declarations.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-gove

What can be the cost per week?

You mean, the UK intends to employ 50,000 customs officials and train them in time. If they get the minimum wage, it would cost around GBP 315 per person * 50,000 = GBP15,750,000 per week (or GBP 819mn a year). However, if staff get more due to late shifts and extra pay on Saturday/Sunday this may rise. Add to this the need for trainers (one cannot expect that people remain all the time) and managers (are these included in the 50,000?). However, they will pay taxes and consume, thus not all money is lost (though if they spend it on electronics imported from abroad it doesn't help much).

olle wrote:

So this is a conflict equal to the world wars?

Has UK told EU? Or do we have a new war just started without official war declaration?

If UK is smart there is a number of examples where some troops can play germans in a attack on dover! The invasion is here!

Would it make sense to risk your economic stability for a lesser cause?

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Yeah, national football teams are indeed one of the more visible embodiments of national identification, and the UK with its split teams always looked like an outsider there!

It has been the case since long before you and I were born.

I am sorry if it offends you so much.

I doesn't "offend" me at all. It's just a weird sign of disunity.

But given how english nationalism is now blowing up the UK it's apparently always just been a sign of things to come.

What since 1860 odd?

noviorbis77 wrote:

What since 1860 odd?

Yes, and increasingly so with the growing relevance of football worldwide since then.

When it was mostly just a domestic regional thing it was not an issue, but it's global now, and there countries are represented by national teams, all except for the UK.

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

course correction I woudnt call it any longer; the destination has radically changed meanwhile, as evidenced by my previous post containing the summary of the constant backsliding in Mr. Gove's prefered landing zones over the past 3 years...

The destination remains the same: a successful outcome with a FTA, then we can all move on to more pressing matters

But is it still the destination, I wonder?

You can indeed argue that all of the previous incarnations of what Brexit would lead to were to pass through soms sort of a comprehensive agreement on freedom in trade, and that as such it is just the level of ambition that got tuned down over time (most noteworthy in the last version where the abundance of 'plusses' were taken off the Canada deal as you must have noticed yourself too), but the most recent decision by the British government to backtrack on the commitments made in the PD on the LPF means it simply is not possible to reach any sort of a deal any longer, unless somehow the EU would surprisingly give in on key issues like state aid.

It seems the UK is willing to make a deal with the EU on all the key LPF issues including state aid. What the UK does not want is a conflict resolution mechanism that requires signing away any more sovereignty to the EU than they already did with Northern Ireland.

What Conflict Resolution Mechanism do they want?.

Whatever the mechanism will be, it will not be allowed to interpret the EU internal laws and rules. It is an absolute red line under EUCJ supervision.

If the UK decides on a hard Brexit the EU will cope, so long as the ROI/NI agreement is observed. But there will be borders, tariffs, customs checks - a lot of friction as specific agreements are worked out case by case, product by product. Sober economists agree that it will reduce the UK growth rate by about half a percent. Given that mature economies have trouble maintaining a 2% growth rate that half percent will hurt, but not a disaster. Who will hurt the most? Young ambitious smart workers in the UK, science and research people, there likely will be a shortage of medical people. (hint hint - educate some of those smart young people, and make the work lives of doctors and nurses better). World class universities in the UK will feel the pinch, both with research budgets and the free movement of scholars.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

If the UK decides on a hard Brexit the EU will cope, so long as the ROI/NI agreement is observed. But there will be borders, tariffs, customs checks - a lot of friction as specific agreements are worked out case by case, product by product. Sober economists agree that it will reduce the UK growth rate by about half a percent. Given that mature economies have trouble maintaining a 2% growth rate that half percent will hurt, but not a disaster. Who will hurt the most? Young ambitious smart workers in the UK, science and research people, there likely will be a shortage of medical people. (hint hint - educate some of those smart young people, and make the work lives of doctors and nurses better). World class universities in the UK will feel the pinch, both with research budgets and the free movement of scholars.

Good grief you make out that a impenetrable wall is going up between the EU/UK, does everyone who goes to higher education or scholars in there field only come from within the boundary of the EU, lots of different people from different walks of life come and go from outside Europe the only difference is they come in via a visa. Unless they come in illegally or have extensive criminal records is about the only time a visa will be denied apply for the correct visa comply with the visa and everything will be sweet

That is not how work visas 'work out' in practice. They get entangled with bureaucratic red tape, changing national policy, political grandstanding, other immigration barriers. Airbus will no longer be able to 'just send people' back and forth as needed. Nor anyone else. They will need 'permission'. Each and every time.

All the reasons you've given for requiring visas we could already do as an EU member. You've voted for extra bureaucracy and red tape for no real benefit.

