The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

Brilliant rant of the day.

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/st...79697146814464

[rainer_d]

Actually, doing something that hurts you just to hurt an opposing political party is a standard move in politics.


It's practiced at each level, from the lowest communal parliaments to the highest levels.

The people? They're useful idiots around election time. Best to keep them in the dark as much as possible.
A bit of patriotism and flag-waving (usually at sports-events) then and now usually keeps them happy.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Swisstree
	Brilliant rant of the day. https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/st...79697146814464

@"pelvic floor muscles"

[John William]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	US and UK are talking about a free trade agreement https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/u-s--co...-talk/45155830 As a bonus, Trump's quote of the day: "when it comes to trade negotiations the EU is worse than China, only smaller".

The tragedy of it is that the UK will end up being played 'As the Big Suckers' in any such a trade deal
with Trump. As it's always been the case of 'America first' with Trump.

	Quote:	John William
	The tragedy of it is that the UK will end up being played 'As the Big Suckers' in any such a trade deal with Trump. As it's always been the case of 'America first' with Trump.

This is the bit that amazes me. The same people who are rambling on about "EUSSR" and how awful it is to be oppressed under the EU and its suffocating rules, and how the UK is getting a bad deal and generally losing out are in a fanboy-frenzy of excitement of jumping into bed with the US, which is currently in the grip of its worst administration in history.

Do they really think the US is going to roll out the red carpet and offer all sorts of trade deals which are BETTER than the one the UK currently enjoys as being part of a strong network of member states? Genuine question.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	@"pelvic floor muscles"

And I immediately started to do some.. thank you, Brexit.

[bowlie]

US-UK trade agreement.

Will the UK be obliged to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear agreement?
Will the UK be required to support US military operations around the world?
Will the UK be required to accept (without proper labelling), hormone injected beef, chlorine washed (unvaccinated) chickens, gmo products?
Waive all tax requirements on Trump golf courses?
Etc.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:
	Do they really think the US is going to roll out the red carpet and offer all sorts of trade deals which are BETTER than the one the UK currently enjoys as being part of a strong network of member states? Genuine question.

Depends on the definition of "better". If better means less obstacles, then yes. If better means a protected inside market, then no.

[3Wishes]

	Quote:	Swisstree
	Brilliant rant of the day. https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/st...79697146814464

...with lashings of blind optimism and custard.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Depends on the definition of "better". If better means less obstacles, then yes. If better means a protected inside market, then no.

This is a good point. the UK will lose for certain the power it had as part of a huge trading bloc, however it will gain in flexibility and agility. As we have all seen it takes years (7 for canada, about 8000 for south america) to agree a trade deal with the EU because everyone has to agree to it.

The UK will be able to move and adapt with greater agility when only it has to agree or negotiate with another entity or state.

So there are plusses and minuses both sides I would say.

	Quote:	Mikers
	This is a good point. the UK will lose for certain the power it had as part of a huge trading bloc, however it will gain in flexibility and agility. As we have all seen it takes years (7 for canada, about 8000 for south america) to agree a trade deal with the EU because everyone has to agree to it. The UK will be able to move and adapt with greater agility when only it has to agree or negotiate with another entity or state. So there are plusses and minuses both sides I would say.

But that wasn't my point. The UK was ALREADY in the trading block of the EU, which already trades with the US and now the UK is choosing to leave.

My question was why people think it is better to go it alone and try to form trading links with the US (and the rest of the world) anew.

k_and_e mentioned some non-descript "obstacles" which seem to be present with the EU but not with the US but does that make the whole thing easier and therefore more profitable?

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	John William
	The tragedy of it is that the UK will end up being played 'As the Big Suckers' in any such a trade deal with Trump. As it's always been the case of 'America first' with Trump.

There won't be a trade deal, so no need to worry. It will go the way of the Canada/Mexico deal, Trump doing the victory dance and the deal going unapproved by Congress.

