ChatterBank2 mins ago
The Folly Of Self Harm As A Negotiating Strategy
It is accepted by most economists that a "no deal" brexit would cause untold damage to the UK.
How can it be a sensible tactic to say to your opposition "unless you agree with me I shall cut off my own head"? Please do not give any of the English Prime Ministerial candidates who espouse this approach your vote. Sorry, I forgot that no one has a vote unless they are a member of the tory party. Democracy??? ....humbug!!!!
How can it be a sensible tactic to say to your opposition "unless you agree with me I shall cut off my own head"? Please do not give any of the English Prime Ministerial candidates who espouse this approach your vote. Sorry, I forgot that no one has a vote unless they are a member of the tory party. Democracy??? ....humbug!!!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rich47. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, we very much did try brinkmanship. That's was Theresa May's "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" rhetoric was all about. You lapped it up even as we were criticising it. But it was, and will remain, a mistake to pursue this line. The EU won't be "brought to heel" because we just shout a bit louder next time.
I agree that No Deal wouldn't last but I am not sure that you would get any more of a "sensible" deal, in your definition of it at least, after trying No Deal for a while. If, as is almost universally expected, the fallout is more damaging for the UK, then who do you think will have more incentive to end that situation? What ends up happening from a No Deal is in fact far more likely to be even worse for the UK than what we have already been offered (and, of course, worse still than remaining).
If No Deal is indeed our bargaining chip, then it is the only one we have. We shouldn't ever use it; as soon as we do, we will be massively worse off.
I agree that No Deal wouldn't last but I am not sure that you would get any more of a "sensible" deal, in your definition of it at least, after trying No Deal for a while. If, as is almost universally expected, the fallout is more damaging for the UK, then who do you think will have more incentive to end that situation? What ends up happening from a No Deal is in fact far more likely to be even worse for the UK than what we have already been offered (and, of course, worse still than remaining).
If No Deal is indeed our bargaining chip, then it is the only one we have. We shouldn't ever use it; as soon as we do, we will be massively worse off.
"No, we very much did try brinkmanship. That's was Theresa May's "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" rhetoric was all about. You lapped it up even as we were criticising it. " - she said it but did the opposite in practice. Not to mention the entire HOQ declaring their fear of no deal. Hand not played properly jim.
Well, hardly the "entire" House of Commons -- just the sensible ones :)
No Deal is roughly speaking the equivalent of the Nuclear Deterrent. Its very purpose is to go unused. Constantly seeking to use it, as Farage does, and as certain Tory leadership contenders are wanting to, is at best bluff that you are all lapping up as enthusiastically as you did May's earlier stance. And, at worst, it's reckless and irresponsible.
No Deal is roughly speaking the equivalent of the Nuclear Deterrent. Its very purpose is to go unused. Constantly seeking to use it, as Farage does, and as certain Tory leadership contenders are wanting to, is at best bluff that you are all lapping up as enthusiastically as you did May's earlier stance. And, at worst, it's reckless and irresponsible.
I wonder what the attraction is for developed countries is to deal with an unshackled UK.
A great deal on steel?
'World class' financial services?
Artisan bread?
Upcycled furniture?
Second hand clothes?
Aircraft carriers unsullied by jets?
A half-built pointless railways?
Garden bridges?
A rosy glow?
Leather on willow?
Potholes?
General incompetence?
The Queen?
A great deal on steel?
'World class' financial services?
Artisan bread?
Upcycled furniture?
Second hand clothes?
Aircraft carriers unsullied by jets?
A half-built pointless railways?
Garden bridges?
A rosy glow?
Leather on willow?
Potholes?
General incompetence?
The Queen?
Things change but trade is still trade, the merchants go deal where there is money to be made. Economics go up and down all the time, UK politicians were foolishly trying to join the EEC for ages before Heath dragged us in and lied to us about not losing sovereignty to an unelected federal elite. Where our economy was at that particular time is hardly significant. There is no better argument than getting back control of our own destiny. Any better argument needed would be by those who imply loss of control is a good thing.
Alternative arrangements with our nearest neighbours would be a good thing, but with WTO as a default and the realisation that the EU elite weren't interested, 'straight up leaving' is perfectly possible, and still is. Just got to find a way to bypass the ego driven anti democratic MPs who aren't even capable of representing the majority view of the nation's people as they should.
Alternative arrangements with our nearest neighbours would be a good thing, but with WTO as a default and the realisation that the EU elite weren't interested, 'straight up leaving' is perfectly possible, and still is. Just got to find a way to bypass the ego driven anti democratic MPs who aren't even capable of representing the majority view of the nation's people as they should.
//And the violation of some terms of the Good Friday Agreement…//
And which terms would they be, then?
I think we need to step back (for the 94th time). The Withdrawal Agreement is nothing to do with trade. It is designed to set out the arrangements for the movement of people goods and money following our departure. It is an effort to ensure that life goes on with as little hassle as possible. Talks on a trade deal come later.
It was quite obvious that the EU was going to make our departure as awkward and as unpleasant as possible. They were also likely to do everything they could to make sure we do not secure any sort of advantage over the EU27. The deal they concluded with Mrs May would certainly ensure that all of those objectives were met and our discomfort would ensure no other country thinks of devising an escape plan any time soon. None of this could have been unexpected.
