May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[sandyf]

For those that may have a problem with conveyed implication I will restate this part of post 243.

 

You would see from post 207 that I never subscribed to the compensation theory, ( I subscribe to the theory that) she is going for the single market but not prepared to admit it publicly.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

For those that may have a problem with conveyed implication I will restate this part of post 243.

 

You would see from post 207 that I never subscribed to the compensation theory, ( I subscribe to the theory that) she is going for the single market but not prepared to admit it publicly.

i.e. finding a way to circumvent the brexit vote?

 

A genuine question as from what I can make out a 'soft brexit' means not leaving the EU and 'hard brexit' means leaving the EU (with an assumption/hope that the EU will be forced to give the UK reasonable trading terms)?

 

For personal reasons I haven't been able to follow this properly, so won't be offended if someone points out that my assumptions are very wrong.

 

 

[Grouse]

Hard Brexit implies leaving the single market

 

Soft Brexit implies staying in the single market

 

Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU but are in the single market

 

There are all sorts of ramifications.

 

This is why we need to agree exactly what kind of Brexit is most appropriate. Election? Parliamentary debate? Ask the numpties? You tell me!

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Grouse said:

Hard Brexit implies leaving the single market

 

Soft Brexit implies staying in the single market

 

Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU but are in the single market

 

There are all sorts of ramifications.

 

This is why we need to agree exactly what kind of Brexit is most appropriate. Election? Parliamentary debate? Ask the numpties? You tell me!

I could well be wrong, but don't think anyone wants to stop trading with the EU?

 

If that is the case, then it comes down to whether the conditions imposed to be part of the single market (i.e. EU?) are acceptable to the UK electorate?

 

Getting back to my earlier question, is there any difference between the terms 'single market' and 'EU'?

 

Again, I apologise for all the question marks - but I'm still trying to work out exactly what is meant by 'soft brexit' and 'hard brexit'.

 

Elections/parliamentary debate/ask numpties is an entirely separate issue probably better discussed on the Constitutional Issues thread?

[Grouse]

37 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I could well be wrong, but don't think anyone wants to stop trading with the EU?

 

If that is the case, then it comes down to whether the conditions imposed to be part of the single market (i.e. EU?) are acceptable to the UK electorate?

 

Getting back to my earlier question, is there any difference between the terms 'single market' and 'EU'?

 

Again, I apologise for all the question marks - but I'm still trying to work out exactly what is meant by 'soft brexit' and 'hard brexit'.

 

Elections/parliamentary debate/ask numpties is an entirely separate issue probably better discussed on the Constitutional Issues thread?

 

Membership of the EU comes with a cornucopia of separate and interconnected issues of which trade is just one. The referendum was in or out. I suspect that many did not understand the ramifications and/or differ on what TYPE of Brexit they want! Voting out of the single market is, er, sub-optimal. But there are some odd people ?

[Orac]

I could well be wrong, but don't think anyone wants to stop trading with the EU?

 

If that is the case, then it comes down to whether the conditions imposed to be part of the single market (i.e. EU?) are acceptable to the UK electorate?

 

Getting back to my earlier question, is there any difference between the terms 'single market' and 'EU'?

 

Again, I apologise for all the question marks - but I'm still trying to work out exactly what is meant by 'soft brexit' and 'hard brexit'.

 

Elections/parliamentary debate/ask numpties is an entirely separate issue probably better discussed on the Constitutional Issues thread?

The easiest way to look at it is that the 'single market' are the trading rules that the EU and several other countries operate under which are set by the EU - non EU members of the single market have very little control or influence over the rules they are operating under.

Since the UK is a much larger economy than any other existing non-EU single market countries it will be better able to negotiate the terms of its access to it however it is a political hot potato since, as we have seen mentioned a number of times here and elsewhere, sovereignty is a big issue and being in the single market but outside the EU would inevitably mean giving up a certain amount of control over what trading rules we operate under in the future as we would have to automatically have to accept changes made.

[Grouse]

Just remind me what benefits we get from Brexit again.....

