Jobs & Education1 min ago
So It's Confirmed We Are Ready For No Deal, Even The Cbi Think We Are Not....
161 Answers
https:/
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?
Answers
Ellipsis - // In the lace seller scenario, no deal means keep the status quo i.e. remain. // No, it does not mean that. What it means is, there are plenty more lace sellers in the town, and plenty more customers, and on this occasion, we are not going to deal together, maybe tomorrow we will, tomorrow is another day, but for now, I am going to look elsewhere, and so is...
15:55 Mon 29th Jul 2019
Too many posts to go through since my lat visit; but extracting a quote from this page that caught my eye.
"It's a fact that "No Deal" was certainly not in the minds of the prominent Brexit campaigners in 2016. That it has been allowed to become the only ideologically pure form of Brexit"
I don't know how one can suggest it is a fact. There was no indication that anyone would allow an infinite stalemate by the EU opting not being reasonable, to prevent Brexit ever happening. It was always that we got out as soon as possible and the A50 gave a period defining when the time was. No one was hoping for or pushing for no-deal but it was obviously the default condition come a lack of agreement. It hasn't changed to become anything, except inevitable probably.
"It's a fact that "No Deal" was certainly not in the minds of the prominent Brexit campaigners in 2016. That it has been allowed to become the only ideologically pure form of Brexit"
I don't know how one can suggest it is a fact. There was no indication that anyone would allow an infinite stalemate by the EU opting not being reasonable, to prevent Brexit ever happening. It was always that we got out as soon as possible and the A50 gave a period defining when the time was. No one was hoping for or pushing for no-deal but it was obviously the default condition come a lack of agreement. It hasn't changed to become anything, except inevitable probably.
// No one was hoping for or pushing for no-deal but it was obviously the default condition come a lack of agreement. //
If it was obvious then it was so obvious that it went unspoken by virtually every prominent advocate of leaving.
// ... the EU opting not being [sic] reasonable, to prevent Brexit ever happening. //
The EU has stuck up for its own interests. I don't think anyone can be surprised at that. It was pointed out several times in the campaign that it would hardly be in the EU's interests to "allow" the UK to leave on terms so favourable that it made exit look attractive to other members. The process was always going to be drawn-out, messy, and require the UK to make some, perhaps significant, compromises in the short-term in order to achieve its ultimate aims when leaving. One doesn't need to be a cynical disingenuous Remainer to acknowledge this.
If it was obvious then it was so obvious that it went unspoken by virtually every prominent advocate of leaving.
// ... the EU opting not being [sic] reasonable, to prevent Brexit ever happening. //
The EU has stuck up for its own interests. I don't think anyone can be surprised at that. It was pointed out several times in the campaign that it would hardly be in the EU's interests to "allow" the UK to leave on terms so favourable that it made exit look attractive to other members. The process was always going to be drawn-out, messy, and require the UK to make some, perhaps significant, compromises in the short-term in order to achieve its ultimate aims when leaving. One doesn't need to be a cynical disingenuous Remainer to acknowledge this.
Precisely, no need to discuss the obvious.
The EU is not sticking up for it's interests. Otherwise it'd have agreed a trade deal by now. The nations left the discussions to the elite, whose priority wasn't what was best for their members but to retain control of their club, and be as difficult as possible rather than negotiate in order to achieve that aim. There was no need to worry about leave being on terms so favourable that it made exit look attractive to other members since the trade deals agreed to non-members are clearly going to be less favourable than to members anyway. The advantages of getting out isn't improved trading with the EU but shrugging off the non-trade interference and in allowing trade elsewhere. But it should allow reasonable terms, which deliberately aren't being offered. If the EU has to be malicious to, soon to be non-members, in order to make EU membership look favourable then it indicates how bad membership must really be when analysed. If they've any sense other member nations ought to be taking our experience as a warning not to remain.
The EU is not sticking up for it's interests. Otherwise it'd have agreed a trade deal by now. The nations left the discussions to the elite, whose priority wasn't what was best for their members but to retain control of their club, and be as difficult as possible rather than negotiate in order to achieve that aim. There was no need to worry about leave being on terms so favourable that it made exit look attractive to other members since the trade deals agreed to non-members are clearly going to be less favourable than to members anyway. The advantages of getting out isn't improved trading with the EU but shrugging off the non-trade interference and in allowing trade elsewhere. But it should allow reasonable terms, which deliberately aren't being offered. If the EU has to be malicious to, soon to be non-members, in order to make EU membership look favourable then it indicates how bad membership must really be when analysed. If they've any sense other member nations ought to be taking our experience as a warning not to remain.
