@faisalislam: Part of the EU27 internal prep presentations... seeks to communicate that the PM’s own red lines have pre-determined where the UK-EU end-state is heading - Canada or Korea style deal ... or No Deal twitter.com/jennifermerode…
@faisalislam: It is basically an invitation by the Commission for the UK Government to have a think about just how crimson are its red lines, their implications, and the mandate for them from the referendum and the election
Yep - those red lines are going to fade into a much lighter shade of pink over the coming year.
Unfortunately the one red line she will not cross is the one she should - freedom of movement. And that is the one that determines we will have Canada or S.Korea not Norway.
No, ending free movement was the main reason Leave won. That has to be respected. Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement from the EU and especially Eastern Europe. Hence Canada is the only viable trade deal, at least until EU immigration has been brought under control.
Ending freedom of movement covers a multitude of sins and leaves plenty of scope for a fudge.
Something that allows for EU migration, but that doesn’t allow a Romanian Big Issue seller in central London access to housing benefit, tax credits and free education after three months would be a good start. If we start from the premise that immigrants should be net contributors to the Exchequer then it sounds reasonable.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
Everyone sticks to their red lines until they don't.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
Except their pride which is in fact a big part of the difference in negotiating positions between the Commission and the Council.
I have often wondered how much the legislation of gay marriage by the Coalition government impacted on the political divide.
It was responsible for Brexit. No, really: it was (in part anyway - but in no small part).
Really??? I can believe that those against gay marriage were more likely to vote leave but leave voters have been shown in multiple polls to be unhappy with lots of things about modern Britain. The casus belli? I'm not so sure. It feels more like a grassroots Tory thing.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
No national politician is brave enough to say that we need immigration. And I suspect we will see young people emigrating in greater numbers in future - when you aren’t tied down by families/social connections in the same way - it’s much easier to move to Aus/Canada etc.
Have you seen an increase in junior doctors going abroad, anecdotally?
The stats on those emigrating haven't changed much in recent years. 10% of my own eighties graduation class migrated permanently overseas, and about 30% have worked abroad for at least a year. The difference is mostly falling international recruitment, and increasingly EU doctors who have been here a couple of years returning home.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
Except their pride which is in fact a big part of the difference in negotiating positions between the Commission and the Council.
Why? In political terms it seems obviously worse to be a 'vassal state' than to have a deal with give and take that some might see as beneficial.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
Barnier's diagram is quite correct - not sure why the remainers think there is going to be a soft Brexit when the UK will never accept free movement.
So, lets assume that Barnier is not bluffing and that the UK will be offered a CETA deal with no services. Let us also assume that this comes with the various terms Barnier has described to limit the ability of the UK to diverge in many key areas.
Can anyone explain to me why this would be preferable to no deal?
Canada or Korea looks sensible to me, just checked the tariffs for my industry, 0% under Canada - 1.7 -> 2% under 3rd party WTO.
Very bad for farmers and the auto industry, as well as financial and other services.
Not true in the case of Farmers. The NFU did a detailed study of he effects of Brexit including a WTO form and found that all scenarios were better than staying in as far as trade was concerned. The area where it is very bad for them is losing subsidies and of course that is in the hands of the Government. Should the Government choose to consider the same level of farm subsidy (and I am not suggesting they should) then all forms of Brexit benefit UK farming.
The farmers will have to go whistle for any replication of the EU subsidies - they're not a group that attracts much public affection and the government will have more politically sensitive areas demanding a slice of the shrunken pie.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
Not really a surprise that conservative people tend to vote Conservative.
But why do liberal people vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat?
The voting system drives many such people (including those with political ambitions) toward Labour, except in those few areas where Liberals have a tradition and/or a competitive local campaign.
I agree that's the main factor. But also, there's a big overlap between people who are socially liberal (gay marriage etc.) and keen on greater equality of outcome/public services, which rightly or wrongly tend to be more associated with Labour.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
No national politician is brave enough to say that we need immigration. And I suspect we will see young people emigrating in greater numbers in future - when you aren’t tied down by families/social connections in the same way - it’s much easier to move to Aus/Canada etc.
Have you seen an increase in junior doctors going abroad, anecdotally?
Australia has very tough immigration rules itself, even Brits cannot move there without skills the Aussies need
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules? We are the ones leaving and it is our government that has chosen to interpret the referendum result in the way that it has. There are consequences to decisions made at the ballot box and in the Cabinet room, and the people who took them have responsibility for them.
They managed to negotiate new deals with Korea and Canada that were unlike those that preceded them.
Sure - and as a third country we will get a Korea or Canada style deal. Unless something happens to our red lines.
I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
One of the subjects missing from all the talk of the EU trade deal is whether it will allow Britain to take the opportunity to force large multinationals selling intangibles onshore. Right now all the UK sales of the major US tech companies go through an EU office in Ireland or Luxembourg.
Depends what you mean by forcing it onshore. Within existing tax frameworks we can already a fair apportionment tax profits of non-resident companies arising from U.K. onshore economic activity and I suspect that would get harder rather than easier as a result of leaving (less harmonisation = grater arbitrage opportunities).