[dick dasterdly]

25 minutes ago, Orac said:

The easiest way to look at it is that the 'single market' are the trading rules that the EU and several other countries operate under which are set by the EU - non EU members of the single market have very little control or influence over the rules they are operating under.

Since the UK is a much larger economy than any other existing non-EU single market countries it will be better able to negotiate the terms of its access to it however it is a political hot potato since, as we have seen mentioned a number of times here and elsewhere, sovereignty is a big issue and being in the single market but outside the EU would inevitably mean giving up a certain amount of control over what trading rules we operate under in the future as we would have to automatically have to accept changes made.

Thanks Orac.

 

So being part of the single market is only possible if an EU member.  If a 'full' EU member (i.e paying the full amount due) the country is entitled to have a vote in decisions, but its possible to be a member with no voting rights if paying less?

 

If I haven't misunderstood this, then a 'soft brexit' would mean paying less but still being part of the single market/EU - but with no voting rights?  Whereas a 'hard brexit' would mean not being part of the single market/EU, and having to negotiate all trade agreements both within and outside the EU?

 

Edit - Whereas a member of the single market/EU has to rely on external trade deals as negotiated by the EU?

[Grouse]

31 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thanks Orac.

 

So being part of the single market is only possible if an EU member.  If a 'full' EU member (i.e paying the full amount due) the country is entitled to have a vote in decisions, but its possible to be a member with no voting rights if paying less?

 

If I haven't misunderstood this, then a 'soft brexit' would mean paying less but still being part of the single market/EU - but with no voting rights?  Whereas a 'hard brexit' would mean not being part of the single market/EU, and having to negotiate all trade agreements both within and outside the EU?

 

Edit - Whereas a member of the single market/EU has to rely on external trade deals as negotiated by the EU?

 

Soft Brexit is keeping the single market. This is possible from outside EU. Hard Brexit means individual deals with all countries. WTO rules imply 10% tariff on all cars we export to Europe (simply put). As you know, EU have now agreed deal with Canada. 44% of our exports currently go to EU countries. Overall, it's a non-trivial matter.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Grouse said:

 

Soft Brexit is keeping the single market. This is possible from outside EU. Hard Brexit means individual deals with all countries. WTO rules imply 10% tariff on all cars we export to Europe (simply put). As you know, EU have now agreed deal with Canada. 44% of our exports currently go to EU countries. Overall, it's a none trivial matter.

OK, I'm still trying to work out exactly what is meant by 'soft' and 'hard' brexit.

 

Orac's reply made a lot of sense to me (i.e. you need to be inside the EU to be part of the single market) - which is why I'd be interested to learn why you think its possible to be part of the single market from outside the EU?

 

Does the deal with Canada means its part of the single market without having to pay any EU fees?

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

OK, I'm still trying to work out exactly what is meant by 'soft' and 'hard' brexit.

 

Orac's reply made a lot of sense to me (i.e. you need to be inside the EU to be part of the single market) - which is why I'd be interested to learn why you think its possible to be part of the single market from outside the EU?

 

Does the deal with Canada means its part of the single market without having to pay any EU fees?

 

Look up EFTA & EEA. You do NOT NEED to be inside the EU to be part of the single market. IMHO we are better off fully IN the EU because we get to make or at least veto the rules.

 

Canada has a compromise deal, I have not read the details yet

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Look up EFTA & EEA. You do NOT NEED to be inside the EU to be part of the single market. IMHO we are better off fully IN the EU because we get to make or at least veto the rules.

 

Canada has a compromise deal, I have not read the details yet

 

 

Are EFTA & EEA countries not paying into the EU?

I gather they are paying to be part of the single market, albeit less because they don't have voting rights?

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Are EFTA & EEA countries not paying into the EU?

I gather they are paying to be part of the single market, albeit less because they don't have voting rights?

 

That was not what you asked. 

 

I am am just saying that for access to the single union, membership is not compulsory.

 

Do you think it would be fair to EU members to offer a free ride?

 

We currently pay about 0.4% of GDP as full member with full rights. Cheap at twice the price IMHO. Sterling has dropped 20% - great idea.....

