Brexit - Art 50 on Mar 29th

[Acidbaron]

To me, it's mostly theatrics.
We're going to be embedded in two years of back and forth. The letter and the address accept the most prominent EU talking points but also requests the trade agreement to be negotiated alongside. Something that will probably happen to some extent, but strikes at some other talking point (speedily brexit and then we'll talk about trade).
Sometimes they need to play the underdog, so when EU comes demanding stuff, they're seen as bullies. Some other times they'll make grand gestures signaling their status as a financial powerhouse or whatevs.
Both parties know they want the other party to succeed and prosper. What negotiations reach the public eye will be a relentless search for both the mainland and the islander narratives to be seen as a political win.

I think you are greatly over estimating how much public opinion or image will matter in these talks on the european side of it. People are far more concerned that their industry is protected, their job is protected. A lot of good will is also squandered and when we look at the last time the mainland good will well ran dry, it was Greece and many European voters were no longer in favor of keeping the Greeks afloat after their theatrics.

The reason you'll see economics doing well is due to being connected for so many years, there are so many big industries behind this that not even the most craziest politician will try to break those down to nothing, the money behind it will break them otherwise.

Now the real talks are about the political side of it, the freedom to travel between EU nations we trade with and the financial aspect regarding projects the UK voted on, which they will be expected to pay for, same goes for British citizens (officials) working in the EU and their pension funds, the UK will try to recover money on other things. Those are the most loaded debates going forward.

[Deleted]

And?

The UK is still a part of the EU so nothing has changed YET!

Do you honestly think any Brexit outcome, soft or hard, is going to devalue the Euro compared to the Pound Sterling?

Besides, his claim was that the EUR is down the shitter while the GBP is outperforming it. He also said that EU economies are on the verge of bankruptcy while the UK is on a different level.

[Pann]

European Commission forecasts published 3 timer per year. The Winter 17 ones are the most recent. The forecasts are produced by the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), and are publicly available online in summary form or in the form of a ~2-page report per country.

Thanks, I'll have a look.

[Deleted]

Only one of those countries that you list has lower unemployment than the UK... so how does this show the UK is fukked?

Aside from your inability to actually express yourself as an adult, I'm not claiming the UK is fucked. I am proving that your claim that EU economies are struggling massively is simply wrong.

You might want to walk this road, but that doesn't mean I have to follow you in your inferiority complex temper tantrum. The data is there, I even took the effort to summarize it for you instead of linking to over a handful of individual reports. It's up to you to prove that the Euro is crashing and how individual European economies are in dire straits, I don't see it. On the contrary, economic forecasts for EU countries are looking good. I didn't include any Eastern-European countries in there, but their GDP growth over inflation is even higher than the ones I listed.

[Deleted]

Aside from your inability to actually express yourself as an adult, I'm not claiming the UK is fucked. I am proving that your claim that EU economies are struggling massively is simply wrong.

You might want to walk this road, but that doesn't mean I have to follow you in your inferiority complex temper tantrum.

Well u might want to check what i was responding to before assuming my point.

I was responding to idiots who think the UK is fukked without the EU 'deals'. All im saying is the UK has enough global economic strength to be fine without the EU.

I personally dont trust a single economic argument because theyre all biased, every damn one of them. I certainly dont trust bankers and economists opinions after they fukked up the world economy in 2008. Ill stick to common sense and generalisations and leave the fearmongering at the door.

The ONLY way anyone will ever know is by doing it..... opinions remain opinions until then.

[Deleted]

WHich has a sum value of ZERO.

Because the EU doesnt trade with ANYONE... each individual member of the EU does the trade.

Therefore the total value of EU members means jack shit.

You might as well say Africa has stronger economic power than the UK. By your logic thats true.

Wrong, Africa doesn't have a single market that removes regulatory obstacles and it doesn't promote the free movement of goods and services across internal borders.

Whether the EU as a whole, compared to its members, actually trade or not is irrelevant. It's about the modalities of trade between the different countries.

- - - Updated - - -

Well u might want to check what i was responding to before assuming my point.

I was responding to idiots who think the UK is fukked without the EU 'deals'. All im saying is the UK has enough global economic strength to be fine without the EU.

No, no, no. Wrong again and a blatant lie.

This is exactly what you typed, word for word:

The Euro is going down the toilet, multiple countries inside the EU are financially crippled and the Pound is going strong

[Mehrunes]

Not so much, IMHO. It is in the EU's best interest to show that leaving the Union comes with an high price, one that not every country can afford - Italy, for instance, cannot afford to leave the EU - albeit a fair one. Otherwise they would just stir more anti-European feelings and rhetoric, which would lead to more countries questioning whether to stay in the EU and generally destabilize the union.