What we can’t currently do is erect too many barriers to EU residents trading into the U.K. - we could have far greater restrictions on acting in the U.K. if a company is not fully located here if we were not bound by EU rules (But the tax base would still be eroded in many cases, eg if a U.K. subsidiary paid management charges etc to its non U.K. affiliates). The problem is that a more protectionist tax system is definitely possible but it’s hard to square that with a desire to grow trade with non-EU countries.
Yes it’s a difficult one. I’m interested in some analysis of the values of the financial services we sell into the EU against the Ireland-booked revenues of Google, Facebook and Apple.
Management charges etc should be subject to audit by British authorities, at the moment these companies find good ways of ending up with 99% of their profits offshore, to the detriment of everyone bar their shareholders.
Barnier's diagram is quite correct - not sure why the remainers think there is going to be a soft Brexit when the UK will never accept free movement.
So, lets assume that Barnier is not bluffing and that the UK will be offered a CETA deal with no services. Let us also assume that this comes with the various terms Barnier has described to limit the ability of the UK to diverge in many key areas.
Can anyone explain to me why this would be preferable to no deal?
Given that "regulatory autonomy" is given as a red line in the other scenarios and not the FTA, I don't think divergence would be an issue if the UK were offered a CETA-like deal.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
The government is, of course, expanding training places for nurses etc and the majority of doctors and nurses here are still UK born. The retirement age is also increasing to 67
Really, nurses and doctors staying on until they are 67? Sure some will, there was even a nurse in the US who recently retired at the age of 90 plus, but I would suggest that was rare. And a 70 year old surgeon, um, perhaps not the best idea around.....
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
'Blame' is an odd choice of word, as if it's the rest of the world's fault that the UK isn't able to have everything its own way.
No-one reasonable expects either side to have everything its own way. That's what negotiations are about.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
The UK government has caved on everything so far.
Not free movement. Despite voting Remain I would rather hard Brexit than leaving free movement in place and staying in the single market and completely disrespecting the Leave vote as would most Tories, though I still think we will get a FTA
Barnier's diagram is quite correct - not sure why the remainers think there is going to be a soft Brexit when the UK will never accept free movement.
So, lets assume that Barnier is not bluffing and that the UK will be offered a CETA deal with no services. Let us also assume that this comes with the various terms Barnier has described to limit the ability of the UK to diverge in many key areas.
Can anyone explain to me why this would be preferable to no deal?
'Freedom of movement' is a movable feast. We have a fetish for a particular type of 'free movement' in Europe, but it's not the only flavour.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
And to protect the access of their industries to the capital markets. Currently the City covers something like 70% of financial services to EU27 companies (depending on exactly what you include and how you measure it). They won't be able to reproduce the size, scope, depth and experience of the City anytime soon, if ever, so they do have a significant incentive to include financial services in the mix. Dunno if they fully realise this, though.
What the UK should be aiming for, as a realistic target which respects red lines and is in both sides' interests, is a deal comprising:
- No tariffs on manufactured or agricultural goods - Streamlined customs arrangements so that the car industry doesn't get too badly hit - Streamlined customs arrangements for Ireland - Some extra agreement on financial services.
As part of this, we'll need to commit to some form of regulatory alignment; the bureaucrats will have to find a form of words which makes this palatable.
In other words, Canada Plus. How much 'plus' remains to be seen.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules? We are the ones leaving and it is our government that has chosen to interpret the referendum result in the way that it has. There are consequences to decisions made at the ballot box and in the Cabinet room, and the people who took them have responsibility for them.
We don't want them to change their rules. We don't want to be in the SM. We just want an FTA. But the EU needs to understand the consequences of Brexit - if there is no mutually beneficial trade deal available we will have to revert to WTO (which will cripple their trade surplus) and even if there is an FTA, the EU will have no say on UK regulation, no contributions and no ability to limit the UKs future actions. There can be no cherry picking.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
The UK government has caved on everything so far.
, though I still think we will get a FTA
Of course we will - the Uk govt will sacrifice anything short term for the long term conditions.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
A healthier trade deal? A more permanent settlement on Ireland? A reduced chance of Britain simply walking if talks break down?
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules? We are the ones leaving and it is our government that has chosen to interpret the referendum result in the way that it has. There are consequences to decisions made at the ballot box and in the Cabinet room, and the people who took them have responsibility for them.
They managed to negotiate new deals with Korea and Canada that were unlike those that preceded them.
Sure - and as a third country we will get a Korea or Canada style deal. Unless something happens to our red lines.
The Canada deal isn't an exact replica of the Korean deal, so I don't think it's correct to say those are the only options. In the end I suspect we'll end up with a UK style deal.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
A healthier trade deal? A more permanent settlement on Ireland? A reduced chance of Britain simply walking if talks break down?
What trade deal is healthier than SM+CU? What settlement is permanent other than reunification? The UK has no incentive or capacity to walk away.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
The UK government has caved on everything so far.
Nothing is agreed until everything agreed.
Nothing is conceded until everything is conceded I suspect is more accurate.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Canada or Korea looks sensible to me, just checked the tariffs for my industry, 0% under Canada - 1.7 -> 2% under 3rd party WTO.
