Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

Having read the replies what seems to be the problem is the terminology. It isn’t a ‘No Deal’ it is a departure on WTO rules.

Those casting their votes in the Referendum were simply given an option to leave the EU or not ..... a simple YES or NO. The result was a majority YES to leave and by inference that was on WTO terms as there was no negotiated position at the time.

Then we tried to ‘negotiate’ better terms but we had the wrong person doing the negotiating and facing a belligerent bunch of EU Hierarchy who got awkward, started making demands and threats. Instead of the PM of the day telling them ...... we are willing to discuss some points but if you (EU) won’t discuss anything sensible, ...... she then showed her incompetence by grovelling and making it clear she was negotiating from a position of weakness.

Don’t particularly like BJ, in my book as the OP says he is a clown and no more capable of getting a different deal than May was.

In my working life twice I was involved it what is termed a ‘HOT CUT OVER’ ..... basically you swapped an old control system out for a new one whilst the plant was still running. It took several weeks to do but was meticulously planned in advance ...... not by just one person but every department involved. On the day the operation started we followed the plan and apart from the odd hic-up, in both cases it worked.

In my naivety of thinking politicians actually knew what they were doing, this is how I believed leaving the EU would be! The EU and the UK working together and progressing to the end point, with minimal upset. Surely something in the interests in both parties.

It looks like that is not going to be the case ...... so, hold onto your hats it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

What a rare treat! Agreeing.

My view at the time of the referendum was we would leave, having agreed some mutually beneficial transition. Then subsequently an - again good for both sides - trade agreement would be secured.

He's been much pilloried for it over the years but I believe it was David Davis (?) who made a comment at the time that "It would be the easiest trade agreement in history". He was quite correct in that it could have been. Third country trade agreements with the EU usually involve the torturous and lengthy (many years) process of firstly compliance with the mountain of Brussels regulations and secondly surmounting the EU's protectionist measures. Not only do 28 countries have a veto on any trade agreement but some of those even have regional vetoes to consider. That's why the Belgium Walloons almost scuppered the recent CETA deal.

The UK though doesn't suffer from either of these inhibitions. Not only would we be starting out 100% regulation compliant but we're already an integral part of the bloc's trade setup. A deal could have been secured in record time. One which protected the interests of both sides.

There is some confusion on the term "agreement". May allowed herself to be suckered into a Brussels trap. She agreed that before there could be any talk of trade deals the UK had to sign up to a "Withdrawal" agreement. That, in essence, is agreeing to the EU's conditions in order to gain their permission and blessing to leave. My view was simple - they could shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

The EU has a €100billion trade surplus with the UK. Many of it's industries (German cars and machine tools. French fisherman and farmers. All of the Irish economy. Italian farmers) would be devastated by the imposition of levies in what would effectively become an EU brought about trade war on its doorstep. Not only that but they don't buy British goods and services as an act of charity.

The way ahead was and always has been "We're leaving. If you want a trade deal then give us a call". Only when it gets to the wire and the Council of Ministers (Germany/France effectively) sweeps aside the Commission - who couldn't give a shit about national economies or job/trade losses, just their precious "project" - will there be any meaningful agreement.

If all these perpetually bleating, pathetic prats could have hoisted that on board and stopped doing Brussels dirty work in the UK Parliament for them then I'm certain we would have been out and on our way to a decent future as an independent nation again by now.

Enough?

[cyprusgrump]

Having read the replies what seems to be the problem is the terminology. It isn’t a ‘No Deal’ it is a departure on WTO rules.

Those casting their votes in the Referendum were simply given an option to leave the EU or not ..... a simple YES or NO. The result was a majority YES to leave and by inference that was on WTO terms as there was no negotiated position at the time.

Then we tried to ‘negotiate’ better terms but we had the wrong person doing the negotiating and facing a belligerent bunch of EU Hierarchy who got awkward, started making demands and threats. Instead of the PM of the day telling them ...... we are willing to discuss some points but if you (EU) won’t discuss anything sensible, ...... she then showed her incompetence by grovelling and making it clear she was negotiating from a position of weakness.

Don’t particularly like BJ, in my book as the OP says he is a clown and no more capable of getting a different deal than May was.

In my working life twice I was involved it what is termed a ‘HOT CUT OVER’ ..... basically you swapped an old control system out for a new one whilst the plant was still running. It took several weeks to do but was meticulously planned in advance ...... not by just one person but every department involved. On the day the operation started we followed the plan and apart from the odd hic-up, in both cases it worked.