Thing is, we won't know for a decade or so if Brexit was actually beneficial to the UK or not and by then the political landscape in France, Germany, Italy, etc. might have changed. We don't know how the EU will look like in ten years or so and we don't know whether the UK leaving will ultimately help to strengthen the union or not - remember it is an important economical and financial partner, but has always been incredibly critic of the EU and not particularly willingly to join in the first place.

Currently, the EU really has no interest in negotiating Brexit in bad faith - and that's just from a political standpoint, without taking into account the economical and financial aspects of it.

The problem with this whole line of thinking is that it relies on local equivalents of Brexit supporters being rational. Brexit makes that highly questionable. And the only thing that changes in what faith EU negotiates is how detrimental (wouldn't be a high price otherwise) Brexit it is for the EU. And the moment the result is detrimental, even with EU negotiating in best faith in history of negotiations, Brexit drones and their brethren over sea will pick it up and present it as evil eurocrats punishing poor UK. Negotiating with the goal of fucking UK over hard will only affect how many children the eurocrats eat each day in the narrative.

[dribbles]

I mean, UK can act like this if they want to, but that wouldn't really be sensible given how they are the weaker party.

How are they weaker?

Hell, even if UK was negotiating with Germany alone, UK would be the weaker party.

Militarily or at sausage consumption?

[Deleted]

I think you are greatly over estimating how much public opinion or image will matter in these talks on the european side of it.

I intended both perspectives to matter only to UK domestic consumption of opinion.
From the mainland perspective I expect some dismissive remark ala "ever-closer union is an emotional issue" and then be done with it.
But that's only in the context of today's displays: I consider them more on the side of theatrics than anything. The important bits are in the details going forward.

[Mehrunes]

WHich has a sum value of ZERO.

Because the EU doesnt trade with ANYONE... each individual member of the EU does the trade.

Therefore the total value of EU members means jack shit.

You might as well say Africa has stronger economic power than the UK. By your logic thats true.

Can't recall saying anything about trade in that post. And yeah, sure, EU won't use their collective bargaining power. Totally. Which still leaves the issue of UK having lower bargaining power than Germany alone. And African Union, which consists of all African nation, is the 7th economy in the world. But comparing EU to African (or even African Union) is rather off.

Well u might want to check what i was responding to before assuming my point.

I was responding to idiots who think the UK is fukked without the EU 'deals'. All im saying is the UK has enough global economic strength to be fine without the EU.

Weird. Because in the first post of yours about Euro that @Myz has replied to you responded to this:

I mean, UK can act like this ("this" being "either EU accepts all of our demands or there's no deal" mentality) if they want to, but that wouldn't really be sensible given how they are the weaker party.

Lo and behold, no mention of UK being "fukked". Or UK's situation once they leave EU for that matter. My perception on your grasp of your own language didn't get any better for some reason.

I personally dont trust a single economic argument because theyre all biased, every damn one of them. I certainly dont trust bankers and economists opinions after they fukked up the world economy in 2008. Ill stick to common sense and generalisations and leave the fearmongering at the door.

So you'll stick to a logical fallacy and stereotypical thinking? While not particularly surprising, I'm not sure how is this supposed to make your points as valid as you presented them to be in earlier posts.

How are they weaker?

Militarily or at sausage consumption?

Economically. Following the thread is hard.

[Deleted]

No, no, no. Wrong again and a blatant lie.

And u might wanna go back further down the thread to see why i joined the discussion.

[Deleted]

And u might wanna go back further down the thread to see why i joined the discussion.

Irrelevant, your message that I quoted is what interests me. Your beef with other posters in this thread is of no importance to your false claims.

[dribbles]

Economically. Following the thread is hard.

It is your mistake and an example of EU cherry picking if you think all the UK brings to the table is its economy. The UK economy and the security of Europes very existence are inextricably linked, lose one you lose the other. The EU can't have its cake and eat it.

As Andrew Neil said earlier today "Europe, from three sides, has real problems in its hands, why would you then pick a fight with Britain"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/785...ers-Article-50

[Deleted]

What people want and what people expect are two different things. We were told repeatedly during the campaign that a vote to leave is a vote to leave the single market.

By people on the Remain side.
The brexit people explicitly refused to take a position on the issue.

- - - Updated - - -

WHich has a sum value of ZERO.

Because the EU doesnt trade with ANYONE... each individual member of the EU does the trade.

