Andrea Leadsom for new PM?

[clippedgull]

How do you attach that 'sent by' thing ? it's really funny.

It's not an 'attachment'. It's typed text.

 

[One Love]

It would make no sense for them to refuse a deal on the basis of free movement being off the table. Free movement must be off the table. As long as that is clear and non-negotiable then if they really insist upon it, they will have to walk away from any deal. They will have to decide to end trade between the UK & the EU. That is actually politically unworkable. I guess what I am saying is that when it comes to free movement, we hold all the cards. They really cannot insist on it without conducting a trade negotiation which completely lacks pragmatism and good sense.

What you are suggesting there is holding them to ransom. Like we hold all the aces.

Do we have sufficient power to be able to do that?

 

[Triggaaar]

It's what we have, but it's also what we have decided we no longer want, that's part of the results of the referendum.

That's not correct. We voted to leave the EU, but most people in this country would still accept the free movement of people in exchange for free trade:

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showt...-vote-and-do-you-want-free-movement-of-people

& no, b) is absolutely not true. I'm talking in practical terms, it's not required, it could only be insisted upon, but trade can take place unhindered without it

While b) wouldn't have to be true, it would if a) is true. It's a simple point of logic. IF the EU insist of free movement being a condition of free trade (a), then it logically follows that free movement is required for free trade (b). Your point is that the EU might not insist on the free movement of people, and I understand that is a possibility, meaning that b) would be possible.

It would make no sense for them to refuse a deal on the basis of free movement being off the table.

I'm sorry, you're not grasping trade negotiation. It makes sense if they think we will back down. They know how much we have to lose, they haven't let anyone else have free trade without the free movement of people, and to let us have it could see France and Germany leave the EU and ask for the same deal.

Free movement must be off the table. As long as that is clear and non-negotiable then if they really insist upon it, they will have to walk away from any deal. They will have to decide to end trade between the UK & the EU.

And the same is true the other way around - they make it clear that free trade without free movement is off the table, and we have to decide whether to end trade between the UK and the EU.

There is politics and there is realism, in the world of politics it might make sense that the EU could insist on free movement, but in practical terms, they just can't.

In practical terms, they can insist on anything they like. IMO what it really comes down to is what people will think it reasonable. All EU countries get free trade, but they also have to accept the free movement of people. And what possible reason would there be for Germany and France to stay in the EU if they gave us a better deal?

 

[dingodan]

What you are suggesting there is holding them to ransom. Like we hold all the aces.

Do we have sufficient power to be able to do that?

It's completely the opposite, for them to insist on free movement would be to try to hold us for ransom. It would be they who would insisting that we give up something, not the other way around. We want nothing from them but mutually beneficial trade. They should ask nothing more than that of us either. When I say we are holding all the cards I really mean that it is only us who will decide to accept free movement if it happens, it cannot be required of us in any reasonable kind of way. There is no reason for us to agree to it, there is no reason for them to require us to either. Except as you say, trying to use trade as ransom.

 

[Triggaaar]

What you are suggesting there is holding them to ransom. Like we hold all the aces.

Do we have sufficient power to be able to do that?

I don't think so.

 

[One Love]

It's completely the opposite, for them to insist on free movement would be to try to hold us for ransom. It would be they who would insisting that we give up something, not the other way around. We want nothing from them but mutually beneficial trade. They should ask nothing more than that of us either. When I say we are holding all the cards I really mean that it is only us who will decide to accept free movement if it happens, it cannot be required of us in any reasonable kind of way. There is no reason for us to agree to it, there is no reason for them to require us to either. Except as you say, trying to use trade as ransom.

Well I can see this leading to an impasse.

Unfortunately if we need a trade deal I'm not sure we can afford to prolong negotiations indefinitely.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's completely the opposite, for them to insist on free movement would be to try to hold us for ransom. It would be they who would insisting that we give up something, not the other way around.

I do agree with you there, but that's life.

We want nothing from them but mutually beneficial trade. They should ask nothing more than that of us either.

Actually they should ask for whatever they can get.

When I say we are holding all the cards I really mean that it is only us who will decide to accept free movement if it happens

And it can only be them who decide if we get access to the EU market.

it cannot be required of us in any reasonable kind of way.

It can be argued it's reasonable, it's what other countries do.

