Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Is it a tax move then or is it about making it easier to set up factories in Singapore? I know in some Far Eastern countries they will look more kindly, or it's the law, upon a business if they move key aspects out there. As Dyson are mfr out in Singapore now this move, practically a paper move if only 2 people are going, may be along those lines.

Dyson have said that they are doing the move to Singapore to 'future proof' the company. Future Proof against what, is rather the easy question he should answer.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Got to just quote the post just in case you realize how silly it reads and deleted it.

Explain what is silly. You clearly know a lot about negotiations so tell me what is silly please - what I have got wrong. The sneering dismissal and no actual answer to my querstion is what I come to expect when I ask a question - and I am just asking.

 

[Hobbit]

On the No Deal option remaining a 'must have' - as every negotiation must have a walk-away option.

Yes - that is absolutely true in most, if not all, commercial/business negotiations - but surely in most, if not all, commercial/business negotiations the 'walk away' takes you to your status quo - your fully understood and known 'as is' position - the position against which you have been assessing the 'new deal' risks and benefits. With leaving the EU that is not the case for the UK. If the UK walks away we do not go back to where we were - we go to a new position that we know little if anything about - indeed it is a new position about which we actually know very little and can only speculate about.

The No Deal option is - if anything - surely more equivalent to the employee seeking new terms and conditions of employment - and he tells the company that if they do not agree new Ts & Cs then he will have to leave the company (or they will require him to leave) - even although he knows going into negotiations that he does not have alternative or new employment waiting for him. He knows he will still have a mortgage and other bills to pay and a family to feed - but he is confident about getting a new job - even though he doesn't know how long it might take him and how painful the gap might be. Indeed he knows that he may have to cancel his golf club subs DD - and pay the early termination fee they will require - and he may even lose his house if he defaults on his mortgage payment enough times. But he won't tell his wife that - lest she stops him in his tracks - instead he'll pretend to her that all will be OK - all will be great.

We know that the UK now exports more to the rest of the world than it does to Europe. That will reman an "as is." We know that the fallback position is WTO. We know that Liam Fox has said that there are over 20 countries signed up for new trade deals with a start date of Brexit Day.

We also know that France and Germany signed a deal last week that sees an EU within the EU. Tusk isn't happy about it, and nor is Juncker.

As for your last paragraph. Its as you see it. Personally, I feel its no better a story than Humpty Dumpty.

 

[Old Skier]

Explain what is silly. You clearly know a lot about negotiations so tell me what is silly please - what I have got wrong. The sneering dismissal and no actual answer to my querstion is what I come to expect when I ask a question - and I am just asking.

Sneering dismissal! Where, I just think the whole post went past funny. You do know that many of the EU working directives came from the EU.

You continue to go on about not knowing what will happen if we Brexit yet you have been asked many times what a federal EU holds for Britains interests and fail to answer.

At least leavers admit they don't know what the future holds while you hide behind the EU is great curtain.

 

[Dando]

On the No Deal option remaining a 'must have' - as every negotiation must have a walk-away option.

Yes - that is absolutely true in most, if not all, commercial/business negotiations - but surely in most, if not all, commercial/business negotiations the 'walk away' takes you to your status quo - your fully understood and known 'as is' position - the position against which you have been assessing the 'new deal' risks and benefits. With leaving the EU that is not the case for the UK. If the UK walks away we do not go back to where we were - we go to a new position that we know little if anything about - indeed it is a new position about which we actually know very little and can only speculate about.

The No Deal option is - if anything - surely more equivalent to the employee seeking new terms and conditions of employment - and he tells the company that if they do not agree new Ts & Cs then he will have to leave the company (or they will require him to leave) - even although he knows going into negotiations that he does not have alternative or new employment waiting for him. He knows he will still have a mortgage and other bills to pay and a family to feed - but he is confident about getting a new job - even though he doesn't know how long it might take him and how painful the gap might be. Indeed he knows that he may have to cancel his golf club subs DD - and pay the early termination fee they will require - and he may even lose his house if he defaults on his mortgage payment enough times. But he won't tell his wife that - lest she stops him in his tracks - instead he'll pretend to her that all will be OK - all will be great.[/QUOTE

You're like a moth with a flame

 

[drdel]

On the No Deal option remaining a 'must have' - as every negotiation must have a walk-away option.