In my naivety of thinking politicians actually knew what they were doing, this is how I believed leaving the EU would be! The EU and the UK working together and progressing to the end point, with minimal upset. Surely something in the interests in both parties.

It looks like that is not going to be the case ...... so, hold onto your hats it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

What a rare treat! Agreeing.

My view at the time of the referendum was we would leave, having agreed some mutually beneficial transition. Then subsequently an - again good for both sides - trade agreement would be secured.

He's been much pilloried for it over the years but I believe it was David Davis (?) who made a comment at the time that "It would be the easiest trade agreement in history". He was quite correct in that it could have been. Third country trade agreements with the EU usually involve the torturous and lengthy (many years) process of firstly compliance with the mountain of Brussels regulations and secondly surmounting the EU's protectionist measures. Not only do 28 countries have a veto on any trade agreement but some of those even have regional vetoes to consider. That's why the Belgium Walloons almost scuppered the recent CETA deal.

The UK though doesn't suffer from either of these inhibitions. Not only would we be starting out 100% regulation compliant but we're already an integral part of the bloc's trade setup. A deal could have been secured in record time. One which protected the interests of both sides.

There is some confusion on the term "agreement". May allowed herself to be suckered into a Brussels trap. She agreed that before there could be any talk of trade deals the UK had to sign up to a "Withdrawal" agreement. That, in essence, is agreeing to the EU's conditions in order to gain their permission and blessing to leave. My view was simple - they could shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

The EU has a €100billion trade surplus with the UK. Many of it's industries (German cars and machine tools. French fisherman and farmers. All of the Irish economy. Italian farmers) would be devastated by the imposition of levies in what would effectively become an EU brought about trade war on its doorstep. Not only that but they don't buy British goods and services as an act of charity.

The way ahead was and always has been "We're leaving. If you want a trade deal then give us a call". Only when it gets to the wire and the Council of Ministers (Germany/France effectively) sweeps aside the Commission - who couldn't give a shit about national economies or job/trade losses, just their precious "project" - will there be any meaningful agreement.

If all these perpetually bleating, pathetic prats could have hoisted that on board and stopped doing Brussels dirty work in the UK Parliament for them then I'm certain we would have been out and on our way to a decent future as an independent state again by now.

Enough?

Splendid!

[erolz66]

Having read the replies what seems to be the problem is the terminology. It isn’t a ‘No Deal’ it is a departure on WTO rules.

Yes the terminology is wrong and so is the understanding. The 'deal' that everyone is talking about is nothing to do with negotiating and agreeing with how we trade or interact with the EU after we have left. It is a withdrawal agreement deal. That is it is an agreement between the UK and the EU as to what the status will between those two, once the UK has left but before we have agreed all that other stuff like how we are going to trade with the EU in the future, with set time limits (than could be changed by agreement and democratically valid process btw). It is not the deal as to how we will trade with the EU. It is a deal as to what will be the status between UK and EU in the period after we have left the EU and before we have agreed things like how we will trade with them in the future and for how long these interim 'statuses' will apply.

We have not even started talking yet with the EU in any serious way (we have the political deceleration of intent) as to under what terms we will trade with the EU going forward and 100 other things not to do with trade. Even with a no deal exit we still have to conclude these things. All of the things that have made agreeing a withdrawal agreement so hard for the EU and impossible for the UK to agree on will still be there.

[erolz66]

The UK though doesn't suffer from either of these inhibitions. Not only would we be starting out 100% regulation compliant but we're already an integral part of the bloc's trade setup. A deal could have been secured in record time. One which protected the interests of both sides.

Yes it is entirely true that we would start any future agreed trading relationship from a point of total regulatory alignment. However that does not mean it is illegitimate for the EU to have concerns over what happens over time in a trading relationship with the UK that is dependant on that regulatory alignment, if the UK is free to unilaterally make changes in the future that erode that alignment.

There is some confusion on the term "agreement". May allowed herself to be suckered into a Brussels trap. She agreed that before there could be any talk of trade deals the UK had to sign up to a "Withdrawal" agreement. That, in essence, is agreeing to the EU's conditions in order to gain their permission and blessing to leave. My view was simple - they could shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

And we all walked in to an earlier and even bigger trap by triggering article 50 whilst the EU was saying 'there can be no discussion on how you might leave until you trigger article 50'. At that point we should have said, no that is not reasonable and you must reconsider that demand and if you do not and until you do we will remain and use every and any legal right and means we have at our disposal, from blocking budgets, to appointments and 1000 other things. Now THAT is REAL negotiating leverage. It is a threat that can be carried out that does more damage to things the counter party cares about that it does damage to the UK, if the trigger is pulled on the threat.