Very bad for farmers and the auto industry, as well as financial and other services.
Not true in the case of Farmers. The NFU did a detailed study of he effects of Brexit including a WTO form and found that all scenarios were better than staying in as far as trade was concerned. The area where it is very bad for them is losing subsidies and of course that is in the hands of the Government. Should the Government choose to consider the same level of farm subsidy (and I am not suggesting they should) then all forms of Brexit benefit UK farming.
The farmers will have to go whistle for any replication of the EU subsidies - they're not a group that attracts much public affection and the government will have more politically sensitive areas demanding a slice of the shrunken pie.
Brexit is costing us £350 million per week already:
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules? We are the ones leaving and it is our government that has chosen to interpret the referendum result in the way that it has. There are consequences to decisions made at the ballot box and in the Cabinet room, and the people who took them have responsibility for them.
We don't want them to change their rules. We don't want to be in the SM. We just want an FTA. But the EU needs to understand the consequences of Brexit - if there is no mutually beneficial trade deal available we will have to revert to WTO (which will cripple their trade surplus) and even if there is an FTA, the EU will have no say on UK regulation, no contributions and no ability to limit the UKs future actions. There can be no cherry picking.
I have indeed briefly but only contributions based JSA so I know how the system works. You get a few months to apply in your field then you must apply for everything.
Even working in a bar you can still keep applying for jobs in your field
When I signed on for a couple of months (mainly because I felt it was something I should know at first hand), the Job Centre staff were uniformly polite, but I did hear active discouragement of people seeking to improve their qualifications. For instance, there was a cook who asked if he could go on a short training course in basic Indian food, since he'd heard (correctly) there was a shortage of staff in Indian restaurants. The adviser said no, that would make you unavailable for work for several weeks. "But I can't get a job with my current knowledge!" "So keep trying."
I don't know whether a few weeks would have got him to the point that a curry house would take him. But there was, I thought, a fundamental problem with the adviser's attitude - he really only cared about applications, not upskilling, and I suspect that was based on his incentives ("What % of your clients have found work within one month?").
Canada or Korea looks sensible to me, just checked the tariffs for my industry, 0% under Canada - 1.7 -> 2% under 3rd party WTO.
Very bad for farmers and the auto industry, as well as financial and other services.
Not true in the case of Farmers. The NFU did a detailed study of he effects of Brexit including a WTO form and found that all scenarios were better than staying in as far as trade was concerned. The area where it is very bad for them is losing subsidies and of course that is in the hands of the Government. Should the Government choose to consider the same level of farm subsidy (and I am not suggesting they should) then all forms of Brexit benefit UK farming.
The farmers will have to go whistle for any replication of the EU subsidies - they're not a group that attracts much public affection and the government will have more politically sensitive areas demanding a slice of the shrunken pie.
Brexit is costing us £350 million per week already:
Canada or Korea looks sensible to me, just checked the tariffs for my industry, 0% under Canada - 1.7 -> 2% under 3rd party WTO.
Very bad for farmers and the auto industry, as well as financial and other services.
Not true in the case of Farmers. The NFU did a detailed study of he effects of Brexit including a WTO form and found that all scenarios were better than staying in as far as trade was concerned. The area where it is very bad for them is losing subsidies and of course that is in the hands of the Government. Should the Government choose to consider the same level of farm subsidy (and I am not suggesting they should) then all forms of Brexit benefit UK farming.
The farmers will have to go whistle for any replication of the EU subsidies - they're not a group that attracts much public affection and the government will have more politically sensitive areas demanding a slice of the shrunken pie.
Oh I agree - except of course the pie will be larger not smaller as we will be slicing up the gross amount not the net. But that doesn't change the fact that, farm subsidies aside, leaving the EU is better than staying in.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
A healthier trade deal? A more permanent settlement on Ireland? A reduced chance of Britain simply walking if talks break down?
What trade deal is healthier than SM+CU? What settlement is permanent other than reunification? The UK has no incentive or capacity to walk away.
A trade deal without all the political elements, perhaps?
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
The Irish border issue was effectively settled last week, if it had not been we would not have been allowed to move to FTA talks with the EU
It was effectively settled by us agreeing to follow EU rules, like a poodle after its master. A brilliant stroke of negotiating genius.
The Brexiters are busy erasing that period from their memory.
Not me. It was a terrible concession and one that will be unsustainable when we get to trade discussions. I was furious at the time but now I suspect it will be the key to hard Brexit. The UK cannot agree an FTA without services AND accept regulatory alignment - it is simply impossible to pretend this is better than no deal. So the undertaking will fall away.
A customs border is an unavoidable consequence of Brexit. Ireland will need to face this eventually.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
A healthier trade deal? A more permanent settlement on Ireland? A reduced chance of Britain simply walking if talks break down?
What trade deal is healthier than SM+CU? What settlement is permanent other than reunification? The UK has no incentive or capacity to walk away.
A trade deal without all the political elements, perhaps?
The single market is inherently a political construct. You can't be outside it and replicate the same benefits by definition.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
The EU is a bureaucratic rules based organisation, with a united abeit unwieldy negotiating stance. Anyone expecting DD styl seat of the pants wheeling and dealing is delusional, and heading to disappointment. A deal will be the EU27 deal, or no deal.
