ChatterBank1 min ago
Angela Merkal Says We Are Deluded!!
For thinking we can negotiate a trade deal while still negotiating our exit fee.
Who cares? Sort out the exit deal and get on with it.
In the mean time we get to the world negotiating table and sort a few deals out ourselves.
All we need to do (simplification I know but it works short term) is look at the books, see how much the (probably over valued) EU assets are worth, what we legitimately should contribute towards and then get our refund.
If they can't even get the books signed off for donkeys years they are unlikely to be 100% honest on value. They have to at least pretend to value somewhere. To be solvent they have to have assets so in all likelihood have over egged the asset worth.
Who cares? Sort out the exit deal and get on with it.
In the mean time we get to the world negotiating table and sort a few deals out ourselves.
All we need to do (simplification I know but it works short term) is look at the books, see how much the (probably over valued) EU assets are worth, what we legitimately should contribute towards and then get our refund.
If they can't even get the books signed off for donkeys years they are unlikely to be 100% honest on value. They have to at least pretend to value somewhere. To be solvent they have to have assets so in all likelihood have over egged the asset worth.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
One could be deluded into thinking the negotiators for the EU are flexible and not at all awkward, but I'm prepared to accept her word for that. Maybe they can't cover both areas at once.
But the answer is simple; we agree there is no exit fee or else we impose our zero exit fee solution and no longer negotiate. We agree a trade deal or else we impose our WTO option, they can see their companies disadvantaged more than ours and regret their foolish action. And we then get on with things.
But the answer is simple; we agree there is no exit fee or else we impose our zero exit fee solution and no longer negotiate. We agree a trade deal or else we impose our WTO option, they can see their companies disadvantaged more than ours and regret their foolish action. And we then get on with things.
Exactly : a WTO option is a very bad one for the U.K.
The PM has backed herself into a corner. While we slap ourselves on the back and warble on about our borders and our laws, from a European perspective it does seem wholly naive.
Maybe with an election out of the way things will change dramatically. But a 'big commons majority' isn't going to sway Europe's negotiators so if the PM thinks it will give her a green or more aptly a blue light to press ahead she is in for a rude awakening
The PM has backed herself into a corner. While we slap ourselves on the back and warble on about our borders and our laws, from a European perspective it does seem wholly naive.
Maybe with an election out of the way things will change dramatically. But a 'big commons majority' isn't going to sway Europe's negotiators so if the PM thinks it will give her a green or more aptly a blue light to press ahead she is in for a rude awakening
A WTO option is not as bad as made out, you pay for the goods as you use them, it should encourage us to buy British first which hopefully will aid the economy and have the added benefit of educing emissions by transporting foods over ludicrous distances.
In addition we do not have a 'free' trade agreement now. We pay Billions for it and are very much restricted by it.
As far s trade is concerned we can walk away and things will work themselves out. Trade always does.
In addition we do not have a 'free' trade agreement now. We pay Billions for it and are very much restricted by it.
As far s trade is concerned we can walk away and things will work themselves out. Trade always does.
Obviously none of the major economies in the world trades on WTO terms if they can agree a better deal. WTO rules are a minimum standard for international trade, that we've all signed up to. But if a trading block wants to be awkward it is a perfectly reasonable basis on which to trade with them; alternatively take one's trade elsewhere. It's a big world out there; nothing ventured, nothing gained.
The only reason all member countries have to rubber stamp something like this is not for reasons of democracy, which the EU has proven it does not value, it is to avoid, as much as is possible, having to change. Tie such things up with the ministers and the Commission is then free to get on with whatever it wants to progress.
IMO the horror expressed at trading under WTO rules is simply part of "Project Fear", as it seems to have come to be known.
The only reason all member countries have to rubber stamp something like this is not for reasons of democracy, which the EU has proven it does not value, it is to avoid, as much as is possible, having to change. Tie such things up with the ministers and the Commission is then free to get on with whatever it wants to progress.
IMO the horror expressed at trading under WTO rules is simply part of "Project Fear", as it seems to have come to be known.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.