EU leaders push Britain to leave amid post-vote turmoil

[bkkcanuck8]

The unelected Bureacrats in Brussells want to start the separation negotiations immediately,yet the UK does not. Could the reason for this be,that the UK knows Brussels will play hard ball. Therefore the UK could possibly be using this extra time to make Contingency agreements with other countries.

Another possible reason is the forthcoming elections in France,Holland and Germany.

Precisely.

I am afraid you are dreaming in technicolour now. If you are familiar with trade negotiations at all you will know that those unelected technocrats are the ones that do 95% of the work when drawing up an agreement. That means that at most they will have passing discussions on trade, if at all. The UK has transferred the power to negotiate trade to EU and will only get that back when they have actually exited. Until that point no country is going to be so obvious as to have meetings between trade negotiating teams -- because that is not protocol. EU will continue to dwarf an independent UK, and EU trade is much more important than UK trade. All that together means that almost nothing can be worked out until after official exit from the EU.

Can you HONESTLY still not see the good reasons for the brit. govt. to delay invoking article 50 until a new PM is in place?

Only one... and that would be if they were to basically engineer not leaving the EU through political maneuvers such as pretending that they have significant change in the agreement that merits a rerun of the referendum or engineering a fall of the government and a new election where the Conservative party loses and a pro-EU country has a mandate to stay in.

When everyone was pointing to Merkel and how she was in no haste, she also stated that there was no haste if the UK was finding a way to stay in the union.... otherwise there was no reason for waiting... just simple businesslike discussions.

[dick dasterdly]

OK. So you're basically ignoring the common sense tactic of waiting for the EU to calm down (and recognise that some EU countries will also suffer if tariffs are imposed).

Only one... and that would be if they were to basically engineer not leaving the EU through political maneuvers such as pretending that they have significant change in the agreement that merits a rerun of the referendum or engineering a fall of the government and a new election where the Conservative party loses and a pro-EU country has a mandate to stay in.

When everyone was pointing to Merkel and how she was in no haste, she also stated that there was no haste if the UK was finding a way to stay in the union.... otherwise there was no reason for waiting... just simple businesslike discussions.

The markets have already calmed down, and the EU is coming out with 'something needs to change comments'.

I've no doubt that the UK and EU are negotiating behind the scenes.

The EU will have major problems if the UK leaves, and Brit. MPs don't want to leave....

Sorry, screwed up the posts so have put previous posts in italics.

Edited July 1, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[bkkcanuck8]

OK. So you're basically ignoring the common sense tactic of waiting for the EU to calm down (and recognise that some EU countries will also suffer if tariffs are imposed).

How long does the EU need to calm down - they actually do seem rather calm right now... but even if they are not.... there is 2 years ..... lots of time.....

And just like labour unrest, all the hard decisions will be done near the end in marathon negotiations... because if they are not seen working through the night up to the last minute.... it looks like they did not get the best deal

[dick dasterdly]

OK. So you're basically ignoring the common sense tactic of waiting for the EU to calm down (and recognise that some EU countries will also suffer if tariffs are imposed).

How long does the EU need to calm down - they actually do seem rather calm right now... but even if they are not.... there is 2 years ..... lots of time.....

And just like labour unrest, all the hard decisions will be done near the end in marathon negotiations... because if they are not seen working through the night up to the last minute.... it looks like they did not get the best deal

I agree. After all the hard talk of 'no negotiations' they're already softening from the stance of "no negotiations".

But I could well be wrong and the EU will not negotiate at all until article 50 is invoked.

Being a cynic, I have little doubt that the Brit. govt. is already in negotiation with the EU govt.....

The brit. govt. doesn't want to leave, and the EU govt. doesn't want the UK to leave. Hard to imagine that talks are not already in progress....

Edited July 1, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[bkkcanuck8]

OK. So you're basically ignoring the common sense tactic of waiting for the EU to calm down (and recognise that some EU countries will also suffer if tariffs are imposed).

How long does the EU need to calm down - they actually do seem rather calm right now... but even if they are not.... there is 2 years ..... lots of time.....

And just like labour unrest, all the hard decisions will be done near the end in marathon negotiations... because if they are not seen working through the night up to the last minute.... it looks like they did not get the best deal

I agree. After all the hard talk of 'no negotiations' they're already softening from the stance of "no negotiations".

But I could well be wrong and the EU will not negotiate at all until article 50 is invoked.

Being a cynic, I have little doubt that the Brit. govt. is already in negotiation with the EU govt.....

The brit. govt. doesn't want to leave, and the EU govt. doesn't want the UK to leave. Hard to imagine that talks are not already in progress....