I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
One of the subjects missing from all the talk of the EU trade deal is whether it will allow Britain to take the opportunity to force large multinationals selling intangibles onshore. Right now all the UK sales of the major US tech companies go through an EU office in Ireland or Luxembourg.
Depends what you mean by forcing it onshore. Within existing tax frameworks we can already a fair apportionment tax profits of non-resident companies arising from U.K. onshore economic activity and I suspect that would get harder rather than easier as a result of leaving (less harmonisation = grater arbitrage opportunities).
What we can’t currently do is erect too many barriers to EU residents trading into the U.K. - we could have far greater restrictions on acting in the U.K. if a company is not fully located here if we were not bound by EU rules (But the tax base would still be eroded in many cases, eg if a U.K. subsidiary paid management charges etc to its non U.K. affiliates). The problem is that a more protectionist tax system is definitely possible but it’s hard to square that with a desire to grow trade with non-EU countries.
Yes it’s a difficult one. I’m interested in some analysis of the values of the financial services we sell into the EU against the Ireland-booked revenues of Google, Facebook and Apple.
Management charges etc should be subject to audit by British authorities, at the moment these companies find good ways of ending up with 99% of their profits offshore, to the detriment of everyone bar their shareholders.
They’re already subject to significant audit. HMRC remain under-resourcesd so more could be done but the legal framework is there. We tend to lead on adopting OECD principles early on too. All in all it’s not obvious that EU membership is really the cause of these issues - it’s more to do with globalisation which doesn’t seem likely to be changed given the ambitions to be a “global free trading nation” and so on.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
anyone with more time than me able to explain why Catalan polls are broadly aligned on vote share but considerably vary on seat projections?
They are not really that different - almost all put the separatists just shy of or just with an overall majority. There are some variations between the individual parties within each bloc, but there is almost no difference in the shares of the blocs themselves. More important: if the polls are reasonably accurate it could well be that the separatist bloc's vote share declines, but it still gets a very narrow majority. That's because it is stronger in rural areas, which are over-represented in the Catalan Parliament. It takes 25,000 or so votes to get a seat in Lleida and over 40,000 to get one in Barcelona.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
The Irish border issue was effectively settled last week, if it had not been we would not have been allowed to move to FTA talks with the EU
It was effectively settled by us agreeing to follow EU rules, like a poodle after its master. A brilliant stroke of negotiating genius.
The Brexiters are busy erasing that period from their memory.
Not me. It was a terrible concession and one that will be unsustainable when we get to trade discussions. I was furious at the time but now I suspect it will be the key to hard Brexit. The UK cannot agree an FTA without services AND accept regulatory alignment - it is simply impossible to pretend this is better than no deal. So the undertaking will fall away.
A customs border is an unavoidable consequence of Brexit. Ireland will need to face this eventually.
A FTA that ends free movement ideal for most Leave areas actually, if less so for the City
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So China trade with Germany fine without being in the SM or the EU ? And China are free to make their own regulations ?
You've made an excellent case for not needing to be in the EU.
China has never been in the EU so its businesses have never built supply chains and customer bases dependent on being a part of the single market. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the UK.
I have indeed briefly but only contributions based JSA so I know how the system works. You get a few months to apply in your field then you must apply for everything.
Even working in a bar you can still keep applying for jobs in your field
When I signed on for a couple of months (mainly because I felt it was something I should know at first hand), the Job Centre staff were uniformly polite, but I did hear active discouragement of people seeking to improve their qualifications. For instance, there was a cook who asked if he could go on a short training course in basic Indian food, since he'd heard (correctly) there was a shortage of staff in Indian restaurants. The adviser said no, that would make you unavailable for work for several weeks. "But I can't get a job with my current knowledge!" "So keep trying."
I don't know whether a few weeks would have got him to the point that a curry house would take him. But there was, I thought, a fundamental problem with the adviser's attitude - he really only cared about applications, not upskilling, and I suspect that was based on his incentives ("What % of your clients have found work within one month?").
There is no reason you cannot do all your applications in the evening and at weekends and still do the training course, so agreed advisers could be more flexible .
In my case I just had to apply for a certain number of jobs a week
I have often wondered how much the legislation of gay marriage by the Coalition government impacted on the political divide.
It was responsible for Brexit. No, really: it was (in part anyway - but in no small part).
Really??? I can believe that those against gay marriage were more likely to vote leave but leave voters have been shown in multiple polls to be unhappy with lots of things about modern Britain. The casus belli? I'm not so sure. It feels more like a grassroots Tory thing.
Yes. The process was that gay marriage really wound up a particular sort of social conservative Conservative (much more so than I expected given that civil partnerships had been a thing: I guess there was both unfinished business there from the side that lost, and also there were religious arguments about the meaning of marriage - and there's nothing religious types like more than debating the meaning of something).
