Which is what The Times is telling the candidates that they need to do - clearly given his role Dr LF will have a good idea trade-wise. His issue might be that in the past he has rubbished all predictions around consequences of a No Deal - telling us of the glittering prizes in the brave new world we are heading to. How about they also tell us some detail about the trade deals they expect to strike in yr1 post a 31/10 No Deal departure and then yrs 2,3,4 and 5 then 6-10. We've had long enough to be doing the initial discussions with the various countries...
We know that the 100% certain #1 consequence will be the loss of all trade (and all other) deals and arrangements that we have in place with and through the EU - and it will take time to negotiate new ones and/or roll-over the existing ones (though I am not hearing many more roll-over deals being signed off since SK some weeks back). Besides - no roll-over deal is going to see us better off viz-a-viz trade with that country - at best it'll be the same - and some countries might see a country of 65m as less attractive than a body of 550m and so want better terms for them. But that's all known and nothing new and we are leaving to be better off - supposedly.
Setting tit-4-tat tariffs? - well as we are going to be operating under WTO rules these tariffs will have to apply to all countries trading with us. And that might not be well received - what do BJ and JH and their Leave supporters tell us on such things. We need to hear.
And I have no idea what happens to financial industry stuff such as financial product passporting.
As for Art24 - yes - the EU and the UK will have to agree. Well if we refuse to pay the £39bn we have agreed that we owe - regardless of the legal position that we cite and resaon for not having to pay it - in signing off the WA May agreed with the EU the figure of £39bn - it's signed. Refusing to pay is not going to encourage the EU into given us tariff free access to the EU market - but maybe our S&P credit rating will go up as a result of breaking a signed agreement - I dunno.
I'll also add that a YouGov poll reported today found that whilst support for leaving is at 57% against 43% Remain; support for a No Deal exit was at 28% (note that a Survation poll for the MoS found almost the same figures for L/R - but the other way around and the MoS did not report the figures at the weekend). We are hurtling towards a No Deal Brexit - the claimed 'Will of the People' - when in fact it is the will of a figure of the order of 28%. Democratic Madness.
You are confusing trade deals with business deals. Business deals/trading will continue, its the terms of the trade that will alter, and even then may well continue albeit at a higher cost.
Tit-4-tat applies to both sides, that's what tit-4-tat means. If the EU applies a tariff, the UK can apply a tariff..... tit-4-tat. And the EU is a member of WTO - there's even a German finance minister on the WTO board.
The deal that May brought back wasn't accepted, as you know, and that includes the £39bn. Its listed very early in the 585 pages. The EU can jump up and down as much as they like. Nowhere in the EU Articles is post a country leaving is there a financial commitment. Imagine a country leaving that was a net receiver. Would the EU continue sending money? Don't be silly.
As for roll over deals; why roll over a trade deal that currently includes tariffs and quotas? You need to stop applying today's EU trade rules the UK has to post-Leave. And as the UK hasn't left it can't yet offer different terms. Have you learnt anything in the last 3 years?
Have a look at business financial passporting. The EU already recognises that it wouldn't be wise to hinder investment coming from the UK.... anyway, have a look at it for the detail of what has already been agreed for business investment - note, already agreed. Personal banking financial passporting is an issue - god knows how my pension will get to Spain.
