[Fultonius]

That's a fair point.

Do you agree though that we're actually in a pretty weak negotiating position? What have we got to offer? Lot's of debt and a fleeing financial services market?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

[petejh]

I'm typing on my phone on a bus hence the brevity but -
'70 million relatively wealthy consumers' is the first thing that spings to mind

[i.munro]

You're also ignoring the obvious point that a block of 28 countries each with their own self-interests makes negotiating *anything* a torturous exercise (Belgium/Canada e.g.) compared to one country negotiating with another. That point shouldn't be overlooked, but no doubt it will be every time someone on here talks about negotiations.

Yes it does but this is far more of a problem for Canada  (which has paid half the negotiating costs and risks not gaining access to the biggest market in the world ) than it is for Begium that has paid 1/56th of the costs and risks losing access to well... Canada .

[slackline]

I believe consensus, whilst taking longer to achieve, is a good thing since it tempers extremism.  Countries may have their own self-interests but in essence we are all human beings and have the same needs and wants so there shouldn't be that much difference.  A block of 28 countries might be more difficult to negotiate with but together they have stronger power at the negotiating table than any individual country on its own something else that shouldn't be overlooked either.

There is no emoticon for rhetorical question, which was the framing of the how to 'catch up'.

There is the very serious problem of the UK lacking trade negotiators who are skilled and able to enter into the  trade negotiations you are suggesting we have "the freedom to set up trade deals with anyone we want to globally".  Just because there is, as you correctly suggest, the possibility of setting up trade deals on our own doesn't mean its going to happen even if we have the capacity to do so (which we don't) since its contingent on other countries wanting to enter into a trade deal with us.  It seems to me the UK doesn't have a lot to bring to the table in that regard (see above figure). We may well differ in opinion on that point but there is no escaping the fact that the UK doesn't have enough skilled people to do the work you are suggesting.  Heres one suggestion from someone working in the area but that doesn't sound very promising either.


I'm yet to hear anything cogent from the current government as to how they are going to go about executing the UKs extraction from the EU, the nitty gritty of small matters like what they are going to seek in terms of trade with the remaining EU body, how UK law is to disentangle itself from the bits of EU law that it doesn't like etc. etc. .  Please do widen my breadth of knowledge if you've information on this, but we're edging closer to Mays March 2017 deadline without any details.

[erm]

how UK law is to disentangle itself from the bits of EU law that it doesn't like

Just on this - the answer is supposed to be that the great repeal bill will pass existing EU legislation into British law and that we can amend it at our leisure at a later date through the normal activities of parliament. (https://fullfact.org/law/ask-full-fact-great-repeal-bill/)

If I may, the question isn't how to disentangle ourselves from EU law, but rather how to disentangle ourselves from EU obligations, e.g. longer term infrastructure spending, research, etc. And on this the HM Government are silent.

[petejh]

I'm yet to hear anything cogent from the current government as to how they are going to go about executing the UKs extraction from the EU, the nitty gritty of small matters like what they are going to seek in terms of trade with the remaining EU body, how UK law is to disentangle itself from the bits of EU law that it doesn't like etc. etc. .  Please do widen my breadth of knowledge if you've information on this, but we're edging closer to Mays March 2017 deadline without any details.

I think Slackers you and I come from extreme opposite ends of a spectrum that describes the need to know details are exactly correct before deciding on an action. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the utility of good planning, I do. But most significant courses in life have no certain outcomes when you start them.
Some of the commetntary in media and on here sounds to me like it comes from people who would find it impossible to leave the house on an uncertain agenda without suffering a crippling bout of neurosis about something or other. Fair enough, it's about the most important event our country has faced in recent times and people rightly want reassurance. But you aren't going to get the 'nitty-gritty'details you seek because until negotiations begin nobody knows exactly how the dynamics will pan out. That shouldn't be, but is, used in a tone of fear-mongering by those who's bias it rewards. The goevernment are right not to pander to a neurotic need for constant update and exact detail, nor would I expect them to have much more than genaral answers until we're well into the two years deadline.

[tomtom]

Pete - I agree that it's easy to be neurotic about Brexit and worry a lot about it. But ~ lets face it what's happened so far doesn't inspire much confidence does it...?

If there's a bad election result (i.e. One you don't like) then at least there's a chance to reset in 5 years.. that hope doesn't exist for those against it.

