3 hours ago, nauseus said:

What a silly thing to say.

You probably had to think a while to come up with this elaborate argument. 

4 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Maybe Corbyn is smart enough to realize that no-deal is not a negotiation card, and that the UK never held any cards in this negotiation but could only choose between worse, even more worse and worst. 

Anybody with an ounce of business sense would know that having the option of walking away without doing a deal is critical in any negotiation. 

If you think the EU and it's key member states would be happy with no deal, then I suggest you follow the news more closely. 

10 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Anybody with an ounce of business sense would know that having the option of walking away without doing a deal is critical in any negotiation. 

If you think the EU and it's key member states would be happy with no deal, then I suggest you follow the news more closely. 

Still it's easier for the EU to walk away with no deal than it would be for the UK....

You'd have known if you followed the news more closely.

20 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Still it's easier for the EU to walk away with no deal than it would be for the UK....

You'd have known if you followed the news more closely.

You're missing the point.  The EU do not want to walk away without a deal. That's why you don't hear the EU representatives or any of the member state heads advocating no deal. 

41 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Anybody with an ounce of business sense would know that having the option of walking away without doing a deal is critical in any negotiation. 

It’s only critical if it is leverage. That’s what’s crucial in an negotiation (and “Anybody with an ounce of business sense would know that”). 

 

Quote

If you think the EU and it's key member states would be happy with no deal, then I suggest you follow the news more closely. 

I never claimed they would be happy. I only said it doesn’t provide any leverage in the negotiation. 

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You're missing the point.  The EU do not want to walk away without a deal. That's why you don't hear the EU representatives or any of the member state heads advocating no deal. 

Of course, any Brexit means a lose-lose situation and no deal would be the worst for both parties. The EU27 (and myself) are well aware of that.

18 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You're missing the point.  The EU do not want to walk away without a deal. That's why you don't hear the EU representatives or any of the member state heads advocating no deal. 

True.

They are not so stupid and see the adverse, economic effects for the total population. On the other hand, they are forced to make sure that the UK as a

third state (no member of the EU) is better off than the remaining 27 states. Logically, right?

But also the treaty agreements with other third countries, for example, Canada or Japan must be balanced, otherwise they also want to renegotiate a UK Extra sausage.

Edited January 22, 20197 yr by tomacht8

18 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You're missing the point.  The EU do not want to walk away without a deal. That's why you don't hear the EU representatives or any of the member state heads advocating no deal. 

They don’t want to, but:

1) They know the UK wants even less;

2) They want a deal hurting the single market even less. 

That’s why the no-deal scenario does not provide the UK any leverage. The worst case scenario for the EU is hurting the single market. The worst case scenario for the UK is no-deal Brexit. (And you don’t even have to agree to that thinking. As long as your negotiating partner believes it, you don’t have leverage.)

Edited January 22, 20197 yr by welovesundaysatspace

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It’s only critical if it is leverage. That’s what’s crucial in an negotiation (and “Anybody with an ounce of business sense would know that”). 

 

I never claimed they would be happy. I only said it doesn’t provide any leverage in the negotiation. 

Can you explain why it would not be leverage please? I genuinely don't understand that POV. 

Just now, CG1 Blue said:

Can you explain why it would not be leverage please? I genuinely don't understand that POV. 

See my post above yours made at the same time. 

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

They don’t want to, but:

1) They know the UK wants even less;

2) They want a deal hurting the single market even less. 

That’s why the no-deal scenario does not provide the UK any leverage. The worst case scenario for the EU is hurting the single market. The worst case scenario for the UK is no-deal Brexit. 

But concessions on the backstop would not hurt the single market. The withdrawal agreement is not a trade deal. The single market question comes into play once we start negotiating the trade deal, after the withdrawal agreement has been signed off by both sides. 

11 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

True.

They are not so stupid and see the adverse, economic effects for the total population. On the other hand, they are forced to make sure that the UK as a

third state (no member of the EU) is better off than the remaining 27 states. Logically, right?

I agree they don't want the UK to be better off than the remaining 27 member states. But I think that is more associated with trade negotiations, which haven't even started yet. 

Trade negotiations won't even begin if there is no withdrawal agreement. 

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

You probably had to think a while to come up with this elaborate argument. 

No. An instant flash of brilliance. Take no deal off table then that's an end to any possible further negotiations or "tweaks". Not rocket science so I can handle it. 

Edited January 22, 20197 yr by nauseus