EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Fragony]

He's the bloke in charge of Brexit talks. Associated with this, he's also talking about getting other trade deals done, among them with countries that you say we already have deals with. If you're right, perhaps you should let him know we don't need to do these deals as we already have them.

They already exist in the eurone as well, they have really absolutly nothing on you, and that scares them. In the end you are just messing with their hobby's

[Pannonian]

They already exist in the eurone as well, they have really absolutly nothing on you, and that scares them. In the end you are just messing with their hobby's

Just about everything you've written on Brexit has not been substantiated by any kind of evidence, but in most cases is actually contradicted by all available evidence. In the last case your claim that we already have agreements when our government is currently recruiting negotiators to make these agreements. There was an article by Simon Kuper on how Brexit was hatched by debaters who were skilled in winning debates, and who now expected their rhetoric to similarly effect the real world but who were finding how the real world operates otherwise. All your BS about Brexit runs along those lines.

[Husar]

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/con...s-commonwealth

The Commonwealth gives preferential trade access to its member countries, including the UK.

Commonwealth countries are also part of several regional trade groups, including:

the North American Free Trade Agreement
Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which have a trade and aid agreement with the EU
the African Union
the Association of South East Asian Nations
the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation
the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas
The EU and the UK have trade agreements with most of these organisations.

You'd almost think the current trade treaties that Britain has with the Commonwealth nations are there because the EU made them and once Brexit is done the EU will still have them and the UK may need to renegotiate depending on what the "preferntial treatment" in the first quoted line means.

http://thecommonwealth.org/media/new...th-post-brexit

“We already know there’s a Commonwealth advantage in trading between member states”, said the Secretariat’s head of international trade policy, Dr Mohammad Razzaque. “Where the UK is already a significant trading partner, Commonwealth members can mobilise pro-active policy support to relatively easily expand trade further. In some cases, bilateral trading arrangements could also be the way forward.”

This doesn't exactly sound as though full free trade were already in place post-Brexit. Otherwise there would be nothing to expand.
Further looking into the paper linked shows this:

Analysis presented in Commonwealth Trade Review 2015 shows that, even in the absence of any coordinated policy measures (i.e. not considering the option of establishing new trading blocs), there was the potential of additional exports of $156 billion, or 34 per cent of current intraCommonwealth exports. Of this, more than US$35 billion comprised potential exports from the UK.6

Doesn't say how much the UK could export with more treaties, but without more there is a potential of around 35 billion US Dollars (keep in mind this is a/the Commonwealth website). Now a simple Google search reveals that the UK currently exports around 220 billion British Pounds worth of goods and services to the EU (https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/), which is around 287 billion US Dollars according to our friend google. That leaves a difference of ~ 251 billion US Dollars in exports. Now they can still export to the EU but the tariffs will likely decrease the volume and also make imports from the EU more expensive if replacement suppliers cannot be found quickly. Consider also that the increase in Commonwealth trade is just as much possible without Brexit as the number refers to currently unrealized potential trade. I don't really see the monetary advantage of Brexit here. The EU membership fee in 2015 after the rebate was 12.9 billion GBP according to the Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/ho...ld-it-pay-for/).

[Beskar]

I don't really see the monetary advantage of Brexit here.

You forget, the plan for Brexit is that the UK will drop all trade barriers, having free trade with everywhere without any custom arrangements and sell all the corporations off to global internationals, and also becom an overseas tax haven.

The rich get richer and Britannia Rules the Waves (or something like that, apparently)

[rory_20_uk]

You forget, the plan for Brexit is that the UK will drop all trade barriers, having free trade with everywhere without any custom arrangements and sell all the corporations off to global internationals, and also becom an overseas tax haven.

The rich get richer and Britannia Rules the Waves (or something like that, apparently)

...Whereas the EU is trying to destroy all European nations in to one amorphous mass of cattle who are only given the vote over matters they will vote the "right" way. The rich get richer (in this case lots of supra-state officials).