Next summer most Irish politicians will be heading State side for the summer holidays, States and districts being coordinated by the Irish Embassy in Washington. And while there they'll be visiting the Irish centers and giving a few speeches supporting the local congressman or not as the case may be.

[Mikers]

	Quote:
	But that wasn't my point. The UK was ALREADY in the trading block of the EU, which already trades with the US and now the UK is choosing to leave. My question was why people think it is better to go it alone and try to form trading links with the US (and the rest of the world) anew. k_and_e mentioned some non-descript "obstacles" which seem to be present with the EU but not with the US but does that make the whole thing easier and therefore more profitable?

I think it is the same point ? The idea is that outside the EU, as an independent single state, the UK can form trade relationships quickly and without the difficulty of having all member states agree.

So it steps out of the EU (losing existing agreements under them) but then forms its own ones under the independent banner of the UK only, not requiring such a long negotiation for them because of the simplicity of having just one country negotiating.

It might not work, but its the idea I believe.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:
	k_and_e mentioned some non-descript "obstacles" which seem to be present with the EU but not with the US but does that make the whole thing easier and therefore more profitable?

obstacles between US and EU of course, not between UK and EU as UK is an EU member.

	Quote:	Mikers
	I think it is the same point ? The idea is that outside the EU, as an independent single state, the UK can form trade relationships quickly and without the difficulty of having all member states agree. So it steps out of the EU (losing existing agreements under them) but then forms its own ones under the independent banner of the UK only, not requiring such a long negotiation for them because of the simplicity of having just one country negotiating. It might not work, but its the idea I believe.

It may be able to conclude deals quicker, but there is no way on God's green earth that a country of 65m is getting as favourable terms as a bloc of 500m with any trading partner.

	Quote:	k_and_e
	obstacles between US and EU of course, not between UK and EU as UK is an EU member.

Yes, I am aware of the regions and nations involved but it was the "obstacles" bit of your statement which needed further clarification.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I think it is the same point ? The idea is that outside the EU, as an independent single state, the UK can form trade relationships quickly and without the difficulty of having all member states agree. So it steps out of the EU (losing existing agreements under them) but then forms its own ones under the independent banner of the UK only, not requiring such a long negotiation for them because of the simplicity of having just one country negotiating. It might not work, but its the idea I believe.

Indeed, the other side is that as the UK is a much smaller market than the EU so third countries may not give priority to negotiating UK trade deals and may not offer such attractive terms as they offer the EU. I understand that the trade deals currently being pre-negotiated have already run into such less attractive terms.

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	Indeed, the other side is that as the UK is a much smaller market than the EU so third countries may not give priority to negotiating UK trade deals and may not offer such attractive terms as they offer the EU. I understand that the trade deals currently being pre-negotiated have already run into such less attractive terms.

Attractive terms for who?

What highly attractive trade deals with third countries have the EU negotiators landed lately that specifically benefit the UK?

[3Wishes]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I think it is the same point ? The idea is that outside the EU, as an independent single state, the UK can form trade relationships quickly and without the difficulty of having all member states agree. So it steps out of the EU (losing existing agreements under them) but then forms its own ones under the independent banner of the UK only, not requiring such a long negotiation for them because of the simplicity of having just one country negotiating. It might not work, but its the idea I believe.

I could be wrong but...I think that the EU countries can't negotiate a lot of individual deals with other countries.

So while the UK leaving means it can make deals with US, Canada, Vanuatu or whatever, it can't easily negotiate piecemeal deals with France, Germany, Poland, etc. because those countries are still bound to EU laws/trade deals.

I think?

[bigblue2]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	I could be wrong but...I think that the EU countries can't negotiate a lot of individual deals with other countries. So while the UK leaving means it can make deals with US, Canada, Vanuatu or whatever, it can't easily negotiate piecemeal deals with France, Germany, Poland, etc. because those countries are still bound to EU laws/trade deals. I think?

correct EU countries cannot do side deals, it all EU or nothing.