Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, rollover said:

 

Going the japanese way? No. no the Brexit way!

"I'm sure you knew when I bit off more than I could chew and more, much more than this, I did it my way."

What blithering idiot wrote that article? Ah, it's in the Guardian. If the author's interested I'm sure I could find some other pyramid schemes to point them in the direction of.

[rollover]

Quote

Conservative manifesto rules out any 'soft' Brexit theweek

OK they portrait themselves into right corner. But where to go from there?

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

EEA with no FOM?

We need to be out of the customs union (though maybe not for NI) like Norway.

With full contribution and no rebate... We are starting to get sensible... tempting...

I'd like to see Gibraltar off the veto and some sort of enduring guarantee for the rock. As well as our fishing grounds back, in full. Full fiscal autonomy And full tax autonomy. And no ECJ.

Full contribution without rebate is a collosal sum of money. What GDP % does that represent and how does it compare to the other EEA?

 

 

That's not far from the offer that (rumor has it) will be made once we have had a good look over the cliff edge, except it will be branded as associate membership.

Fishing  What is it with fishing, the jobs are not coming back whether we are in or out of the EU. Technology is what has killed the old style industry, one modern giant trawler/processor can replace 50 of the typical 1970s ships and most of the onshore jobs they supported.    

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

OK - we just want the same deal as Liechtenstein then.

Single Market access which a restriction on FOM. Seems fair.

Serious question, given that the average value that the economic forecasters put on the UK having full access to the single market, over trading on WTO terms is +£100bn a year what would it be fair for the EU to charge us for access.  £20, £30, £40bn.

[GrizzlyDave]

19 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Serious question, given that the average value that the economic forecasters put on the UK having full access to the single market, over trading on WTO terms is +£100bn a year what would it be fair for the EU to charge us for access.  £20, £30, £40bn.

You need to factor in the EU loss of earnings into a WTO scenario.

Where on earth did you get the £100bn figure from? Not seen that one...

Edited May 19, 2017 by GrizzlyDave

[knock out johnny]

51 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

Fishing  What is it with fishing,

It's not fishing per se - it's a smokescreen

Brexiters like to throw any old sh1t they can at the wall  and see what sticks

A deal is not wanted so crazy demands are made - just no more foreigners (that's the bottom line despite the rehetoric). There's no way to sugar coat it. Just listening to a radio 4 report this morning to confirmed it

[GrizzlyDave]

1 minute ago, knock out johnny said:

It's not fishing per se - it's a smokescreen

Brexiters like to throw any old sh1t they can at the wall  and see what sticks

A deal is not wanted so crazy demands are made - just no more foreigners (that's the bottom line despite the rehetoric). There's no way to sugar coat it. Just listening to a radio 4 report this morning to confirmed it

We are an island - fish is one of the natural resources we have.

Surely you make best use of the limited assets you have?

[Confusion of VIs]

3 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

We are an island - fish is one of the natural resources we have.

Surely you make best use of the limited assets you have?

You do realise that the fish are not British and routinely swim across national boundaries, so even if we leave the EU we will still have to agree quotas with them.

Also despite only having 13% of the EU sea space we are allocated 30% of the total fish quota, so outside of the EU we will be doing a lot less fishing. 

 

[Riedquat]

5 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You do realise that the fish are not British and routinely swim across national boundaries, so even if we leave the EU we will still have to agree quotas with them.

Also despite only having 13% of the EU sea space we are allocated 30% of the total fish quota, so outside of the EU we will be doing a lot less fishing. 

Clouds cross national boundaries too but the rainfall in a given country is its own resource (or nuisance). Just as the geography of Britain means it gets more rain clouds than many, the same is true with the continental shelf and fish.

[knock out johnny]

45 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Clouds cross national boundaries too but the rainfall in a given country is its own resource (or nuisance). Just as the geography of Britain means it gets more rain clouds than many, the same is true with the continental shelf and fish.

Idiot post of the week

Well done you!

[Riedquat]

13 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

Idiot post of the week

Well done you!

Idiot reply of the week from you certainly. Got anything to back up that accusation?

[GrizzlyDave]

1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

You need to factor in the EU loss of earnings into a WTO scenario.

Where on earth did you get the £100bn figure from? Not seen that one...

Still waiting on the source of that £100bn figure.

And the figure for how much it's going to cost the EU when trading with the UK on WTO terms.

this source suggests it will cost th EU £7.5bn net difference on WTO.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/reports_articles/potential-post-brexit-tariff-costs-for-eu-uk-trade/

So the loss of UK contribution (£13bn or so) and loss of revenue trading with us on WTO is starting to add to quite a potential sum... (Well over £20bn a year).

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by GrizzlyDave

[pig]

28 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Clouds cross national boundaries too but the rainfall in a given country is its own resource (or nuisance). Just as the geography of Britain means it gets more rain clouds than many, the same is true with the continental shelf and fish.

Actually this is quite an interesting  post - but I really don't think it helps your case.

What a disaster this government has been.

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, pig said:

Actually this is quite an interesting  post - but I really don't think it helps your case.

