Jump to content
BANGKOK

My Thai Life

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by My Thai Life


  1. 6 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

    the German chap might not be impressed,

    but what can he do? note that the decision makers here are PMs/Headsofstates

    he hardly has access to these, maybe - a remote chance of seeing Merkel on a good day

     

    and these people are fairly immune to lobby activities from some chap in Germany with special interests

    The realpolitik of the EU is that it was set up to protect German industry and French farming, and those principles are still in operation. Given your background I'm sure you know this as well as I do.

     

    German Auto Inc successfully co-opted Merkel on emissions and influenced EU emissions policy (easily googleable), and I doubt that they'll let Brussels bureaucrats decimate their industry via a politically motivated punitive Brexit when there are plenty of more co-operative possibilities.

     

    • Like 2

  2. 12 hours ago, Jack100 said:

    Er not quite ,  on 1 /1 2000  I said the  same thing to a friend who worked on the bug , all a  fuss about nothing etc  - actually his reply was  - there was a problem and thousands of people worked for years  on it and fixed it  !

     

    This is the Exact  opposite - there was no real threat to jobs and the economy but there is now  but NOBODY is working on it because they don't know how to fix it !

    Actually Y2K presented a very real threat to the economy, as most banking, financial and air-transport systems at that time were riddled with Y2K issues. I managed several large-scale projects to fix Y2K problems. Although it was an extensive problem It was essentially simple, deterministic and technical.

     

    Brexit is not simple nor deterministic nor technical, though the EU bureaucrats would like to persuade you it's a simple technical matter of following rules.

     

    Re your second paragraph, many people in many countries have been working on the Brexit "problem" for some time. And now there is a growing range of options and mitigations in place.

    • Like 1

  3. 13 hours ago, tebee said:

    You can't use good faith commitment if all they are doing is implementing existing rules  - that they may chose temporaly to relax those rules to help us is not a reason to say they should never use them.

    Thanks for your reply Tebee, If you don't mind me saying so I think it's the best piece of reasoning I've seen you employ to date.

     

    I think most of us are aware of the "asymmetrical" argument, because the remain-leaning MSM has never let us forget it.

     

    Also, I think you exaggerate the idea that the rules are the rules and must be applied. There is no precedent for Brexit, and A50 clearly is not fit for purpose. In this situation there are major gaps in the rules. And as ever, rules are open to interpretation.

     

    I agree with Ivan Rogers that the EU has out-negotiated May's representatives at every step. But this has led us to the Withdrawal Agreement, which is so one-sided in favour of the EU that it will never pass. Yes it shows the UK team to be inept (or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the UK negotiation team is comprised of remainers who have no interest in leaving), but it also shows the EU team to be acting in less than good faith, and I think this has probably hardened a lot of opinion against the EU.

     

    Be all that as it may, we are now in a situation where the Withdrawal Agreement will not pass, leading most likely to a no-deal. This could take 3 forms – managed, mitigated or immediate 3rd country status. At this point I’d like to go back to my OP:

     

    Eric Schweitzer, head of the German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DIHK), warns that “Brexit threatens massive consequences for the German economy…We must be clear what this is all about. More than 750,000 jobs in Germany depend on exports to Great Britain.”

     

    I don’t think he’ll be impressed with the “don’t worry, it’s asymmetrical” argument.

     

    • Like 2

  4. 49 minutes ago, sandyf said:

    And to what end exactly, the withdrawal agreement is what it is and has nothing to do with car manufacturing.

    The EU laid down its position on the withdrawal agreement from day one and the German government has agreed every step along the way. Even the German industrialists including the automotive sector supported the EU position.

    My post was not about the withdrawal agreement, it was about German industry concerns for no deal.

     

    At the moment, no-one seems to believe the withdrawal agreement will actually be agreed.


  5. 54 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

    and I think that the Commission is handling this adequately,

    leaving it to member states to reciprocate what UK offers.

    If member states had this kind of flexibility on other issues it would be a much more attractive proposition to people like me who are in favour of European integration, but not in favour of an unreformed EU. The Bruegel Group, a Brussels-based thinktank, has published some interesting ideas on reform, but it seems that the EU is impervious to all such ideas.

     

    It seems to me that change is happening anyway at the national and grassroots level. Brexit is just the most currently significant example of this.

     

    But as for the EU's motivation in "allowing" member states to reciprocate with the UK on expat status - this could just as easily be a recognition that the EU doesn't have the power to control this anyway, as it is an indication of an emerging EU liberalism.

     

    Nevertheless I hope it sets a precedent for member states to have more self-determination than they've enjoyed in the past.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  6. 17 minutes ago, tebee said:

    The lack of EU-level guarantee for UK citizens to remain in EU will raise eyebrows.