Old_Geezer - // The EU is not sticking up for it's interests. Otherwise it'd have agreed a trade deal by now. The nations left the discussions to the elite, whose priority wasn't what was best for their members but to retain control of their club, and be as difficult as possible rather than negotiate in order to achieve that aim. There was no need to worry about leave being on terms so favourable that it made exit look attractive to other members since the trade deals agreed to non-members are clearly going to be less favourable than to members anyway. The advantages of getting out isn't improved trading with the EU but shrugging off the non-trade interference and in allowing trade elsewhere. But it should allow reasonable terms, which deliberately aren't being offered. If the EU has to be malicious to, soon to be non-members, in order to make EU membership look favourable then it indicates how bad membership must really be when analysed. If they've any sense other member nations ought to be taking our experience as a warning not to remain. //
Again I am in complete agreement.
I stated on this site when the result was announced, that the EU was always going to make leaving as difficult as possible to discourage any other member state from doing the same, and the whole edifice collapsing in a domino effect.
They were always going to be as tough and unreasonable as possible, but it turns out they have managed to save their energy - the UK negotiators have done their job for them, by tying up the process in unimaginable chaos and nonsense.
All the EU has to do is sit across the table with its arms folded, and let the UK talk itself out of forcing a deal through - which, let's not forget, the EU would take, rather than the chaos of a no-deal departure.
Again I am in complete agreement.
I stated on this site when the result was announced, that the EU was always going to make leaving as difficult as possible to discourage any other member state from doing the same, and the whole edifice collapsing in a domino effect.
They were always going to be as tough and unreasonable as possible, but it turns out they have managed to save their energy - the UK negotiators have done their job for them, by tying up the process in unimaginable chaos and nonsense.
All the EU has to do is sit across the table with its arms folded, and let the UK talk itself out of forcing a deal through - which, let's not forget, the EU would take, rather than the chaos of a no-deal departure.
AH: "They were always going to be as tough and unreasonable as possible, but it turns out they have managed to save their energy - the UK negotiators have done their job for them, by tying up the process in unimaginable chaos and nonsense." - yep and we started by telling them we would not leave with no deal, gawd talk about tipping your hand, yet the remoaners can't see that.
// ... we started by telling them we would not leave with no deal, gawd talk about tipping your hand, yet the remoaners can't see that. //
When Theresa May said that "No Deal is better than a bad Deal", at the very start of the negotiating process, everybody here seemed convinced that she meant it, and praised her for her courage. It's rewriting history to say that the head of the UK started off by saying "No Deal is utter tosh and we can't possibly countenance it". Which is a shame because that would actually have been correct.
I've yet to hear anyone defend, genuinely, the idea that threatening to walk off a cliff whilst shooting ourselves is any kind of threat.
When Theresa May said that "No Deal is better than a bad Deal", at the very start of the negotiating process, everybody here seemed convinced that she meant it, and praised her for her courage. It's rewriting history to say that the head of the UK started off by saying "No Deal is utter tosh and we can't possibly countenance it". Which is a shame because that would actually have been correct.
I've yet to hear anyone defend, genuinely, the idea that threatening to walk off a cliff whilst shooting ourselves is any kind of threat.
jim, " I've yet to hear anyone defend, genuinely, the idea that threatening to walk off a cliff whilst shooting ourselves is any kind of threat. " - you just cannot comprehend it can you? both sides go off the cliff etc. All along your arguments are based on bad things only applying to the UK, they apply to the EUSSR too. As I have said 1000 times if you convince the enemy you are prepared to use the nuclear option then you won't have to. What we did was tell them up front we were not, tada, hand tipped.
//I've yet to hear anyone defend, genuinely, the idea that threatening to walk off a cliff whilst shooting ourselves is any kind of threat.//
I can only conclude, Jim, that you don't have the first idea of negotiation. The UK has decided to leave. The situation it now finds itself in is that it can accept the deal on offer, leave with no deal or not leave at all. Assuming that not leaving at all is ruled out that leaves the other two. The deal on offer is completely unacceptable but the EU has refused to review it. The only alternative is therefore No Deal and since that would damage the EU to a considerable degree (whether more or less than the UK is not important) it is in the EU's interest to reconsider - but only if we make it clear we WILL leave with no deal if necessary.
Your comparison with "walking off a cliff whilst shooting ourselves" is errant nonsense. Nobody will die if we leave with no deal. We simply cannot allow this impasse to continue. The accumulated damage this constant delay has caused is just as bad as leaving with no deal.
Perhaps you can help me understand your thinking by answering this: if - as they threaten - the EU continues its refusal to review the deal and assuming the deal remains as unacceptable to Parliament as ever, just what do you suggest the UK should do?
