[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Kallisto]

Is anyone watching Question Time? My television is precariously close to having a glass of gin thrown at it.

Panellists are genuinely all muppets. They’re all absolutely awful.

I've not been able to watch it since my work I started last year has me running into the evenings. But generally it's been head ache inducing since a lot of the public are worse than those answering the questions.

[caervek]

That's a very bad analogy and still does not explain your original comment. But thanks for trying.

It not and it does, you just apparently are unable or unwilling to understand it.

Just to expand a bit on what I have written. You claimed, and I'm paraphrasing here, that Farrage was dumb for believing that the current proposal favours the EU.

Actually I said that he was pretending to believe that it favoured them, there's no way anyone could be as dumb as he acts and still become a millionaire doing it, he knows what he's doing.

To which I asked you if you believed that it favoured the UK. Do think that May's proposal favours the EU or the UK?

Neither.

Where did I mention anything about being more important than the US or Canada? In fact where did I mention anything about any of that?

You keep claiming that the EU is not showing the UK favourable treatment in negotiations, yet it consistently shows the UK more favourable treatment than the USA or Canada get, this despite the UK (once it has left the EU) being considerably less important than the USA or Canada. This in itself is proof that the UK is undeniably being shown favourable treatment, just not as favourable as the special treatment it normally gets in international negotiations due to being an EU member.

Hmm... I'm not sure you understood the point @caervek was making.

I think the big issue he's having understanding what people are saying is that he doesn't actually understand what favourable means and so he doesn't grasp what people mean in the context they're using it. He doesn't seem to get that somebody can be shown favourable treatment in a negotiation and not be given 100% of what they want, he just sees it as black and white.

[Slant]

I think the big issue he's having understanding what people are saying is that he doesn't actually understand what favourable means and so he doesn't grasp what people mean in the context they're using it. He doesn't seem to get that somebody can be shown favourable treatment in a negotiation and not be given 100% of what they want, he just sees it as black and white.

I'm still trying to figure out what his angle is in all of this thread. He's not the typical Brexiteer, but clearly, he's not a remainer, either. Otherwise he wouldn't go on about scaremongering and project fear, which most reasonable people have now dubbed project reality instead. I've just today heard a discussion on our floor... and it basically went "well, to do X, we'd have to do this and this" and our CFO going "yes, well.. it's only 4 months, do you want to do it now and then undo it if Brexit doesn't happen? It's a coin flip, we have no idea how it turns out..."

How's this for project fear? Companies are making decisions now, @Pann. This is not even a project, it's actual real life right now.

[Pann]

It not and it does, you just apparently are unable or unwilling to understand it.

No, really it was terrible.

Actually I said that he was pretending to believe that it favoured them, there's no way anyone could be as dumb as he acts and still become a millionaire doing it, he knows what he's doing.

The implication of saying that some is pretending to believe something is that that something is not correct. Which is why I asked you if you thought the deal favoured the EU. This is a rather simple question which for some reason you decided to avoid instead writing about people being shot in the US.

Neither.

They we go! You could have said this hours ago.

You keep claiming that the EU is not showing the UK favourable treatment in negotiations, yet it consistently shows the UK more favourable treatment than the USA or Canada get, this despite the UK (once it has left the EU) being considerably less important than the USA or Canada. This in itself is proof that the UK is undeniably being shown favourable treatment, just not as favourable as the special treatment it normally gets in international negotiations due to being an EU member.

I don't believe it is. The EU is negotiating with the UK as it would with any other nation, this doesn't make it bad or evil, it is simply trying to achieve the best outcome for the EU. Obviously due to our close proximity and the relationship developed over the last 40 years what benefits the EU may also benefit the UK so I can understand why you may think that the EU has treated the UK favourably compared to the US or Canada. And I suppose since they've not made any of our negotiators cry yet we are being treated better than Canada.

I can understand why you would say that the UK is less important than the US although in terms of trade with the EU we are roughly equal, last time I looked the UK was 16% of the EU export market compared to 15% for the US (although this may have changed since). But Canada? Really? Canada? Our GDP is nearly $1trillion higher than Canada's, our population is nearly twice that of Canada's and total trade between Canada and EU amounted to 94billion Canadian dollars (over of quarter of this was with the UK) in 2016 compared to over £540billion for EU/UK trade.

