The result of the EU referendum:

[jakswan]

But any agreement that we make with the USA is likely to be pretty well identical - why would they negotiate something with a bunch of european countries and then go for something completely different with the UK. There is a caveat - negotiations between the EU and the USA are broadly negotiations between equals, negotiations between the USA and the UK on their own won't be between equals at all, so the likelihood that we would get anything like as favourable treatment as the EU isn't going to happen. So we would get our own bespoke TTIP - like the current TTIP but less favourable for the UK.

You have yet to demonstrate why negotiations between a large party and a smaller one mean the larger party dictates the terms. The deal between the UK - US will be a deal suited to US - UK, not one where we have to compromise to accommodate 27 other countries whose economies differ greatly from our own.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If we are not in the EU then we won't be in TTIP.

If we are in the EEA we will have to apply TTIP.

If you are hoping to not be in the EEA, what makes you think that Cameron who is a huge supporter of TTIP, won't sign us up for something equivalent to TTIP?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no-we-cant-protect-ourselves-from-ttip-by-leaving-europe-heres-why-a6853876.html

I'm hoping for a free trade deal pretty much what we have now without freedom of movement and political union, this will be in everyone's interests. It will be bespoke British -EU deal.

Why would the EU give Britain the same deal they have now without freedom of movement - what's in it for the EU?

Trade deals are not done on e the basis of size, it depends what is right for countries negotiating them. These deals can be done quicker when you don't need to get 28 countries to agree.

We'll set out our terms and negotiate.

In the real world a big consumer has an advantage over a smaller consumer in negotiating with suppliers. Larger volumes allow for lower margins. Loss of business from a large consumer has a much bigger financial impact than loss of business from a smaller consumer.

Could you give me some idea of how long it took Canada / Turkey/ S. Korea to agree their deals with the EU? Does quicker mean 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? 

How much did negotiations cost these countries? Even as a small business I know there is considerable time and cost spent on negotiations for relatively large deals.

Your not going to be able to control that so building infrastructure for an unknown population is going to cost since you will inevitably build too much or too little.

The cost of the NHS is dependant upon the population it serves, everyone eventually gets sick and dies. Its funded by the working population.

It appears the longer people live, the greater the cost to the State as the older they are the frailer they get and the more their body breaks down and needs medical intervention or social care. An ageing population also needs a state pension. Yes these are funded by workers and one of the reason migrants are accepted into the UK is because current levels of workers were not enough to fund the rising welfare costs or fill the staffing shortages.   

Broadly agree, if we have uncontrolled immigration yes fingers crossed it might work out, controlled immigration though we can be a bit more certain.

The Labour government cocked up when they did not use the transitional controls available to them for migrant workers when Poland etc joined.  The current government claims it has learnt from this mistake - it applied transitional controls such as work permits and quotas to workers from Romania and Bulgaria and states that as a member of the EU it will veto Albania and Turkish entry to the EU if these countries do not put measures in place to meet certain benchmarks. Obviously if Britain leaves the EU they can't veto anything. They anticipate that Turkey won't be in a position to comply for years. The French government will have a referendum before allowing Turkey to join - about 75% of the French population are against Turkey joining. There is also significant opposition to Turkey in Germany and Austria.

Also the UK government has said it will restrict free movement of people and transitional controls will not be lifted for new countries joining the EU until their GDP per capita, employment rate and income distribution is close to the EU’s averages.

The British government could carry out more thorough checks on whether EU citizens wanting to move to the UK can support themselves and not be a burden on the State. They would have to perform checks anyway if Britain leaves as there is a need for EU migrants in Britain.

The government has also negotiated stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back.

I am looking at the cost of migrants versus the cost of Brexit and not being part of the EEA. Maybe some/ many British citizens would prefer to suffer the economic fall-out and the reduction in ability to fund welfare services from economic activity and especially from the Financial Services industry during the negotiation period rather than put up with the strain on infrastructure of free movement of people.