Brexiteers; voting to lose what they already had.

bennett123 wrote:

What Conflict Resolution Mechanism do they want?.

That is something the UK will have to clarify. The UK is better in stating what it does not want than what it does want. I image they will look at CETA for inspiration.

AeroVega wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

What Conflict Resolution Mechanism do they want?.

That is something the UK will have to clarify. The UK is better in stating what it does not want than what it does want. I image they will look at CETA for inspiration.

I hope they make up their mind quickly. Only 10 months left to get a deal done and thus no time to waste in looking too long for inspiration. Then again, you're 100% right about the UK stating what it does want instead of what it does want. Looks similar to my children in that respect.

ChrisKen wrote:

All the reasons you've given for requiring visas we could already do as an EU member. You've voted for extra bureaucracy and red tape for no real benefit.

Brexiteers; voting to lose what they already had.

I imagine this post is a reply to me. I know what requirements are to enter the UK the original post I was replying to presented a theory it was the UK intention to present a picture that people will find it more difficult to enter the UK for educational or business purposes that is not the case at all once we are finally free of the EU all it requires is the correct visa nothing more nothing less as it always has been, we are not turning into some sort of gulag in Siberia

Brexit: voted to leave the EU with the return of our sovereignty for the interests of the UK

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Who will hurt the most? Young ambitious smart workers in the UK, science and research people, there likely will be a shortage of medical people. (hint hint - educate some of those smart young people, and make the work lives of doctors and nurses better). World class universities in the UK will feel the pinch, both with research budgets and the free movement of scholars.

There is some hope that research and science collaboration will not be affected too much by Brexit.

See https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51658601

LJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

What Conflict Resolution Mechanism do they want?.

That is something the UK will have to clarify. The UK is better in stating what it does not want than what it does want. I image they will look at CETA for inspiration.

I hope they make up their mind quickly. Only 10 months left .....

....or 4 months, both sides have rumours out that June 2020 is a key month, if true, crunch time is much closer.
If no deal is reached the UK needs time to put their border and customs personnel in place, even if no hard Brexit, they will need additional personnel anyway so they should have already begun recruiting and training for many jobs previously done by the EU, lots of official government duties will have to be done by UK personnel.

It is why the EU does not trust the UK government. France recruited custom agents because of Brexit but they need 2 years formation to be up to the task. If the EU does not see the UK making real progress recruiting and building border posts, it is pretty clear there is no point going on talking.

A101 wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

All the reasons you've given for requiring visas we could already do as an EU member. You've voted for extra bureaucracy and red tape for no real benefit.

Brexiteers; voting to lose what they already had.

I imagine this post is a reply to me. I know what requirements are to enter the UK the original post I was replying to presented a theory it was the UK intention to present a picture that people will find it more difficult to enter the UK for educational or business purposes that is not the case at all once we are finally free of the EU all it requires is the correct visa nothing more nothing less as it always has been, we are not turning into some sort of gulag in Siberia

Brexit: voted to leave the EU with the return of our sovereignty for the interests of the UK

Like I said, you voted to lose what we already had. We had sovereignty. We had the abilty to do all the things you claim introducing visas will acheive. Ditto for every other supposed EU 'issue' brexiteers throw out. You've thrown away the UK having a say in it's interests with our largest and closest neighbour.

Emotional misdirection, lies, and contradictory unachievables; Brexit was a con, you fell for it.

Humanity makes it's leaps forward working together in ever larger groups.

Seems that the UK is planning to use one EUs reliance on UK security technology as a bargaining chip. Then again, what else can the UK offer the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip

LJ wrote:

Seems that the UK is planning to use one EUs reliance on UK security technology as a bargaining chip. Then again, what else can the UK offer the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip

I fail to see why security agreements need to be a part of a trade agreement. Trade is trade defence& security is another just as any climate accord is different.

3/4 ofvthe crap dosnt need to be in it.

LJ wrote:

Seems that the UK is planning to use one EUs reliance on UK security technology as a bargaining chip. Then again, what else can the UK offer the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip

Another thing that the UK can offer the EU is financial services. See, for example, https://finnius.com/en/brexit-tijdelijk ... en-uit-vk/ (in English).

Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU, the EU must invest in the development of security technology and financial services. That is money better spent than on CAP or regional development (like https://www.euractiv.com/section/politi ... uspicions/)

AeroVega wrote:

LJ wrote:

Seems that the UK is planning to use one EUs reliance on UK security technology as a bargaining chip. Then again, what else can the UK offer the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip

Another thing that the UK can offer the EU is financial services. See, for example, https://finnius.com/en/brexit-tijdelijk ... en-uit-vk/ (in English).

Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU, the EU must invest in the development of security technology and financial services. That is money better spent than on CAP or regional development (like https://www.euractiv.com/section/politi ... uspicions/)

For financial services, the EU has the UK a lot more to offer, then the other way around. Many of the financial services located in London, opened offices within the EU: Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Dublin etc. Given the attitude of the Johnson government, I don't think it is wise to give the UK the right for financial services within the EU. And regardless, would the current UK accept EU oversight? If not, it is a no-go anyway.

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

Seems that the UK is planning to use one EUs reliance on UK security technology as a bargaining chip. Then again, what else can the UK offer the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip

I fail to see why security agreements need to be a part of a trade agreement.

Well, they don't have to be part of any trade agreement, but they need to be discussed and agreed as well, so it's not a bad idea to use the same platform and framework for those talks too, given the same parties are around the table anyway...

On the other hand, given that there's already a lot on the table, maybe it's a better idea to move this topic to another round of seperate talks.

Anyway, TM's government had tried to use security as a bargaining chip already, only to be reminded of the fact the UK has commitments under its NATO membership anyway, and that security and intelligence exchange is by far the cheapest way to live up to these commitments.

It's just proof the UK is desperately looking for some bargaining chips which simply aren't there: the UK is the junior partner by far, and the economic impact of a no deal is going to be many times bigger for the UK than for the EU: the cold hard facts and the numbers in support of them are stacked against the UK, simple as that really.

The only thing you could think of is the resolve not to compromise, but that is something in the minds of fanatic Brexiteers only: most of the ordinary people who voted for Brexit are no die-hard Brexiteers or EU haters at all, they've just voted the way they did because they thought it would lead to a better personal life for them: when you feel like you have few to lose, you dare to make a gamble, but equally when you see that gamble isn't paying off, you're unlikely to double down... rather you'll cut your losses and go back to what you did before, taking any safe offer on the table. Oh, and patience will probably run rather thin too for this to happen too, btw, which is why BoJo put out all these rather ridiculously short deadlines and why he's now returned to the pre-Brexit rethoric of breaking free as if brexit didn't happen yet....
Scared of being confronted with the inevitable question from the British public of just when all those fantastic things will now finally happen.
It's going to be an interesting moment of reckoning in a couple of years time, when a lot of ordinary people will look around them and still see they live in the same old houses in desolated streets of forgotten town and cities outside London, go to work for a miserable wage which hasn't grown much (if any) above inflation and have felt no positive material impact of Brexit whatsoever in their own lives.

AeroVega wrote:

LJ wrote:

Seems that the UK is planning to use one EUs reliance on UK security technology as a bargaining chip. Then again, what else can the UK offer the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip

Another thing that the UK can offer the EU is financial services. See, for example, https://finnius.com/en/brexit-tijdelijk ... en-uit-vk/ (in English).

You do realise that this exemption is a favour to UK firms, not for Dutch professional investors (most noteably Dutch pension funds)? Without an exempltion all Dutch pension funds must redirect their funds from UK firms to an EU based firm by March 29th. Given the size of the transfer, the time frame (which cannot be moved) and some firms haven't received their license for their EU based subsidiary yet (either due to regulatory process or they were just late to start the process) this is a problem for Dutch professional investors. This means that the Dutch pension funds have to leave the firm they're currently dealing with (which they do not want). The UK cannot use this as a bargaining chip as all firms are in the process of setting up their EU subsidiary, which takes apparantly more time than foreseen. An additional problem is that those firms need to hire people famliar with local and EU regulation for their EU subsidiary, which was already in short supply before Brexit and has become worse ever since. This is made worse as the local firms cannot hire UK specialists anymore unless they receive the necessary permits, should the agreements between the UK and EU become more restrictive. This can mean replacing current UK specialists with EU specialists as well (hence why they're reluctant to hire UK nationals based in the UK). In short, the losers are UK finance specialists. The winners are EU finance specialsts. The UK firm is nor a winner nor a loser as it just sets up a subsidiary in the EU (though that does mean higher costs, but that's only a marginal loss).

AeroVega wrote:

LJ wrote:

Seems that the UK is planning to use one EUs reliance on UK security technology as a bargaining chip. Then again, what else can the UK offer the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip

Another thing that the UK can offer the EU is financial services. See, for example, https://finnius.com/en/brexit-tijdelijk ... en-uit-vk/ (in English).

Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU, the EU must invest in the development of security technology and financial services. That is money better spent than on CAP or regional development (like https://www.euractiv.com/section/politi ... uspicions/)

I think the magic word in the article is "France" and specific "beside France". The question is that now France want to get behind the security steering wheel while it is actually spending more on Security and defense then UK do. The security is also a sword that cuts from both ends. UK has in many cases let USA have information that EU today is nit very happy to share with USA. I can see that UK EU will be based on areas where EU see a need and over time start to develop its own resources. France seems to be happy with that strategy.