The UK is richer, has a larger market, does over five times the amount of trade with the EU and most importantly is right on the EU's doorstep and you think that it is considerably less important than Canada?

Your "proof" is based on complete wrong-headedness.

I think the big issue he's having understanding what people are saying is that he doesn't actually understand what favourable means and so he doesn't grasp what people mean in the context they're using it. He doesn't seem to get that somebody can be shown favourable treatment in a negotiation and not be given 100% of what they want, he just sees it as black and white.

Yeah, you see I never actually questioned whether or not UK was receiving favourable treatment or even mentioned this. I asked if you thought the deal favoured the UK in relation to your comment regarding Farrage, supposedly, pretending that the deal favoured the EU.

[padie]

No, really it was terrible.



The implication of saying that some is pretending to believe something is that that something is not correct. Which is why I asked you if you thought the deal favoured the EU. This is a rather simple question which for some reason you decided to avoid instead writing about people being shot in the US.



They we go! You could have said this hours ago.



I don't believe it is. The EU is negotiating with the UK as it would with any other nation, this doesn't make it bad or evil, it is simply trying to achieve the best outcome for the EU. Obviously due to our close proximity and the relationship developed over the last 40 years what benefits the EU may also benefit the UK so I can understand why you may think that the EU has treated the UK favourably compared to the US or Canada. And I suppose since they've not made any of our negotiators cry yet we are being treated better than Canada.

I can understand why you would say that the UK is less important than the US although in terms of trade with the EU we are roughly equal, last time I looked the UK was 16% of the EU export market compared to 15% for the US (although this may have changed since). But Canada? Really? Canada? Our GDP is nearly $1trillion higher than Canada's, our population is nearly twice that of Canada's and total trade between Canada and EU amounted to 94billion Canadian dollars (over of quarter of this was with the UK) in 2016 compared to over £540billion for EU/UK trade.

The UK is richer, has a larger market, does over five times the amount of trade and most importantly is right on the EU's doorstep and you think that it is considerably less important than Canada?



Yeah, you see I never actually questioned whether or not UK was receiving favourable treatment or even mentioned this. I asked if you thought the deal favoured the UK in relation to your comment regarding Farrage, supposedly, pretending that the deal favoured the EU.

I don't know if Canada is more important than the UK, but it seems they are more reliable at the moment. At this point in time we can't even trade when brexit happens...(the UK needs to sort it stuff, and do it fast)

[caervek]

No, really it was terrible.

Again, it wasn't, the analogy may have been ineffective due to your inability to grasp it, but as most people would understand it it's still a pretty good analogy that perfectly sums up the concept.

The implication of saying that some is pretending to believe something is that that something is not correct. Which is why I asked you if you thought the deal favoured the EU. This is a rather simple question which for some reason you decided to avoid instead writing about people being shot in the US.

Actually I answered it multiple times, the additional analogy about how favour works was simply included because of how much difficulty you were having with the concept.

They we go! You could have said this hours ago.

I did, in fact it was alluded too in the post of mine that you initially replied too.

I don't believe it is.

You've made this clear, however as myself and others have pointed out, your disbelief in the fact doesn't stop it being correct.

The EU is negotiating with the UK as it would with any other nation

No it is not, it is showing it favourable treatment in negotiations, hence why it gets more favourable treatment than more important countries.

I can understand why you may think that the EU has treated the UK favourably compared to the US or Canada.

Well finally, it only took like half a dozen pages xD

The UK is richer, has a larger market, does over five times the amount of trade with the EU and most importantly is right on the EU's doorstep and you think that it is considerably less important than Canada?

Yes, because the UK is in that position DUE TO BEING A MEMBER OF THE EU, once it leaves the EU it will no longer have the increased privelege/importance and negotiating power that being an EU member gives.