I am not really sure how you slow down human migration without considerable violence. Many countries tried to stop Britain colonising them and did not get very far. After a while though colonising countries found it was less costly to give colonies their independence and then economically pressure those smaller economies to accept trade deals that were favourable to the bigger economy rather than maintain a military colonising force and pay the adminisnistrative costs of running colonies.

Each person has to decide which of the various discomforts they are willing to tolerate - it's an emotional cost rather than an exact science. Whatever choice is made - stay or leave - it will involve considerable financial discomfort to the British population.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have yet to demonstrate why negotiations between a large party and a smaller one mean the larger party dictates the terms.

Why would I need to demonstrate this as it is self evident - a deal between the USA and the UK is more critical to the UK as UK/USA trade represents a much greater proportion of the UK economy than that of the USA. Therefore the USA have much greater bargaining power as they have the economic weight and also a much greater ability to shrug their shoulders and walk away if they don't like it as it is less significant. That's why the direction of travel globally in terms of trade deals is to bring together trade blocks of sufficient size and power to negotiate as equals with the EU, China, USA etc. Everyone else gets it yet the Brexiters are running backwards to the 1950s at speed.

The deal between the UK - US will be a deal suited to US - UK, not one where we have to compromise to accommodate 27 other countries whose economies differ greatly from our own.

It will be a deal between unequal partners in terms of economic and political clout that will be tipped in favour of what is in the interests of the USA rather than what it in the interests of the UK. Negotiating as the EU places the negotiations as one between equal economic partners.

[jakswan]

Why would I need to demonstrate this as it is self evident - a deal between the USA and the UK is more critical to the UK as UK/USA trade represents a much greater proportion of the UK economy than that of the USA. Therefore the USA have much greater bargaining power as they have the economic weight and also a much greater ability to shrug their shoulders and walk away if they don't like it as it is less significant.

Its entirely not self-evident, I'm currently negotiating a contract from a company, my company turns over £35m a year, theirs turns over £2m, do you think I dictate the price, its a negotiation.

Trade between the US - UK is at similar levels, the same number of US jobs will be impacted as UK jobs.

That's why the direction of travel globally in terms of trade deals is to bring together trade blocks of sufficient size and power to negotiate as equals with the EU, China, USA etc. Everyone else gets it yet the Brexiters are running backwards to the 1950s at speed.

Since you don't seem to understand the basics of business I think yuur conclusion is flawed.

It will be a deal between unequal partners in terms of economic and political clout that will be tipped in favour of what is in the interests of the USA rather than what it in the interests of the UK. Negotiating as the EU places the negotiations as one between equal economic partners.

As I stated a US-UK deal can be negotiated faster without worrying about the concerns of 27 other countries, not least because it need not make any concessions because French film makers are worried or hundreds of other industries that are not relevant to the UK.

[ProfessorDavey]

Trade between the US - UK is at similar levels, the same number of US jobs will be impacted as UK jobs.

Rubbish - approximately 11% of our trade is with the USA, approximately 2.5% of the USA's trade is with us.

As ever you really have no idea what you are talking about.

A hit on 11% of our trade is of course much, much more significant (indeed 4 times more significant) than a hit on just 2.5% of our trade. A deal with the USA is much more important for the UK than a deal with the UK is for the USA. And that places them in a much stronger negotiating position as it is much easier for them to adopt a 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose' attitude.

[~TW~]

Rubbish - approximately 11% of our trade is with the USA, approximately 2.5% of the USA's trade is with us.

As ever you really have no idea what you are talking about.

A hit on 11% of our trade is of course much, much more significant (indeed 4 times more significant) than a hit on just 2.5% of our trade. A deal with the USA is much more important for the UK than a deal with the UK is for the USA. And that places them in a much stronger negotiating position as it is much easier for them to adopt a 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose' attitude.

 This is all bullshit we are not declaring war on any body just taking back how we conduct our own business.
~TW~

[jakswan]

Rubbish - approximately 11% of our trade is with the USA, approximately 2.5% of the USA's trade is with us.