No that's literally the most wrong you could be.

You might as well say Africa has stronger economic power than the UK. By your logic thats true.

And if the African Union had comparable power over the trade and economic policy of the whole of Africa, that would be a fair assessment.
They don't of course, which is why its specious.

- - - Updated - - -

It is your mistake and an example of EU cherry picking if you think all the UK brings to the table is its economy.

Its the interesting bit.

The UK economy and the security of Europes very existence are inextricably linked, lose one you lose the other. The EU can't have its cake and eat it.

Except it does not need the UK.
The EU's security 'deficit' can be covered in three ways, paying for it themselves, continuing to rely on the US, or simply 'engaging' with Russia - Putin would sell his soul to get to be the EU's security partner (this is by no means a likely outcome).

As Andrew Neil said earlier today "Europe, from three sides, has real problems in its hands, why would you then pick a fight with Britain"

because Britain by it self is not a problem, Britain the cherry picker risks internal destruction.
Comparatively, the other problems are insignificant.

[Noradin]

what does this prove?

Your post proves that you do not read the posts you quote.
Reread the post you quoted, it will tell you "who cares" and "what does this prove".

[Mizix]

The problem with this whole line of thinking is that it relies on local equivalents of Brexit supporters being rational. Brexit makes that highly questionable. And the only thing that changes in what faith EU negotiates is how detrimental (wouldn't be a high price otherwise) Brexit it is for the EU. And the moment the result is detrimental, even with EU negotiating in best faith in history of negotiations, Brexit drones and their brethren over sea will pick it up and present it as evil eurocrats punishing poor UK. Negotiating with the goal of fucking UK over hard will only affect how many children the eurocrats eat each day in the narrative.

True but also not necessarily relevant in the great scheme of things. I mean, anti-Europeans will always find a way to spin the negotiations against the EU, it's their agenda. Thing is, we have been dealing with them for quite some time now - Brexit is the product of a decade of anti-Europeanism - and the political momentum is not as clearly in their favor as it was a few years ago: Germany is unlikely to leave the EU, Le Pen in France is seeing the rise of an opposition, Italian's politicians have stopped talking about leaving the EU, etc.

The negotiations will take some time, then moderates will have the good argument of wanting to wait and see how the UK is doing a few years down the line after leaving the Union... in the meanwhile, who knows what's going to happen to the EU and to their member States?

[Tinch]

By people on the Remain side.
The brexit people explicitly refused to take a position on the issue.

Except it does not need the UK.
The EU's security 'deficit' can be covered in three ways, paying for it themselves, continuing to rely on the US, or simply 'engaging' with Russia - Putin would sell his soul to get to be the EU's security partner (this is by no means a likely outcome).

No people on both sides made statements about leaving the single market.

On security, firstly, it's not just a case of funding but expertise. It's widely accepted that the UK's counter terrorism networks are far more effective than most states within the EU. On your second point, Trump has made it clear he is not comfortable with that anymore. I think you know how ridiculous your third suggestion is by the way you've tried to qualify it l.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Nigel Tufnel]

I like Andrew Neil and think he talks a lot of sense but I don't believe that the EU not allowing cherry-picking is the same as "picking a fight". It goes without saying that the EU can't hand the UK an easy ticket - it's ridiculous to think they would. I'm not sure what wider context he was discussing this in.

On a different point: the idea that the UK would leave with no deal, if it was rejected by either the EU or its own parliament goes beyond reckless stupidity and enters a new realm of insanity.

[ranzino]

I like Andrew Neil and think he talks a lot of sense but I don't believe that the EU not allowing cherry-picking is the same as "picking a fight". It goes without saying that the EU can't hand the UK an easy ticket - it's ridiculous to think they would. I'm not sure what wider context he was discussing this in.

On a different point: the idea that the UK would leave with no deal, if it was rejected by either the EU or its own parliament goes beyond reckless stupidity and enters a new realm of insanity.

Depends on the mandat on EU's side. If everybody and their grandma ( Wallonia included) has a say in Brexit accord, then fair guess it will never see the daylight and UK is out without anything achieved. Say hello to WTO rules.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Depends on the mandat on EU's side. If everybody and their grandma ( Wallonia included) has a say in Brexit accord, then fair guess it will never see the daylight and UK is out without anything achieved. Say hello to WTO rules.

Yep, and it's not just trade is it. So many different areas to find agreement on. If there was no agreement I still can't quite believe May and the Tory right would resolutely plough straight into the abyss. I wonder how much of that is just negotiation bluster. Maybe not? Don't know...