Britain leaving the European Union.




They’re so f*****. There is a sense of panic IMO. The gloves are off now for Biarritz.
Can the EU hold their nerve?


Ok, the EU loose their nerve.

What exactly does this mean?

The broad outline negotiation position was given to Barnier et. al. a few years ago. Barnier doesn’t make up policy. He has his direct instructions which he works within. These instructions will need to be changed. These can only be changed by the EU council. Strictly speaking it requires only a qualified majority to issue the change of instructions to Barnier. Going with only a qualified majority would be exceptionally unusual, these things are done on a consent, unanimous way. Can the UK get the rest of the council to unanimously agree to change the outline directive given to Barnier? And what are they going to change them to?

Ok, we have got the EU council to unanimous agree to changing the negotiating instructions given to Barnier. This is highly unlightly, but let’s go with it.

Next, there is no one in the EU to negotiate with. The entire negotiating team was disbanded months ago. This would need to be reassembled. Who is going to write such a new withdrawal agreement? Pull the former members of the negotiating team off their current job and put back the old team? What if they say no? But ok, let’s say the old team can be rebuilt. How long will it take to get them back at their old job? A few weeks? There is only nine weeks or so left. 9 - 3 leaves only 6 weeks. This in itself if highly difficult to organize.

Ok, we get the old dream team back together. They negotiate a new deal without the backstop, which they were not able to in the previous years. How long will this take? It has to take less than 6 or it is game over. Let’s be optimistic and say it is accomplished in a month. 9 - 3 - 4 = 2 weeks left.

This new deal needs to get to the EU council and be unanimously agreed to. Ok, yes, strictly it only needs a qualified majority, but that is still a hefty barrier to overcome. And it needs to be agreed by the EU parliament. And by the UK parliament with their crazy gang, and the UK house of Lords. All in 2 weeks? Now we are just full on fantasy territory.

To get:

  • The EU council to agree to abandon the existing withdrawal agreement.
  • A new unanimous negotiating position agreed by the EU council
  • Assemble a new negotiating team, or reassemble the old team,
  • Negotiate a new deal without the backstop
  • Get this new deal unanimously agreed by the EU council
  • Passed the EU Parliament
  • Passed by the UK Parliament and house of Lords
  • All in 9 weeks…

Hey look, a Leprechaun with a pot of Gold. Nice Leprechaun, come here and let me rub your belly…


The EU lost it’s nerve (among other things) the day of the Brexit result.


Boris would only need some kind of agreement in principle to renegotiate. Then he would call a vote to defer the leaving date. Yeah, I know he said he wouldn’t, that the leaving date was “do or die”. But he’s not strong on truth or integrity. In response, the Tory Remainers/Soft Brexiteers would pull their support for Corbyn’s no-confidence motion. Boris would stay in power with a promise of a rapid renegotiation and a short A50 extension. Then he would leave as the people’s favourite, with a glorious new deal.

However, it’s all completely hypothetical as the EU won’t cave in to him.


Well, well, well. BoJo prorogues parliament 'cos it just happens to suit him to be discussing a new legislative agenda while the UK crashes out of Europe.

I saw John Redwood and Arlene Foster in separate interviews, and while they were oh so serious about the need for Boris to get things moving with a queen’s speech in his new parliament, they both finished their interviews with a grin they couldn’t conceal. They know this is a naked attempt to thwart parliament and they love it.


And our dumb and dumber Taoiseach and Tanaiste and their EU enablers will still be talking about the fecking backstop and the Withdrawal Agreement while the good ship UK no deal Brexit has already left port on the 31st October if not before.

The only saving grace in this entire shitshow is that the Brexiteers are (amazingly) talking in terms of free trade and not imposing tariffs on imports which would go a long way to saving our economic bacon if it could be believed or trusted. Ostensibly this idea of free trading with all and sundry is coming from their neo-liberal economic advisers who wish to keep inflation in the UK down after leaving and on the assumption of a further fall in GBP.


And our dumb and dumber Taoiseach and Tanaiste and their EU enablers will still be talking about the fecking backstop and the Withdrawal Agreement while the good ship UK no deal Brexit has already left port on the 31st October if not before.

The only saving grace in this entire shitshow is that the Brexiteers are (amazingly) talking in terms of free trade and not imposing tariffs on imports which would go a long way to saving our economic bacon if it could be believed or trusted. Ostensibly this idea of free trading with all and sundry is coming from their neo-liberal economic advisers who wish to keep inflation in the UK down after leaving and on the assumption of a further fall in GBP.

So what is your great solution to the backstop? An issue for which the Tories confirm that even if Ireland surrendered on the issue, the Tories still wouldn’t vote for the WA- nor of course the Labour party. So your plan is to surrender for nothing. Forgive me for saying - but no-one who suggests that plan has an right to question the intelligence of anyone else.