As ever you really have no idea what you are talking about.

The populations of the US and UK are not the same, try to concentrate before posting dismissive drivel. What do you mean as ever I have no idea what I'm talking about, please have some dignity you undermine yourself greatly posting in this way.
 

A hit on 11% of our trade is of course much, much more significant (indeed 4 times more significant) than a hit on just 2.5% of our trade. A deal with the USA is much more important for the UK than a deal with the UK is for the USA. And that places them in a much stronger negotiating position as it is much easier for them to adopt a 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose' attitude.

Dear me it just doesn't work like that, in my example I want the services of this £2m a year company, I have to negotiate, just because I work for a bigger company I don't dictate terms and say 'take it or leave it'.

Having a free trade agreement is a risk - reward, the smaller the economy you work with the lower the risk. Do you think removing import duty on German cars for the US could potentially a big negative effect on their economy, doing that for Australia has little effect. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Its entirely not self-evident, I'm currently negotiating a contract from a company, my company turns over £35m a year, theirs turns over £2m, do you think I dictate the price, its a negotiation.

Everything is a negotiation, even when you have a gun to your head you can still be in a negotiation, so the term negotiation is meaningless.

Your turnover is not relevant, only the budget you have been given by your bosses to negotiate with, which is the price you won't go over. Your job is to get quotes from different companies and find the most competitive price for the service you require. If the £2m turnover company is buying and you are selling, again their budget determines the max price they are willing to pay.

The £2m turnover business will have profit margins. If your business is going to double the turnover of the £2m company they will be prepared to give more concessions to secure your business. If your business will only represent a small proportion of their turnover you won't be as important to them so they won't be prepared to give as much away to get your business. The price and service levels offered by competitors is a big factor in negotiations, as is how crucial your business is to meet their overheads or recoup their costs in developing their product or service. If they have a USP you really need they are in a stronger negotiating position than if they don't.

Trade between the US - UK is at similar levels, the same number of US jobs will be impacted as UK jobs.

If Britain is out of the EU and has a drop in GDP while waiting for the outcome of negotiations with the EU, does that put it in a weaker or stronger negotiating position with respect to the US than when Britain is in the EU?

Also, I don't think your negotiating skills are representative of the skills of US trade negotiators.

As I stated a US-UK deal can be negotiated faster without worrying about the concerns of 27 other countries, not least because it need not make any concessions because French film makers are worried or hundreds of other industries that are not relevant to the UK.

Faster? Still very vague - how many years faster are you expecting the negotiations to take?

[ProfessorDavey]

Everything is a negotiation, even when you have a gun to your head you can still be in a negotiation, so the term negotiation is meaningless.

Your turnover is not relevant, only the budget you have been given by your bosses to negotiate with, which is the price you won't go over. Your job is to get quotes from different companies and find the most competitive price for the service you require. If the £2m turnover company is buying and you are selling, again their budget determines the max price they are willing to pay.

The £2m turnover business will have profit margins. If your business is going to double the turnover of the £2m company they will be prepared to give more concessions to secure your business. If your business will only represent a small proportion of their turnover you won't be as important to them so they won't be prepared to give as much away to get your business. The price and service levels offered by competitors is a big factor in negotiations, as is how crucial your business is to meet their overheads or recoup their costs in developing their product or service. If they have a USP you really need they are in a stronger negotiating position than if they don't.

Yup you get it - bizarre that Jakswan doesn't - or rather I suspect he does but refuses to admit it as it undermines his case for leave (not that there really is a case anyhow).

If Britain is out of the EU and has a drop in GDP while waiting for the outcome of negotiations with the EU, does that put it in a weaker or stronger negotiating position with respect to the US than when Britain is in the EU?

Weaken, obviously.

Also, I don't think your negotiating skills are representative of the skills of US trade negotiators.