Anyway, the polling clearly shows that the increase in UKIP's support came at exactly the same time (March 2012) that the government began debating, and supporting, proposals to introduce same-sex marriage. UKIP, rather opportunistically, jumped on the bandwagon of opposition, probably for precisely the reason you identify - the crossover in support. That the timing coincided with the Omnishambles budget and a loss of support for the Tories in general reinforced that swing.
So while there were various reasons for UKIP's rise in support, opposition to gay marriage was central. All the same, the resilience of that swing was what prompted Cameron to offer his In/Out referendum on UKIP's core issue and the rest, as they say, is history.
Canada or Korea looks sensible to me, just checked the tariffs for my industry, 0% under Canada - 1.7 -> 2% under 3rd party WTO.
Very bad for farmers and the auto industry, as well as financial and other services.
Not true in the case of Farmers. The NFU did a detailed study of he effects of Brexit including a WTO form and found that all scenarios were better than staying in as far as trade was concerned. The area where it is very bad for them is losing subsidies and of course that is in the hands of the Government. Should the Government choose to consider the same level of farm subsidy (and I am not suggesting they should) then all forms of Brexit benefit UK farming.
All forms of Brexit and non-Brexit will result in farmers moaning.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So China trade with Germany fine without being in the SM or the EU ? And China are free to make their own regulations ?
You've made an excellent case for not needing to be in the EU.
China has never been in the EU so its businesses have never built supply chains and customer bases dependent on being a part of the single market. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the UK.
So inertia.
Imagine how much an i-phone would cost if China had to comply with SM regulations.
Mind you half of Shanghai would be in Leipzig if free movement was introduced.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
The EU is a bureaucratic rules based organisation, with a united abeit unwieldy negotiating stance. Anyone expecting DD styl seat of the pants wheeling and dealing is delusional, and heading to disappointment. A deal will be the EU27 deal, or no deal.
Indeed - we will get the deal the EU27 want to give us. And that will depend on how far we are willing to blur our red lines. My guess is that we will be pretty willing. It will not be as good as what we have now, but it will be a lot better than it might have been.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
The UK government has caved on everything so far.
, though I still think we will get a FTA
Of course we will - the Uk govt will sacrifice anything short term for the long term conditions.
Canada or Korea looks sensible to me, just checked the tariffs for my industry, 0% under Canada - 1.7 -> 2% under 3rd party WTO.
Very bad for farmers and the auto industry, as well as financial and other services.
Not true in the case of Farmers. The NFU did a detailed study of he effects of Brexit including a WTO form and found that all scenarios were better than staying in as far as trade was concerned. The area where it is very bad for them is losing subsidies and of course that is in the hands of the Government. Should the Government choose to consider the same level of farm subsidy (and I am not suggesting they should) then all forms of Brexit benefit UK farming.
All forms of Brexit and non-Brexit will result in farmers moaning.
The Irish border issue was effectively settled last week, if it had not been we would not have been allowed to move to FTA talks with the EU
It was effectively settled by us agreeing to follow EU rules, like a poodle after its master. A brilliant stroke of negotiating genius.
The Brexiters are busy erasing that period from their memory.
Not me. It was a terrible concession and one that will be unsustainable when we get to trade discussions. I was furious at the time but now I suspect it will be the key to hard Brexit. The UK cannot agree an FTA without services AND accept regulatory alignment - it is simply impossible to pretend this is better than no deal. So the undertaking will fall away.
A customs border is an unavoidable consequence of Brexit. Ireland will need to face this eventually.
A FTA that ends free movement ideal for most Leave areas actually, if less so for the City
Quite agree, no one in the real world gives a flying f××k about free trade.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Not sure if its the same one
"A move towards a more liberal trading policy by the UK following Brexit would result in a significant reduction in farmgate incomes across the livestock sectors, particularly if support is cut, according to a report commissioned by the NFU.
But a more protectionist approach would see a boost in farmgate prices as imports became a less attractive proposition, the report by a Dutch research institute concluded.
However, the biggest factor when it comes to farm incomes would be the approach the UK Government took to farm support."
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
The EU is a bureaucratic rules based organisation, with a united abeit unwieldy negotiating stance. Anyone expecting DD styl seat of the pants wheeling and dealing is delusional, and heading to disappointment. A deal will be the EU27 deal, or no deal.
Many Brexiters have always hated the notion of us being a supplicant in the negotiations. But if one side is committing almost all its energies to getting a deal whilst the other is half-hearted about it you don't need to be Einstein to see who sets the terms.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So China trade with Germany fine without being in the SM or the EU ? And China are free to make their own regulations ?
You've made an excellent case for not needing to be in the EU.
China has never been in the EU so its businesses have never built supply chains and customer bases dependent on being a part of the single market. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the UK.
So inertia.
Imagine how much an i-phone would cost if China had to comply with SM regulations.
Mind you half of Shanghai would be in Leipzig if free movement was introduced.
Any iPhone imported into the EU has to comply with EU regulations. Obviously, the EU cannot control the conditions under which employees work in the Chinese factories that make the iPhones. But I am not sure they are sunlit uplands.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Around 2/3 of British Lamb is exported, mostly to the EU. It is possible in the longterm to switch produce, but it would take years. In the meantime best not invest in sheep.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
The UK government has caved on everything so far.