As far as pro- or anti- EU goes, not really, it was more of an aside. Fishing is pretty much trashed and gone no matter what.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Riedquat

[GrizzlyDave]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

As far as pro- or anti- EU goes, not really, it was more of an aside. Fishing is pretty much trashed and gone no matter what.

I do tend to agree - but it's worth a shot?

[Confusion of VIs]

2 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Still waiting on the source of that £100bn figure.

And the figure for how much it's going to cost the EU when trading with the UK on WTO terms.

loss of UK contribution and loss of revenue trading with us on WTO is starting to add to quite a potential sum...

It is contained in the report you posted.

IIRC £108bn p.a. was the average of all the main economic forecasts out to 2030. The relative negative impact was around 10 to 1 UK v EU.

Of course they are only forecasts so outturn could be better or worse (the Treasury thinks will be much worse) but assuming it is right would the EU be justified in charging say £40bn a year for full access to the single market - we would still benefit by +£60bn a year.   

 

[pig]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

As far as pro- or anti- EU goes, not really, it was more of an aside. Fishing is pretty much trashed and gone no matter what.

Well, I guess  you could say instead of putting up brolly's and watering the garden,  Brexiters are nuking clouds from the sky

On the fish issue, if at least THIS isn't changed in our favour then WTF ?

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, pig said:

Well, I guess  you could say instead of putting up brolly's and watering the garden,  Brexiters are nuking clouds from the sky

On the fish issue, if at least THIS isn't changed in our favour then WTF ?

Oh it probably will be changed in our favour but unfortunately that's just a drop in the ocean (no pun intended). The community and way of life it supported is dead regardless, and regardless of the EU too, when one big probably mostly and no doubt soon to be entirely robotic ship can do the lot. I doubt there's even enough for that to even have a particularly significant economic benefit, although there's an argument that big benefits are often made up of lots of small and individually not very significant things.

[GrizzlyDave]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It is contained in the report you posted.

IIRC £108bn p.a. was the average of all the main economic forecasts out to 2030. The relative negative impact was around 10 to 1 UK v EU.

Of course they are only forecasts so outturn could be better or worse (the Treasury thinks will be much worse) but assuming it is right would the EU be justified in charging say £40bn a year for full access to the single market - we would still benefit by +£60bn a year.   

 

I've been trying to find that link...

Single market access should be a percentage figure of GDP and the same for all participating countries. That sounds fair to me.

[GrizzlyDave]

2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Oh it probably will be changed in our favour but unfortunately that's just a drop in the ocean (no pun intended). The community and way of life it supported is dead regardless, and regardless of the EU too, when one big probably mostly and no doubt soon to be entirely robotic ship can do the lot. I doubt there's even enough for that to even have a particularly significant economic benefit, although there's an argument that big benefits are often made up of lots of small and individually not very significant things.

Do robots work in paperless offices?

[Confusion of VIs]

7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

As far as pro- or anti- EU goes, not really, it was more of an aside. Fishing is pretty much trashed and gone no matter what.

Not gone, just a small industry made so efficient that the jobs supported in otherwise poor areas are now almost negligible. 

Despite not ever being a EU issue, after immigration it probably was the most talked about issue driving the Leave vote in Blackpool.   

 

 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Oh it probably will be changed in our favour but unfortunately that's just a drop in the ocean (no pun intended). The community and way of life it supported is dead regardless, and regardless of the EU too, when one big probably mostly and no doubt soon to be entirely robotic ship can do the lot. I doubt there's even enough for that to even have a particularly significant economic benefit, although there's an argument that big benefits are often made up of lots of small and individually not very significant things.

How would that work,.Currently we have 30% of the quota but 13% of the total sea space.

Surely we will go back to a fair 13% (30% was agreed because historically we had a huge fishing fleet).   

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

How would that work,.Currently we have 30% of the quota but 13% of the total sea space.

Surely we will go back to a fair 13% (30% was agreed because historically we had a huge fishing fleet).   

See my earlier post - our sea space is a lot richer in fish than many thanks to the geography of the seas surrounding the UK (in general shallower because the continental shelf extends unusually far).

Edited May 19, 2017 by Riedquat

[Confusion of VIs]

8 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I've been trying to find that link...

Single market access should be a percentage figure of GDP and the same for all participating countries. That sounds fair to me.

Fine if you are part of the EU, not relevant otherwise.  

Look at it from their point of view, by investing huge amounts of political and financial capital they have created something of value. Now if an outsider (and competitor) wants access, the EU will think lets work how much that's worth to you and agree a price that is beneficial to both of us. Which say £40bn would be.

You proposal would be similar to me going to BMW saying can you sell me a nice new £100k M5 for £30k (that's the marginal cost of production, once all the sunk costs have been paid). Not going to work is it.   

 

[Confusion of VIs]

9 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

See my earlier post - our sea space is a lot richer in fish than many thanks to the geography of the seas surrounding the UK (in general shallower because the continental shelf extends unusually far).

But fish travel, so we need to reach agreement on quotas otherwise there will soon be no fish.  Why wouldn't the EU argue for a % sea space based allocation.