Indeed, no doubt the US trade negotiators are very experienced and skilled and will firstly be prioritising their efforts towards developing deals with their most important trading partners - in other words those that they do the bulk of their trade with and/or with the greatest potential to grow. The UK doesn't really fit in either category, so they'll be prioritising the EU, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan etc prior to considering the UK. Obama made that very clear in hi 'back of the queue' comment. And once they get around to the UK they'll be looking to get the very best deal for the US, knowing they are negotiating from a position of great strength as the much larger economy for whom deal or no deal isn't such a major issue. And of course having already negotiated TTIP with the UK (as part of the EU), that's what they will offer.

Faster? Still very vague - how many years faster are you expecting the negotiations to take?

I'd be prepared to bet (were I a betting man) that the UK will get a deal with the US faster if it remains in the EU - and I'd be very confident that any bilateral US/UK deal that eventually gets sorted will be no better, and probably worse for the UK than the TTIP that is already on offer. Actually I think the only way that the UK will get a reasonably rapid deal with the US is by signing up to the TTIP.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I stated a US-UK deal can be negotiated faster without worrying about the concerns of 27 other countries, not least because it need not make any concessions because French film makers are worried or hundreds of other industries that are not relevant to the UK.

So you accept that trade negotiations with the EU are slow and difficult as the EU can drive a very hard bargain as they have the trump card that any one of 28 countries can veto.

Yet elsewhere you seem to think that were the UK to leave the EU they'd sort out a trade deal with the remaining 27 quickly and easily. By your own admission, just as with the US, any trade negotiations between a Brexit UK and the EU will be long and difficult.

And of course a deal with the US (11% of our trade) is a distraction, a side show not least because we don't have one now so not getting a deal merely retains the status quo. What the UK will need or we will be sunk is a deal with the EU that represents touching half of our trade and where we currently have the best trade deal possible. And you seem to be accepting now that it will be protracted and difficult, just as the EU/US negotiations have been.

Actually the reality is that all trade negotiations are protracted and difficult which is one of the reasons that increasingly these aren't bilateral, but between larger trading blocks as you gat more bangs for your protracted and difficult negotiating bucks.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yup you get it - bizarre that Jakswan doesn't - or rather I suspect he does but refuses to admit it as it undermines his case for leave (not that there really is a case anyhow).

I don't understand the Brexit case. Brexit supporters seem to want to experiment with our economy while negotiators finalise some sort of trade deals over the next few years despite the evidence that banding together gives more economic power than going it alone against other big economies. That's why people form groups to put pressure on corporations.

All I keep hearing from Brexiters are vague slogans about migrants from people who don't actually have to deliver trade deals to the country.

I doubt Boris even believes in Brexit but is just exploiting it as a political opportunity to get popular support - he can make up all kinds of slogans and dreams to feed into popular sentiment about economic migration without coming up with any specific economic facts, figures or details himself because there is so much that is unknown - the slogan on the side of his bus claims Britain can save their gross payment to the EU and spend that gross amount on the NHS, whereas we get some of that gross figure back in payments from the EU and we don't know how much the British economy could afford to pay towards the NHS once we leave.

If Brexit does happen, at least my family has private medical insurance though premiums will increase, my mortgage and personal expenditure is not that much so I can weather interest rate rises, and my business costs are not huge because we own our office so the main expense going out of the pot is salaries.

If clients' businesses shrink in 2 years time because they lose access for a while to EU markets or don't get as favourable terms to do business as they did while part of the EU, which means their costs go up, it means that we probably won't grow, which means no money for pay rises for UK staff.

[jakswan]

Everything is a negotiation, even when you have a gun to your head you can still be in a negotiation, so the term negotiation is meaningless.

I don't understand what that means, sadsadsadasdafega is meaningless.

Your turnover is not relevant,

Bingo, well done exactly what I've been saying.

only the budget you have been given by your bosses to negotiate with, which is the price you won't go over.

Nope since you have no idea what my job is it makes you look a little stupid telling me what it is.

Your job is to get quotes from different companies and find the most competitive price for the service you require.