Yeah, you see I never actually questioned whether or not UK was receiving favourable treatment

Careful with that straw buddy, it's flammable :P

[Mormolyce]

Oh, they're right to prepare for the worst, but it's interesting, don't you think, that the government (and I include the BoE in that) never seems to get around to releasing a more positive scenario?

"Isn't it CONVENIENT that NASA never releases pictures of the world being flat, only being round? Obvious bias!"

[Teleros]

"Isn't it CONVENIENT that NASA never releases pictures of the world being flat, only being round? Obvious bias!"

You jest, but this was the Treasury's prediction for a vote to leave:



Either they're just that damn incompetent (in which case why believe anything they say?), or they were lying to try and scare people away from voting to leave (in which case why believe anything they say?).

[Deleted]

Oh, they're right to prepare for the worst, but it's interesting, don't you think, that the government (and I include the BoE in that) never seems to get around to releasing a more positive scenario?

Well they're isn't a positive outlook in the short term, even the staunch no dealers admit we're in for a rough few years, where most viewpoints differ is in how long those rough years will last.

Personally I think if we do end up going with no deal it'll be decades.

- - - Updated - - -

You jest, but this was the Treasury's prediction for a vote to leave:



Either they're just that damn incompetent (in which case why believe anything they say?), or they were lying to try and scare people away from voting to leave (in which case why believe anything they say?).

Yeah that statement was made before the Referendum, when everyone thought no deal was going to be a few months of tying things up with the EU and then we're out, not two years+ of twiddling our thumbs. That hasn't happened because we aren't out yet.

Were they trying to get people not to vote Leave? Yes probably, because they're money people and leaving the EU means less money coming in.

That doesn't mean the truth is "MUH PROJEKT FEAR".

[Teleros]

Perhaps, but I tend to be more optimistic on these things.

Anyway, in other news, the Maybot is apparently ruling out a Norway-style deal:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...bour-plunging/

Theresa May has put herself on a collision course with senior Cabinet ministers by ruling out a Norway-style Brexit as a “plan B” if she loses the Parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal. The Prime Minister said a Norway-style arrangement, favoured by more than a third of the Cabinet as a fallback option, would not end freedom of movement and therefore would not deliver what people voted for in the EU referendum.

There have been about a hundred Tory MPs speak out against this deal. May only has a majority of what, 13 in the House of Commons, and this relies on the 10 DUP MPs. Labour have come out against the deal, though there may be Remoaners there who vote for it. This'll be fun. Crossing fingers for a WTO / no deal Brexit.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah that statement was made before the Referendum

Exactly. Merely voting for Brexit would cause all that. They were wrong then, and yet they're going to be right this time because...?

[Nigel Tufnel]

/snip

For a more detailed description of the UK's fortunes immediately following the Leave vote, see:

https://www.ft.com/content/cf51e840-...f-99f383b09ff9

In short, since June 2016:

- GDP growth lowest of G7
- Employment up
- Real wage growth lower
- Households borrowing more than they save
- Business investment stagnant
- FTSE 250 performing poorly

Teleros' argument (and also Andrew Neil's) revolves round the fact that as the apocalyptic hasn't happened we should all be jolly grateful.

[caervek]

In short, since June 2016:

- GDP growth lowest of G7
- Employment up
- Real wage growth lower
- Households borrowing more than they save
- Business investment stagnant
- FTSE 250 performing poorly

Teleros' argument (and also Andrew Neil's) revolves round the fact that as the apocalyptic hasn't happened we should all be jolly grateful.

Worth noting that employment is only up on paper due to figures being inflated by shady companies misuse of zero hour contracts. It has fallen in real terms.

[Mormolyce]

You jest, but this was the Treasury's prediction for a vote to leave:



Either they're just that damn incompetent (in which case why believe anything they say?), or they were lying to try and scare people away from voting to leave (in which case why believe anything they say?).

UK's GDP/cap did in fact drop 3.2% from 2016 to 2017.

2017 39,252$ -3.2%

https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk

- - - Updated - - -

Teleros' argument (and also Andrew Neil's) revolves round the fact that as the apocalyptic hasn't happened we should all be jolly grateful.