There is no reason for us to agree to it

There is, because if we have no choice, I'd rather accept it with free trade, than no trade and watch the whole of Europe collapse.

there is no reason for them to require us to either.

There is, it's good for them, and they have something good to offer us.

Except as you say, trying to use trade as ransom.

Yes, that's life.

 

[dingodan]

That's not correct. We voted to leave the EU, but most people in this country would still accept the free movement of people in exchange for free trade:

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showt...-vote-and-do-you-want-free-movement-of-people

While b) wouldn't have to be true, it would if a) is true. It's a simple point of logic. IF the EU insist of free movement being a condition of free trade (a), then it logically follows that free movement is required for free trade (b). Your point is that the EU might not insist on the free movement of people, and I understand that is a possibility, meaning that b) would be possible.

I'm sorry, you're not grasping trade negotiation. It makes sense if they think we will back down. They know how much we have to lose, they haven't let anyone else have free trade without the free movement of people, and to let us have it could see France and Germany leave the EU and ask for the same deal.

And the same is true the other way around - they make it clear that free trade without free movement is off the table, and we have to decide whether to end trade between the UK and the EU.

In practical terms, they can insist on anything they like. IMO what it really comes down to is what people will think it reasonable. All EU countries get free trade, but they also have to accept the free movement of people. And what possible reason would there be for Germany and France to stay in the EU if they gave us a better deal?

1. Do you mean most people on this board?

2. No you are missing, or just not acknowledging my point. Trade can happen without free movement, I'm not talking about whether they agree to it, I'm talking about the practicalities of trade. The difference between free movement being required in practical terms or being insisted upon as a point of demand rather than practical neccessity.

3. They have as much to lose, or more. Which is basically my point. They are threatening suicide if they threaten to refuse a deal on this basis. Although I do accept that they face the challenge of trying not to encourage others to take the same route as us, but suicide really has to be an idle threat, and one we should have no time for.

4. I explained just after that sentence you quoted why it's just not thinkable. It's politics but they cannot actually follow through without commiting political suicide. Their populations, unions and manufacturers simply wouldn't have it.

5. The issues around trying to keep other countries in, we may sympathise, but it's not our problem. Trade is trade, take it or leave it, and they really don't have much choice other than to take it. What is reasonable is for us to give and get in equal terms. We trade with them, they trade with us, and as much as they would like free movement, it's just not related to trade in any meaningful way.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

You could argue that Christine Lagarde and Janet Yellen are much more powerful than any of these (apart from the US president). And with a woman expected to be the new secretary general of the UN, we could have a situation where nearly all the most powerful positions in the world are held by women.

Hasn't Lagarde got some sort of investigation looming over her, or am I thinking of somebody else?

And hell yeah, let's have the top jobs held by women for a change. It's not like it isn't our TURN

 

[dingodan]

I do agree with you there, but that's life.
Actually they should ask for whatever they can get.

And it can only be them who decide if we get access to the EU market.
It can be argued it's reasonable, it's what other countries do.
There is, because if we have no choice, I'd rather accept it with free trade, than no trade and watch the whole of Europe collapse.
There is, it's good for them, and they have something good to offer us.
Yes, that's life.

Well I'm glad you are not negotiating for us.

 

[Triggaaar]

Unfortunately if we need a trade deal I'm not sure we can afford to prolong negotiations indefinitely.

The EU want a decision quickly too, this is destabalising for both sides.

I don't believe for a second they'd turn down a free trade deal if we accept the free movement of people (if it's a take it or leave it offer). I do think they'd turn down free trade with no free movement though.

 

[Triggaaar]

Well I'm glad you are not negotiating for us.

Likewise

If they said no to your offer, would you really have no trade deal with the EU and watch Europe (including us) crash?
I would, but then I'm offering them more than you.

 

[dingodan]

In short, what I am saying is that people generally don't give up on what they need, simply because they cannot have what they want.

 

[One Love]

The EU want a decision quickly too, this is destabalising for both sides.

I don't believe for a second they'd turn down a free trade deal if we accept the free movement of people (if it's a take it or leave it offer). I do think they'd turn down free trade with no free movement though.

I agree. Then every other Western European country will want the same.

Then we might as well revert back to the Common Market ..... which is thought we'd joined in the first place.

 

[One Love]

In short, what I am saying is that people generally don't give up on what they need, simply because they cannot have what they want.