, though I still think we will get a FTA
Of course we will - the Uk govt will sacrifice anything short term for the long term conditions.
Except ending free movement
They will sacrifice that in the transition to eliminate it in the long term.
The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.
Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.
I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
The UK is one of the world's happiest and most prosperous countries.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So China trade with Germany fine without being in the SM or the EU ? And China are free to make their own regulations ?
You've made an excellent case for not needing to be in the EU.
China has never been in the EU so its businesses have never built supply chains and customer bases dependent on being a part of the single market. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the UK.
So inertia.
Imagine how much an i-phone would cost if China had to comply with SM regulations.
Mind you half of Shanghai would be in Leipzig if free movement was introduced.
Any iPhone imported into the EU has to comply with EU regulations. Obviously, the EU cannot control the conditions under which employees work in the Chinese factories that make the iPhones. But I am not sure they are sunlit uplands.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Not sure if its the same one
"A move towards a more liberal trading policy by the UK following Brexit would result in a significant reduction in farmgate incomes across the livestock sectors, particularly if support is cut, according to a report commissioned by the NFU.
But a more protectionist approach would see a boost in farmgate prices as imports became a less attractive proposition, the report by a Dutch research institute concluded.
However, the biggest factor when it comes to farm incomes would be the approach the UK Government took to farm support."
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So China trade with Germany fine without being in the SM or the EU ? And China are free to make their own regulations ?
You've made an excellent case for not needing to be in the EU.
China has never been in the EU so its businesses have never built supply chains and customer bases dependent on being a part of the single market. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the UK.
So inertia.
Imagine how much an i-phone would cost if China had to comply with SM regulations.
Mind you half of Shanghai would be in Leipzig if free movement was introduced.
Any iPhone imported into the EU has to comply with EU regulations. Obviously, the EU cannot control the conditions under which employees work in the Chinese factories that make the iPhones. But I am not sure they are sunlit uplands.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
To protect their huge trade surplus and their whopping exit payment..
The EU can get everything it wants from a Brexit in name only.
But the Uk govt won't accept that that so unless the EU show some innovation they are facing losing their leaving payment and WTO rules.
The UK government has caved on everything so far.
, though I still think we will get a FTA
Of course we will - the Uk govt will sacrifice anything short term for the long term conditions.
Except ending free movement
They will sacrifice that in the transition to eliminate it in the long term.
Once the transition ends in 2021 May would lose a no confidence vote and be replaced by a hard Brexiteer if she tried to leave free movement in place after that, if the EU went beyond a Canada deal to demand free movement too for a trade deal, Tories would just say no deal and WTO terms it is then.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Around 2/3 of British Lamb is exported, mostly to the EU. It is possible in the longterm to switch produce, but it would take years. In the meantime best not invest in sheep.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
The report I think being mentioned is this one: https://www.nfuonline.com/assets/61142 Which states that under their trade liberalisation scenario UK farmers would lose out but would do better under fta and wto as long as payments were continued at current levels - or indeed in some cases at lower levels also.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Not sure if its the same one
"A move towards a more liberal trading policy by the UK following Brexit would result in a significant reduction in farmgate incomes across the livestock sectors, particularly if support is cut, according to a report commissioned by the NFU.
But a more protectionist approach would see a boost in farmgate prices as imports became a less attractive proposition, the report by a Dutch research institute concluded.
However, the biggest factor when it comes to farm incomes would be the approach the UK Government took to farm support."
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Around 2/3 of British Lamb is exported, mostly to the EU. It is possible in the longterm to switch produce, but it would take years. In the meantime best not invest in sheep.
The Irish border issue was effectively settled last week, if it had not been we would not have been allowed to move to FTA talks with the EU
It was effectively settled by us agreeing to follow EU rules, like a poodle after its master. A brilliant stroke of negotiating genius.
The Brexiters are busy erasing that period from their memory.
Not me. It was a terrible concession and one that will be unsustainable when we get to trade discussions. I was furious at the time but now I suspect it will be the key to hard Brexit. The UK cannot agree an FTA without services AND accept regulatory alignment - it is simply impossible to pretend this is better than no deal. So the undertaking will fall away.
A customs border is an unavoidable consequence of Brexit. Ireland will need to face this eventually.
A FTA that ends free movement ideal for most Leave areas actually, if less so for the City
Quite agree, no one in the real world gives a flying f××k about free trade.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Not sure if its the same one
"A move towards a more liberal trading policy by the UK following Brexit would result in a significant reduction in farmgate incomes across the livestock sectors, particularly if support is cut, according to a report commissioned by the NFU.
But a more protectionist approach would see a boost in farmgate prices as imports became a less attractive proposition, the report by a Dutch research institute concluded.
However, the biggest factor when it comes to farm incomes would be the approach the UK Government took to farm support."
The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.
Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.
I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
The UK is one of the world's happiest and most prosperous countries.
I am unsure of Barnier's purpose in leaking this slide. Is it to set expectations of a very mediocre deal for the UK or is it to encourage the UK to ease its red lines so it can get a more ambitious deal?
The signals coming from the EU are mixed. It seems some want a clean break with a quick and crap deal for the UK, while others want to keep the UK in the EU system and will prevaricate if it achieves our subservience.The Irish are in the second camp, while I think the Germans are more in the first.