Yes - that is absolutely true in most, if not all, commercial/business negotiations - but surely in most, if not all, commercial/business negotiations the 'walk away' takes you to your status quo - your fully understood and known 'as is' position - the position against which you have been assessing the 'new deal' risks and benefits. With leaving the EU that is not the case for the UK. If the UK walks away we do not go back to where we were - we go to a new position that we know little if anything about - indeed it is a new position about which we actually know very little and can only speculate about.

The No Deal option is - if anything - surely more equivalent to the employee seeking new terms and conditions of employment - and he tells the company that if they do not agree new Ts & Cs then he will have to leave the company (or they will require him to leave) - even although he knows going into negotiations that he does not have alternative or new employment waiting for him. He knows he will still have a mortgage and other bills to pay and a family to feed - but he is confident about getting a new job - even though he doesn't know how long it might take him and how painful the gap might be. Indeed he knows that he may have to cancel his golf club subs DD - and pay the early termination fee they will require - and he may even lose his house if he defaults on his mortgage payment enough times. But he won't tell his wife that - lest she stops him in his tracks - instead he'll pretend to her that all will be OK - all will be great.

I think you may be being deliberately disingenuous. No Deal would mean all interactions stopping, that no relationship exists nor would there be any basis for a future arrangement- this is obviously not what either side will allow.

'No Deal' is simply a hyped media construct. When the UK leaves the EU then the WTO rules sit ready to kick where relevant which is therefore a deal.

The EU and UK have already agreed fallback positions on aircraft flight clearance and over flying. Temporary citizens rights have been agreed. Several nations like Spain and Portugal have committed to protecting UK tourist's and expats. UK businesses already comply with "CE" criteria and international protocols.

Its time to take a measured look at reality.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I think you may be being deliberately disingenuous. No Deal would mean all interactions stopping, that no relationship exists nor would there be any basis for a future arrangement- this is obviously not what either side will allow.

'No Deal' is simply a hyped media construct. When the UK leaves the EU then the WTO rules sit ready to kick where relevant which is therefore a deal.

The EU and UK have already agreed fallback positions on aircraft flight clearance and over flying. Temporary citizens rights have been agreed. Several nations like Spain and Portugal have committed to protecting UK tourist's and expats. UK businesses already comply with "CE" criteria and international protocols.

Its time to take a measured look at reality.

What you have effectively said is that if we do not agree a deal with the EU then we will fall back on WTO rules. There will also possibly be 'fallbacks', 'temporary rights', all things to try and maintain a semblance of what we already have. Doesn't sound that appetising to me. Or the chap from Airbus apparently.

Yes you can argue all day if not getting a deal with the EU is correctly classed as a No Deal. There is an argument to say that if you do not get a deal with the institutions we are leaving then there is 'No Deal'. But if you want to add the words 'with the EU' after the words No Deal to make it absolutely truthful then OK, your prerogative. But to me it is just semantic arguments which one could suggest is the last refuge of those with no real positives for going down that path. And to me it still getting away from the fact that very few people are saying a No Deal with the EU so going back on WTO rules is the way forwards.

 

[Tashyboy]

I base a lot of my thinking, on this subject, on Dr Gregory House - "everybody lies"

And quite frankly both sides did it, but the naysayers say "your lies were bigger than ours, so we want a second vote".

 

[Old Skier]

What you have effectively said is that if we do not agree a deal with the EU then we will fall back on WTO rules. There will also possibly be 'fallbacks', 'temporary rights', all things to try and maintain a semblance of what we already have. Doesn't sound that appetising to me. Or the chap from Airbus apparently.

Yes you can argue all day if not getting a deal with the EU is correctly classed as a No Deal. There is an argument to say that if you do not get a deal with the institutions we are leaving then there is 'No Deal'. But if you want to add the words 'with the EU' after the words No Deal to make it absolutely truthful then OK, your prerogative. But to me it is just semantic arguments which one could suggest is the last refuge of those with no real positives for going down that path. And to me it still getting away from the fact that very few people are saying a No Deal with the EU so going back on WTO rules is the way forwards.

Surley WTO rules could also be seen as a "very" temporary measure, as, according to recent press articles, government ministers have got many countries lined up with agreements. Unfortunately untill we actual leave we cannot move forward, and as every noise that is coming out of the commons and media seems that the minority will get their way anyway the whole thing seems to be turning into an irrelevance.

 

[Imurg]

I base a lot of my thinking, on this subject, on Dr Gregory House - "everybody lies"

And the diagnosis is never Lupus

 

[SocketRocket]

Explain what is silly. You clearly know a lot about negotiations so tell me what is silly please - what I have got wrong. The sneering dismissal and no actual answer to my querstion is what I come to expect when I ask a question - and I am just asking.