[i.munro]

A statement of what they want to achieve hardly seems " a neurotic need for constant update and exact detail".

I assume it will be question 1 day 1 from the EU when negotiations actually start.

[slackline]

I don't expect huge amounts of details about something which is very uncertain but some details would be reassuring to many concerned people and businesses.  There is little reassurance in what has been said because it is so vague, whether thats because there is no plan or there is some desire to keep things secret I don't know, I suspect the former because if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the High Court parliament will vote on whatever plans there and they'll instantly become public record and impossible to hide from those you are going to negotiate with.

Taking tomtom's analogy with an election parties have manifesto's so you've an idea of what you're voting for.  Its patently clear that a large portion of what was 'promised' by the Leave campaign was at best baseless and in many cases outright lies.  That doesn't serve as much of a basis or starting for then progressing towards the stated goal which beyond "Leave the EU" is pretty vague.

A good starting point, in or out of the Single Market.  It looks like the EU is unlikely to budge on having to accept free movement of people if this access is desired, that will be a fairly bitter pill for whom that was the basis of their 'Leave' vote but its a reality that needs dealing with.  Nor do I think the consideration of who is going to do the work of trade negotiations is really the nitty-gritty details, the work that they would be doing is.  Iits a fairly fundamental question to any undertaking, whether thats business or government, to ask whether there is the capacity to undertake the task and if the answer is at present no then where will it come from.  This could even be grounds for delaying the triggering of Article 50 if there are not enough civil servants to undertake the negotiations it triggers.

[Oldmanmatt]

Isn't one of the fundamental issues that we/they cannot negotiate any deals until the art.50 notice is up? As in, we can't negotiate a new deal, whilst still members; all we can negotiate is the terms of divorce. The terms of future access are supposed to be un-negotiable before the finalisation? Hence talk of interim deals (because it's never been done before, though I'm sure at least one EU leader said even that was impossible)?
If that's wrong, what is the score?


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[mrjonathanr]

The goevernment are right not to pander to a neurotic need for constant update and exact detail, nor would I expect them to have much more than genaral answers until we're well into the two years deadline.

This wouldn't be risible if they had something better to indicate than the gnomic 'Brexit means Brexit', but they don't. In that context it is ridiculous.

Furthermore there is no mandate for our cabinet in camera to determine the form and direction of our departure without public scrutiny, neither from a GE nor from the terms of the referendum.

Fox, Patel, Johnson, Davis et al don't stand before the house muttering vacuously because they have the inscrutable cunning of a fox.

They do it because they haven't the competence for the task ahead.

[i.munro]

Isn't one of the fundamental issues that we/they cannot negotiate any deals until the art.50 notice is up? As in, we can't negotiate a new deal, whilst still members; all we can negotiate is the terms of divorce.
If that's wrong, what is the score?

That's my understanding. I'm guessing though that whether or not to leave the EEA , customs Union etc form part of that 'divorce' settlement.

[Oldmanmatt]

No idea about legality of doing this, if it's a problem I'll delete.

Article from the FT, usually paywalled for me.

"You can save yourself a lot of time and trouble by taking people at their word. The British, heirs to an artful conversational culture in which nobody says what they mean, are uniquely bad at it. After the second world war, British governments never believed Franco-German talk of European unity. When it turned out to be more than metaphorical, London did not think they would act on plans to deepen the project into social policy. When they did, it was sure they would stop short of a monetary union.

Sample the FT’s top stories for a week
You select the topic, we deliver the news.

Select topic
Enter email addressInvalid email
Sign up By signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy.
As recently as January, David Cameron, prime minister at the time, assumed the EU was bluffing when it ruled out a drastic revision of his country’s terms of membership. The story of Britain in Europe is a story of naked intent mistaken for something more sophisticated, of ironists confounded by continental literalism.

It is happening again, even as the relationship ends. Everyone in and around British politics strains to understand, and competes to influence, Theresa May’s negotiation strategy — as though the content of the eventual exit deal is largely a matter of what the prime minister asks for.


When scrawled notes from a ministerial meeting are snapped by a photographer, industrialists study them and fear for their access to the single market. When a parliamentary seat falls to pro-European Liberal Democrats in south-west London, hope rallies of a softer exit. Zealots on both sides pore over domestic court rulings as if they contain pointers to the final outcome.

