Brexit - Art 50 on Mar 29th

[Tinch]

The margins for error are too great at present for any forecast can say with any certainty that there will be a recession or not. So I am not sure why you are promoting one of the many possible outcomes whilst appearing to dismiss another.

Which one have I dismissed?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Pann]

Which one have I dismissed?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The possibility of a recession. Or was that not the point of asking for non-existent forecasts and labelling it as a "hunch of someone on the internet."?

[Activi-T]

make sense. Though your statement is vague. What are those countries that the UK want to trade with but the EU didn't?

Is there a reason why the EU would refuse to trade with some countries? Political reasons? Economical reason? Moral reasons?
Is the UK willing to bypass those reasons to enlarge its market?

Is it possible the UK once out of the EU would still not trade with those countries because those reasons still applies?

Like i say, you are too vague, i can't judge your reasoning on its merit. You need to give me concrete example and run some numbers.

It's more to do with being able to setup trade deals in a more dynamic fashion than the EU can. The EU needs agreement between all its members and any of them can throw a spanner in the works to drag the process out even longer just to get its own little concessions in. It's why trade deals with the EU can have run as long as 13 years in the making. Not to mention their rules on quotas.

[Vankrys]

It's more to do with being able to setup trade deals in a more dynamic fashion than the EU can. The EU needs agreement between all its members and any of them can throw a spanner in the works to drag the process out even longer just to get its own little concessions in. It's why trade deals with the EU can have run as long as 13 years in the making. Not to mention their rules on quotas.

That also make sense. it's far easier to be reactive with a small structure than a giant one.
But on the other end, it's easier to strike good or great deal when you are a giant, when you have more economical weight.

I would assume that the EU had already in place trade deal with the major economical actors of the planet. The one that the EU don't have a deal with would be the fringe one.

My reasoning started of as this idea that the UK will be free to enact their own regulation. This is true, but any company wishing to export have to pay attention and obey regulations from countries it wish to import to anyway. So whether or not the UK makes its own regulations have no bearing on those international UK companies doing business abroad. On that front, the UK lost its ability to debate and vote on future EU regulations.

National UK regulations might be more intended to regulate imports then. And then again, you don't want to piss off the other actors on the business scene, you don't want retaliation. What can the UK provide that the rest of EU, or the rest of the world can't?

While the UK is one of the richest and most powerful country on the planet, it still is quite small compare to the EU. Meaning, striking favorable deal with the EU is difficult at best. Every negotiation depends on the balance of power. Which brings me to this question; does the EU need the UK more than the UK needs the EU?

[Noradin]

It's more to do with being able to setup trade deals in a more dynamic fashion than the EU can. The EU needs agreement between all its members and any of them can throw a spanner in the works to drag the process out even longer just to get its own little concessions in. It's why trade deals with the EU can have run as long as 13 years in the making. Not to mention their rules on quotas.

Actually, you have it backwards, the EU has the authority to set regulations exactly to prevent this from happening all the time when all the states in the EU want to trade with the same foreign country.
If each one were to negotiate its own deals then those would constantly contradict each other, thus we let the negotiators employed by the EU do it for all of the member states at once.
It is only really a problem if you have someone like the UK in the EU, they certainly liked to throw spanners in the works all the time to get extra concessions.
Must be because they aren't used to the concept of teamwork in politics since they have FPTP and therefore no need to learn political cooperation.
It's that egocentric "us against them" mentality that makes them so toxic.

- - - Updated - - -

That also make sense. it's far easier to be reactive with a small structure than a giant one.

It is also much easier to negotiate when no more than two parties that really matter are involved.
Every country the UK might negotiate with will have deals with others already, which they will not abandon just to please the UK.
Worse, they might even negotiate with other countries at the same time.

That is why EU member states delegate the negotiations of trade deals to EU officials: It makes the whole process incredibly more efficient and the deals we get are much better for everyone of us, too.

