11–20 of 235 posts
This seems speculative and it effectively posits a worst-of-all-worlds situation resulting - one if which the UK is half inside the single market. Half inside such that it allows the flow of goods (the UK is a net importer) but not services (which we net export). This would be untenable, worse than a no-deal situation. And the basis of this speculation is that the EU is holding all the cards. I'm really not convinced…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't a Canada-like solution exactly what current negotiations appear to work towards? Barnier presented a slide with options for the UK and a free trade agreement like with Canada was the only one that doesn't violate red lines set by the UK government. Such a free-trade agreement would allow most goods to flow relatively freely but doesn't have any provisions for services.
> Isn't a Canada-like solution exactly what current negotiations appear to work towards? Quite possibly, but I'm not familiar enough with CETA to know the answer to this question - does CETA restrict Canada's ability to enter other trade agreements with third-party nations? The partial Single Market membership mentioned in the article does come with that proviso - that the UK cannot make trade deals with other nation…
Granted, if the EU position is sabotaged by some members (as the Polish PM was hinting towards), maybe the UK can get a better deal than what implied by the article. But if the EU stands together, I see little reason for them to be considerate to quitters.
This seems speculative and it effectively posits a worst-of-all-worlds situation resulting - one if which the UK is half inside the single market. Half inside such that it allows the flow of goods (the UK is a net importer) but not services (which we net export). This would be untenable, worse than a no-deal situation. And the basis of this speculation is that the EU is holding all the cards. I'm really not convinced…
Isn't a Canada-like solution exactly what current negotiations appear to work towards? Barnier presented a slide with options for the UK and a free trade agreement like with Canada was the only one that doesn't violate red lines set by the UK government. Such a free-trade agreement would allow most goods to flow relatively freely but doesn't have any provisions for services.
This seems speculative and it effectively posits a worst-of-all-worlds situation resulting - one if which the UK is half inside the single market. Half inside such that it allows the flow of goods (the UK is a net importer) but not services (which we net export). This would be untenable, worse than a no-deal situation. And the basis of this speculation is that the EU is holding all the cards. I'm really not convinced…
Isn't a Canada-like solution exactly what current negotiations appear to work towards? Barnier presented a slide with options for the UK and a free trade agreement like with Canada was the only one that doesn't violate red lines set by the UK government. Such a free-trade agreement would allow most goods to flow relatively freely but doesn't have any provisions for services.
Even not having service trade isn’t a great disaster. Companies with sizeable EU revenue can just set up a European subsidiary (in Ireland, etc) to conduct business in Europe from the UK (or anywhere).
(Though I accept it’ll be a pain for e.g. finance companies which the EU requires to be based within the EU,)
Startups eespecially aren’t held back by these rules right now, they just sell everywhere in USD (and at some point when they’re big enough create an EU subsidiary).
The goods thing would be a real issue, if everything on supermarket shelves became 1.5x as expensive. So as long as that’s solved it’ll be fine.
This seems speculative and it effectively posits a worst-of-all-worlds situation resulting - one if which the UK is half inside the single market. Half inside such that it allows the flow of goods (the UK is a net importer) but not services (which we net export). This would be untenable, worse than a no-deal situation. And the basis of this speculation is that the EU is holding all the cards. I'm really not convinced…
We have a Prime Minister who was against Brexit pushing for a hard Brexit. An opposition leader who is for Brexit. An uninformed public who were blatantly lied to (350 million a week to the NHS).
The whole thing is an absolute shambles.
This seems speculative and it effectively posits a worst-of-all-worlds situation resulting - one if which the UK is half inside the single market. Half inside such that it allows the flow of goods (the UK is a net importer) but not services (which we net export). This would be untenable, worse than a no-deal situation. And the basis of this speculation is that the EU is holding all the cards. I'm really not convinced…
I'm curious: what are the cards UK is holding?
I'm not saying the EU is not in a stronger position, nor am I trying to make any claims that Brexit is good or bad, nor that it is being pursued competently by the current government (far from it). But the assessment of the process as being entirely one sided seems to me to be simplistic.
I can't decide if Brexit is good or bad for the UK. On the one hand, there's the common market and freedom of movement. On the other there's Germany's dominance and lots of fragile banks. What would be worse, losing access to the free market or being around if the banks fail? Or would being outside the market make a difference if Deutsche Bank failed?
I can't decide if Brexit is good or bad for the UK. On the one hand, there's the common market and freedom of movement. On the other there's Germany's dominance and lots of fragile banks. What would be worse, losing access to the free market or being around if the banks fail? Or would being outside the market make a difference if Deutsche Bank failed?
If anything because they'll have to rewrite thousands of laws and procedures that came from the EU times, and deal with the caos that that will cause. That only will cost so much money (and pain) that it would justify staying in the EU.
Then, of course there are companies that have left and that will leave, highly-skilled workflow for London that will be harder to get, etc.
They have to negotiate with the EU so that they're not completely cut out of commerce, with nothing to offer in exchange and therefore no negotiating power.
It's old people in the country that have decided this, based on their ignorance on the matter and lies spread before the vote. Funny enough, it's them who mainly benefit from European aid.
Pretty sad, really (I'm Italian, just talking based on what I've read and a handful of friends who live in London).
This seems speculative and it effectively posits a worst-of-all-worlds situation resulting - one if which the UK is half inside the single market. Half inside such that it allows the flow of goods (the UK is a net importer) but not services (which we net export). This would be untenable, worse than a no-deal situation. And the basis of this speculation is that the EU is holding all the cards. I'm really not convinced…
The article makes its prediction based on higher rates of death in old people.
I can't decide if Brexit is good or bad for the UK. On the one hand, there's the common market and freedom of movement. On the other there's Germany's dominance and lots of fragile banks. What would be worse, losing access to the free market or being around if the banks fail? Or would being outside the market make a difference if Deutsche Bank failed?