"Brexit will be amazing!"

*beat*

"Shut up Brexit won't be the end of the world!"

[caervek]

At some point action needs to be taken against misclassification

Indeed, problem is nobody is willing to do it, May is insistent there is no problem and Corbyn is insistent that he will ban ZH contracts which will punish the majority of people on them who aren't being abused.

[Teleros]

UK's GDP/cap did in fact drop 3.2% from 2016 to 2017.

You've been conned by Fake News. Let's take the figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics, instead of the per capita GDP figures from some random site.

Year & GDP in £millions
2013 Q1 = 432,989
2013 Q2 = 436,307
2013 Q3 = 444,346
2013 Q4 = 447,705
2014 Q1 = 453,883
2014 Q2 = 460,696
2014 Q3 = 464,730
2014 Q4 = 464,986
2015 Q1 = 467,295
2015 Q2 = 475,229
2015 Q3 = 475,541
2015 Q4 = 477,774
2016 Q1 = 485,326
2016 Q2 = 489,494
2016 Q3 = 493,730
2016 Q4 = 500,974
2017 Q1 = 505,882
2017 Q2 = 508,235
2017 Q3 = 512,380
2017 Q4 = 517,974
2018 Q1 = 520,742
2018 Q2 = 524,731
2018 Q3 = 530,604

Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gross...eries/ybha/pn2

If you don't trust the ONS though, try the IMF:

https://www.imf.org/external/datamap...P_RPCH@WEO/GBR

Note the chart in the bottom left, showing the GDP growth rate. Notice how it's positive during the whole Brexit period. Also notice the other indicators along the bottom, such as GDP per capita etc, none of which show this 3.2% drop you claim.

Finally, even if you still want to cling to your Fake News source, consider the trends:

2013 = 2.3% pc, 2,755,356 annual
2014 = 9.4% pc, 3,036,310 annual
2015 = -5.3% pc, 2,897,060 annual
2016 = -8.9% pc, 2,660,687 annual
2017 = -3.2% pc, 2,600,000 annual

That looks like there's been a severe drop from 2014 to 2016 that has more or less hit bottom and is now about to recover. Not that I'd put any stock in these figures though, because again, they're nonsense.

[Mormolyce]

You've been conned by Fake News. Let's take the figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics, instead of the per capita GDP figures from some random site.

Psssst... GDP per capita is different from raw GDP...

[Deleted]

Psssst... GDP per capita is different from raw GDP...

The treasury report made predictions about plain and simple gdp though.
They're not arguing that the UK is doing well, but that the predictions didn't come to fruition.

[Mormolyce]

The treasury report made predictions about plain and simple gdp though.
They're not arguing that the UK is doing well, but that the predictions didn't come to fruition.

Mmmm, I mean they didn't specifically say GDP per capita but I'd usually assume that's implied since it's the more relevant figure.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.imf.org/external/datamap...C/WEOWORLD/GBR
2.67 trillion in 2016
2.63 trillion in 2017
That's a 1.5% drop

- - - Updated - - -



In per Capita GDP
https://www.imf.org/external/datamap...C/WEOWORLD/GBR
2016, 40,660
2017, 39,800

Yep, same figures in my link.

I suspect the discrepancy is because Tele's figures are in pounds whereas the international figures are in USD, and the pound plummeted in 2017.

[Noradin]

Yep, same figures in my link.

I suspect the discrepancy is because Tele's figures are in pounds whereas the international figures are in USD, and the pound plummeted in 2017.

Keep in mind that forecasts always use static currencies to present their numbers, therefore Teleros is misrepresenting them by using current values for the pound.

[Deleted]

Mmmm, I mean they didn't specifically say GDP per capita but I'd usually assume that's implied since it's the more relevant figure.

It's more relevant to the people, which is why politicians use it. These were numbers about the performance of the country though. I recall it raised many eyebrows at the time.
Personally (I'm far from an economy expert), reading several reviews of it, I came to the conclusion that the conclusions of the shock scenario were about right /if/ the process was rushed. So... dunno... many predictions were made, it's only normal that some don't come to fruition.