Regarding finance. This is the golden goose. EU will let UK have as much as needed until it is not needed anymore.

In this calculation there is Germany and the other states. They have agreed to increase spending to 2% of GDP within a few years. Where shall this money be spent? Germany expressed this like shall we construct a few carriers? Intelligence services cold be a area to spend the new resources.

You can also take into account that a lot of people working in the finance sector in London are not brits. And that expertise can move out London easily. I bet that circa 2025 that move will be complete.

A101 wrote:

I fail to see why security agreements need to be a part of a trade agreement. Trade is trade defence& security is another just as any climate accord is different.

3/4 ofvthe crap dosnt need to be in it.

The European Union is about a lot more than just about trade and since the UK is losing all those other things as well now, it is obvious that the other damage needs to be considered, too.

That shortsighted claim by UK politicians that the EU should only be about trade has always been a misconception, and the discrepancies between that misconception and reality of course become apparent during the negotiations now as well.

Olddog wrote:

You can also take into account that a lot of people working in the finance sector in London are not brits. And that expertise can move out London easily. I bet that circa 2025 that move will be complete.

Indeed many EU nationals work in the UK (or better London). However, they already have a job and unless their employer moves their business to the EU, they can probably stay (and will stay as the salaries and bonusses in London are much higher than anywhere in Europe). Or do you really think that those specialists like earning much less than they're currently doing and having less status (Frankfurt or Paris are considered of a lower status than London in their view)?

Interesting background interview with Michel Barnier, primarily giving perspective on his approach more than about negotiation details:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/eu ... c212a7d6a7
(Click the red button to accept cookies; If you want to get rid of those after closing use private mode in your browser.)

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

LJ wrote:

Seems that the UK is planning to use one EUs reliance on UK security technology as a bargaining chip. Then again, what else can the UK offer the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip

Another thing that the UK can offer the EU is financial services. See, for example, https://finnius.com/en/brexit-tijdelijk ... en-uit-vk/ (in English).

Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU, the EU must invest in the development of security technology and financial services. That is money better spent than on CAP or regional development (like https://www.euractiv.com/section/politi ... uspicions/)

For financial services, the EU has the UK a lot more to offer, then the other way around. Many of the financial services located in London, opened offices within the EU: Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Dublin etc. Given the attitude of the Johnson government, I don't think it is wise to give the UK the right for financial services within the EU. And regardless, would the current UK accept EU oversight? If not, it is a no-go anyway.

I agree that the best thing for the EU is to have no dependency on the City of London. But the extension of passporting rights to UK banks is not a favour. It is really important for the EU not to be cut off from the City abruptly at the end of the year.

AeroVega wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Another thing that the UK can offer the EU is financial services. See, for example, https://finnius.com/en/brexit-tijdelijk ... en-uit-vk/ (in English).

Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU, the EU must invest in the development of security technology and financial services. That is money better spent than on CAP or regional development (like https://www.euractiv.com/section/politi ... uspicions/)

For financial services, the EU has the UK a lot more to offer, then the other way around. Many of the financial services located in London, opened offices within the EU: Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Dublin etc. Given the attitude of the Johnson government, I don't think it is wise to give the UK the right for financial services within the EU. And regardless, would the current UK accept EU oversight? If not, it is a no-go anyway.

I agree that the best thing for the EU is to have no dependency on the City of London. But the extension of passporting rights to UK banks is not a favour. It is really important for the EU not to be cut off from the City abruptly at the end of the year.

Which is not going to happen, because the EU can and will unilaterally decide to give EQUIVALENCE to British banks, meaning nothing changes for the time being.

However, this equivalence can be revoked unilaterally by the EU at any time with a cut of period of just 30 days, so it's definitely no gift to British banks, on the contrary even! Especially if accompanied by a legal and political campaign from the EC and the ECB to repatriate these financial products where equivalence was temporarily recognized, it is all but a given that they will seek to put themselves under the EU regulatory umbrella in the shortest possible time...

You can thus expect a slowly deflationary scenario in which equivalence will be issued, a couple of times extended and as the legal and technical framework is being put in place by the EC and the ECB, repeated warnings will be issued by them as to the near end of the general equivalence for British banks conducting their business from London, after which this equivalence will indeed be ended, probably product per product, to show remaining banks that the EU means it that no third country is allowed to handle its financial products, and they will have to move everything out of the UK...

Remember equivalence can be ended unilaterally and there's no need for any divergence from EU rules for it to be ended: it can be decided to revoke it WITHOUT any change in the UK legislation vs today!

sabenapilot wrote:

Well, they don't have to be part of any trade agreement, but they need to be discussed and agreed as well, so it's not a bad idea to use the same platform and framework for those talks too, given the same parties are around the table anyway...