*PS what no-one in the EU will accept is delay that increases our cake, ie what May wants.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So China trade with Germany fine without being in the SM or the EU ? And China are free to make their own regulations ?
You've made an excellent case for not needing to be in the EU.
China has never been in the EU so its businesses have never built supply chains and customer bases dependent on being a part of the single market. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the UK.
So inertia.
Imagine how much an i-phone would cost if China had to comply with SM regulations.
Mind you half of Shanghai would be in Leipzig if free movement was introduced.
Any iPhone imported into the EU has to comply with EU regulations. Obviously, the EU cannot control the conditions under which employees work in the Chinese factories that make the iPhones. But I am not sure they are sunlit uplands.
Regulatory divergence or convergence – which has the Cabinet chosen? Which is better for Tory fortunes? I think the latter, but I wouldn't be surprised if they flunked it.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
The EU27 are 27 individual countries. As noted on here many times, there is no EU-wide demos. Given that, the most important thing for the EU as a whole is to maintain its current rules and structures. If you start messing around with them too much, you run the risk of the whole thing falling to pieces. The leeway the UK got inside the EU was exceptional. With us outside, there is no reason to give us any preferential treatment.
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
So FTAs aren't actually that important after all?
Not for manufactured goods! Agriculture and services are a bit different though.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Around 2/3 of British Lamb is exported, mostly to the EU. It is possible in the longterm to switch produce, but it would take years. In the meantime best not invest in sheep.
I am unsure of Barnier's purpose in leaking this slide. Is it to set expectations of a very mediocre deal for the UK or is it to encourage the UK to ease its red lines so it can get a more ambitious deal?
The signals coming from the EU are mixed. It seems some want a clean break with a quick and crap deal for the UK, while others want to keep the UK in the EU system and will prevaricate if it achieves our subservience.The Irish are in the second camp, while I think the Germans are more in the first.
*PS what no-one in the EU will accept is delay that increases our cake, ie what May wants.
The French are more in the first, the Germans less so. After all the French vetoed our EEC entry in the first place
Actually it says the Cabinet is seeking a more ambitious deal than the Canada deal, not that it would reject a Canada deal if that was the best it could get
I am unsure of Barnier's purpose in leaking this slide. Is it to set expectations of a very mediocre deal for the UK or is it to encourage the UK to ease its red lines so it can get a more ambitious deal?
The signals coming from the EU are mixed. It seems some want a clean break with a quick and crap deal for the UK, while others want to keep the UK in the EU system and will prevaricate if it achieves our subservience.The Irish are in the second camp, while I think the Germans are more in the first.
*PS what no-one in the EU will accept is delay that increases our cake, ie what May wants.
The problem will also be that without the UK involved in negotiating FTAs for the EU, the Eu's internal dynamic will have been upset, with those countries more inclined to protectionism having the upper hand.
In some ways, I think the UK almost needs to default to hard Brexit, WTO conditions to allow a proper FTA to be negotiated.
The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.
Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.
I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
The UK is one of the world's happiest and most prosperous countries.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Not better under any scenario. Better for some farmers under some scenarios.
Outside CAP , we would be between columns 2 and 3. The more trade deals we have with third parties the more column 3 would apply than column 2. Which suggests we might not be doing many of these deals.
Very bad news for sheep farmers under any scenario and somewhat bad for crops. Other farmers, it depends. They could do well out of Brexit or badly.
I am unsure of Barnier's purpose in leaking this slide. Is it to set expectations of a very mediocre deal for the UK or is it to encourage the UK to ease its red lines so it can get a more ambitious deal?
The signals coming from the EU are mixed. It seems some want a clean break with a quick and crap deal for the UK, while others want to keep the UK in the EU system and will prevaricate if it achieves our subservience.The Irish are in the second camp, while I think the Germans are more in the first.
*PS what no-one in the EU will accept is delay that increases our cake, ie what May wants.
The French are more in the first, the Germans less so. After all the French vetoed our EEC entry in the first place
That's a long time ago.
The crucial point at the moment is that Germany has an unstable and distracted government. What that means is:
1. The Council lacks strong leadership, meaning that the Commission has greater latitude by default; 2. Those countries which really care about Brexit - Ireland, mainly - will be listened to more than would otherwise be the case.
The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.
Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.
I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
The UK is one of the world's happiest and most prosperous countries.
What planet you on
So would you rather live in Somalia, Russia, India, Columbia or the UK then to take 4 random nations? The UK may not be top of the tree but it is in a better position than most.
It'd be interesting to read the NFU study that Richard_Tyndall mentioned which said any scenario outside of the EU would be better for agricultural trade than staying in.
Not better under any scenario. Better for some farmers under some scenarios.
Outside CAP , we would be between columns 2 and 3. The more trade deals we have with third parties the more column 3 would apply than column 2. Which suggests we might not be doing many of these deals.
Very bad news for sheep farmers under any scenario and somewhat bad for crops. Other farmers, it depends. They could do well out of Brexit or badly.