What I do think will happen is that EU will work on their own issues with regards to reform -- which may actually not be what UK wants to see.

in the end even if there is a negotiated agreement it would likely end up templated on existing options.

1. Norway type option - which would just end up with the UK having the same access but also the same obligations - effectively in the EU but without representation ... it might be packaged as a big win but it would not.

2. Modeled after the proposed CETA agreement with the EU (which was negotiated with an eye of the US based agreement). And while CETA is actually a deeper trade agreement than NAFTA - would be a significant setback for the UK. i.e. you won't have full labour mobility - it would allow for bilateral agreements within a framework... but then things like the Toyota assembly plants would not have the same access to the EU market - in that because the car is not typically fully manufactured all within the same territory - you would end up with complicated origin rules for car parts as part of the car as a whole.... whereas car all the parts imported into the EU for assembly are all inside the domestic market with the same rules across all cars - no need to calculate bits and pieces. Additionally, the Financial Markets which are a substantial part of the market -- probably would be less... and Airlines would still have problems.

In other words, no matter if there are negotiations or not... the UK will lose with regards to trade..... but they will be able to say - hey we are free

[phrodan]

One thing that is gobsmacking about this referendum is that we now see how many Englishmen are genuinely clueless about their history, clueless about the country they live in, and worst of all, xenophobic scum.

How anyone married to a Thai, with Thai kids, or mixed race kids, could vote for Brexit on the basis of preventing immigration to the UK beggars belief.

How people that live in Thailand, and benefit from the free movement of people, could vote against the free movement of people, beggars belief.

And I couldn't hazard a guess as to the amount of first and second generation Brits living in countries throughout the world, including Thailand. And you voted against immigration?

Forkin' morons.

Nice rant, but based on ignorance.

Point 1

If your wife is Thai, the UK doesn't want her, she isn't from the EU, being your wife makes no difference, they'd rather have Syrian refugees or Polish families.

(If it were up to me, I'd welcome the wives of British citizens, and tell the refugees and EU foreigners to do one)

Point 2

If they are your children, they are already British, immigration laws make no difference to them.

Point 3

There are no second generation British children, if they are born outside the UK, they can't pass their British nationality on, Britain doesn't want them, they'd rather have Syrian refugees or Polish families.

Laughable.

[dick dasterdly]

OK. So you're basically ignoring the common sense tactic of waiting for the EU to calm down (and recognise that some EU countries will also suffer if tariffs are imposed).

How long does the EU need to calm down - they actually do seem rather calm right now... but even if they are not.... there is 2 years ..... lots of time.....

And just like labour unrest, all the hard decisions will be done near the end in marathon negotiations... because if they are not seen working through the night up to the last minute.... it looks like they did not get the best deal

I agree. After all the hard talk of 'no negotiations' they're already softening from the stance of "no negotiations".

But I could well be wrong and the EU will not negotiate at all until article 50 is invoked.

Being a cynic, I have little doubt that the Brit. govt. is already in negotiation with the EU govt.....

The brit. govt. doesn't want to leave, and the EU govt. doesn't want the UK to leave. Hard to imagine that talks are not already in progress....

What I do think will happen is that EU will work on their own issues with regards to reform -- which may actually not be what UK wants to see.

in the end even if there is a negotiated agreement it would likely end up templated on existing options.

1. Norway type option - which would just end up with the UK having the same access but also the same obligations - effectively in the EU but without representation ... it might be packaged as a big win but it would not.

2. Modeled after the proposed CETA agreement with the EU (which was negotiated with an eye of the US based agreement). And while CETA is actually a deeper trade agreement than NAFTA - would be a significant setback for the UK. i.e. you won't have full labour mobility - it would allow for bilateral agreements within a framework... but then things like the Toyota assembly plants would not have the same access to the EU market - in that because the car is not typically fully manufactured all within the same territory - you would end up with complicated origin rules for car parts as part of the car as a whole.... whereas car all the parts imported into the EU for assembly are all inside the domestic market with the same rules across all cars - no need to calculate bits and pieces. Additionally, the Financial Markets which are a substantial part of the market -- probably would be less... and Airlines would still have problems.

In other words, no matter if there are negotiations or not... the UK will lose with regards to trade..... but they will be able to say - hey we are free

You think the EU isn't v aware of the loss of an actual paying member who also benefits other member countries' trade?

Of course they are, which is why with the right negotiator the EU will crumble - if it hasn't already done so before in the 3 months leading up to a new PM.

[bkkcanuck8]

You think the EU isn't v aware of the loss of an actual paying member who also benefits other member countries' trade?

Of course they are, which is why with the right negotiator the EU will crumble - if it hasn't already done so before in the 3 months leading up to a new PM.