Or something like that, apparently.

[Husar]

...Whereas the EU is trying to destroy all European nations in to one amorphous mass of cattle who are only given the vote over matters they will vote the "right" way. The rich get richer (in this case lots of supra-state officials).

Or something like that, apparently.

Unfounded, drivel.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You forget, the plan for Brexit is that the UK will drop all trade barriers, having free trade with everywhere without any custom arrangements and sell all the corporations off to global internationals, and also becom an overseas tax haven.

The rich get richer and Britannia Rules the Waves (or something like that, apparently)

You really need a band playing if you are going for that much platitudinous in a couple of brief sentences.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Whereas the EU is trying to destroy all European nations in to one amorphous mass of cattle who are only given the vote over matters they will vote the "right" way. The rich get richer (in this case lots of supra-state officials).

Or something like that, apparently.

Four legs good, two legs bad. But the apparatchik need those perks after their strenuous days of leadership.

[Fragony]

Unfounded, drivel.

Reality, obvious

[rory_20_uk]

Unfounded, drivel.

Who says Germans don't get sarcasm...?

[Husar]

It's funny how people apply completely different principles to politicians.

Corporations pay their CEOs and managers millions every month so they can "get the best". Meanwhile people complain that politicians, who get a lot less every month, are "too rich", "not good enough" and "too susceptible to bribery". Well, according to capitalist principles, perhaps you're still not paying them enough to get the best, most upstanding candidates for the job?

And concerning influences of the rich, look at politics before politicians got paid anything or the current US cabinet, where politics were/are basically a pastime for rich people to further their own agenda because noone else could afford or would want the job for that kind of money.
Of course one could also argue about whether higher payment = more skill is actually applicable in all or most cases, but let's not stray too far from the topic.

As for the sarcasm part, I don't see the big difference between that post and earlier rory posts in this topic. Or as I'm always told, it's your own fault for not making it obvious enough/being bad at it/you just say it now because you don't want to admit being wrong.

[Fragony]

Who says Germans don't get sarcasm...?

The ones with a sense of humour

[Beskar]

You really need a band playing if you are going for that much platitudinous in a couple of brief sentences.

Our government runs on platitudinous.

[Pannonian]

You really need a band playing if you are going for that much platitudinous in a couple of brief sentences.

If you want to see platitudes, see the recent UK election. Newspapers ran counts of how many times the words "strong" and "stable" appeared in any given speech. It got too much even for the UK voters, who were just bright enough to recognise that a campaign was based around cliches and hiding the leader as much as possible.

[Fragony]

Shouldn't just look at the economics, the EU is tbe Call of Chultu of politics. What the EU wants is destroying nation-states

[Husar]

What the EU wants is destroying nation-states

A very noble goal in itself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The two preceding posts represent the core of the divide in thinking on the EU.

[Pannonian]

The two preceding posts represent the core of the divide in thinking on the EU.

It's not from one side only though. You also have the Westminster government willingly destroying regions in order to neutralise them politically. Eg. The Thatcher government's policy for Liverpool was to direct it towards "managed decline" in order to punish it for its far left tendencies. During the EU era, the city benefited from EU investment that matched any private financing with an equal amount from the EU, thus bypassing the intentions of Westminster. Far from a managed decline, the city modernised.

In the above case, which degree of sovereignty was right? The regional level, the national level, or the supra-national level?

[Beskar]

Regional Investment policy was one of the best ones the EU had. Instead of disparity between areas, it sort to provide investment and develop them instead. The biggest problem for the UK is what will happen without it, especially as UK government will most likely not fund what being invested.

[Fragony]

Regional Investment policy was one of the best ones the EU had. Instead of disparity between areas, it sort to provide investment and develop them instead. The biggest problem for the UK is what will happen without it, especially as UK government will most likely not fund what being invested.

As a net-payer you get less back that's all, what's being done with your money is up to yourself

[Husar]

As a net-payer you get less back that's all, what's being done with your money is up to yourself

A very simplistic view, given that investment in the other EU countries can yield net positive results such as higher educated workers or higher exports due to an increase in purchasing power.