You can lose your mind to this conjecture. There will always be another clue, another government leak to suggest the prime minister’s mind is turning this way or that. The trouble with all the eagle-eyed Mayology is its Anglocentric premise: that the British side of the negotiations is the decisive variable. It is a touching thought.

The EU is not a passive party. It is, by population and output, the preponderant force in the talks. It has decades of experience in sparring with nations, including Norway and Switzerland, that cheekily desire a happy niche in its project short of full membership. It will do more to set the terms of Britain’s extrication than Britain itself, which was always the best reason to stay.

It is also characteristically candid about what those terms will be, if only we could switch off our Wildean irony radar and accept words at face value. When Donald Tusk says the “only real alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit”, there is nothing in history to suggest the European Council president is giving us his smoking lounge repartee. When Angela Merkel, German chancellor, talks up the indivisibility of the four freedoms, a good time-saving exercise is to believe her. When in the summer EU leaders rejected informal talks with Britain in advance of Article 50 being tabled, ministers in London smiled at the charade and waited for the European line to waver. They still wait.

These are just the EU’s public statements but there are no more encouraging whispers being exchanged in private. If David Davis has emerged as the Eurosceptics’ lonely realist, airing the prospect that the “best possible access” to the European market will come at some cost, it is because he has done the basic work of diplomacy as minister for EU exit. He has talked to enough European capitals to lose the illusions of the summer. Paris is the hardest in rhetoric but Berlin is no softer in substance.

The EU makes up for the opacity of its institutions with the transparency of its interests. It cannot afford to set the precedent that a member state’s exit can lead to a better life outside or substantial concessions to stay inside. If it does, every nation will chance its arm and the union will crumble. Abhor this brute self-preservation all you like: it is honest self-preservation. When Ms Merkel said favourable terms for Britain would create a Europe in which everyone does “what they want”, Eurosceptics flinched with their practised blend of outrage and vindication, as though she had let the cynical truth slip in an unguarded moment. But when did she claim otherwise? When did anyone?

What happens in London is less than half the story in the coming years. Yes, British business should assume a hard exit, but not because their own government especially desires one. Yes, Mrs May manages to be vague and bullheaded at the same time, but even a masterly prime minister would have to reckon with the EU’s strategic interest in making exit hurt. Yes, our internal politics merits some analysis, but not as much as the other side’s. They are telling us what we need to know. Human communication is not always and everywhere a kind of intricate dance.

janan.ganesh"


https://www.ft.com/content/37b5933c-b884-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry, ill child, no sleep, too much time to read; interesting though:

Liam Fox statement.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-12-05/HCWS316/


Politics today editorial:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[petejh]

I've been looking forward all week to this week's episode of More or Less:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084dqpr

Best listened to after re-reading some of the predictions made pre-referendum.
In short - some economists at influential institutions such as the Bank of England, the IMF and the Treasury, let their personal bias colour their predictions of the economic effect of brexit; and, it's incredibly difficult/impossible to predict confidence. Experts 



The BBC - not known for it's pro-brexit bias - also has a good article on where we're at 5 months on, including some interesting figures on hate crime.
Here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36956418

The trade figures in that bbc article have been updated - to show a large narrowing of the trade deficit over the last two months. A record rise in the export of goods, here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/09/record-uk-exports-drive-huge-narrowing-trade-deficit/


Finally, The Spectator has this thought-provoking piece:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/gdp-data-shows-strong-growth-uk-economy-brexit-vote-whod-thunk/

It's worth pasting here in full as a reminder to those whose chief line of argument was to dig out the economic-expert-stick to hit the 'dumb racist xenophobes' over the head with:

''Soon, the weekly data started to rather contradict the mood of panic – which baffled the various experts, many of whom had by then forecast an immediate recession. Pieces of good economic news were dismissed as deceptive snapshots. And when Q2 GDP came in looking very strong – 0.6 per cent (it was revised up to 0.7 per cent today) – that was dismissed as containing just a few weeks of post-referendum data. The real story, it was said, will come when the Q3 data arrives for July, August and September.

Well, that data was published this morning, and it is (again) stronger than expected, up by 0.5pc quarter-on-quarter – far better than the consensus estimate of 0.3pc. And yes, the total 0.5pc is a tad slower than 0.7pc of Q2 – but that was lifted by a freak surge in industrial production during April.