So you believe they will offer the UK a deal which will be as good as existing members but without the responsibilities? That would guarantee that the other 27 members will want to not pay either.... or similar deals ... which would be the death of the union -- much costlier.

[pitrevie]

Another great video from a guy who knows what he is talking about. An expert no less.

[mommysboy]

OK. So you're basically ignoring the common sense tactic of waiting for the EU to calm down (and recognise that some EU countries will also suffer if tariffs are imposed).

How long does the EU need to calm down - they actually do seem rather calm right now... but even if they are not.... there is 2 years ..... lots of time.....

And just like labour unrest, all the hard decisions will be done near the end in marathon negotiations... because if they are not seen working through the night up to the last minute.... it looks like they did not get the best deal

I agree. After all the hard talk of 'no negotiations' they're already softening from the stance of "no negotiations".

But I could well be wrong and the EU will not negotiate at all until article 50 is invoked.

Being a cynic, I have little doubt that the Brit. govt. is already in negotiation with the EU govt.....

The brit. govt. doesn't want to leave, and the EU govt. doesn't want the UK to leave. Hard to imagine that talks are not already in progress....

What I do think will happen is that EU will work on their own issues with regards to reform -- which may actually not be what UK wants to see.

in the end even if there is a negotiated agreement it would likely end up templated on existing options.

1. Norway type option - which would just end up with the UK having the same access but also the same obligations - effectively in the EU but without representation ... it might be packaged as a big win but it would not.

2. Modeled after the proposed CETA agreement with the EU (which was negotiated with an eye of the US based agreement). And while CETA is actually a deeper trade agreement than NAFTA - would be a significant setback for the UK. i.e. you won't have full labour mobility - it would allow for bilateral agreements within a framework... but then things like the Toyota assembly plants would not have the same access to the EU market - in that because the car is not typically fully manufactured all within the same territory - you would end up with complicated origin rules for car parts as part of the car as a whole.... whereas car all the parts imported into the EU for assembly are all inside the domestic market with the same rules across all cars - no need to calculate bits and pieces. Additionally, the Financial Markets which are a substantial part of the market -- probably would be less... and Airlines would still have problems.

In other words, no matter if there are negotiations or not... the UK will lose with regards to trade..... but they will be able to say - hey we are free

Now lets be honest you have it in mind that the UK is 'going to lose' as you describe, and you are going to contrive any argument you can to prove that point.

[SheungWan]

How long does the EU need to calm down - they actually do seem rather calm right now... but even if they are not.... there is 2 years ..... lots of time.....

And just like labour unrest, all the hard decisions will be done near the end in marathon negotiations... because if they are not seen working through the night up to the last minute.... it looks like they did not get the best deal

I agree. After all the hard talk of 'no negotiations' they're already softening from the stance of "no negotiations".

But I could well be wrong and the EU will not negotiate at all until article 50 is invoked.

Being a cynic, I have little doubt that the Brit. govt. is already in negotiation with the EU govt.....

The brit. govt. doesn't want to leave, and the EU govt. doesn't want the UK to leave. Hard to imagine that talks are not already in progress....

What I do think will happen is that EU will work on their own issues with regards to reform -- which may actually not be what UK wants to see.

in the end even if there is a negotiated agreement it would likely end up templated on existing options.

1. Norway type option - which would just end up with the UK having the same access but also the same obligations - effectively in the EU but without representation ... it might be packaged as a big win but it would not.

2. Modeled after the proposed CETA agreement with the EU (which was negotiated with an eye of the US based agreement). And while CETA is actually a deeper trade agreement than NAFTA - would be a significant setback for the UK. i.e. you won't have full labour mobility - it would allow for bilateral agreements within a framework... but then things like the Toyota assembly plants would not have the same access to the EU market - in that because the car is not typically fully manufactured all within the same territory - you would end up with complicated origin rules for car parts as part of the car as a whole.... whereas car all the parts imported into the EU for assembly are all inside the domestic market with the same rules across all cars - no need to calculate bits and pieces. Additionally, the Financial Markets which are a substantial part of the market -- probably would be less... and Airlines would still have problems.

In other words, no matter if there are negotiations or not... the UK will lose with regards to trade..... but they will be able to say - hey we are free

Now lets be honest you have it in mind that the UK is 'going to lose' as you describe, and you are going to contrive any argument you can to prove that point.

Whereas........ 'now lets be honest' you have it in mind that the UK 'is going to win' and you are going to contrive any argument that you can to prove that point. No?

[nausea]

You kick someone in the balls, and you expect them to be nice to you, dream on.

[mommysboy]

bkkcanuk8 you seem to have it in mind that it is simple contest, black and white, goody vs baddy, one wins the other loses. It isn't like that. Of course if you compare the relative size of the economies we can safely say EU has more clout, 6 to1. But who wants to clout their biggest trade partner? especially when dependent on them for the health of your car industry for instance.

Do you undertsand the concepts of interdependence, reciprocity, leverage, multiplier effect? Basically when global trade works both benefit, when it doesn't both suffer. If you look at the ratings agencies I think EU has or is near to being downgraded. Ireland is already feeling the consequences of the problem even though nothing has happened yet.

Basically the metaphor of a war stands good. Both sides batter the heck out of each other and are left much the poorer, and it is in the nature of war that other countries take sides. And it is simply not true to say this is a 27 to 1 issue. Even within countries EU membership is a divided issue.

[nausea]

You kick someone in the balls, and you expect them to be nice to you, dream on.

[mommysboy]

You kick someone in the balls, and you expect them to be nice to you, dream on.

What me? No, I rather think they'd kick me back.

Who got kicked in the crown jewels then? Have I missed something?

[bkkcanuck8]

bkkcanuk8 you seem to have it in mind that it is simple contest, black and white, goody vs baddy, one wins the other loses. It isn't like that. Of course if you compare the relative size of the economies we can safely say EU has more clout, 6 to1. But who wants to clout their biggest trade partner? especially when dependent on them for the health of your car industry for instance.

Do you undertsand the concepts of interdependence, reciprocity, leverage, multiplier effect? Basically when global trade works both benefit, when it doesn't both suffer. If you look at the ratings agencies I think EU has or is near to being downgraded. Ireland is already feeling the consequences of the problem even though nothing has happened yet.

Basically the metaphor of a war stands good. Both sides batter the heck out of each other and are left much the poorer, and it is in the nature of war that other countries take sides. And it is simply not true to say this is a 27 to 1 issue. Even within countries EU membership is a divided issue.

Actually, Yes I do..., but I also know that you have to be seen as fair. If you have 28 equal members and you give one a deal that is not available to the rest - then you will cause resentment and turmoil within that group. And if the deal is so good and you give it to everyone and thus have put it in a financial no-win situation once you do.... there is only one possible end to all that.... complete and utter collapse in anger and recrimination between all members.

There are only two real possibilities. You are treated like you are all part of the same domestic market.... or you are not. If you are not part of the domestic market you lose access to something. You can not have it both ways because it is not politically tenable... and when push comes to shove... the EU has to bite a bullet and say.... bye.... we can be fairly open markets but I am sorry we cannot come to an agreement.

I am very much a full open market, free movement of labour person.... so I see the loss of access that you had as being part of a domestic market as a loss. It is highly unlikely that you can replace that access by breadth both because you won't have the same deep access to the other markets.... and they are farther away. The further away, the more you have to have something that someone else does not have that is closer.

Trade is not a zero sum game, the more you trade the greater the "empire" is just because of the specialization and the trade in knowledge and/or the savings in overall cost...

If you don't go with the EU option, and you walk away from the Norway option.... there are generally limits on depth of the agreement. CETA is actually a fairly deep agreement overall -- but even with it there were limits politically with regards to it. And if you are thinking NAFTA would replace it, CETA is more comprehensive than NAFTA - which is getting creeky in it's old age.

UK will have to adjust to the new reality as will the EU.

[bkkcanuck8]

Whereas........ 'now lets be honest' you have it in mind that the UK 'is going to win' and you are going to contrive any argument that you can to prove that point. No?

I am a free-trader.... depth and breadth of the agreement and labour mobility are a win to me.... walking in the other direction is a loss. Others might prioritize "sovereignty" as more of a win. All trade agreements trade sovereignty of a countries parliament for more freedom when it comes to trade which in this case includes free movement of labour (trade in services).

[MissAndry]

but I also know that you have to be seen as fair. If you have 28 equal members and you give one a deal that is not available to the rest - then you will cause resentment and turmoil within that group. And if the deal is so good and you give it to everyone and thus have put it in a financial no-win situation once you do.... there is only one possible end to all that.... complete and utter collapse in anger and recrimination between all members.

You think there are 28 EQUAL members in the EU?

[bkkcanuck8]

but I also know that you have to be seen as fair. If you have 28 equal members and you give one a deal that is not available to the rest - then you will cause resentment and turmoil within that group. And if the deal is so good and you give it to everyone and thus have put it in a financial no-win situation once you do.... there is only one possible end to all that.... complete and utter collapse in anger and recrimination between all members.

You think there are 28 EQUAL members in the EU?

27 equal members for the most part and then the UK. Equal in that the rules apply equally between the states. If your talking about political power of the respective governments - in driving the narrative the bigger the economy the more people that a country has the more say it has. Eventually the EU should move to 1 person 1 vote - direct representation - at least at the legislative level.