[cumgranosalum]

Soft and Hard are now becoming cliched terms, but here's a summary.

 

difference between a hard Brexit and a soft Brexit

 

remember that countries like Norway actually pay in almost as much per capita as the UK did as a full member of the EU.

 

A very soft Brexit would mean we just about get to stay in......so really we should scrap the idea of Brexit and soon before it does lasting damage to the UK

[chiang mai]

An interesting observation here, it's waiters and hospitality staff and not manufacturing which is making the running:

 

"Despite news of Nissan’s continuing investment in Sunderland, by the end of 2016 hospitality may provide more jobs than manufacturing, according to an analysis of figures from the Office of National Statistics by the Fabian Society".  I wonder if UK Plc is going to pull a Thailand and make tourism a key element of GDP.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hospitality-manufacturing-sector-jobs-decline-march-of-the-makers-waiters-a7385806.html

[Grouse]

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Are EFTA & EEA countries not paying into the EU?

I gather they are paying to be part of the single market, albeit less because they don't have voting rights?

 

Correct they do contribute (put simply)

 

But the "subs" are a minor issue frankly ?

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

That was not what you asked. 

 

I am am just saying that for access to the single union, membership is not compulsory.

 

Do you think it would be fair to EU members to offer a free ride?

 

We currently pay about 0.4% of GDP as full member with full rights. Cheap at twice the price IMHO. Sterling has dropped 20% - great idea.....

I think the problem is that I'm not playing 'word games', I'm just trying to get a grip again on the various terms bandied about - and what they actually mean.

 

A few months ago I would have been as happy as others to quibble about the precise wording in any question or answer - but other things are more important to me now, which is why (even though I'm still interested in the subject) I really can't be bothered to play games.

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Correct they do contribute (put simply)

 

But the "subs" are a minor issue frankly ?

Thank you, the simple answer was appreciated.

[SheungWan]

23 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

Soft and Hard are now becoming cliched terms, but here's a summary.

 

difference between a hard Brexit and a soft Brexit

 

remember that countries like Norway actually pay in almost as much per capita as the UK did as a full member of the EU.

 

A very soft Brexit would mean we just about get to stay in......so really we should scrap the idea of Brexit and soon before it does lasting damage to the UK

 

Forget what we should or should not do. It isn't going to happen irrespective of any anticipated negative fallout. The second point is that any possible soft fallout is circumscribed by immigration issues policed by the hard brexit ministers. Net result for now is that pressure on the pound continues.

 

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Just remind me what benefits we get from Brexit again.....

 

Not being inexorably conjoined to a federal Europe dominated by Germany is a pretty good starting point .

[Grouse]

Bottom line is we should stay in single market. 

[Grouse]

48 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

An interesting observation here, it's waiters and hospitality staff and not manufacturing which is making the running:

 

"Despite news of Nissan’s continuing investment in Sunderland, by the end of 2016 hospitality may provide more jobs than manufacturing, according to an analysis of figures from the Office of National Statistics by the Fabian Society".  I wonder if UK Plc is going to pull a Thailand and make tourism a key element of GDP.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hospitality-manufacturing-sector-jobs-decline-march-of-the-makers-waiters-a7385806.html

 

I'd better buy shares in Harry Ramsdens!

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

OK, I'm still trying to work out exactly what is meant by 'soft' and 'hard' brexit.

 

Orac's reply made a lot of sense to me (i.e. you need to be inside the EU to be part of the single market) - which is why I'd be interested to learn why you think its possible to be part of the single market from outside the EU?

 

Does the deal with Canada means its part of the single market without having to pay any EU fees?

 

Countries (and territories) can be part of the EU Customs Union subject to certain agreed exclusions (eg agriculture) without being a part of the EU.

[Khun Han]

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

For those that may have a problem with conveyed implication I will restate this part of post 243.

 

You would see from post 207 that I never subscribed to the compensation theory, ( I subscribe to the theory that) she is going for the single market but not prepared to admit it publicly.

 

That problem is easily circumvented by putting something along the lines of 'I think' or 'imho' before the theory. That way, we don't get discussion myths being established, such as is happening at the moment over a supposed compo deal for Nissan, which has come from an unnamed source (and may or may not turn out to be true).

