BREXIT Discussion, v4.0: The Back-Pedaling

[JudoThrowFiasco]

What social policy? If you're going to say immigration, do you mean EU immigration or non-EU immigration.

Norway, france, germany, etc. all export large amounts to the UK. Sure but that isn't going to change the leverage angle. Norway, france and Germany are part of the largest trading bloc in the world in negotiation with a country that represents less than 1/6 of their market share. They don't need the UK as much as the UK needs them. That's not to say the UK has zero leverage, obviously everyone has some leverage. But the UK is definitely the weaker party here.

Part of the four freedoms - social being the movement of people -- just omit that. Not a big deal. Keep trade of goods tariff free - the UK imports more than it exports and regardless of leverage is still a large market. Canada needs the US way more than you need us - and we keep trade free without free movement

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Because the EEA requires free movement of people for all members and one of the UKs primary reasons for leaving was to end free movement, mostly because of high numbers of under skilled EU workers who's number one destination was the UK.

Just omit the free movement of people -- why is that such a hardline issue? Money > the people.

Just dont take in UK citizens. Passports and visa processes work.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Just omit the free movement of people -- why is that such a hardline issue? Money > the people.

Because free movement of people is one of the pillars that the EU is built on, An ever closer and growing Union. The EU will absolutely not relent on free movement. It's accept free movement or no trade. Juncker has stated several times he doesn't believe in borders or Nationalism (even going as far as to call it the EUs biggest threat)

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Because free movement of people is one of the pillars that the EU is built on, An ever closer and growing Union. The EU will absolutely not relent on free movement. It's accept free movement or no trade. Juncker has stated several times he doesn't believe in borders or Nationalism (even going as far as to call it the EUs biggest threat)

See, thats the fucked up mentality that caused the Uk to buck. There is absolutely no reason to put tariff on trade (aside from some neogtionation on natural resources) just because some left wing nutter doesn't like borders. NAFTA works and dont have to take in anyone we dont want to

 

[snakedafunky]

Just omit the free movement of people -- why is that such a hardline issue? Money > the people.

It is not a politic reality to have all the benefits but non of the downsides.
Why would the EU grand the UK the same rights as is member states?
All of the UK's imports wont go away just because they are outside of the EU they still have to import stuff from the EU just at higher cost for consumers and companies.
And in return it will be more expensive and more difficult to export to the EU.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

See, thats the fucked up mentality that caused the Uk to buck. There is absolutely no reason to put tariff on trade (aside from some neogtionation on natural resources) just because some left wing nutter doesn't like borders.

Why do you think they drag their heels over deals with the US, Canada and China? In terms of negotiating trade deals, they are hopelessly ineffective because their thick headed ideologies get in the way. The EU in its current incarnation isn't fit for purpose.

 

[panamaican]

Part of the four freedoms - social being the movement of people -- just omit that. Not a big deal. Keep trade of goods tariff free - the UK imports more than it exports and regardless of leverage is still a large market. Canada needs the US way more than you need us - and we keep trade free without free movement

First, you can't say regardless of leverage because leverage is what resolves the details. there will be trade deals regardless of market size. Leverage is what determines if you take a 5% tariff or a 2% tariff or no tariff at all.

We keep trade without free movement of people because we're just 2 individual nations negotiating with each other and neither of us has a free movement agreement with anyone else.

The EU has free movement of EU citizens in the deal with every single EU nation. The EEA has the same. How in the world is the UK going to get around that without concessions elsewhere? Which is where leverage starts to matter.

 

[Victor Maitland]

The thread starter is probably a Guardian reader. UK had absolutely no power inside the EU and were paying out billions ,while being ordered around by the clown from Luxembourg.. ( who represents about 600k people).
The Euro is going to die and we wont be around to see the mess.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It is not a politic reality to have all the benefits but non of the downsides.
Why would the EU grand the UK the same rights as is member states?
All of the UK's imports wont go away just because they are outside of the EU they still have to import stuff from the EU just at higher cost for consumers and companies.
And in return it will be more expensive and more difficult to export to the EU.

Why? Just keep the trade open. It benefits everyone - now the EU has to pay tariffs and vice versa when that is completely avoidable.

If free movement of people is a "downside" then why does the EU promote it? The model for this already exists with CETA -- you're allowing free trade of goods with Canada.

 

[panamaican]

German manufacturers are already pleading with Merkel that it remains vital that the UK remain a trading partner, primarily because the exports to the UK amount to about 4% of German GDP (again, don't quote me, I'm going from memory here).

Again, it's not the greatest situation for UK but you can guarantee those exporters aren't going to want to leave that money on the table. The U.K. export very little but import lots, this divorce (if that's what ends up happening) is going to be messy as fuck.

I agree that the UK has some leverage, I just think that the EU drives the bus here when it comes time to negotiate new trade deals.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

First, you can't say regardless of leverage because leverage is what resolves the details. there will be trade deals regardless of market size. Leverage is what determines if you take a 5% tariff or a 2% tariff or no tariff at all.

We keep trade without free movement of people because we're just 2 individual nations negotiating with each other and neither of us has a free movement agreement with anyone else.

The EU has free movement of EU citizens in the deal with every single EU nation. The EEA has the same. How in the world is the UK going to get around that without concessions elsewhere? Which is where leverage starts to matter.