This 0.5pc growth for Q3 of 2016 is exactly in line with pre-referendum OBR forecasts. And it compares with the Treasury’s hysterical forecast of a contraction between -0.1pc and -1pc (Table 2C, pdf). The reality, it turns out, was far better. While economists were in mourning, the shopping public kept calm and carried on. Britain is this year forecast to have the strongest growth of any major economy.

The question, now, is: why did so many intelligent economic analysts and commentators get it so wrong? How did some of the finest minds in Britain get themselves worked up into such a state that they predicted an immediate recession? How did the infamous Treasury dossier get out of Whitehall? When it published forecasts of an immediate GDP contraction of up to -1.0pc for Q3 alone, why wasn’t this immediately rubbished by people who should know better? Why was it treated so credulously? How could there have been an immediate collapse, given that Brexit would not have taken place? Negotiations to leave the EU haven’t started yet; there are no changes in our terms of trade. So why did anyone think the economy would have fallen off a cliff?

That isn’t to say there won’t be turbulence from Brexit – we’ll probably have slower growth in the short term, at least. The weak pound should put inflation back to normal levels (about 2.5pc next year), which should dampen consumer spending next year. But there will still be growth; no one is expected to be poorer by a penny. Let alone the £4,300pa that the Treasury absurdly suggested.

After the 2015 general election, the opinion pollsters had a long look at themselves to work out how whether groupthink had led them into error. There’s a case for the Treasury, and other economists, to work out what happened here. The behaviour during the Brexit campaign does undermine trust in government. Economic forecasts are supposed to be dispassionate. Today’s publication of the Q3 data might be a good time to ask what went wrong.''

Carry on.

[i.munro]

a) the new post-coup Tories have used the noise to quietly ditch the deluded economics that the pre-coup Tories were wedded to, as well as puling every lever they have to try and keep the economy from tanking.

b) It's not yet certain that article 50 will ever be invoked or ,if it is, whether that will mean leaving the EEA.

[Johnny Brown]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this 'good news' is in fact 'it's not quite as bad as predicted' isn't it? And the predictions all assumed A50 would be invoked immediately. Whereas anyone can see there is a lot or wavering going on.

Carney's speech is worth a read for a less bullish brexiter viewpoint: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2016/946.aspx
In summary, the referendum threatened the economy, so we cut interest rates even further and did another massive round of QE - which is all working as hoped.

But not as good as if we had just 'carried on' and remained.

[petejh]

Or to put it another way: some turbulence is inevitable post-brexit. As was said all along.

[tomtom]

Many structures can take a bit of turbulence - if they're strong enough....

[Oldmanmatt]

All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[erm]

Or to put it another way: some turbulence is inevitable post-brexit. As was said all along.

While this line of thinking is popular, you will find that we are not in a post-brexit phase.

We are in a post-refendum phase. Given the turbulence that we have already seen, this might suggest that the post-brexit phase will be...

[i.munro]

 "some turbulence" is a breathtaking euphemism for blighting people's whole lives.
As far as I can tell this "turbulence" is likely to be a decade atl east of constant financial crisis coming straight on top of the 8 years of financial crisis we've already been put through.

[abarro81]

Don't worry, it will all be worth it in the end because.. Um... Well... Anyone?

[SA Chris]

Or to put it another way: some turbulence is inevitable post-brexit. As was said all along.

While this line of thinking is popular, you will find that we are not in a post-brexit phase.

We are in a post-refendum phase. Given the turbulence that we have already seen, this might suggest that the post-brexit phase will be...

....A shitstorm of catastrophic proportions?? So far all we've seen is the match being struck, it's not even touched the fuse yet. The big boom from this shitcracker is yet to come.

[Fultonius]

Don't worry, it will all be worth it in the end because.. Um... Well... Anyone?

What's conspicuous in its absence is any war cry from the "leadership"  saying "it's going to be tough,  but it'll be worth in the long term for X, Y and Z".

What we seem to get is "it's not quite as bad as some predicted,  and we're not going to get X,  Y or Z because the EU won't let us,  but we'll take the scraps left at the table while giving up any ability to influence the direction of the scrap providers (rEU)."

But at least we "bring back control"...

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk