Cable Forum - Brexit (Old)

To elaborate further, the £39 billion buys potentially perpetual EU veto on our exit from the customs arrangements.

Furthermore, there is no incentive for the EU other than to squeeze our pips in the eventual trade negotiations.

Leavers & Remainers are united in the declaring the current proposals to be worse than disastrous.

But surely the Remainers can concede that the EU is not nice to deal with and there are real grounds for breaking away properly.

Who would have thought that an organisation would try to negotiate the best deal for themselves - what is the world coming to?

And as for the assertion that has been raised that our negotiators "didn’t try hard enough" - I would just point out that the man who also asked for gravity-free areas, telepathy for every citizen and the Beatles to get back together is furious it hasn’t even been attempted.

Sephiroth

24-11-2018 12:47

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972259)

I fail to see how being nice (or otherwise) comes into it.

The UK are proposing to act in a way that harms the economic interests of both the UK and EU, it’s only sensible and appropriate for the EU to mitigate against this.

If, for example, Scotland were to vote for independence do you think they should renege on debts or it’s share of financial commitments to the UK? Should it’s citizens for example be entitled to a UK State Pension (they paid in after all) without Scotland contributing to the cost? Or would you say they should cover that?

The nastier the regime with which we are dealing, the less we should have to do with them. In the case of the EU, the people have decided by majority to escape their nasty clutches. And they are nasty, even if they are mitigating against the loss of our net contributions. We should leave with no deal and chop the £39 billion to no more than we actually owe. They are not well prepared for that.

Regarding Scotland, the SNP is a treasonous regime (to take an extreme view) and should be treated with the appropriate degree of disdain. A Scottish Referendum result decided their status in our Union. I dare say that if they voted to,secede, our guvmin would not adopt my attitude. I cheer every time Edinburgh suffers atrocious weather.

jfman

24-11-2018 13:07

Re: Brexit

I’d say there’s something nasty around here, and it’s not the EU.

If you remove all the emotionally driven rhetoric, and wartime references, discussions around Brexit would be much shorter.

Chris

24-11-2018 13:15

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972283)

I cheer every time Edinburgh suffers atrocious weather.

Edinburgh voted no. ;)

If you must cheer, wait until it rains on Dundee, or the East End of Glasgow and North Lanarkshire.

Although I'd prefer it if you didn't; these, the only parts of Scotland where there was a majority for separation from the UK, are the poorest and most ill-educated communities in the country and they voted yes because they swallowed the SNP's lies about free oil money for everyone.

Sephiroth

24-11-2018 15:07

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35972291)

Hollyrood, Squire. How you misjudge me!

Hugh	24-11-2018 16:18

Re: Brexit

Holyrood...

Damien

24-11-2018 16:38

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972283)

How do you think we’ll do trade deals when other countries will also be ‘mean’ to us?

Sephiroth

24-11-2018 17:01

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35972314)

How do you think we’ll do trade deals when other countries will also be ‘mean’ to us?

That's too great a simplification. Bilateral negotiations on a reasonably equal basis don't come into the same nasty category as the EU.

As to Scotland, the SNP is plain treasonous in terms of the UK's cohesiveness which is a different sort of nasty.

As if you didn't know all that.

jfman

24-11-2018 17:04

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972319)

This is magnificent reading.

Everyone else is nasty, I presume England is a beacon of justice and righteousness in the world? Why should the UK remain cohesive, if England doesn't afford the same consideration to our European neighbours?

Sephiroth

24-11-2018 17:12

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972321)

Don't be silly. If the Scots want to secede then at a referendum they can do so. It's the SNP who are they nasties - out of self aggrandisement because everyone knows Scotland make it alone.

jfman

24-11-2018 17:33

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972323)

Don't be silly. If the Scots want to secede then at a referendum they can do so. It's the SNP who are they nasties - out of self aggrandisement because everyone knows Scotland make it alone.

How would you approach the financial settlement with an independent Scotland. E.g. should the UK be liable for accrued State Pensions in an independent Scotland - after all they paid into the system here and other nationals are entitled to a pension in the UK based on the number of years they paid NI contributions.

