Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Barnier has said bluntly today that the UK's position is 'impossible'. There will be no 'frictionless' borders without freedom of movement; there will be no 'sector by sector' negotiation (i.e. financial services, motor manufacturing, etc); and there will be no compromise on ECJ jurisdiction.

 

So much for having your cake and eating it - this is not having any cake and starving.

 

Which means the next set of EU/UK meetings are going to be interesting. I wonder when the penny will finally drop with May, Davis, et al.? Or are they playing this out like a whole season of House of Cards, and waiting for the public mood to catch up with a reality they understand all too well but dare not mention?

 

Either way, the choice between hard, economy-trashing Brexit and the not-really-Brexit-at-all of single market and customs union membership couldn't be starker.

Surely you are not saying BREXIT is a **** up ?

Either way, the choice between hard, economy-trashing Brexit and the not-really-Brexit-at-all of single market and customs union membership couldn't be starker.

Behave, mate. In economic growth and national debt terms, we did fine prior to entering the EU in 1973 and we will again. We won two world wars, for God's sake and it certainly wasn't with your attitude. Show some backbone!

Behave, mate. In economic growth and national debt terms, we did fine prior to entering the EU in 1973 and we will again. We won two world wars, for God's sake and it certainly wasn't with you attitude. Show some backbone!

For the record, two world wars and one world cup, pal.

We won two world wars....

I think those victories owed significantly to the participation of the Yanks and French in the first, and the Yanks and Russians in the second.

Barnier has said bluntly today that the UK's position is 'impossible'. There will be no 'frictionless' borders without freedom of movement; there will be no 'sector by sector' negotiation (i.e. financial services, motor manufacturing, etc); and there will be no compromise on ECJ jurisdiction.

 

So much for having your cake and eating it - this is not having any cake and starving.

 

Which means the next set of EU/UK meetings are going to be interesting. I wonder when the penny will finally drop with May, Davis, et al.? Or are they playing this out like a whole season of House of Cards, and waiting for the public mood to catch up with a reality they understand all too well but dare not mention?

 

Either way, the choice between hard, economy-trashing Brexit and the not-really-Brexit-at-all of single market and customs union membership couldn't be starker.

Have you ever negotiated anything before?

Why do you automatically take anything that The EU say as gospel, believe that their will be no compromise on their part & think that national Governments or business will have no say in the final deal. It's the reason "no deal is better than a bad deal' is the Government position. Of course they don't want if, but the EU must believe we'll tell them to **** off & walk away. Tariffs will hurt them every bit as much as it'll hurt us & they need our cash as they'll face a ****ing big black hole. Labour & Tory positions are cake & eat it, EU's is you'll get **** all. They'll meet somewhere in the middle.

I know you're desperate for this to fail, desperate for the EU to stitch us up, but if you think the their starting position is written in stone and they won't budge you're letting that cloud your judgement.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...the Yanks and Russians in the second.

Behave, mate. In economic growth and national debt terms, we did fine prior to entering the EU in 1973 and we will again. We won two world wars, for God's sake and it certainly wasn't with your attitude. Show some backbone!

Your history is almost as bad as your maths, Trident. The UK joined what was then the European Economic Community (not the EU) in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. It was banging on the doors to join the EEC.

Behave, mate. In economic growth and national debt terms, we did fine prior to entering the EU in 1973!

That must account for the UK prior to 1973 being labelled, for very good reason, the 'sick man of Europe'.

But all of this is a dead-wood argument - there will (should) come a time when you have to stop fighting them on the beaches.

Regardless of one's view, pro or anti, the UK is in an awful mess with these negotiations, and I repeat yet again - if I were a Brexiteer, I'd be scared ****less that May, Davis et al are the ones responsible for getting this done.

Because whatever it is they're doing, it isn't going to result in Brexit.

That must account for the UK prior to 1973 being labelled, for very good reason, the 'sick man of Europe'.

Neither of these countries is in the EU. We are the only member of the EU that participated in freeing Europe from the tyranny of Nazism and don't you forget it, sonny boy...