No again, its a service I think we need, some directors don't think we need it and others do, I have to make a business case. This particular service is c. £12k a year, I'm responsible for a £3.5 million budget so price isn't the big issue, the real barrier to doing the deal is internal company politics.

I don't know why we need to go into such boring detail about my job. The bottom line is I don't set the terms because my company is bigger.

If the £2m turnover company is buying and you are selling, again their budget determines the max price they are willing to pay.

Their selling I'm buying.

The £2m turnover business will have profit margins. If your business is going to double the turnover of the £2m company they will be prepared to give more concessions to secure your business. If your business will only represent a small proportion of their turnover you won't be as important to them so they won't be prepared to give as much away to get your business. The price and service levels offered by competitors is a big factor in negotiations, as is how crucial your business is to meet their overheads or recoup their costs in developing their product or service. If they have a USP you really need they are in a stronger negotiating position than if they don't.

I don't know how stating the obvious impacts on any point you are trying to make.

If Britain is out of the EU and has a drop in GDP while waiting for the outcome of negotiations with the EU, does that put it in a weaker or stronger negotiating position with respect to the US than when Britain is in the EU?

Well first its big IF. Hypothetically - one of the biggest allies of the US in the world is seeing a drop in GDP what do you think?

I'm not sure actually but then I don't this simplistic view where the US would say 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose'.

Also, I don't think your negotiating skills are representative of the skills of US trade negotiators.

Where did I ever claim such a thing.

Faster? Still very vague - how many years faster are you expecting the negotiations to take?

You don't accept that EU trade deals take longer because it involves the agreement of 28 countries?

[jakswan]

Yup you get it - bizarre that Jakswan doesn't - or rather I suspect he does but refuses to admit it as it undermines his case for leave (not that there really is a case anyhow).
Weaken, obviously.

Well since Gabriella seemed to support my position where the bigger party didn't necessarily dictate terms, I suggest you don't get it.

You really think there is no case for Brexit? I get that we disagree but I accept you have a case for staying, you are starting to sound like Sass or TW.

Indeed, no doubt the US trade negotiators are very experienced and skilled and will firstly be prioritising their efforts towards developing deals with their most important trading partners - in other words those that they do the bulk of their trade with and/or with the greatest potential to grow. The UK doesn't really fit in either category, so they'll be prioritising the EU, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan etc prior to considering the UK.

Obama made that very clear in hi 'back of the queue' comment. And once they get around to the UK they'll be looking to get the very best deal for the US, knowing they are negotiating from a position of great strength as the much larger economy for whom deal or no deal isn't such a major issue. And of course having already negotiated TTIP with the UK (as part of the EU), that's what they will offer.

Yes Obama said 'back of the queue' but since all those deals are already done there is no queue, so you've made a moot point.

I'd be prepared to bet (were I a betting man) that the UK will get a deal with the US faster if it remains in the EU - and I'd be very confident that any bilateral US/UK deal that eventually gets sorted will be no better, and probably worse for the UK than the TTIP that is already on offer. Actually I think the only way that the UK will get a reasonably rapid deal with the US is by signing up to the TTIP.

Since your analysis includes statements like 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose' I'll not be taking betting advice from you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Bingo, well done exactly what I've been saying.

Great so you agree with Prof D and me that if UK trade with the US is a big proportion of the U.K. economy but for the US, their trade with the U.K makes up a smaller proportion of their economy, then the US has a stronger negotiating position than the UK.

Prof D wrote about proportions in his response to you when you spoke about absolute size. Glad we're all on the same page.

Nope since you have no idea what my job is it makes you look a little stupid telling me what it is.

No it doesn't but if it helps you feel better to use the word stupid in your response , you go ahead and use it as much as you like 

No again, its a service I think we need, some directors don't think we need it and others do, I have to make a business case. This particular service is c. £12k a year, I'm responsible for a £3.5 million budget so price isn't the big issue, the real barrier to doing the deal is internal company politics.