When you negotiate a price for a car, a house etc then you dont really want to walk away, you want the item of interest at the best price but unless you make it clear that if you dont get a reasonable price you are prepared to walk away the chances of sucsess are almost nil.
Regarding your logic about the status quo, its flawed. If you decided to walk away you would look to purchase another car, house etc at a better deal. If we walked away from the EU without a deal we would look to make another deal with other countries/Trading Groups.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Surley WTO rules could also be seen as a "very" temporary measure, as, according to recent press articles, government ministers have got many countries lined up with agreements. Unfortunately untill we actual leave we cannot move forward, and as every noise that is coming out of the commons and media seems that the minority will get their way anyway the whole thing seems to be turning into an irrelevance.

We all know that depending in what newspaper you read will influence if you believe that is factually correct or not. For example the Irish PM has just stated "In a no-deal scenario, the UK won't have any trade deals with anyone. "I think it will be very difficult for them to conclude any trade deals with the question of the Irish border unresolved."

Of course in a way he would say that and try and tie the success of deals to the Irish border issue. And I am sure that negotiations are advanced with some countries, Israel seems to be first on the list and that's great if you deal a lot with them. But call me cynical but after reading about how difficult it is to negotiate these deals but I expect we will not be enjoying anywhere near the favourable conditions we currently have with many countries for a long time in the event of a No Deal with the EU.

 

[Hobbit]

What you have effectively said is that if we do not agree a deal with the EU then we will fall back on WTO rules. There will also possibly be 'fallbacks', 'temporary rights', all things to try and maintain a semblance of what we already have. Doesn't sound that appetising to me. Or the chap from Airbus apparently.

Yes you can argue all day if not getting a deal with the EU is correctly classed as a No Deal. There is an argument to say that if you do not get a deal with the institutions we are leaving then there is 'No Deal'. But if you want to add the words 'with the EU' after the words No Deal to make it absolutely truthful then OK, your prerogative. But to me it is just semantic arguments which one could suggest is the last refuge of those with no real positives for going down that path. And to me it still getting away from the fact that very few people are saying a No Deal with the EU so going back on WTO rules is the way forwards.

Just a thought, from your last sentence, very few Remainers are saying a No Deal.... swap people in your sentence for Remainers. There's plenty of Leavers saying yes to No Deal.

And I would expect the Irish PM to say that. The forecasts say that Ireland will fall back into recession if there's No Deal.

 

[drdel]

Just a thought, from your last sentence, very few Remainers are saying a No Deal.... swap people in your sentence for Remainers. There's plenty of Leavers saying yes to No Deal.

And I would expect the Irish PM to say that. The forecasts say that Ireland will fall back into recession if there's No Deal.

I agree. It surprises me that Ireland is not pushing hard for a deal since without an agreed deal a fall back to WTO will force a hard border.

 

[SocketRocket]

I agree. It surprises me that Ireland is not pushing hard for a deal since without an agreed deal a fall back to WTO will force a hard border.

Ireland has said to the EU they will need Billions to bail them out if there is a no deal. Makes you wonder why they have appeared so hard nosed in looking for a solution.

 

[williamalex1]

Where's Noel Edmonds when you need him.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Ireland has said to the EU they will need Billions to bail them out if there is a no deal. Makes you wonder why they have appeared so hard nosed in looking for a solution.

The head man, Leo, has done himself no favours during this time, unless he has been posturing for a domestic audience. He has been aggressive throughout when really he needed to be working with the UK to avoid what he possibly might now end up with.

 

[spongebob59]

Len McCluskey tells @BBCPM that “had Labour, had Jeremy Corbyn won the general election we would now be coming out of Europe with a proper deal that would unite the nation…that’s where we’re going to and that’s what we are gonna fight for”.

 

[Dando]

Len McCluskey tells @BBCPM that “had Labour, had Jeremy Corbyn won the general election we would now be coming out of Europe with a proper deal that would unite the nation…that’s where we’re going to and that’s what we are gonna fight for”.

Is it 1st April already

 

[Old Skier]

Len McCluskey tells @BBCPM that “had Labour, had Jeremy Corbyn won the general election we would now be coming out of Europe with a proper deal that would unite the nation…that’s where we’re going to and that’s what we are gonna fight for”.

Labour have as many MPs fighting to ensure Brexit fails as the Torys so I wonder how that rabbit was going to come out of the hat.