We had Belgian, Dutch, Free French, Greek, and Czech forces fighting in the Allied armies, and of course the Poles who fought as part of the 8th army and ended up leading the capture of Monte Cassino. ( And even the Italians ended up on our side in 1943 ).

Your history is almost as bad as your maths, Trident. The UK joined what was then the European Economic Community (not the EU) in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. It was banging on the doors to join the EEC.

Of course, that doesn't answer the counterfactual as to what would have happened if the UK hadn't joined the EEC in 1973 - after all, real GDP per capita was trending upwards before entry. Nor does it disentangle the effects of membership from other structural variables and policy inteventions -say Thatcher's supply-side reforms in the 1980s that positively affected growth. Nonetheless studies that try to control for these effects suggest that the EU has causally or directly benefitted the UK, even if it hasn't permanently boosted the UK’s growth rate.

the dreamers of the past will find some reason to pretend its not true but they will still believe in their make believe world.

real GDP per capita was trending upwards before entry.

Not compared with France Germany and Italy it wasnt. The trend line is deceptive, the relative growth improvements didnt kick in until after 1975. Yes of course no-one can definitively prove the EC /EU is responsible for improved economic performance and yes Thatcher probably helped. However we know we suddenly had free access to a much large market which was much closer to us than the commonwealth, we know economic growth picked up and our exports to europe increased. Of course maybe its all a coincidence. Maybe its coincidence that we won WW2 after the US and Russia joined. Maybe its a coincidence that the pound tanked when Brexit happened. Maybe its a coincidence that Theresa May gave an extra billion to NI. Or maybe it isnt.

Not compared with France Germany and Italy it wasnt. The trend line is deceptive, the relative growth improvements didnt kick in until after 1975. Yes of course no-one can definitively prove the EC /EU is responsible for improved economic performance and yes Thatcher probably helped. However we know we suddenly had free access to a much large market which was much closer to us than the commonwealth, we know economic growth picked up and our exports to europe increased. Of course maybe its all a coincidence. Maybe its coincidence that we won WW2 after the US and Russia joined. Maybe its a coincidence that the pound tanked when Brexit happened. Maybe its a coincidence that Theresa May gave an extra billion to NI. Or maybe it isnt.

Not sure I follow. Yes the UK still lagged France Germany and Italy in 1973. However, the trendline was going up - that is, the gap with those countries was closing . Simple extrapolation suggests that the UK would have overtaken them at some point. The question is whether that would have happened sooner or later in the absence of joining the EEC. My views are pretty well-known on the subject.

Coincidence and smoke and mirrors abound everywhere; the big bucks are in demonstrating causality. Some fascinating stuff has been written on the subject, especially on demonstrating the gains from trade and the effects of distance. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15557

Not sure I follow. However, the trendline was going up - that is, the gap with those countries was closing

No, no it wasnt. That is my point, the trendline is misleading. Look at the actual figures. Britain didnt start to overhaul Germany, France et al until 1980/81 when there was sharp sustained improvement. The real trend between 1958 and 1970 was things were getting slightly worse on an already really bad situation. They werent improving

No, no it wasnt. That is my point, the trendline is misleading. Look at the actual figures. Britain didnt start to overhaul Germany, France et al until 1980/81 when there was sharp sustained improvement. The real trend between 1958 and 1970 was things were getting slightly worse on an already really bad situation. They werent improving

The trendline is a smoothed or moving average of the 'actual figures'- those figures are q.volatile but they were getting smaller. Bar the fall in the late 1960s, they was nothing the three drops in the 1950s.

those figures are q.volatile but they were getting smaller.

Again, no. The performance shortfall was actually worse in the seven years 1965 to 1971 than it was in the seven years 1958 to 1964 despite the trendline showing an improvement.