£12k per year is peanuts to you and the other company. I doubt your payment will even fall into their 80/20 rule whereby you would be their ideal client worth spending too much time on. Your approach to negotiations about £12k are in no way relevant to trade deals between the US and UK.

I don't know why we need to go into such boring detail about my job. The bottom line is I don't set the terms because my company is bigger.

Yes, as we all agreed all deals are a negotiation not a polite tea party, and it's the proportion of turnover that your company contributes that determines negotiating power.

Well first its big IF. Hypothetically - one of the biggest allies of the US in the world is seeing a drop in GDP what do you think?

More vague slogans. A recession is not determined by how pally we are with the US.

You don't accept that EU trade deals take longer because it involves the agreement of 28 countries?

Why don't you first answer my question. How many years do you estimate that it will itake to negotiate a trade deal with the US post Britain leaving the EU?

[jakswan]

So you accept that trade negotiations with the EU are slow and difficult as the EU can drive a very hard bargain as they have the trump card that any one of 28 countries can veto.

Blimey, so you think the longer it takes the better it is. Lets take a business analogy:-

ProfD Plc - retailer turn over £1b a year, overly bureaucratic a decision has to go through 28 tiers of management. Has a mantra that negotiations with suppliers should be 'slow and difficult' in order to drive a hard bargain.
Jakswan PLC - smaller but still sizeable, able to make decisions quickly.
ABC Ltd - Much smaller company just invented a new product, a miracle slimming pill that works with no side effects.

ProfD doesn't stock the slimming pill for two years because it wants to dictate the terms being so big and stuff so says to ABC ''take it or leave it, no skin off our nose", meanwhile Jakswan PLC having stocked the product and worked in partnership with ABC have gone from strength to strength.

Are you a Director of BHS Prof? Would make sense!

Trade deals are a risk they can be mutually beneficial its in the interests of all parties to conclude them as quickly as possible.

Yet elsewhere you seem to think that were the UK to leave the EU they'd sort out a trade deal with the remaining 27 quickly and easily. By your own admission, just as with the US, any trade negotiations between a Brexit UK and the EU will be long and difficult.

A change is a risk, keeping the trade as it is now is zero risk, its in the UK's and EU's interests to keep trade as it is now.

And of course a deal with the US (11% of our trade) is a distraction, a side show not least because we don't have one now so not getting a deal merely retains the status quo. What the UK will need or we will be sunk is a deal with the EU that represents touching half of our trade and where we currently have the best trade deal possible. And you seem to be accepting now that it will be protracted and difficult, just as the EU/US negotiations have been.

No, see above.

Actually the reality is that all trade negotiations are protracted and difficult which is one of the reasons that increasingly these aren't bilateral, but between larger trading blocks as you gat more bangs for your protracted and difficult negotiating bucks.

Depends, if you are a small country then it makes sense to get into a block, if you are the 5th largest economy in the world you should be able to cope.

[jakswan]

Great so you agree with Prof D and me that if UK trade with the US is a big proportion of the U.K. economy but for the US, their trade with the U.K makes up a smaller proportion of their economy, then the US has a stronger negotiating position than the UK.

Prof D wrote about proportions in his response to you when you spoke about absolute size. Glad we're all on the same page.

ProfD seemed to be taking a position that the bigger party dictates terms, you are saying something else, it might be sensible to understand a position Prof is taking before defending it.

No it doesn't but if it helps you feel better to use the word stupid in your response , you go ahead and use it as much as you like 

Thanks stupid!

£12k per year is peanuts to you and the other company. I doubt your payment will even fall into their 80/20 rule whereby you would be their ideal client worth spending too much time on. Your approach to negotiations about £12k are in no way relevant to trade deals between the US and UK.

You wanted to tell me about my job and I was trying to enlighten you, £12k isn't peanuts if you worked for me and made a statement like that I'd issue you a P45.

Yes, as we all agreed all deals are a negotiation not a polite tea party, and it's the proportion of turnover that your company contributes that determines negotiating power.