On the other hand, given that there's already a lot on the table, maybe it's a better idea to move this topic to another round of seperate talks.

.

Well least we are in partial agreement, using the same platform is were we disagree. National and local area security are far apart but overall have the same goals and those that sit in those meeting are different people with different areas of competence, similar to the spat between the MOD and Cummings in respect to the carrier’s. Everyone knows it’s defence that get hammered when budgets are dwindling it’s easy pickings as defence cannot be run like a business case it’s has a unique function same as the intelligence network

sabenapilot wrote:

Anyway, TM's government had tried to use security as a bargaining chip already, only to be reminded of the fact the UK has commitments under its NATO membership anyway, and that security and intelligence exchange is by far the cheapest way to live up to these commitments.

While ever the UK remains in NATO it’s never a bargaining chip. But the only reason that the EU see it that way is because it’s looking at further integration with a EU defence force

sabenapilot wrote:

It's just proof the UK is desperately looking for some bargaining chips which simply aren't there: the UK is the junior partner by far, and the economic impact of a no deal is going to be many times bigger for the UK than for the EU: the cold hard facts and the numbers in support of them are stacked against the UK, simple as that really.

It should not be a problem then to remove it from the talks then should it, for then it would become a separate bilateral agreement between the EU/UK. If you think the UK is weaponisation the security aspect of the future relationship

sabenapilot wrote:

The only thing you could think of is the resolve not to compromise, but that is something in the minds of fanatic Brexiteers only: most of the ordinary people who voted for Brexit are no die-hard Brexiteers or EU haters at all,

That’s were your misconceptions are, yes majority of brits don’t hate those from the continent i certainly don’t hate people from the continent that I’ve never meet before. But that is certainly very different from the political nature of the EU in which there is a lot of hate for institution the Brussels has become

sabenapilot wrote:

they've just voted the way they did because they thought it would lead to a better personal life for them: when you feel like you have few to lose, you dare to make a gamble, but equally when you see that gamble isn't paying off, you're unlikely to double down... rather you'll cut your losses and go back to what you did before, taking any safe offer on the table.

The thing is there is no way of going back to before. Cameron tried the reforms aspect and got no where. But with Brexit it just might mean it’s the shakeup the the EU needs otherwise it could lead to more disenfranchisement from other members of the EU overtime.

sabenapilot wrote:

Oh, and patience will probably run rather thin too for this to happen too, btw, which is why BoJo put out all these rather ridiculously short deadlines and why he's now returned to the pre-Brexit rethoric of breaking free as if brexit didn't happen yet....

No the short deadlines are in the interests of the UK, no point remains in vassalage and paying into the budget when at anytime the EU can pass a law at the detriment of the UK.

sabenapilot wrote:

Scared of being confronted with the inevitable question from the British public of just when all those fantastic things will now finally happen.

Nope there’s always an element that oppose the government it’s a natural part of politics, leave even had to battle a very hostile Parliament

sabenapilot wrote:

It's going to be an interesting moment of reckoning in a couple of years time, when a lot of ordinary people will look around them and still see they live in the same old houses in desolated streets of forgotten town and cities outside London, go to work for a miserable wage which hasn't grown much (if any) above inflation and have felt no positive material impact of Brexit whatsoever in their own lives.

I see you still practicing the art of clairvoyance, you better be careful most are arrested for fraud.

Aesma wrote:

To continue the discussion about an advisory referendum on Scotland independence, I am convinced it could be done relatively easily, and that the comparison with Catalonia is misleading. There are countless differences between the two.

With that said, I'm not sure at all that the referendum would give independance a win, which is precisely why nobody is seriously considering it. When Brexit starts biting in a couple of years, we shall see.

In catalonia there is a situation closer to NI with a big quiet castillano speaking group that is connected tp spain. Then you have a catalan speaking group that want indepenence.

The 2 groups do not agree at all and the castillano groups so far has not attended the referendums done so far.

Olddog wrote:

It is why the EU does not trust the UK government. France recruited custom agents because of Brexit but they need 2 years formation to be up to the task. If the EU does not see the UK making real progress recruiting and building border posts, it is pretty clear there is no point going on talking.

Interesting, when some in the UK suggested they do the same after the 2016 vote the Chancellor at the time was against making such preparations, now that makes it appear the UK cannot be trusted, which is correct, the personal decisions do reflect on the UK.

A101 wrote:

While ever the UK remains in NATO it’s never a bargaining chip. But the only reason that the EU see it that way is because it’s looking at further integration with a EU defence force

And clearly the desire of OTHERS to integrate further is a major concern for a THIRD COUNTRY like the UK....
As I've said before: being out also means no more right to comment.on what are now internal matters of a foreign (group of) nation(s).