May capitulated to virtually every demand made by the EU. The conditions imposed under that deal (which is unlikely to be revised, certainly not with any significance) are dire and are such that no country that values its integrity could agree to. This was the EU’s deliberate strategy.
Whatever else is said about Leavers did or did not vote for, they did not vote to end one treaty that they saw as unacceptable only for the country to consign itself to another which is arguably even worse. It is obvious that leaving without a deal must be retained as an option because the country really has only two choices (which has been evident since the day the agreement was first published): to leave without an agreement or not to leave at all.
And which terms would they be, then?
I think we need to step back (for the 94th time). The Withdrawal Agreement is nothing to do with trade. It is designed to set out the arrangements for the movement of people goods and money following our departure. It is an effort to ensure that life goes on with as little hassle as possible. Talks on a trade deal come later.
It was quite obvious that the EU was going to make our departure as awkward and as unpleasant as possible. They were also likely to do everything they could to make sure we do not secure any sort of advantage over the EU27. The deal they concluded with Mrs May would certainly ensure that all of those objectives were met and our discomfort would ensure no other country thinks of devising an escape plan any time soon. None of this could have been unexpected.
May capitulated to virtually every demand made by the EU. The conditions imposed under that deal (which is unlikely to be revised, certainly not with any significance) are dire and are such that no country that values its integrity could agree to. This was the EU’s deliberate strategy.
Whatever else is said about Leavers did or did not vote for, they did not vote to end one treaty that they saw as unacceptable only for the country to consign itself to another which is arguably even worse. It is obvious that leaving without a deal must be retained as an option because the country really has only two choices (which has been evident since the day the agreement was first published): to leave without an agreement or not to leave at all.
Before the UK joined the EEC in 1973 UK trade with “Europe” was roughly in balance. Since the UK joined the EEC in 1973 UK trade with the EEC/EU on EU terms has currently (2017 figures) resulted in a balance of trade deficit of £1.639 trillion. At the same time trading with the rest of the world has currently earned the UK a balance of trade surplus, (profit) of £477 billion, 43% of which was on WTO terms.
Did you know that under current "terms" that the UK is liable to have to cough up £1 trillion in the event of a "financial crisis" in the EUSSR pyramid scheme? They can also unbelievably demand that we cough up more in the event of what they call “extraordinary support” being required. That crisis is fast approaching in the EUSSR. There are "elections" taking place and if they are not close enough to be rigged( who has access to our ballot boxes from Thursday?)the panic will be palpable across the financial money laundering institutions in Brussels.
Following WW2 there was still a Sterling Zone (SZ) whereby quite a few countries tied their currencies to the Pound and kept their reserves in London. A bit later, the EEC and EFTA came about - the UK was central to EFTA which otherwise had some smaller members many of which were in the SZ. Then the UK's economy went south, some have said, because former colonies no longer were limited to buying British and so much of the UK's producers' output was not up to expectations elsewhere, plus the UK's employment environment was rotten. The upshot was that the UK, having been banging on the door for years and years, up and left EFTA when it was accepted for EU membership. Looking through the media material of the time one sees that lots of "observers" believed the EEC would at last come to something with the benefit of the UK's superior input. Also evident was the anticipation that the UK would become the leader within the EEC - perhaps it is the same crowd that persists in saying the EU needs the UK more than the other way around and that the UK has the potential to tell the EU what it wants and actually get it. The Pound ("World's best currency") continues its relentless downward value-drift while the "Mickey Mouse currency" of the EU gains on it. Wishful thinking is clearly very persistent, never mind reality. Other countries also left EFTA for the EU but not all, those who remain in EFTA have their own reasons for not joining the EU but they have very close ties to the EU within the EEA and conform to the framework, including Schengen. Brexit will demonstrate what life is like after close co-operation is dumped in favour of isolation but it is important to understand that NOTHING of any significance (industrial output) can be sold to the EU unless it complies with EU standards/requirements and is thus approved by the EU.
> The reality is, we are far more valuable to the EU as a trading partner than it is to us
Nonsense. You're making an argument based on the fact that we're in the EU, not the fact that we will be outside it.
The GDP of the EU as a whole is $18,750,052 of which we represent $2,828,644 (15%).
Once we're out of the EU, pretty much everything we supply to the EU can be sourced by them elsewhere within the EU, without friction. So that's what they'll do in many cases. It's already started.
Whereas far from everything we buy from the EU can be sourced within the UK. So we'd have to buy from the EU or elsewhere in the world - on WTO terms in both cases ...
Nonsense. You're making an argument based on the fact that we're in the EU, not the fact that we will be outside it.
The GDP of the EU as a whole is $18,750,052 of which we represent $2,828,644 (15%).
Once we're out of the EU, pretty much everything we supply to the EU can be sourced by them elsewhere within the EU, without friction. So that's what they'll do in many cases. It's already started.
Whereas far from everything we buy from the EU can be sourced within the UK. So we'd have to buy from the EU or elsewhere in the world - on WTO terms in both cases ...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.