So they are going to agree a trade deal overnight. If the UK wants to go that route, the best thing to do is let them off. They still have to fulfil their obligations under the GFA.

Its hard to believe there could be three or four people of running Britain after Blair but here we are.


I have said from the start on here that the backstop was an bad idea, and why, and I am not going over that old ground again. But now you want me to solve the problem that the backstop has largely being responsible for creating? Once again the government and its advisors are proving to be an incompetent bunch as they have proved over and over again in other areas such as housing, building the National Children’s Hospital etc.

You guys who are part of the government group think on Brexit have absolutely no clue about business and the potential impact of tariffs, Or the history of the destructive force of tariffs, stretching back to the 1930’s when the Economic War of that era sent this country into a depression. Tariffs are the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 things we need to avoid, you are talking about at least 50k people unemployed or losing their livelihoods and people on the street protesting. Any issues of a “hard” border are in the penny place compared to this. So the avoidance of tariffs are the only thing the government should be focusing on right now. And they need to accept and deal with the fact that the UK are overwhelmingly likely to leave on a no deal basis whether on 31st October or shortly after a general election in the near future.

So starting from where we are right now we should be trying to patch together a brand new very simple deal with the UK that accepts these realities. My suggestion is that we get the UK to sign off that they won’t impose tariffs on EU imports and in return they get reduced EU tariffs on their exports and a significant reduction on their €39 billion exit bill (which looks out of whack anyway since they have always been a net contributor to the EU and as they are leaving completely so they won’t be paying for any future benefits of membership). A simple negotiation with a concise agreement on these specific areas should be possible to produce a very stripped down WA that will pass the HOC and protect what are our vital national economic interests,


Some coverage suggests that on Nov 1st when the UK leaves the EU proper, it will be able to avail of a tremendously more favourable (*temp) bilateral deal with the USA in comparison to the EU Bloc members, giving it huge trading advantage over the EU Bloc with the worlds largest economy, a bilateral deal that has been and is being worked on in the background for some time, one that May was possibly offered under earlier terms behind closed doors but refused - being one general thesis, without touching on the geo-political such a reset might represent.

What if the UK had better terms for goods and services into the USA than we currently enjoy as part of the EU Bloc - What might be the advantage to Ireland be in such a scenario, if it choose to leverage it? (fantasy football: assume Irish Gov are not laptop dog messenger boys of the EU Politburo)


why would the USA give them a better deal then they absolutely need to?

what in recent US history shows that they might do that? all those trade deals Trump signed up to??

What if the UK had better terms for goods and services into the USA than we currently enjoy as part of the EU Bloc

can you please show me a trade deal the US has that includes services?

Brexit supporters have said rapidly agreed trade accords with the United States and other countries will make a prosperous “Global Britain” outside the European Union.

Both Britain and the United States would need to determine the scope of negotiations, but past experience of Washington’s dealings with other would-be trade partners shows what it is likely to seek and the limits on what it would offer.


The U.S. ambassador’s comment that Britain’s NHS should be “on the table” in a trade deal caused an uproar in Britain.

There are two areas of U.S. interest. First, it would want its companies be allowed to bid for NHS contracts, although tenders are generally open already.

The second area concerns the reference prices the NHS sets for its purchases of drugs.

The United States, which sought to challenge a similar scheme in Australia during trade negotiations, argues that lower set prices are unfair on its pharmaceutical companies and leave U.S. consumers footing the bill.

Britain could exempt its health service from trade talks, as France did for audiovisual services in the EU-U.S. TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) negotiations, although this could limit what Washington would want to offer.

Spending on the NHS totaled 144.3 billion pounds ($183.0 billion) in 2016/17, according to an April 2018 parliamentary briefing paper. OECD data shows that per capita expenditure on health in the UK was $4,246 in 2017 compared to an OECD average of $3,992 and $10,209 in the United States.


Washington is a net exporter of farm products, notably of meat and animal feed, but normally also wants its counterpart to accept its farming standards.

As an EU member, Britain currently does not allow in hormone-treated beef or chlorine-washed chicken, but would be free to do so once it leaves the bloc.

This could create some complications if it also had a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union and would be forced to ensure most U.S. meat did not cross to the continent.

Britain already imports feed, most of it genetically modified (GM), but it could be urged to speed up approval of new GM strains and incorporate GM products in human food — something not done in the European Union. EU negotiators say that in TTIP talks that the United States also did not want to allow food containing GM crops to be labeled as such.


The “Buy American Act” is a roadblock for any potential U.S. trade partner. It and a series of other laws stipulate that U.S. federal, state and local authorities should purchase American-made goods wherever possible.

It is not a sector that the United States has shown any willingness to open up. It is further complicated by the fact that Washington cannot negotiate something that is a state or local area of competence.