No its not as simple as that, if you like as an employee my company represents a 100% of my turnover, they do not dictate terms they are negotiated.

More vague slogans. A recession is not determined by how pally we are with the US.

What vague slogans? Are you just typing random words? You asked me a question I said I wasn't sure and asked you the same question.

Why don't you first answer my question. How many years do you estimate that it will itake to negotiate a trade deal with the US post Britain leaving the EU?

No idea the answer to your question and don't see how its relevant to the point being made, which was trade deals with the EU take longer than the otherwise would because it involves the agreement of 28 countries. If you can't refute the point then you will have to concede it, obfuscation only works for so long.

[ProfessorDavey]

ProfD Plc - retailer turn over £1b a year, overly bureaucratic a decision has to go through 28 tiers of management. Has a mantra that negotiations with suppliers should be 'slow and difficult' in order to drive a hard bargain.

But we already have the best possible and liberalised trade agreement as part of the largest economic block on the planet. It doesn't require a decision to go through 28 tiers of management, because it already exists. It allows us to trade completely free of tariffs and other restrictions with the whole of the EU. And that trade represents about half of all our overseas trade and is exceptionally important to our economy.

Yet you want to throw that all away and plunge the UK into years of risk and uncertainty with no guarantee that we will get a deal as good (we certainly won't get a better one that our current one) and with a grave risk that we end up with something much, much worse.

Bonkers.

[~TW~]

Some people are saying when the majority vote Leave.----They believe the vote will be rigged to stay in.
~TW~

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Why would I need to demonstrate this as it is self evident - a deal between the USA and the UK is more critical to the UK as UK/USA trade represents a much greater proportion of the UK economy than that of the USA. Therefore the USA have much greater bargaining power as they have the economic weight and also a much greater ability to shrug their shoulders and walk away if they don't like it as it is less significant.

Jakswan - see above - might be sensible if you understand the word proportion before you comment. What's your view on the relative negotiating positions based on proportion of UK GDP that is dependent on trade with the US?

No problem - feel free to keep calling me stupid if that's what you need to do in place of an argument. Ah bless 

When you actually come up with some specifics of your estimates on whether the costs of trading with the EU will go up for British goods and more crucially service industries if Britain leaves the EU rather than stays, maybe we can talk about that at the same time as whatever names you want to call me.

You brought your negotiating experience up - it's irrelevant to international trade or the likelihood of a recession or a weakening pound etc -  no one on this board cares how good or bad you are at negotiating over £12k or why you would fire someone.

We both accept trade negotiations between countries take a long time. I asked how many years faster negotiations would take between the US and UK than between the US and the EU. You don't know how many years faster. I said saying it would be faster doesn't address any specific concerns - I would want to know costs and whether the US terms would be as favourable as the terms they would offer the EU.

[jakswan]

But we already have the best possible and liberalised trade agreement as part of the largest economic block on the planet. It doesn't require a decision to go through 28 tiers of management, because it already exists. It allows us to trade completely free of tariffs and other restrictions with the whole of the EU. And that trade represents about half of all our overseas trade and is exceptionally important to our economy.

I think I agree with virtually all that. Doesn't really address the point, a deal with the US, India, China, etc might be in the best interests of Britain however we ate limited to able to negotiate these trade deals because we need 27 other countries to agree. By your own words negotiations with the EU are 'slow and difficult'.   

Yet you want to throw that all away and plunge the UK into years of risk and uncertainty with no guarantee that we will get a deal as good (we certainly won't get a better one that our current one) and with a grave risk that we end up with something much, much worse.

There are no guarantee's on what trade deals we'll be pulled into if we stay so there risk and uncertainty on either side. No where have I said I want to throw it all away, the current status quo is free trade between the EU and UK any change to that represents a risk to everyone, which is why I advocate we leave the EU and remain in a free trade deal.

You insist this is impossible and are yet to explain why.

Bonkers.