A101 wrote:

It should not be a problem then to remove it from the talks then should it, for then it would become a separate bilateral agreement between the EU/UK.

It's not a red line of the EU, so it can be put into seperate negotiations...
It will just mean even more food on the platter of the UK then, who's already having the chew on quite a lot it has bitten off.
Remember Brexit for the EU means reaching a workable deal with just 1 extra country; for the UK it means suddenly negotiating with more than a hundred countries globally at the same time.

A101 wrote:

That’s were your misconceptions are, yes majority of brits don’t hate those from the continent i certainly don’t hate people from the continent that I’ve never meet before. But that is certainly very different from the political nature of the EU in which there is a lot of hate for institution the Brussels has become

Don't forget 48% of those who voted in the referendum, voted to remain in the political union too, so it would be a blunt generalisation to assume an overwhelming majority of Brits sit with your rather radical view on everything concerning Brexit and the EU: there may or may not still be a majority for this radical form Brexit will ultimately take, but let's just say that it doesn't take a huge swing in the general mood to turn the majority from 2016 into a minority if Brexit doesn't deliver the full 100% as promissed....

A101 wrote:

I see you still practicing the art of clairvoyance, you better be careful most are arrested for fraud.

it's not clairvoyance at all, it pointing to a strategic error on the side of the Brexiteers, i.e. their poor expectation management.
Whereas at first this could still be attributed to the need to overpromise in order to win the referendum and ultimately gain power; once in power, they never tuned it down, as if those suddenly in power are still drunk from victory... it's time to sober up and to speak the truth, I'd say.
It's a given BoJo can not deliver on all the promisses he has made and will thus hugely disappoint, at which point even those who he associated with during the campaign will happily point failure out: N. Farage for one, you can be sure off as he's not just going back to doing nothing, especially not now he's having nothing else to do as he's lost his seat in the EP.
Even the cleanest of Brexits will ultimately not suffice if it doesn't deliver the promissed sunlit uplands for those who were won over, which it simply can't, so disillusion is a given at some point.
It's really no coincidence all the talk by the British government as of recently sounds again as if Brexit still needs to happen, after all the self-gloss over having it done and dusted end of Feb: it postpones the moment of reckoning once again...

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

It is why the EU does not trust the UK government. France recruited custom agents because of Brexit but they need 2 years formation to be up to the task. If the EU does not see the UK making real progress recruiting and building border posts, it is pretty clear there is no point going on talking.

Interesting, when some in the UK suggested they do the same after the 2016 vote the Chancellor at the time was against making such preparations, now that makes it appear the UK cannot be trusted, which is correct, the personal decisions do reflect on the UK.

All over Europe countries make the necessary preparations. Indeed it takes time to train staff. If the UK hasn't begun to make real preparations, then they are in for a mess in a few months time.

Dutchy wrote:

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

It is why the EU does not trust the UK government. France recruited custom agents because of Brexit but they need 2 years formation to be up to the task. If the EU does not see the UK making real progress recruiting and building border posts, it is pretty clear there is no point going on talking.

Interesting, when some in the UK suggested they do the same after the 2016 vote the Chancellor at the time was against making such preparations, now that makes it appear the UK cannot be trusted, which is correct, the personal decisions do reflect on the UK.

All over Europe countries make the necessary preparations. Indeed it takes time to train staff. If the UK hasn't begun to make real preparations, then they are in for a mess in a few months time.

As we know, during her tenure TM had to "slap down" the chancellor because he refused to finance preparations, note how fast he was changed after BJ became PM.
The existing civil service infrastructure is now under pressure to get ready, we are told they are professionals so time will tell how good they really are, especially if there is no extension.

Brexit will have huge impact on Nato.

Because of Brexit a EU army willstart to be formed and special France seems to see EU as an actor inthe international diplomaticarena.

This is still very early but in let say 25 years from now that still is a short period, Nato will go from having actors like USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada and a group ofsmall countries to have USA, EU, UK, Canada.

Compared to USA and EU, UK will be a small partner, and this if Nato still exists. Nato have a big problem and that is to keep USA interested.

The UK government will soon publish its paper on its negotiating position for the UK-US trade talks, but the document has already been leaked and the numbers provided in it have thus been compared to those in the paper on the British negotiating position for the UK-EU trade deal.

By laying the 2 government papers on both trade deals next to each other (which the UK government will not do: it wants to avoid comparisons and will thus speak in absolute values, never in percentages), it's clear that the potential economic benefits of a UK-US trade deal (+0.2% of GDP) are de minimis compared to the economic costs of its own Brexit proposals (-7.6% to -4.9% of GDP), so Brexit will lead to a net self-inflicted hit of between -7.4% and -4.7% on the British economy.