Banking is regulated at both federal and state level and is another area that negotiators in Washington would struggle to open up.

The Europeans wanted financial services to be incorporated into TTIP, while the United States said that discussions on that sector should only proceed “in parallel” and not be part of any agreement.


Import tariffs are typically low for products traveling between pre-Brexit Britain and the United States. A key U.S. demand though would be reduction or removal of import duties for cars — currently 10% for those entering Britain versus the 2.5% rate the United States charges. Washington has also expressed a wish to include clothing and textiles. This is the limited area that Brussels wants to discuss with Washington to ease trade tensions.


Britain ran a trade surplus for goods with the United States in the period 2014-2016, according to EU statistics office Eurostat, but that switched to a slight deficit in 2017 and 2018, which might improve its bargaining position toward a U.S. administration determined to cut its trade deficit. In services though, Britain has a large surplus.


id agree with most of that but if your uncle had balls surely he still is your uncle

plus Don cant sign off on trade deals


Wonderful idea. I can only foresee two minor problems.

Firstly it is a gross violation of WTO treaties. Neither the EU nor the UK can offer special terms to each other. Reduced tariffs can not be offered to the UK. The same tariffs have to be applied to every country in the WTO; the most favored nation clause. The only way this can happen is if both the EU and the UK leave the WTO.

Secondly, it violates the UK’s red lines for negotiations. The red line that it will not be part of the single market or part of the European courts. No single market means border checks on regulations for health and safety, food standards etc. So to solve this minor issue, all that is needed is the UK to change its red line negotiation points.


I am not an expert on the WTO but as I understand it it is possible for the UK to offer zero tariffs on imports as long as it does this for the entire world. They have already said that they plan to do this (amazing if true) so I am suggesting that they put this into a legal treaty. From the EU side of things I understand that it is possible to conclude trade deals with different countries or blocs that apply different levels of tariffs so I don’t see why the EU can’t have a trade deal with the UK that does this. I could be wrong but I am sure there are ways for the EU to have a special set of import tariffs with the UK in this scenario.

And I am not suggesting that the UK stays in the single market or the customs union so I don’t know why you are making a point on this. Yes there will be checks at the borders, that is obvious and won’t be the end of the world compared to tariffs which can stop trade stone dead. Our government has been lying to us about not having to impose a “hard” border if the UK leaves the SM & CU. Its about time that they revealed what their plans are for all entry points for a no deal exit situation. The French have been showing off new infrastructure that they built 2 years ago in Calais for this scenario. Have we built any?


No it is not possible. This would be a gross violation of letter of the law; the spirit of the law; and historical precedent. Nothing like this has ever happened anywhere and could only happen by all parties leaving the WTO.


You seem to be a variance with EU trade bosses then.

What is the Common Customs Tariff? EU customs tariff defined

“The tariff is common to all EU members, but the rates of duty differ from one kind of import to another depending on what they are and where they come from. The rates depend on the economic sensitivity of products.”

And how could the EU do a deal such as Mercosur if they couldn’t apply different tariffs levels to imports coming from different parts of the world?


Nope. Two different clauses are being referred to in your quote. Firstly the most favored trading nation clause, and secondly the rules of origin clauses.

Country B imports from A and pays what ever tariffs necessary. B then resells the item to country C inside the common tariff area but C does not have to pay taxes again. B has already paid them. They do have to provide paperwork that the relevant taxes have been paid though. If a business in Ireland imports stuff from America, they pay taxes, but they are then free to export that item tax free to Germany, because the taxes have already been paid. Because the EU is so integrated the paperwork of paying taxes is covered during normal tax returns without anyone noticing it.

How will Mercosur work? This falls under the exemptions to the most favored nations clause. Two trading blocks can set an independent agreement free trade between themselves if it covers substantially all trade. This substantially all, give a little wiggle room for setting lower taxes on some agriculture products because everything else is at zero tariffs.

The UK is not a trading block, so the exemption does not apply. Also, if they want to go down that route, then they need to have substantial all trade with the EU being zero tariffs. Having substantially all trade with the EU being zero tariffs is what they have at the minute and it puts massive hurdles in setting up trade agreements with other countries. This has been red lined by the UK government.


I sure the EU will do a deal of trade and tariffs etc once the UK does what it signed up to regarding the irish border, regulatory alignment, the divorce bill etc. Im not sure how trade will be killed stone dead with tariffs as there are many tariffs already on goods into the UK and EU. that might be a real issue is the paperwork and delays due to additional checks required.
Are you expecting the EU to cut tariffs to zero on UK goods to help them out because… the EU dont act in there own economic interests and are nice people?

If the UK want to go down the route of low standards and divergence, they these products would not even be allowed into the EU so tariffs will be the least of the worries.

All in all, there will be a lot of businesses going bust