[jimboa24]

If the EU tries to royally fuck the UK over, isn't that a good thing for the United States? We're the biggest economic player in the world (with China closing in, but not there yet), and if the UK needs a better trade deal to meet its economic needs, that might be just the thing the U.S. needs to give some of our industries a nice shot in the arm.

What does the UK get from trading with the rest of the EU? Obviously I'm talking goods, services and products. If it becomes too burdensome to continue such dealings with the rest of the EU, then why could it not simply strengthen its ties with the U.S.? I'm confident that we can fill whatever void is left by the rest of the E.U. And if the E.U. tries to screw the U.S. over in retaliation for throwing the UK a lifeline...well, let's be frank, the EU is going to end up being on the losing end of that no matter what.

[Bakis]

If the EU tries to royally fuck the UK over, isn't that a good thing for the United States? We're the biggest economic player in the world (with China closing in, but not there yet), and if the UK needs a better trade deal to meet its economic needs, that might be just the thing the U.S. needs to give some of our industries a nice shot in the arm.

What does the UK get from trading with the rest of the EU? Obviously I'm talking goods, services and products. If it becomes too burdensome to continue such dealings with the rest of the EU, then why could it not simply strengthen its ties with the U.S.? I'm confident that we can fill whatever void is left by the rest of the E.U. And if the E.U. tries to screw the U.S. over in retaliation for throwing the UK a lifeline...well, let's be frank, the EU is going to end up being on the losing end of that no matter what.

And what can the US offer? Long distance shiping of, well, what?
Food produce, nah. Cars nah not really. Chinese cheap imports of various items no. So what?

[Noradin]

If the EU tries to royally fuck the UK over, isn't that a good thing for the United States? We're the biggest economic player in the world (with China closing in, but not there yet), and if the UK needs a better trade deal to meet its economic needs, that might be just the thing the U.S. needs to give some of our industries a nice shot in the arm.

What does the UK get from trading with the rest of the EU? Obviously I'm talking goods, services and products. If it becomes too burdensome to continue such dealings with the rest of the EU, then why could it not simply strengthen its ties with the U.S.? I'm confident that we can fill whatever void is left by the rest of the E.U. And if the E.U. tries to screw the U.S. over in retaliation for throwing the UK a lifeline...well, let's be frank, the EU is going to end up being on the losing end of that no matter what.

Go ahead, exploit them all you want when they have left, everyone will do that anyway and it is only what is expected of you.

[jimboa24]

And what can the US offer? Long distance shiping of, well, what?
Food produce, nah. Cars nah not really. Chinese cheap imports of various items no. So what?

Yes, we can and we already do export food. And yeah, we could indeed offer cars. We still do manufacture vehicles, and there's no reason we can't compete with China on various things.

The U.S. is incredibly rich in raw resources. We STILL have vast amounts of minerals and oil that's untapped, and we only increase our farming output year by year. So yes, we CAN step in and offer shipping of goods to keep them going.

[Bakis]

Yes, we can and we already do export food. And yeah, we could indeed offer cars. We still do manufacture vehicles, and there's no reason we can't compete with China on various things.

The U.S. is incredibly rich in raw resources. We STILL have vast amounts of minerals and oil that's untapped, and we only increase our farming output year by year. So yes, we CAN step in and offer shipping of goods to keep them going.

But you ignore that EU countries or UK itself can fill that void while being a stone throw away.
And considering UK want to keep close ties and (smirk) deals with the EU it is pretty apparent where they would spend their focus.

[Vankrys]

It is also much easier to negotiate when no more than two parties that really matter are involved.
Every country the UK might negotiate with will have deals with others already, which they will not abandon just to please the UK.
Worse, they might even negotiate with other countries at the same time.

That is why EU member states delegate the negotiations of trade deals to EU officials: It makes the whole process incredibly more efficient and the deals we get are much better for everyone of us, too.

more efficient does not signify better deal though

i still think the EU has more negociating power.

[Kallisto]

its funny, lots of ppl were pissed that for example, the politicians in the eu weren't elected, but they were, by the mps you voted for.