The rolling average causes the trendline to show a gradual improvement where none exists. What actually happened was a sustained, consistent, mostly level relative decline until 1972, a patchy volatile slight uptick between 1972 and 1980 and then a mostly consistent sustained improvement thereafter. There was no gradual trend, there were step changes. If you used a three year rolling average rather than what appears to be a ridiculous 15 year one you would get a totally different trendline.

https://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/trend-lines-can-lie/

Of course, that doesn't answer the counterfactual as to what would have happened if the UK hadn't joined the EEC in 1973 - after all, real GDP per capita was trending upwards before entry. Nor does it disentangle the effects of membership from other structural variables and policy inteventions -say Thatcher's supply-side reforms in the 1980s that positively affected growth. Nonetheless studies that try to control for these effects suggest that the EU has causally or directly benefitted the UK, even if it hasn't permanently boosted the UK’s growth rate.

Not compared with France Germany and Italy it wasnt. The trend line is deceptive, the relative growth improvements didnt kick in until after 1975. Yes of course no-one can definitively prove the EC /EU is responsible for improved economic performance and yes Thatcher probably helped. However we know we suddenly had free access to a much large market which was much closer to us than the commonwealth, we know economic growth picked up and our exports to europe increased. Of course maybe its all a coincidence. Maybe its coincidence that we won WW2 after the US and Russia joined. Maybe its a coincidence that the pound tanked when Brexit happened. Maybe its a coincidence that Theresa May gave an extra billion to NI. Or maybe it isnt.

It's nice to see a couple of lefties give credit, where credit is due.

The 'thatcher' effect without doubt improved national prosperity.

For those that purely credit membership of the EEC for our good fortunes, is naive beyond belief.

It's nice to see a couple of lefties give credit, where credit is due.

 

The 'thatcher' effect without doubt improved national prosperity.

 

For those that purely credit membership of the EEC for our good fortunes, is naive beyond belief.

All that is needed is a national leader with a mandate, neither of which we have got.

Brexit should be about the freedom for the UK to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world without the regulatory burdens the EU imposed, often for the benefit of France and Germany. Why the voters can't embrace this opportunity is beyond me.

In the end though, we will get the government we deserve. I just pray it's not an economically illiterate communist party of Jezzer. So good at wasting tax revenues and so bad at raising them. Still, I can see a few dumb, spoilt, loan dodging students voting that way.

The Tooting Popular Front returns...

All that is needed is a national leader with a mandate, neither of which we have got.

 

Brexit should be about the freedom for the UK to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world without the regulatory burdens the EU imposed, often for the benefit of France and Germany. Why the voters can't embrace this opportunity is beyond me.

What tangible regulatory burdens imposed by the EU will we escape from when - or more accurately, given events to date, if - we have Brexit with a fully agreed bilateral trade deal with the EU?

It's nice to see a couple of lefties give credit, where credit is due.

 

The 'thatcher' effect without doubt improved national prosperity.

 

For those that purely credit membership of the EEC for our good fortunes, is naive beyond belief.

The Single Market was Thatcher's great achievement so credit where credit is due.

All that is needed is a national leader with a mandate, neither of which we have got.

 

Brexit should be about the freedom for the UK to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world without the regulatory burdens the EU imposed, often for the benefit of France and Germany. Why the voters can't embrace this opportunity is beyond me.

 

In the end though, we will get the government we deserve. I just pray it's not an economically illiterate communist party of Jezzer. So good at wasting tax revenues and so bad at raising them. Still, I can see a few dumb, spoilt, loan dodging students voting that way.

 

The Tooting Popular Front returns...

 

There speaks a man with a firkin great chip on his shoulder!

What tangible regulatory burdens imposed by the EU will we escape from when - or more accurately, given events to date, if - we have Brexit with a fully agreed bilateral trade deal with the EU?

Special pleading by a producer diddums

In general, risk-based regulation sounds great -improved proportionality, flexibility, efficient use of resources, innovation and legitimacy what's not to like; but the experience of it, in practice, has been very different.

In my industry, we will escape from Regulation 1107/2009 and move to a risk rather than a hazard based system, to the benefit of UK growers, food producers and consumers. Maybe we will then be able to benefit from GM crops, that the rest of the world have been benefiting from, for years.