[cumgranosalum]

2 hours ago, chiang mai said:

An interesting observation here, it's waiters and hospitality staff and not manufacturing which is making the running:

 

"Despite news of Nissan’s continuing investment in Sunderland, by the end of 2016 hospitality may provide more jobs than manufacturing, according to an analysis of figures from the Office of National Statistics by the Fabian Society".  I wonder if UK Plc is going to pull a Thailand and make tourism a key element of GDP.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hospitality-manufacturing-sector-jobs-decline-march-of-the-makers-waiters-a7385806.html

 

Tourism? - where have you been?

For the UK it was about 34.4 million visitors last year and Thailand around Thailand 30 million. Both industries account for about 10% of GDP - where do you go from there? - of easy entry from the EU helps....but then so would a cheap pound if prices don't go up to compensate.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Not being inexorably conjoined to a federal Europe dominated by Germany is a pretty good starting point .

 

I like the Germans!

 

They don't dominate when we are around! ?

 

I would not mind a United States of Europe personally, but I accept I would be in a minority about that 

 

I have no doubt that the majority want to remain with the single market though.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

That problem is easily circumvented by putting something along the lines of 'I think' or 'imho' before the theory. That way, we don't get discussion myths being established, such as is happening at the moment over a supposed compo deal for Nissan, which has come from an unnamed source (and may or may not turn out to be true).

 

Now we're getting into the subtleties. Difficult to explain the basic situation without lots of caveats.

 

Now, I'm in a BKK hotel and the usual band is off for a month. So I am reduced to "reading" The Daily Mail. Dear me! What tosh! I hold the MSM primarily responsible for the huge rise in numptyism!

 

But, I digress, the point with Nissan is this: Ghosn is clearly no fool! He will certainly have gone in hard with the DoT. Look at the downside; what would have happened if he said Nissan were pulling out???? So he's holding a pretty good hand - a full house at least! Amazingly, following a letter from DoT, Nissan agrees to build NOT one but two new models!! It may be a coincidence, but IMHO, the contents of that letter is key ?

 

Now I and others think that it will be impossible to assist one manufacturer and not all the others. In our impoverished trading situation, indemnifying all exporters is not a viable way forward. So, we conclude May MUST go for soft Brexit or better. QED!! ?

[Khun Han]

33 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Now we're getting into the subtleties. Difficult to explain the basic situation without lots of caveats.

 

Now, I'm in a BKK hotel and the usual band is off for a month. So I am reduced to "reading" The Daily Mail. Dear me! What tosh! I hold the MSM primarily responsible for the huge rise in numptyism!

 

But, I digress, the point with Nissan is this: Ghosn is clearly no fool! He will certainly have gone in hard with the DoT. Look at the downside; what would have happened if he said Nissan were pulling out???? So he's holding a pretty good hand - a full house at least! Amazingly, following a letter from DoT, Nissan agrees to build NOT one but two new models!! It may be a coincidence, but IMHO, the contents of that letter is key ?

 

Now I and others think that it will be impossible to assist one manufacturer and not all the others. In our impoverished trading situation, indemnifying all exporters is not a viable way forward. So, we conclude May MUST go for soft Brexit or better. QED!! ?

 

Mail on Sunday's a bit better but still not my 'read' of choice.

 

The big story yesterday on Nissan was that the DoT have allegedly offered Nissan a sweetheart deal. If it's a soft brexit that's been promised to them, the DoT must have offered some pretty convincing assurances that it's going to happen, and that means PM May and her team have a sound stategy in place that will  get past both an antagonistic EU and the British electorate.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 

I like the Germans!

 

They don't dominate when we are around! ?

 

I would not mind a United States of Europe personally, but I accept I would be in a minority about that 

 

I have no doubt that the majority want to remain with the single market though.

 

I like the Germans too, with a few reservations. I particularly don't like the leaders they get, and I'm deeply suspicious of their strategies. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that they have, for a long time, seen themselves as the natural leaders of Europe.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Please stay on the topic of Brexit.