Sure you can, free trade with maybe mild regulation on natural resources can be done because its already being done. Its in Germany's best interest to keep everything tariff free, as it is with France, Holland, Norway. Free trade is the easiest form of commerce. Why does it have to be stronghold on the contingency of free movement of people -- it such a silly sticking point. Passports work.

The model for this is already in in progress with CETA -- if the EU can do this with Canada which is a way smaller market than the UK, why cant they do it with the UK?

 

[panamaican]

Sure you can, free trade with maybe mild regulation on natural resources can be done because its already being done. Its in Germany's best interest to keep everything tariff free, as it is with France, Holland, Norway. Free trade is the easiest form of commerce. Why does it have to be stronghold on the contingency of free movement of people -- it such a silly sticking point. Passports work.

The model for this is already in in progress with CETA -- if the EU can do this with Canada which is a way smaller market than the UK, why cant they do it with the UK?

And the UK will have to give up something to get it. No one says it can't be done. What's being said is that it will come with a cost.

The UK won't be able to maintain it's existing trading relationships with EU nations without some notable changes in how things currently work.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

And the UK will have to give up something to get it. No one says it can't be done. What's being said is that it will come with a cost.

The cost is just for spite because whatever powers at be want to prevent other countries from following suit. Seriously hope Germany and France follow suit and then the rest of the EU will be begging for uninhibited free trade while setting up strong borders.

 

[Gervinho]

Why? Just keep the trade open. It benefits everyone - now the EU has to pay tariffs and vice versa when that is completely avoidable.

If free movement of people is a "downside" then why does the EU promote it? The model for this already exists with CETA -- you're allowing free trade of goods with Canada.

So if you omit free movement for the UK, why not for everyone? They are not gonna change one of the main pillars of the EU for UK. Free trade does benefit everyone, but it benefits the UK far more. We have already seen the pound get weaker and prices of food go up. They will negotiate a new deal with new name.....worse deal than it is now and free movement will remain. The UK will 100% bend over here. In fact our politicians are ready to do so if it wasnt for the backlash from the brexit people. They need some time and the right language to sell this to the peopl

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

So if you omit free movement for the UK, why not for everyone? They are not gonna change one of the main pillars of the EU for UK. Free trade does benefit everyone, but it benefits the UK far more. We have already seen the pound get weaker and prices of food go up. They will negotiate a new deal with new name.....worse deal than it is now and free movement will remain. The UK will 100% bend over here. In fact our politicians are ready to do so if it wasnt for the backlash from the brexit people. They need some time and the right language to sell this to the peopl

Again, you have a free trade deal with Canada without free movement of people. Fuck that pillar -- its useless. The real foundation is money -- and even though the UK needs the EU more, its still 80 million people who takes it more than it trades out -- so, why not just keep it tariff free. This incredibly odd sticking point of free movement of people is such footling thing to establish tariffs over.

Yeah, why not anyone? Have a Euro wide referendum on whether or not they will keep free trade while still having the option of opting out of free movement

 

[WhitebeltXL]

I agree that the UK has some leverage, I just think that the EU drives the bus here when it comes time to negotiate new trade deals.

And that's why dumbass comments from idiots like Boris Johnson "we'll have our cake and eat it" piss me off. The EU are in control right now, the only saving grace for the UK will be the reaction of other member countries and whether they fall into line or take a stand regarding UKs status. All I know is, there will be no trade deal for the uk and Europe that doesn't include free movement, that is a requirement for any EU trade deal and relenting for the UK will lead to the dissolution of the Union.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

And that's why dumbass comments from idiots like Boris Johnson "we'll have our cake and eat it" piss me off. The EU are in control right now, the only saving grace for the UK will be the reaction of other member countries and whether they fall into line or take a stand regarding UKs status. All I know is, there will be no trade deal for the uk and Europe that doesn't include free movement, that is a requirement for any EU trade deal and relenting for the UK will lead to the dissolution of the Union.

dissolution because you'll end up discovering other members would also want to omit the free movement of people?

 

[Ruprecht]

Again, you have a free trade deal with Canada without free movement of people. Fuck that pillar -- its useless. The real foundation is money -- and even though the UK needs the EU more, its still 80 million people who takes it more than it trades out -- so, why not just keep it tariff free. This incredibly odd sticking point of free movement of people is such footling thing to establish tariffs over.

If you don't have the free movement of labour, it would be very hard to allow the free movement of goods and capital, as there will be considerably more pressure to protect local products, jobs and industry.
It's not truly a single market.
Of course it's less of an issue either way with the US and Canada, because the disparity isn't as large as it is between the original EU member states and the newer Eastern bloc.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Again, you have a free trade deal with Canada without free movement of people. Fuck that pillar -- its useless. The real foundation is money -- and even though the UK needs the EU more, its still 80 million people who takes it more than it trades out -- so, why not just keep it tariff free. This incredibly odd sticking point of free movement of people is such footling thing to establish tariffs over.

I agree completely, but the UK actually exports very little to the EU and imports a tonne. There will be several EU manufacturers and countries who will be desperate to maintain that trading bloc with the U.K.

It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out. I just hope we don't end up half in, half out.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

dissolution because you'll end up discovering other members would also want to omit the free movement of people?

Euroscepticism in the EU is at an all time high right now, even in Germany and especially France. There is a rising tide of nationalism as people would rather their countries trade without free movement. Hungary and Italy are heading towards referendums and France will too if Le Pen gets in. Merkel's popularity is at an all time low, whilst PEGIDA grows.