How will you escape it exactly? Remember, my question was how you'd avoid these regulations in any bilateral trade deal with the EU. The EU will simply insist that its regulations still apply if you want to export into the EU - as it does with pretty much everything else.

How will you escape it exactly? Remember, my question was how you'd avoid these regulations in any bilateral trade deal with the EU. The EU will simply insist that its regulations still apply if you want to export into the EU - as it does with pretty much everything else.

The kippers don't understand basic trade - the more comprehensive the trade agreement, whether with the EU or another country, the more restrictions you have to accept on your sovereignty.

The kippers don't understand basic trade - the more comprehensive the trade agreement, whether with the EU or another country, the more restrictions you have to accept on your sovereignty.

Things are not going that well are they as Fears for UK economy after weaker-than-expected growth reports

Drop in manufacturing, construction slowdown and widening of trade deficit knock pound lower against dollar euro

So when are things going to improve or perhaps the economists were right and BREXIT will be a economical disaster

Things are not going that well are they as Fears for UK economy after weaker-than-expected growth reports

Drop in manufacturing, construction slowdown and widening of trade deficit knock pound lower against dollar euro

 

So when are things going to improve or perhaps the economists were right and BREXIT will be a economical disaster

Lets face it whatever happens you'll keep whinging & blaming Brexit. As if staying in will mean growth forever & ever. Here's my prediction, in the next 50 years there will be growth, recessions & normal economic cycles , in or out of the EUSSR

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How will you escape it exactly? Remember, my question was how you'd avoid these regulations in any bilateral trade deal with the EU. The EU will simply insist that its regulations still apply if you want to export into the EU - as it does with pretty much everything else.

I don't give a flying f*** about exporting to the EU. Their regulations cost my UK company about £10M in sales in the UK, to protect a major German multinational's EU sales and I have the emails to prove it. It had f*** all to do with protecting the environment or human health.

I doubt that anyone on this forum has the intellect or desire to learn the truth. The bottom line is that the EU is and was, set up to protect French and German interests and the UK blindly followed, even though that old c*** De Gaulle, whose ass we saved, made it clear where France's interests really lay, on a number of occasions. A clue. Their attitude was and will never be, out of a gratitude for this countries's sacrifice's during the war to liberate their country. Google Vichy and learn. The French are generally disloyal and self obsessed ponces and they rolled over in about a week at the first sight of German tanks. Germany just wants to dominate Europe as they always have.

Another minor issue. In Germany, they are rioting against capitalist Trump and the US. This is the same G20 meeting that Putin is strutting about at, whose country invaded the Crimea and part of the Ukraine. I didn't see anyone in Germany protesting about that. That old Stasi b1tch Merkel, will always be kissing Putin's ass.

Why the f*** doesn't anyone see what the f*** the EU is all about.

And if anyone thinks I am bitter, don't worry. I am far too rich to be bitter, just smarter than most of you who think the EU is a good thing.

Meltdown alert

I don't give a flying f*** about exporting to the EU. Their regulations cost my UK company about £10M in sales in the UK, to protect a major German multinational's EU sales and I have the emails to prove it. It had f*** all to do with protecting the environment or human health.

 

I doubt that anyone on this forum has the intellect or desire to learn the truth. The bottom line is that the EU is and was, set up to protect French and German interests and the UK blindly followed, even though that old c*** De Gaulle, whose ass we saved, made it clear where France's interests really lay, on a number of occasions. A clue. Their attitude was and will never be, out of a gratitude for this countries's sacrifice's during the war to liberate their country. Google Vichy and learn. The French are generally disloyal and self obsessed ponces and they rolled over in about a week at the first sight of German tanks. Germany just wants to dominate Europe as they always have.

 

Another minor issue. In Germany, they are rioting against capitalist Trump and the US. This is the same G20 meeting that Putin is strutting about at, whose country invaded the Crimea and part of the Ukraine. I didn't see anyone in Germany protesting about that. That old Stasi b1tch Merkel, will always be kissing Putin's ass.

