[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We all know that austerity measures have been unpopular, but they have succeeded in reducing our deficit by about three quarters. This was necessary, because until that deficit is eliminated, the interest we are paying on that colossal sum will continue to increase. It would have been better to have continued with Osbourne's original plan for that reason, but the Government bowed to public pressure and eased off, which means of course that there will be even more debt to repay by the time the deficit is eliminated.

A number of people have said that austerity was a mistake and actually prolonged the period of time it took to reduce the deficit. It barely budged until austerity was loosened and more spent on investment.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I do not disagree that much has changed since pre-EEC days, but the principles of free trade are still there, in fact many tariffs that used to be imposed have been eliminated or reduced. The EU has restricted our ability to trade freely and make new deals and these shackles will be removed when we get out.

That's one that's been done to death so won't revisit.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The public voted to leave the EU. That also means leaving the Common Market and the Customs Union, because unless we do this, we cannot control immigration and we cannot make our own trade deals. That would contradict the logic of leaving and this half way house would be a shocking disappointment and a disaster for this country.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

All this talk about a Singapore type country emerging from all this is hype and complete overkill. The reason the Government has unleashed the potential of such an arrangement is to bring the EU to its senses sooner rather than later in the negotiation. We would only have that outcome if the EU folded its arms and refused to negotiate. But the point is, they will negotiate, because it is in our joint interests to do so. We are only in the posturing stage at the moment, and after the German elections, we can look forward to Angela Merkel taking a firm steer on these negotiations which will result in a sensible outcome.

I'm afraid a study simulating various Brexit scenarios indicated that the UK dropping to WTO terms would have a marginal impact on Germany, an even more marginal one relative to a comprehensive FTA, and far more of an impact on the UK.

It is of course in their interests to negotiate, however it's also in our interests to present a realistic position which, so far, we haven't. Friday may change this. Angela Merkel doesn't control the negotiations, and cannot unilaterally change the negotiating position. A deal requires consensus and to change the negotiating parameters requires much the same.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The thing that many remainers can't get their heads around is that a deal with the EU is by far the most likely outcome and that Britain will benefit both from being able to trade on reasonable terms with the EU and make its own trade deals while at the same time controlling immigration and making our own laws.

As of right now it's debatable what the most likely course of events is. The majority view across the political spectrum seems to be that we're heading for WTO.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The thought of Britain behaving a la Singapore right on their doorstep frightens the EU to death because that would introduce huge unwelcome competition that obviously they wouldn't want. They would also be putting their own economies at risk and increasing unemployment if the EU introduced tariffs tonreduce their trade with us.

There is no way the UK will behave a la Singapore. Any government that tried would be voted out extremely rapidly. Singapore's tax burden is less than half ours, and they have the public services and social security safety net to match that low taxation.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This is why David Davis jas a permanent grin on his face. Unless the EU is completely bonkers, he knows they will capitulate eventually. If Canada can do a trade deal without suffering huge EU encumbrancies, and other countries all over the world can also do so without trade deals, then so can we.

Indeed we can, however I'm not sure about use of capitulation as a turn of phrase and I always considered that permanent grin on DD's face to be wind. A CETA-like FTA wouldn't actually resolve many of the problems of the WTO model for us, it would not soothe the concerns of business and, so far, very little progress has been made on either side. A game of chicken suits no-one - we would lose more - so Friday is important in putting aside the demagoguery, ceasing playing politics to wag the dog and presenting a way forward.

There's no need for any capitulation; there's every need for co-operation.

It's interesting your statements seem to hinge on the assumption that the EU's behaviour will be guided purely by economic considerations. I believe many criticisms of the EU focused on its behaviour not being guided purely by economic considerations, and certainly the cases made for the UK to leave the EU were not guided by economic considerations. Let's hope that, for the first time in this affair, such considerations take precedence over politics, emotions, and vague abstract notions.

While most of the EU aren't extremists like Juncker there are, much as here, a number of people in places of power that will not act pragmatically.

This article from CBC Canada is interesting. In fact, most of the more interesting articles are produced not in the UK or Europe but by third nations in my experience.