[Fragony]

A very simplistic view, given that investment in the other EU countries can yield net positive results such as higher educated workers or higher exports due to an increase in purchasing power.

It's very simplistic to think that the eurozone is the world and surroundings. It's a useless burocracy and nothing more

[Husar]

It's very simplistic to think that the eurozone is the world and surroundings. It's a useless burocracy and nothing more

So is the Dutch government, Amersfoort should keep its money and invest it in Amersfoort. Why should you pay for gay pride parades in Amsterdam?

[rory_20_uk]

A very simplistic view, given that investment in the other EU countries can yield net positive results such as higher educated workers or higher exports due to an increase in purchasing power.

So... if money is given away for free to Europeans they hopefully will purchase things (and not from the rest of the world) and be more educated (ignoring equally educated people from the rest of the planet).

It very much sounds like desperately justifying giving away money so that things might be better at some point in the far future.

If the idea was a positive return on money spent, there are better places to invest than Eastern Europe.

[Pannonian]

So... if money is given away for free to Europeans they hopefully will purchase things (and not from the rest of the world) and be more educated (ignoring equally educated people from the rest of the planet).

It very much sounds like desperately justifying giving away money so that things might be better at some point in the far future.

If the idea was a positive return on money spent, there are better places to invest than Eastern Europe.

So should the economic argument be the primary consideration?

[Husar]

So... if money is given away for free to Europeans they hopefully will purchase things (and not from the rest of the world) and be more educated (ignoring equally educated people from the rest of the planet).

It very much sounds like desperately justifying giving away money so that things might be better at some point in the far future.

If the idea was a positive return on money spent, there are better places to invest than Eastern Europe.

Positive returns aren't just of a monetary nature. And why don't Londoners invest their money in Dubai rather than some poor northern English city if monetary return is all that counts?

[Fragony]

So is the Dutch government, Amersfoort should keep its money and invest it in Amersfoort. Why should you pay for gay pride parades in Amsterdam?

Well the gay pride was here in Amersfoort two weeks ago, I don't care. My issues with government go a lot deeper. Polticians just have the habit of making themselve nesecary. I don't think they are

[rory_20_uk]

So should the economic argument be the primary consideration?

What is the primary consideration - belief that unification of Europe is "good"?

Is it to prevent the continent fighting any more wars? Quite a good idea, that. Good luck to you all - it's working a treat! Seems Russia didn't read the memo - and I thought we had NATO for this one.

Free trade? That precedes the EU of course.
Unified laws and caps on debt ratios? Great idea. Any idea when France etc are going to y'know, follow them?

[Fragony]

What is the primary consideration - belief that unification of Europe is "good"?

Is it to prevent the continent fighting any more wars? Quite a good idea, that. Good luck to you all - it's working a treat! Seems Russia didn't read the memo - and I thought we had NATO for this one.

Free trade? That precedes the EU of course.
Unified laws and caps on debt ratios? Great idea. Any idea when France etc are going to y'know, follow them?

No more wars, but creeping up on the rather docile Russians who aren't interested in war why would tney be. Our real enemies are already here, not a blow but a creeping poisson

[Montmorency]

What is the primary consideration - belief that unification of Europe is "good"?

Is it to prevent the continent fighting any more wars? Quite a good idea, that. Good luck to you all - it's working a treat! Seems Russia didn't read the memo - and I thought we had NATO for this one.

Free trade? That precedes the EU of course.
Unified laws and caps on debt ratios? Great idea. Any idea when France etc are going to y'know, follow them?

You do have some power over the policies of European states in your capacity as one of the leading members of the EU, diminished when membership is renounced. Not all investments are made with immediate, or financial, returns in mind.

But the most important takeaway is that the UK will be back, sooner or later, whether for the EU or something else. The imperative to participate is always present, so these episodes will recur. What will you say then?