 

Why the f*** doesn't anyone see what the f*** the EU is all about.

 

And if anyone thinks I am bitter, don't worry. I am far too rich to be bitter, just smarter than most of you who think the EU is a good thing.

Who says money doesn't make you happy?

It's nice to see a couple of lefties give credit, where credit is due.

 

The 'thatcher' effect without doubt improved national prosperity.

 

For those that purely credit membership of the EEC for our good fortunes, is naive beyond belief.

I don't give a flying f*** about exporting to the EU. Their regulations cost my UK company about £10M in sales in the UK, to protect a major German multinational's EU sales and I have the emails to prove it. It had f*** all to do with protecting the environment or human health.

 

I doubt that anyone on this forum has the intellect or desire to learn the truth. The bottom line is that the EU is and was, set up to protect French and German interests and the UK blindly followed, even though that old c*** De Gaulle, whose ass we saved, made it clear where France's interests really lay, on a number of occasions. A clue. Their attitude was and will never be, out of a gratitude for this countries's sacrifice's during the war to liberate their country. Google Vichy and learn. The French are generally disloyal and self obsessed ponces and they rolled over in about a week at the first sight of German tanks. Germany just wants to dominate Europe as they always have.

 

Another minor issue. In Germany, they are rioting against capitalist Trump and the US. This is the same G20 meeting that Putin is strutting about at, whose country invaded the Crimea and part of the Ukraine. I didn't see anyone in Germany protesting about that. That old Stasi b1tch Merkel, will always be kissing Putin's ass.

 

Why the f*** doesn't anyone see what the f*** the EU is all about.

 

And if anyone thinks I am bitter, don't worry. I am far too rich to be bitter, just smarter than most of you who think the EU is a good thing.

Go retire on a beach with your millions and get laid by some 18 year old Thai bird, you'll be far happier for it.

I certainly wouldn't be crying about the EU from a place in Fareham. Surely it's time to pass on AGFORM and go spunk it all in Vegas?

I don't give a flying f*** about exporting to the EU. Their regulations cost my UK company about £10M in sales in the UK, to protect a major German multinational's EU sales and I have the emails to prove it. It had f*** all to do with protecting the environment or human health.

 

I doubt that anyone on this forum has the intellect or desire to learn the truth. The bottom line is that the EU is and was, set up to protect French and German interests and the UK blindly followed, even though that old c*** De Gaulle, whose ass we saved, made it clear where France's interests really lay, on a number of occasions. A clue. Their attitude was and will never be, out of a gratitude for this countries's sacrifice's during the war to liberate their country. Google Vichy and learn. The French are generally disloyal and self obsessed ponces and they rolled over in about a week at the first sight of German tanks. Germany just wants to dominate Europe as they always have.

 

Another minor issue. In Germany, they are rioting against capitalist Trump and the US. This is the same G20 meeting that Putin is strutting about at, whose country invaded the Crimea and part of the Ukraine. I didn't see anyone in Germany protesting about that. That old Stasi b1tch Merkel, will always be kissing Putin's ass.

 

Why the f*** doesn't anyone see what the f*** the EU is all about.

 

And if anyone thinks I am bitter, don't worry. I am far too rich to be bitter, just smarter than most of you who think the EU is a good thing.

Exits stage left goose stepping with index finger over top lip.

I don't give a flying f*** about exporting to the EU.

Je ne comprend pas.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/new-lab-hopes-to-export-to-europe-and-earn-15m-1-5215035

Je ne comprend pas.

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/new-lab-hopes-to-export-to-europe-and-earn-15m-1-5215035

I don't give a flying f*** about exporting to the EU.

I don't give a flying f*** about exporting to the EU.

Many businesses do, though - many that are far bigger, more successful and more important to the economy than yours.

Sums up the EU ******, really.