Way to go, I'd say!

It was quite ... "interesting" ... how the Guardian immediately compared the 0.2% best-case US deal against the ~-6% EU deals - yet the BBC does not make this comparison in actual figures *ANYWHERE!*. The best you get is Faisal Islam in a piece (buried in the business section) titled "window of opportunity to do a US trade deal" giving impressive sounding "GDP is promised a £3.4bn boost" and only qualifies it verbally as "tariffs between the UK and EU would far outweigh these kind of benefits".

Anyone who claims the BBC isn't being biased towards the Brexit government needs to explain why the *MAIN PAGE HEADLINE* isn't:

US deal 0.2% GDP increase far outweighed by Brexit's -7.6% decrease

I'm sure the journalists would like to put these numbers out there, so it *has to be* editorialising in the newsroom...

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

It was quite ... "interesting" ... how the Guardian immediately compared the 0.2% best-case US deal against the ~-6% EU deals - yet the BBC does not make this comparison in actual figures *ANYWHERE!*. The best you get is Faisal Islam in a piece (buried in the business section) titled "window of opportunity to do a US trade deal" giving impressive sounding "GDP is promised a £3.4bn boost" and only qualifies it verbally as "tariffs between the UK and EU would far outweigh these kind of benefits".

Anyone who claims the BBC isn't being biased towards the Brexit government needs to explain why the *MAIN PAGE HEADLINE* isn't:

US deal 0.2% GDP increase far outweighed by Brexit's -7.6% decrease

I'm sure the journalists would like to put these numbers out there, so it *has to be* editorialising in the newsroom...

I agree, although I don't know if it is on purpose though.

The British government's official communication strategy is to:

1 - never compare pros and cons of these 2 negotiations with eachother, despite them being conducted in parallel and being largely interwoven even.

2 - never talk in percentages about the benefits of a deal with the US, only in absolute values (to maximize the perceived impact);

3- do the opposite on the EU deal (only if absolutely needed, ,to minimize the perceived impact).

it seems quite a few journalists are falling in the trap of this communication strategy: whether that's because they are lazy, loyal or just being edited, I don't know...
Fact is any deal with the US will save British households about 8 pounds yearly (at best): that's not what's going to make up for the hundreds of pounds they'll have to spend extra because of Brexit itself, meaning the economic case of it is clearly and simply non existing.
That's not saying a mini trade deal with the US is a bad thing to persue, just showing how irrelevant these negotiations with the US only are when compared to the all important ones with the EU being conducted in Brussels this week...

seahawk wrote:

olle wrote:

So this is a conflict equal to the world wars?

Has UK told EU? Or do we have a new war just started without official war declaration?

If UK is smart there is a number of examples where some troops can play germans in a attack on dover! The invasion is here!

Would it make sense to risk your economic stability for a lesser cause?

I suppose not. The UK presspresent the case like we are ina start of one war... But then suddenly we shall be friends.

Strange world.

Much of the press simply has owners who want a hard Brexit.

A101 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

If the UK decides on a hard Brexit the EU will cope, so long as the ROI/NI agreement is observed. But there will be borders, tariffs, customs checks - a lot of friction as specific agreements are worked out case by case, product by product. Sober economists agree that it will reduce the UK growth rate by about half a percent. Given that mature economies have trouble maintaining a 2% growth rate that half percent will hurt, but not a disaster. Who will hurt the most? Young ambitious smart workers in the UK, science and research people, there likely will be a shortage of medical people. (hint hint - educate some of those smart young people, and make the work lives of doctors and nurses better). World class universities in the UK will feel the pinch, both with research budgets and the free movement of scholars.

Good grief you make out that a impenetrable wall is going up between the EU/UK, does everyone who goes to higher education or scholars in there field only come from within the boundary of the EU, lots of different people from different walks of life come and go from outside Europe the only difference is they come in via a visa. Unless they come in illegally or have extensive criminal records is about the only time a visa will be denied apply for the correct visa comply with the visa and everything will be sweet

The faith you have in this govenment to ensure fair visa terms are set is misplaced. They have shown zero capability so far to warrant such faith. Infact I would go so far as to say this govenment has been the most imcompentant since the last one. Which has been half of my problem with Brexit all along, it has mean't there is now, no place to hide from good govenence. The UK has had appaling leadership for a long time which has lead to Brexit. The fault for the reasons a lot of people cite for wanting Brexit, including yourself, has laid at the feet of multiple govenments. The press are to blame for the rest.

Maybe one day i'll understand how people can say they want the UK to set it's own laws (half of which were EU laws it could have implemented stronger if it wanted to anyway, the rest is mis-truths), and trust a govenment lead by Boris and Dominic Cummings to do anything that's in the interest of those who put (one of them) there.