I honestly think what you're offering them is impossible for them to accept.

I hope you are proved right though.

 

[Seagull58]

It's what we have, but it's also what we have decided we no longer want, that's part of the results of the referendum. & no, b) is absolutely not true. I'm talking in practical terms, it's not required, it could only be insisted upon, but trade can take place unhindered without it, and that's why it should, and I hope will.

It would make no sense for them to refuse a deal on the basis of free movement being off the table. Free movement must be off the table. As long as that is clear and non-negotiable then if they really insist upon it, they will have to walk away from any deal. They will have to decide to end trade between the UK & the EU. That is actually politically unworkable. I guess what I am saying is that when it comes to free movement, we hold all the cards. They really cannot insist on it without conducting a trade negotiation which completely lacks pragmatism and good sense. Maybe there are some nihilistic politicians who, in their anger and bitterness towards us would be prepared to do that. But they would then have to answer to their own population, they would have to explain that they refused a deal with us because we wouldn't agree to something which, in respect of trade, is irrelevant. I just cannot see how they would be able to do that, the EU relies very heavily on trade with the UK, German manufacturers have already made strong representations to their government that trade between our two countries must continue unhindered.

There is politics and there is realism, in the world of politics it might make sense that the EU could insist on free movement, but in practical terms, they just can't. But we must not be so weak as to agree to it either, which I guess is a possibility.

We need strong negotiators, and we need to be willing to call their bluff. It would have to be a bluff, it would have to be politics. Trade simply does not work in the same way as politics does, thankfully, it's based on realism and pragmatism.

Supposing we were to accept free movement of labour alongside free trade and apply 2 rules: -
1. No benefits to EU immigrants for 5 years
2. All EU immigrants go on an emergency tax code for 5 years, meaning that ALL their income is taxed at 40%

Is that free movement of labour?

 

[Seagull58]

That sounds great. I have no worries about her winning the nomination, my only concern has been that she might decide not to run, or to accept the offer from another candidate of the position of Chancellor. For me she would make a great Chancellor, but we really need someone like her as PM, it would be so great for this country IMO.

The most important politician over the next 2 to 4 years is going to be the one leading the exit negotiations and acting on the results, not the PM.

 

[Bladders]

How do you attach that 'sent by' thing ? it's really funny.

Tapatalk does it all for me

 

[Triggaaar]

1. Do you mean most people on this board?

No, most voters in the UK.

2. No you are missing, or just not acknowledging my point. Trade can happen without free movement, I'm not talking about whether they agree to it, I'm talking about the practicalities of trade.

No, I understand that point, but it's not what you said. You said a) and b) were different, and I acknowledged that they are different, but I pointed out that if a) is true, then by definition, so is b). You disagreed and you're wrong.

Free movement is not required for free trade, but it is if a) is true. It's just a simple fact.

The difference between free movement being required in practical terms or being insisted upon as a point of demand rather than practical neccessity.

It doesn't matter the reason and your point b) did not mention practicality.

3. They have as much to lose, or more. Which is basically my point. They are threatening suicide if they threaten to refuse a deal on this basis.

I agree that it would be awful for them if they refuse, but I think it would be awful for them if they accept too, as Germany and France would demand the same thing. Given the problems for them if they accept your deal, I think they'd be better calling our bluff, and asking us if we really want to commit suicide ourselves. If they offer us free trade (including services) in exchange for free movement of people (as we have now), but we get to make our own laws as we've left the EU - or nothing, I think we'd be mad not to take it.

I explained just after that sentence you quoted why it's just not thinkable. It's politics but they cannot actually follow through without commiting political suicide. Their populations, unions and manufacturers simply wouldn't have it.

The same applies to us, should we turn down an offer they make.

The issues around trying to keep other countries in, we may sympathise, but it's not our problem. Trade is trade, take it or leave it, and they really don't have much choice other than to take it. What is reasonable is for us to give and get in equal terms.

It just doesn't work like that. Norway don't get it, Switzerland don't get it, Canada don't get it. The EU is bigger than us, and the bigger unions tend to have the best bargaining power - that's just the way it is.

 

[Triggaaar]

I honestly think what you're offering them is impossible for them to accept.

I hope you are proved right though.

Exactly. I hope dingodan is right, but I don't think they can accept it.