The United States would like to again note that a hazard-based approach raises significant questions with respect to the soundness of the EU’s approach, and raises questions under its international obligations as well. A hazard based approach relies on eschewing the complete information that may be available or discerned through a risk assessment. In this case, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has stated that it sees no technical reasons why a risk-based approach cannot be utilized to regulate EDs. The measure published by the Commission provides no reason to question or revisit EFSA’s point.

 

With respect to international obligations, the WTO SPS Agreement recognizes that WTO Members have the right to take measures to protect human, animal or plant life or health. But in order to ensure such measures are not a disguised restriction on trade, it also requires that such measures are “based on scientific principles and are not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence,” except where the relevant scientific evidence is insufficient. Consistent with that obligation, the SPS Agreement also requires that such measures “are based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal, or plant life or health” and that such assessments “take into account available scientific evidence…”

 

 

A hazard-based approach for establishing the criteria to identify and regulate endocrine disruptors would omit critical elements of the risk analysis process, such as dose-response assessment for potency and an exposure assessment, leading to regulatory decision-making on the basis of incomplete or insufficient scientific knowledge or context.

Anyone needing a translation of the above, please let me know, but it simply states that the US realises that the EU is using a hazard based approach to "endocrine disruptors" and subsequent banning of such products, which is seen by the US as a trade barrier illegal under WTO rules. This could mean that US agricultural exports are banned by the EU for no reason supported by scientific data.

Coffee is an endocrine disruptor, by the way....

Coffee is an endocrine disruptor, by the way....

So is Polonium 210

The EU has ruled it isnt fit to sold in the EU. Therefore its honest comment.You dont have a leg to stand on. By all means sue though. I'll be happy to see you haemorrhage money on a fit of pique. You're a sad sack John, always have been. Thats honest comment too.

Risk-based approaches are great on paper but problematic in practice – they require high-quality, reliable data and a strong understanding of how complex systems work. Time and time again, attempts to model these risks, a precondition for effective risk-based regulation, have proven far more difficult than the optimists and the trojan deregulators claim.

Banging on Angela's door, they will be. Banging on the door.

German industry warns UK not to expect help in Brexit talks

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/08/german-industry-warns-uk-over-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Banging on Angela's door, they will be. Banging on the door.

 

German industry warns UK not to expect help in Brexit talks

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/08/german-industry-warns-uk-over-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Beat me to it. This has always been one of David Davis's aces - that German industry, and carmakers in particular, would not allow Merkel to do a bad deal on Brexit. Pure Panglossian fantasy.

On the one side of this negotiation are 27 states who've rarely united on anything yet speak as one voice. On the other side, the May government has laid out long lines of typewriters, put out an emergency call for monkeys, and are still awaiting something resembling a plan.

So for the umpteenth time: Brexiteers should be terrified that the present (what counts for) Tory government is negotiating all this, because it sure as hell isn't going to lead to the sunny uplands.

Beat me to it. This has always been one of David Davis's aces - that German industry, and carmakers in particular, would not allow Merkel to do a bad deal on Brexit. Pure Panglossian fantasy.

 

On the one side of this negotiation are 27 states who've rarely united on anything yet speak as one voice. On the other side, the May government has laid out long lines of typewriters, put out an emergency call for monkeys, and are still awaiting something resembling a plan.

 

So for the umpteenth time: Brexiteers should be terrified that the present (what counts for) Tory government is negotiating all this, because it sure as hell isn't going to lead to the sunny uplands.

Though the EU might speak as 'one voice' for 27 countries, it doesn't mean every country has the same feeling about the Brexit talks. The Dutch have always relied on the Brits when the EU came up with some unholy plan. As the Dutch are losing their 'big brother', the Dutch PM Rutte is looking for other friends to prevent Brexit damaging Dutch interests. After all, Dutch export to the UK exceeds 50 billion euro's.

Not that I believe that the Netherlands, Luxemburg and the Baltic States will convince the French and the Germans to go easy on May c.s. but hey, at least there are some countries with a 'different perspective' on Brexit.

Please get back to discussing Post EU - The Way Forward.

If you want to go legal on each other please do so.

The gift that keeps on giving.