    Commission is asking EU countries to replicate what May is offering at national level for EU citizens in the UK. 

    But as far as EU is concerned they will be considered “third country nationals”

    This is an interesting contribution from you Tebee.

     

    My immediate reaction is surprise, but a positive surprise at the EU's position.

     

    Positive because I hope it sets a precedent for EU member states to be able to agree other issues bilaterally with the UK post Brexit.

    • Like 1

  7. 6 hours ago, sandyf said:

    Historical good news is exactly that, historical, very little bearing on the future, as any punter will tell you.

    Obviously. But the statistics I referred to show that pre referendum BoE forecasts were wrong. So there is no need to take the BoE's current forecasts too seriously.

     

    You seem to be informed enough to understand that the OP relates to a worst case scenario, not a forecast, but it's clear from the history of the thread that many of your fellow remainers do not.

     

     

    • Like 2

  8. 5 hours ago, sandyf said:

    You seem to be unaware that the financial settlement is a fundamental factor of the withdrawal agreement and trade is not part of the withdrawal agreement. As much as brexiteers would like it, bartering with the two is just not an option.

    You've made some good contributions in the last few days. I haven't been following the divorce payment issue in detail, but I do remember that the House of Lords opined that the payment wouldn't be necessary in the event of no ageement being reached. That was ealy 2017 I think.

     

    And today or yesterday Raab suggested that the divorce payment should be used instead for tax breaks for British companies to offset the punitive Brexit that Macron and Selmayr have advocated.

    • Like 1

  9. 53 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

    I accept that reproach about not being aware that the UK was still in the WTO. But you continue to demonstrate your resistance to understanding that even though the UK is still a WTO member, it is still vulnerable to obstruction from members whose schedules respectively for goods and services have been accepted. Your operating assumption has been that as soon as the UK exits the EU it is automatically entitled to trade under WTO rules. This is not the case.

    I appeciate your interest in actually discussing some of these issues. It's far preferable to the mudslinging that dominates these political threads. 

     

    I feel that you are making assumptions about my assumptions. The big difference between the way the WTO operates, and the way FTA negotiations usually operate, and the way the EU operates, is that you can operate within the WTO before final ratification. For example, if the UK and the EU issued a framework FTA schedule, they could operate on this basis as long as they were making progress towards achieving it. For political reasons this is extremely unlikely to happen of course. (The EU takes the opposite approach that "nothing is agreed until everything's agreed" - though they have reneged on that approach with the withdrawal agreement.)

     

    Brexit is arguably the most significant political/economic event of our lifetimes (even more so than the dissolution of the USSR), and not just for Brits, the potential world-wide knock on from Brexit as we enter what economists believe to be a new and potentially turbulent economic phase, shouldn't be understimated . There is no precedent for Brexit. Consequently even experts are having to re-examine some trade, legal and constitutional issues.

     

    I have tried to research this particular topic, and all I can really say is that those experts are not in agreement on some of the core WTO questions which have not yet been raised on this forum, and which I have no intention of raising, as there is no serious intention to discuss anything here.

     

    Finally, the biggest obstacle to the UK finalising its WTO schedule is that first of all the UK needs to clarify its desired trading relationship with the EU. And it seems the UK government has made little progress even on that over the last 2 years. 

     

    I've got a lot of work on my hands at the moment, so I'm not going to be able to continue this kind of discussion. If there were any real indication that people here are genuinely trying to understand complex issues I'd be happy to participate further, but there isn't.

     

    Merry xmas.

    • Like 2

  10. It's often said that Brexiters promised the easiest trade deal in the world. This is what was actually said:

     

    "Coming to a free trade agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest in human history" because our rules and laws are already the same, the international trade secretary has said.

    Liam Fox is to set out his vision of the UK's trading relationship with the rest of the world after Brexit.

    "The only reason we wouldn't come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics," Dr Fox told the Today programme."

     

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40667879/eu-trade-deal-easiest-in-human-history

     

    • Like 1

  11. On 12/15/2018 at 8:38 PM, tebee said:

    I don't believe the narrative of “Betrayal” by a remainer elite who sabotaged the “no deal” plans, though I can see why brexiters want to. It is the emerging British equivalent of the Dolchstosslegende – the stab in the back myth – which, post Versailles, the German military – Hindenburg and others – propagated to blame the Weimar civilian elite for having betrayed a supposedly undefeated army.

     

    I see you're quoting Sir Ivan Rogers from his article commissioned by The Spectator - "The Nine Lessons of Brexit".

     

    Actually let me re-phrase that, you're not quoting Rogers, you are presenting his words as your own.

     

    I suspect there are two possible reasons for that:

     

    1. You don't want to acknowledge The Spectaor as the source because The Spectator is pro leave.

    2. You don't actually have any words of your own.

     

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...