Not even that. The main power in the EU wasn't the so called unelected group but the directly PR model elected MEPs, which is a hell of a lot more democratic than the Westminster FPTP system

- - - Updated - - -

But the UK can now actually trade with Countries that it couldn't while in the EU as well as trading with the EU, because while in the EU, unless the "EU" has a trade agreement with a country, then you can't have any trade deals.

So the UK will have a large market to trade with.

That's bullshit. Germany and other EU countries had trade deals all over the world. It was just somehow the UK government (or parts of it) that tried to claim there couldn't be any kind of trade deal. Hell before the announcement of the incoming vote Cameron was buttering up the Chinese for a trade deal.

[jimboa24]

But you ignore that EU countries or UK itself can fill that void while being a stone throw away.
And considering UK want to keep close ties and (smirk) deals with the EU it is pretty apparent where they would spend their focus.

Again, that all depends on how badly the EU tries to punish the UK for leaving. If they try and make it too harsh, then stone's throw away or not, it might just be cheaper and easier to deal with the U.S. (and presumably Canada).

[Bakis]

Again, that all depends on how badly the EU tries to punish the UK for leaving. If they try and make it too harsh, then stone's throw away or not, it might just be cheaper and easier to deal with the U.S. (and presumably Canada).

I do hope the EU does the right thing. Not punish but also not give freebies (which is what the UK government is foolishly telling the public will happen).
Even the more UK-friendly/admirable whatever countries such as Sweden has no interest in rewarding brexit with sugar coated deals.

[Kallisto]

Yes, we can and we already do export food. And yeah, we could indeed offer cars. We still do manufacture vehicles, and there's no reason we can't compete with China on various things.

Sure there is.

You create something in the US you're paying people a decent wage.

You create something in China you're paying 20 people the same wage as 1 person in the US meaning everything is super cheap. Business minds will look to China.

- - - Updated - - -

I do hope the EU does the right thing. Not punish but also not give freebies (which is what the UK government is foolishly telling the public will happen).
Even the more UK-friendly/admirable whatever countries such as Sweden has no interest in rewarding brexit with sugar coated deals.

Problem is "Not giving UK Freebies." is going to be twisted as punishment by the Brexit groups. Essentially everything short of "Every EU benefit but no responsibilities." is going to be called punishment by these people.

[Bakis]

Problem is "Not giving UK Freebies." is going to be twisted as punishment by the Brexit groups. Essentially everything short of "Every EU benefit but no responsibilities." is going to be called punishment by these people.

Might be called that but the EU wont care. UK is a non-issue compared to keeping the union intact and up and running with business as usual.
Uk got zero leverage outside intelligence sharing, military collaboration which both parties prosper from.

[Noradin]

Yes, we can and we already do export food. And yeah, we could indeed offer cars. We still do manufacture vehicles, and there's no reason we can't compete with China on various things.

The U.S. is incredibly rich in raw resources. We STILL have vast amounts of minerals and oil that's untapped, and we only increase our farming output year by year. So yes, we CAN step in and offer shipping of goods to keep them going.

Why would the USA competing with China phase the EU?

[Bakis]

Why would the USA competing with China phase the EU?

Cos Eu got a craving for Ma redneck Truck!

[Noradin]

more efficient does not signify better deal though

i still think the EU has more negociating power.

Yes, more efficient coupled with more negociating power generally does result in better deals.
Especially when more efficient is the difference between not worth the effored and worthwile.

[Independent voter]

And what can the US offer? Long distance shiping of, well, what?
Food produce, nah. Cars nah not really. Chinese cheap imports of various items no. So what?

Machinery including computers: US$190.5 billion (13.1% of total exports)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $167.2 billion (11.5%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $134.6 billion (9.3%)
Vehicles : $124.3 billion (8.5%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $94.7 billion (6.5%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $82.0 billion (5.6%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $58.4 billion (4.0%)
Gems, precious metals: $57.8 billion (4.0%)
Pharmaceuticals: $47.1 billion (3.2%)
Organic chemicals: $33.9 billion (2.3%)