Comments
That's every negotiation.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/please-think-of-the-millionaires/
they also missed out
free prescriptions
free home care
free university
etc
etc
etc
So, lets assume that Barnier is not bluffing and that the UK will be offered a CETA deal with no services. Let us also assume that this comes with the various terms Barnier has described to limit the ability of the UK to diverge in many key areas.
Can anyone explain to me why this would be preferable to no deal?
Management charges etc should be subject to audit by British authorities, at the moment these companies find good ways of ending up with 99% of their profits offshore, to the detriment of everyone bar their shareholders.
What the UK should be aiming for, as a realistic target which respects red lines and is in both sides' interests, is a deal comprising:
- No tariffs on manufactured or agricultural goods
- Streamlined customs arrangements so that the car industry doesn't get too badly hit
- Streamlined customs arrangements for Ireland
- Some extra agreement on financial services.
As part of this, we'll need to commit to some form of regulatory alignment; the bureaucrats will have to find a form of words which makes this palatable.
In other words, Canada Plus. How much 'plus' remains to be seen.
Of course we will - the Uk govt will sacrifice anything short term for the long term conditions.
What settlement is permanent other than reunification?
The UK has no incentive or capacity to walk away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Germany
https://amp.ft.com/content/e3b29230-db5f-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482?imageId=ba467310-e1b0-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c&__twitter_impression=true
I don't know whether a few weeks would have got him to the point that a curry house would take him. But there was, I thought, a fundamental problem with the adviser's attitude - he really only cared about applications, not upskilling, and I suspect that was based on his incentives ("What % of your clients have found work within one month?").
Number 1 imports: China
Number of deals with either of them that compromise the single market: Zero
You've made an excellent case for not needing to be in the EU.
A customs border is an unavoidable consequence of Brexit. Ireland will need to face this eventually.
In my case I just had to apply for a certain number of jobs a week
Anyway, the polling clearly shows that the increase in UKIP's support came at exactly the same time (March 2012) that the government began debating, and supporting, proposals to introduce same-sex marriage. UKIP, rather opportunistically, jumped on the bandwagon of opposition, probably for precisely the reason you identify - the crossover in support. That the timing coincided with the Omnishambles budget and a loss of support for the Tories in general reinforced that swing.
So while there were various reasons for UKIP's rise in support, opposition to gay marriage was central. All the same, the resilience of that swing was what prompted Cameron to offer his In/Out referendum on UKIP's core issue and the rest, as they say, is history.
Imagine how much an i-phone would cost if China had to comply with SM regulations.
Mind you half of Shanghai would be in Leipzig if free movement was introduced.
The age of social media doesn't help. We're in a negotiation and I'd expect scraps like this from both sides. Quite tedious really.
Not sure if its the same one
"A move towards a more liberal trading policy by the UK following Brexit would result in a significant reduction in farmgate incomes across the livestock sectors, particularly if support is cut, according to a report commissioned by the NFU.
But a more protectionist approach would see a boost in farmgate prices as imports became a less attractive proposition, the report by a Dutch research institute concluded.
However, the biggest factor when it comes to farm incomes would be the approach the UK Government took to farm support."
https://www.fginsight.com/news/news/nfu-reports-lays-out-brexit-implications-for-farmers-11273
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract
And yet their economy isn't dead.
Out of interest, does that study factor in reduced labour supply as a consequence of tighter immigration controls?
Under a Canada agreement the duty is 0%, or am I misreading ?
Which states that under their trade liberalisation scenario UK farmers would lose out but would do better under fta and wto as long as payments were continued at current levels - or indeed in some cases at lower levels also.
https://www.nfuonline.com/news/brexit-news/eu-referendum-news/latest-modelling-shows-impacts-of-different-brexit-deals42974/
Looks like the only negative scenario would be if HMG decide to cut all subsidies etc. unilaterally.
Does Canada export much lamb?
We are by no means the 'happiest', but we're certainly at the right end of the table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
The signals coming from the EU are mixed. It seems some want a clean break with a quick and crap deal for the UK, while others want to keep the UK in the EU system and will prevaricate if it achieves our subservience.The Irish are in the second camp, while I think the Germans are more in the first.
*PS what no-one in the EU will accept is delay that increases our cake, ie what May wants.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/dec/19/uk-in-weak-bargaining-position-because-economic-impact-of-brexit-on-eu-limited-say-academics-politics-live
In some ways, I think the UK almost needs to default to hard Brexit, WTO conditions to allow a proper FTA to be negotiated.
Outside CAP , we would be between columns 2 and 3. The more trade deals we have with third parties the more column 3 would apply than column 2. Which suggests we might not be doing many of these deals.
Very bad news for sheep farmers under any scenario and somewhat bad for crops. Other farmers, it depends. They could do well out of Brexit or badly.
https://www.nfuonline.com/news/brexit-news/eu-referendum-news/latest-modelling-shows-impacts-of-different-brexit-deals42974/
The crucial point at the moment is that Germany has an unstable and distracted government. What that means is:
1. The Council lacks strong leadership, meaning that the Commission has greater latitude by default;
2. Those countries which really care about Brexit - Ireland, mainly - will be listened to more than would otherwise be the case.