Strawmen normally are.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think I agree with virtually all that. Doesn't really address the point, a deal with the US, India, China, etc might be in the best interests of Britain however we ate limited to able to negotiate these trade deals because we need 27 other countries to agree. By your own words negotiations with the EU are 'slow and difficult'.

You do understand that there is absolutely nothing that prevents EU member states from making their own bilateral (or multilateral but not including the entire EU) trade deals. It is allowed and indeed happens.

So a couple of examples - the UK has preferential trade deals with commonwealth countries based on trade deals it has struck that don't apply to the rest of the EU. So trade between the UK and Canada (as an example) isn't exactly the same as between France and Canada.

There is a multilateral trade deal, signed in 2001 between Sweden, Denmark (both EU) and Norway and Iceland (neither EU). So there are elements of trade between those countries that are different than for other EU countries and Iceland and Norway.

So if you are so concerned about the length of time it is taking the EU to sort out an EU wide deal with the USA why don't you lobby the UK government to set up on on their own (which they are perfectly entitled to do without leaving the EU). Of course the Uk government recognises that it has little bargaining power on its own and the USA would have limited interest in setting up a bilateral trade deal with the UK alone. They recognise that the best way to get the best trade deal is to negotiate as the EU.

[Jack Knave]

But we already have the best possible and liberalised trade agreement as part of the largest economic block on the planet. It doesn't require a decision to go through 28 tiers of management, because it already exists. It allows us to trade completely free of tariffs and other restrictions with the whole of the EU. And that trade represents about half of all our overseas trade and is exceptionally important to our economy.

Yet you want to throw that all away and plunge the UK into years of risk and uncertainty with no guarantee that we will get a deal as good (we certainly won't get a better one that our current one) and with a grave risk that we end up with something much, much worse.

Bonkers.

You keep saying this but if we leave it won't be thrown away. We will still trade with the EU and also with the world, tariff free - or at least at WTO arrangements.

Your argument about the EU doesn't hold as the Germans will bring pressure on anyone who doesn't do their bidding. And the German government will be under pressure from their own major industries like BMW etc.

[~TW~]

Shall we leave shall we stay          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO654XRQ7FI
~TW~

[ProfessorDavey]

Your argument about the EU doesn't hold as the Germans will bring pressure on anyone who doesn't do their bidding. And the German government will be under pressure from their own major industries like BMW etc.

Presumably the Germans and BMW are pretty keen on a deal with Canada, yet that hasn't been ratified yet because Bulgaria and Romania have refused to sign until the provisions on migration from those countries are the same as for the rest of the EU. Nothing that Germany or BMW can do.

But here is the interesting point - this is just the latest of a series of empasses on that deal, usually related to migration - in every case one or more EU country has refused to sign so the deal cannot be ratified. Who has blinked first in every case - Canada - every time they have caved in, giving greater concessions to the EU and making the deal better and better for the EU.

Why - firstly because a deal is much more important to Canada (as they'd get access to the largest economic block on the planet) than to the EU so Canada will keep giving and giving to get the deal. But also because the need to ratify by all EU countries actually is a master stroke in ensuring that the EU gets the best deal possible - it has to be good for everywhere or it won't happen. This isn't the case where a single government decides. So Scotland has no veto over a UK brokered trade deal which might not be good for Scotland. But in the context of the EU unless it is good for the UK, and France and Germany, and Estonia and Malta etc etc etc it won't happen.

[jakswan]

So if you are so concerned about the length of time it is taking the EU to sort out an EU wide deal with the USA why don't you lobby the UK government to set up on on their own (which they are perfectly entitled to do without leaving the EU). Of course the Uk government recognises that it has little bargaining power on its own and the USA would have limited interest in setting up a bilateral trade deal with the UK alone. They recognise that the best way to get the best trade deal is to negotiate as the EU.

When we leave it will be best to get the free trade deal with the EU first.

Latest polls still show leave in the lead, Scots might keep us in though, maybe we should have a vote to throw Scotland out of the Union.