I can only conclude, Jim, that you don't have the first idea of negotiation. The UK has decided to leave. The situation it now finds itself in is that it can accept the deal on offer, leave with no deal or not leave at all. Assuming that not leaving at all is ruled out that leaves the other two. The deal on offer is completely unacceptable but the EU has refused to review it. The only alternative is therefore No Deal and since that would damage the EU to a considerable degree (whether more or less than the UK is not important) it is in the EU's interest to reconsider - but only if we make it clear we WILL leave with no deal if necessary.
Your comparison with "walking off a cliff whilst shooting ourselves" is errant nonsense. Nobody will die if we leave with no deal. We simply cannot allow this impasse to continue. The accumulated damage this constant delay has caused is just as bad as leaving with no deal.
Perhaps you can help me understand your thinking by answering this: if - as they threaten - the EU continues its refusal to review the deal and assuming the deal remains as unacceptable to Parliament as ever, just what do you suggest the UK should do?
If indeed the EU is harmed roughly the same as the UK is, then all that means is that No Deal is Mutually Assured Destruction. It's pretty clear that if Brexit means causing significant material damage to both sides, which is what all the evidence leads me to believe, then it's no option at all. That leaves either the current deal or the cancellation of the idea altogether -- after appropriate consultation, of course.
However negotiations work, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to presume that they're *supposed* to work by hunting something that works for both parties -- or, failing that, something that doesn't work for either party but that gets them at least closer to where they wanted to be. The Withdrawal Agreement is bad for Britain, but despite repeated denials, it does inevitably lead to Brexit. A drawn-out Brexit, too slow for many, but the end consequence is that we'd have left the EU, and would probably not have created self-imposed recession and severe damage to, eg, our farming industry, in the process.
However negotiations work, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to presume that they're *supposed* to work by hunting something that works for both parties -- or, failing that, something that doesn't work for either party but that gets them at least closer to where they wanted to be. The Withdrawal Agreement is bad for Britain, but despite repeated denials, it does inevitably lead to Brexit. A drawn-out Brexit, too slow for many, but the end consequence is that we'd have left the EU, and would probably not have created self-imposed recession and severe damage to, eg, our farming industry, in the process.
As to TTT's claim that No Deal is really just a path to a deal -- a nice idea, but one that presumably fails because by definition we'd have set off on the path to a deal by rejecting the one that had been carefully negotiated by both sides. What chance getting anything better having shown no faith or respect the last time there was a negotiation?
"I've yet to hear anyone defend, genuinely, the idea that threatening to walk off a cliff whilst shooting ourselves is any kind of threat."
Hardly a valid comparison. Regaining sovereignty is a major benefit, which walking off a cliff doesn't offer. Further, the rest of the EU will be disadvantaged by not getting a deal, the cliff has nothing to lose. As for shooting oneself in the foot, the cliff isn't going to get shot as well, and we all know that the more accurate way of looking at it is that change for the better will cost. It's just a pity the EU wishes to increase that cost for all; and the remaining EU members don't even get sovereignty out of it.
Shooting oneself it the foot isn't worth defending, paying the cost to get one's nation back has been defended by many.
Hardly a valid comparison. Regaining sovereignty is a major benefit, which walking off a cliff doesn't offer. Further, the rest of the EU will be disadvantaged by not getting a deal, the cliff has nothing to lose. As for shooting oneself in the foot, the cliff isn't going to get shot as well, and we all know that the more accurate way of looking at it is that change for the better will cost. It's just a pity the EU wishes to increase that cost for all; and the remaining EU members don't even get sovereignty out of it.
Shooting oneself it the foot isn't worth defending, paying the cost to get one's nation back has been defended by many.
How about assuming that in this analogy we are jumping off a cliff whilst also tied to somebody else. No Deal is taking them down with us, rather than taking the time needed to cut through the various ropes one at a time.
No analogy is meant to be perfect, of course. But it's still the case that a No Deal Brexit is highly likely to be seriously damaging to the UK. To the EU as well, it matters not. Whatever Johnson and others say, the choice of a No Deal exit would be the UK's alone.
No analogy is meant to be perfect, of course. But it's still the case that a No Deal Brexit is highly likely to be seriously damaging to the UK. To the EU as well, it matters not. Whatever Johnson and others say, the choice of a No Deal exit would be the UK's alone.
jim, can you have a go at the judges question: "Perhaps you can help me understand your thinking by answering this: if - as they threaten - the EU continues its refusal to review the deal and assuming the deal remains as unacceptable to Parliament as ever, just what do you suggest the UK should do? "
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style2 mins ago
My. Tesco Android Signal Is Poor
Technology4 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.