Macron thinks we're bluffing on "No Deal"

[Suff]

For me there is only one answer to that... Cancel all Brexit meetings till the EU changes it's stance. If that means they don't meet again till July next year, so be it!

[cromwell]

I agree - but I think Macron is right. I can't see May having the bottle for no deal.

[Workingman]

We are not bluffing about 'No deal' because it is also a 'bad deal'. Both sides need to realise that.

No deal works for neither side, but it is the very worst of deals for the UK.

The EU already has WTO deals with countries we also wish to do WTO deals with. If we wish to do deals with those countries we cannot better the deals already negotiated with the EU. WTO rules prevent us from undercutting existing deals.

Yes, we could walk out of Brexit negotiations, but we would be looked at sideways by those wishing to go to WTO with us. If we can walk away from the EU why can't we walk away from bilateral negotiations?

The Brexiteer mantra "Walk away and go to WTO" isn't as easy as it seems.

[Suff]

If we wish to do deals with those countries we cannot better the deals already negotiated with the EU. WTO rules prevent us from undercutting existing deals.

If you look at the WTO RTA's (Regional Trade Agreements), for the EU, it is a pretty poor showing. On the left we see very few major countries we trade with regularly. Canada and South Africa the UK could have a deal with in a year.

On the right is a very sorry tale indeed. Japan, Singapore, India and the US (no China, the EU has a limited agreement outside the WTO). If you look at India the process was started 10 years ago.

Looking at those WTO deals, we can do significantly better than the EU. As Canada found. Have a look at the CETA, it is full of protectionism from the EU side.

If we can walk away from the EU why can't we walk away from bilateral negotiations?

Ah, but there is the rub. Everyone in the world knows that the EU does not really negotiate, they DEMAND. That is why it takes them a decade to agree a pretty poor trade deal, full of loopholes and protectionism.

I would say the reverse is true. Anyone who stands up to the EU and tells them to get on their bike if they won't negotiate like honourable states do, is more likely to be deemed honest, sensible and trustworthy.

[medsec222]

Suff is right about the EU being demanding. No deal is a good deal if we can get out of its clutches.

[Workingman]

We'll see.

There is a wide range of views out there from businesses, economists, Chambers of Commerce (or their equivalent in other countries) CBI (or its equvalents) and so on. Some are positive and some are negative, but the one thing they all have in common is that they are working from an incomplete picture and so we get a lot of "opinions" depending upon their interpretations.

One thing I have noticed gaining ground concerns resource rich countries. Brexit will allow us to import their raw materials at any tariff we can agree upon. The only fly in the ointment is that we will have to rebuild our manufacturing industries in order to use them, or indeed start whole new industries producing goods for the modern world.

[Workingman]

I see now that a letter has been sent to Brexit minister, David Davis, by major groups in British industry, the CBI and British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the manufacturers' group EEF and the Federation of Small Businesses.

They are demanding that he negotiates a Brexit transition as close as possible what we have now. They want details of this implementation period, as it is now called, asap in order to give businesses certainty and time for them to prepare for a new UK-EU economic partnership. The problem they have is that it is not for the UK (Davis) to "demand" any such implementation period, it will have to be negotiated with the EU. If the EU is not interested then we [they] do not get.

Another fine mess.....

[Suff]

Indeed.

When they send the same "Demand" to the EU, I'll at least know they actually know what the hell they are talking about.

[Suff]

Liam Fox has come out and stated "we're not bluffing". He also told those who think we should just lay all our cards on the table and let the EU shaft us, that we're not going to publish an impact assessment of No Deal. It would be meaningless anyway without an equal impact assessment of a Bad Deal where we are frozen out of the EU, have limited trade and are unable to write our own trade agreements with the rest of the world.

Honestly, all this CBI stuff and Macron stuff are exactly that. Meaningless noise. Reality check. We are leaving the EU, we need a deal which makes that worthwhile. We only do 42% of our exports to the EU. Doing a deal which punishes 52% of our export trade, ties us in knots, leaves us subject to every single EU law through the ECJ, without being able to shape those laws; is INSANITY.

[Workingman]

We all know that I voted Remain and that I still think the EU is the Better option, but we also know that I accept the referendum result and think that we should get on with things.

What bugs me, and I do not think that it will ever leave me, goes way back to when Cameron promised the referendum. At that point wise heads should have sat down and looked at as many foreseeable outcomes as they could, especially if Leave won. They should then have made some sort of plans, even tentative ones, for how to proceed for each outcome. What looks to have happened is that all and sundry took the optimistic view that Remain would win and we could merrily sail away on the good ship EU. So now we bumble along...

Would planning for an alternative have been too much to ask? Many of us do that with many aspects of our daily lives in order to keep future unknown disasters at bay. If it is good enough for an individual or family it ought to be good enough for a country.