And now we know that 'unskilled' (despite the fact they are skilled, just low paid) workers who earn below what is it 25k? won't be allowed in. So who an earth is going to do all those jobs? Because Brits won't and certain industries cannot survive without them.

So it's out: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51706802

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

Wow 0.16%.

The document pledges to maintain maintain food standards and stresses that the NHS is "not on the table".

Yup we'll see how long that lasts.

However, it said a US deal would lead to a long-term 0.5% reduction in the output of the financial services sector, with resources "reallocated" to other areas.

Excellent. Who needs the UK services sector.


And the amusing bit:

The US has also specified it wants to be able to veto the UK's ability to strike deals with "non-market economies" meaning the likes of China

Oh.

Reinhardt wrote:

So it's out: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51706802

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

Wow 0.16%.

The document pledges to maintain maintain food standards and stresses that the NHS is "not on the table".

Yup we'll see how long that lasts.

However, it said a US deal would lead to a long-term 0.5% reduction in the output of the financial services sector, with resources "reallocated" to other areas.

Excellent. Who needs the UK services sector.


And the amusing bit:

The US has also specified it wants to be able to veto the UK's ability to strike deals with "non-market economies" meaning the likes of China

Oh.

LOL. I particularly enjoyed the Guardian’s take: that the new trade deal would generate as much as Bury (population: 80k) generates in a year.

Probably explains why the Telegraph has buried the story somewhere - if it’s even been reported it at all.

Too tied up with other stuff to keep an eye out on Brexit, but surely there’s more to this trade deal than what’s being reported. There has to be; otherwise the numbers look like a bad joke.

Reinhardt wrote:

So it's out: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51706802

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

Wow 0.16%.

Let that sink in for a minute.
The much tooted ability to strike own sovereign British trade deals freely and independently will be manifected by signing THE flagship FTA that the EU can't reach at present: one with the United States of America which has such a special relationship with the United Kingdom.
It will deliver AT BEST a massive 0.16% growth to the UK's economy by the middle of next decade, thus saving each Brit a whopping 8 pounds annually….
So that's 0,01% annual extra growth, maybe only half that (if you still can), depending the exact terms.
Definitely worth throwing the all important SM benefits plus a whole ship load of other FTAs with countries all around the world through the window for! After all, that's just 5,0 to 7,5 percent slashed off GDP, in one year...
JRM said benefits of Brexit would only start to be seen in about 50 years; he was wrong, it should have been 500 years!
ROTFL

Reinhardt wrote:

And the amusing bit:

The US has also specified it wants to be able to veto the UK's ability to strike deals with "non-market economies" meaning the likes of China

Oh.

Now, who would have thought, right?
The US wants to give free market access to the UK ONLY if it can make sure the UK can't serve as a backdoor for third countries into their market.
In other words: it wants guarantees on LPFs too…

It sure will be a rude awakening for Brexiteers once the UK has conducted a couple of these first attempts to kickstart trade negotiations, because at present they still live with the illusion that what the EU is asking in return for market access, is purely to punish the UK, and that other countries are going to just welcome the UK with gold, incense and myrrh…

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

It was quite ... "interesting" ... how the Guardian immediately compared the 0.2% best-case US deal against the ~-6% EU deals - yet the BBC does not make this comparison in actual figures *ANYWHERE!*. The best you get is Faisal Islam in a piece (buried in the business section) titled "window of opportunity to do a US trade deal" giving impressive sounding "GDP is promised a £3.4bn boost" and only qualifies it verbally as "tariffs between the UK and EU would far outweigh these kind of benefits".

Anyone who claims the BBC isn't being biased towards the Brexit government needs to explain why the *MAIN PAGE HEADLINE* isn't:

US deal 0.2% GDP increase far outweighed by Brexit's -7.6% decrease

I'm sure the journalists would like to put these numbers out there, so it *has to be* editorialising in the newsroom...

Does fly in the face of the current governments desire to remove the license fee for this BBC and it minions are blasting back with all barrels.
I am more inclined to believe they are looking for leverage in the negotiations with the government to keep the license fee.
More back room deals in a room filled with smoke.

sabenapilot wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I'm sure the journalists would like to put these numbers out there, so it *has to be* editorialising in the newsroom...

I agree, although I don't know if it is on purpose though.

As Reinhardt mentioned, the BBC is now covering it as well - on the website. I just watched the evening news where it was still not mentioned at all - all coronavirus and floods instead.

'The US has also specified it wants to be able to veto the UK's ability to strike deals with "non-market economies" meaning the likes of China'.

I thought that the whole point of leaving the EU was to regain national sovereignty.

If we agree this, then we are little better than a US colony.