Damien

24-11-2018 17:49

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972319)

That's too great a simplification. Bilateral negotiations on a reasonably equal basis don't come into the same nasty category as the EU.

It's not about being nasty. This is an asymmetric relationship, the EU is bigger than us in terms of GDP, trade and population. The same will go for the USA who can bet will use the cards they have to get the best deal for the United States. We can't walk away and call them 'nasty', this is not a grown-up way to relate to the rest of the world.

These deals are not amicable accords between friends but transactional relationships in which both sides will try to get the upper hand because they're only concerned with their own growth. A good deal helps both sides, of course, but it's naive to assume that they'll work to help the other side at the expense of their own.

This is just the start. We can't flounce away from our first major negotiation as an Independent country because 'they're mean to us'. It's time for a reality check here because the disappointment amongst some Brexiters that is to come if they thought this would all be a cake walk or imagined the Britain of 100 years ago coming back will be very disappointed.

Sephiroth

24-11-2018 17:53

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972326)

I would have the National Audit Office draw up a reconciliation which would form the basis for negotiation.

On pensions, first your point makes the common sense case for no secession by Scotland; but politics has little to do with common sense. I would expect actuaries to calculate the pension accrual to be sent to an approved fund in Scotland; I wouldn't want anything messy like continuing to pay across a border from the depleted UK.

All other financial matters would be settled on the principle of ownership of an asset and for corporations the place of registration.

I imagine any UK government would think along those lines; we're not Brussels.

And what's your view?

---------- Post added at 17:53 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35972327)

They are nasty because they are binding us to their rules in perpetuity. Obviously much of what you say is logical and correct; but we must not sign up to a deal that's bad for us just because they are bigger than us and can screw us over. We hurt them by not giving them the full £39 billion on a no deal basis and then we go our own way. Some sort of common sense will ultimately prevail in matters such as travel, planes and the like.

To hell with them.

Damien

24-11-2018 18:00

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972328)

They are nasty because they are binding us to their rules in perpetuity.

They want us to stay with the same regulatory framework because it's in their interests economically (i.e easier trade) and politically (Ireland). Not because they are nasty.

Quote:

Obviously much of what you say is logical and correct; but we must not sign up to a deal that's bad for us just because they are bigger than us and can screw us over.

Walking away from a deal because it's bad is different to walking away because they're being nasty. However I think if you are walking away from a deal you need to have a plan as to how to do better than you would with the deal. It's like threatening to quit your job if you don't get a rise, it might work but you better be prepared to actually quit and have a plan b.

And this is a problem we have since we don't have any other trade deals and when we leave the EU not only do we leave the biggest economic bloc but we also leave the other trade deals we have via them. We become a major economy without a single trade deal. We're in a weak position to walk away from the only path to one we currently have.

jfman

24-11-2018 18:03

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972328)

[COLOR="Blue"]I would have the National Audit Office draw up a reconciliation which would form the basis for negotiation.

On pensions, first your point makes the common sense case for no secession by Scotland; but politics has little to do with common sense. I would expect actuaries to calculate the pension accrual to be sent to an approved fund in Scotland; I wouldn't want anything messy like continuing to pay across a border from the depleted UK.

All other financial matters would be settled on the principle of ownership of an asset and for corporations the place of registration.

I imagine any UK government would think along those lines; we're not Brussels.

And what's your view?

My view isn't really relevant, but to demonstrate my point you have said that even though Scottish citizens have paid into the pot through national insurance contributions you think that they shouldn't automatically be entitled to a pension from the United Kingdom. Yet, for example, a citizen of the Irish Republic who lived and worked in the UK and moved to another country would be entitled based on what they had paid in.

Others may take the view that would be a 'nasty' and 'spiteful' approach to deny taxpayers what they had paid in.

Quote:

It isn't 'nasty' to require a trading partner to adhere to some kind of framework or rules on the basis of which to trade. It stops the world descending into a free for all and race to the bottom against sweat shops and labour camps in developing countries.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42.

Page 246 of 591

246

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page