Being upbeat about Brexit.

[ProfessorDavey]

Stop making shit up never claimed it was a gold standard.

I will retract the term 'gold standard' - however your statement:

'We want access to the EU market, the EU wants access to the UK market, a deal something like Canada, Turkey, S Korea, etc.'

Clearly implies these examples to be the sort of thing wee should be aiming for. My point is that in every case the deals are extremely poor in comparison to what we have now. Remember there are non tariff barriers to trade as well as tariffs, and that given our reliance on services deals that focus predominantly (or exclusively) on goods aren't really going to work well for us. Finally mentioning Turkey is completely inappropriate as the deal Turkey gets (which isn't anything like as good as our current deal) is only as good as it is because they are an accession country who have formally applied to join the EU.

[jeremyp]

Phew good job we are leaving such a hostile organisation, trying to keep members with threats is not something I want to be part of.

Actually we were the ones that started with the threats and they called our bluff. What they do back to us is just political expediency.

In your opinion, others are available.

So you don't have an answer to the point. Since, "too complex" and "the complexity is a problem" mean essentially exactly the same thing, we can safely assume that "other opinions" are wrong in this instance.

No, it is a bad analogy, you think staying in the EU is worth X and I think its worth Y.

You think staying in the EU is worth Y at the moment. Something may happen in the next two years to cause you to revise your opinion so that you come to believe staying in the EU is worth Z where Z is significantly larger than Y. If that were to occur, would you not like the opportunity of another say?

I thought you wanted another Brexit referendum? Perhaps you want democracy when it gives you the results you like otherwise the dummy gets thrown out of the pram?

I do want another referendum now but only because the Leavers insist that the referendum we have had is somehow magically set in stone and can't be reversed because of some mythical thing called the "Will of the People" and they are not going to accept any kind of rational argument about not leaving even if the evidence piles up against them unless they are also shown that the "Will of the People" has changed.

Britain is meant to be a representative democracy. We elect a government that makes the decisions and stands or falls by those decisions. Cameron ran away from an important decision and he's probably destroyed the UK and damaged the lives of many people in it as a result.

[jeremyp]

As a reminder of what is at stake, as a result of May's speech yesterday, one of our biggest customers (a large multinational) will now almost certainly be relocating elsewhere in the EU with the loss of thousands of British jobs. If you voted Leave: you did this.

[jakswan]

And you need to be realistic that:

1. We don't hold the cards, the EU do. They don't have the cliff edge of WTO for a massive proportion of their exports, we do.

We hold some cards they hold some cards, the Eu sells a huge amount into the UK.

2. We wont get anything like the same kind of benefits as we now enjoy in the single market unless we sign up to the obligations that come with those benefits.

Like Canada?

3. We cannot have our cake and eat it.

#rhetoric if I have a cake I'm going to want to eat it.

Where have I ever said that the 2016 referendum should be re-run?

You want a vote on the deal where the other option(s) include remain.

Never. What I have said is that the final negotiated deal should be put to a referendum to demonstrate that there is a democratic mandate for the actual brexit deal at the point when it is could be enacted. That is an entirely different thing. You, on the other hand seem to be running away from the principle that there should be a clear mandate for the actual way in which we leave the referendum.

Nope, quite open about another vote as i have stated to you, what seems to be, ten times. I can only assume you are wilfully misrepresenting me now, what can you expect from a quoteminer.

Let's not forget that there is exactly zero mandate for leaving the single market, firstly because that question wasn't on the ballot paper and because Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU.

Lying or just ill informed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dghdvVbtowM

Goto 1 minute 41

The status quo isn't on the table, because in order to maintain the status quo you have to remain in the EU. We won't be 'retaining' a free trade deal because that deal will cease to apply to us by default 2 years after triggering article 50, which given previous experience might be some 5-9 years before we actually get a free trade deal in place (of that is even possible).

The status quo with regard to tariffs is on the table it will be the Eu that takes it off the table.

[jakswan]

Actually we were the ones that started with the threats and they called our bluff. What they do back to us is just political expediency.

It wasn't a threat it is going to happen.

So you don't have an answer to the point. Since, "too complex" and "the complexity is a problem" mean essentially exactly the same thing, we can safely assume that "other opinions" are wrong in this instance.

I'm not going to bother to explain why they are different, if you can't understand the difference you are either too stupid or being obtuse.

You think staying in the EU is worth Y at the moment. Something may happen in the next two years to cause you to revise your opinion so that you come to believe staying in the EU is worth Z where Z is significantly larger than Y. If that were to occur, would you not like the opportunity of another say?

If, yes, "if" many things currently no need for another vote.

I do want another referendum now but only because the Leavers insist that the referendum we have had is somehow magically set in stone and can't be reversed because of some mythical thing called the "Will of the People" and they are not going to accept any kind of rational argument about not leaving even if the evidence piles up against them unless they are also shown that the "Will of the People" has changed.

Want away. I don't think this is "magically set in stone" quite open to another vote so you are refuted,

Britain is meant to be a representative democracy. We elect a government that makes the decisions and stands or falls by those decisions. Cameron ran away from an important decision and he's probably destroyed the UK and damaged the lives of many people in it as a result.

Fine so we will leave May get on with it then.

[jakswan]

As a reminder of what is at stake, as a result of May's speech yesterday, one of our biggest customers (a large multinational) will now almost certainly be relocating elsewhere in the EU with the loss of thousands of British jobs. If you voted Leave: you did this.

Next you will be calling for people to be arrested. I could claim that Brexit saved the jobs of 000s in Port Talbot Steelworks and those that voted remain didn't care about their jobs but that would stupid and childish.

[jakswan]

I will retract the term 'gold standard' - however your statement:

'We want access to the EU market, the EU wants access to the UK market, a deal something like Canada, Turkey, S Korea, etc.'

Clearly implies these examples to be the sort of thing wee should be aiming for. My point is that in every case the deals are extremely poor in comparison to what we have now. Remember there are non tariff barriers to trade as well as tariffs, and that given our reliance on services deals that focus predominantly (or exclusively) on goods aren't really going to work well for us. Finally mentioning Turkey is completely inappropriate as the deal Turkey gets (which isn't anything like as good as our current deal) is only as good as it is because they are an accession country who have formally applied to join the EU.

In your opinion "poor in comparison", this is the price we pay for being able to trade with many more countries.

[wigginhall]

Talking about threats, the Times front page is a hoot this morning.  Their paraphrase of May is: 'Give us a fair deal or you'll be crushed'.   I'm not sure that's what May was saying, although some people are interpreting the Singapore suggestion as that.  I suppose it means that if the UK went for very low business tax and so on, it would hollow out the EU economically?

I wonder who that line comes from?  Showing the iron fist in the iron glove?

[jeremyp]

It wasn't a threat it is going to happen.

You mean it wasn't a bluff which is a fair point. I think Cameron fully intended it to be a bluff.

It was however, definitely a threat.

I'm not going to bother to explain why they are different, if you can't understand the difference you are either too stupid or being obtuse.

You mean you can't explain the difference.

If, yes, "if" many things currently no need for another vote.

So by use of the term "currently" you accept that circumstances could change such that another vote is needed.

Fine so we will leave May get on with it then.

Ands if she gets a deal that damages the UK, what then? Will you let her say "we can't accept this, it would be a disaster, so we are staying in" without another referendum?

[jeremyp]

Next you will be calling for people to be arrested.

No, I'm calling for people to understand and accept the consequences of their actions.

I could claim that Brexit saved the jobs of 000s in Port Talbot Steelworks

In what way has it done that?

I should remind you that the EU wanted to impose tariffs on cheap Chinese steel to protect the EU's steel industry but the measure was vetoed by.... the UK. Yay!

Port Talbot steel works was never in trouble because ofd the EU.

[Rhiannon]

I was reading today about what the cost to farming is going be, and by extension the countryside. Some are worried about not having enough staff at harvest time as they haven't been able to recruit British workers. Small producers - those who have their cattle on grass and who replant meadows and hedgerows - can't manage without subsidies. Leaving the EU *could* mean more environmental protection, more preservation schemes and better targeted subsidies, but realistically with the money saved from the EU being used to build a new hospital every week or whatever shit Gove came out with and a Tory government keen on deregulation and maximum profit the likelihood is going to be large scale agribusiness at the expense of family farms and the landscape.

[ProfessorDavey]

We hold some cards they hold some cards, the Eu sells a huge amount into the UK.

We hold very few cards:

Around 45% of everything we sell overseas goes to the EU. 53% of our imports come from the rest of the EU.

The reverse figure, i.e. the proportion of what the rest of the EU sells to the UK as a proportion of exports is just 7% and less than 5% of rest of EU imports come from the EU. And don't forget that the situation isn't the same for every country, but all member states need to agree with the deal. The most affected (Ireland) is still massively lower on impact of change than the UK (15% rather that 45-50% for the UK). But there are countries in the EU (e.g. Romania) for whom trade with the UK is in the noise, pretty well irrelevant to their economic prospects, and who (of course) have an effective veto on any deal. Note too that freedom of movement is going to be much, much more important to Romania.

Therefore, although creating additional costs for these imports and exports would be inconvenient for the rest of the EU, it is pretty easy to absorb. The same isn't the case for the EU.

At the end of the 2 year period following article 50 the vast, vast majority of trade done in the EU, either within country, between EU countries or with the rest of the world will be completely unaffected. By contrast virtually all of our trade will be affected, noting that we cannot actually ratify any trade deal (if agreed) until we have actually left the EU. So likely we will end up on the least preferable WTO terms not just with the EU but with other countries where our existing deal (because we are members of the EU) ceases to apply the moment we leave.

So as we get nearer to that cliff edge there is increasing risk for the UK, but actually the risk for the EU is small and largely unchanging.

Sure you can live in the fantasy world that everyone will dance to our tune, cos they must, cos were Britain and everyone must bow down to our greatness. But the reality is rather different and I prefer to live in the real world than a fiction.

[ProfessorDavey]

In your opinion "poor in comparison", this is the price we pay for being able to trade with many more countries.

We already can trade with all the countries we want. And as a member of the EU we have more trade deals with more countries worldwide than (I gather) any other country in the world (except of course all the other EU member states).

And who are always at the front of the queue when countries are considering who they want to do trade deals with - well the largest markets, and what is the largest market on the planet - the EU.

[ProfessorDavey]

We already can trade with all the countries we want. And as a member of the EU we have more trade deals with more countries worldwide than (I gather) any other country in the world (except of course all the other EU member states).

And who are always at the front of the queue when countries are considering who they want to do trade deals with - well the largest markets, and what is the largest market on the planet - the EU.

Just to give some context.

The UK currently benefits from free trade deals with 50 non EU countries (that's taking the EU as a single block, alternatively you would add in the other 27 members of the EU too).

For comparison (using the same approach that the EU is one):

USA - has trade deals with 20 countries
Switzerland 38 countries
Canada 15
Australia 15

And what will be the situation on the day we leave the EU - well the UK will likely have gone from having free trade arrangement with 77 countries in the world, quite possibly to 0. There is not a hope in hell's chance that 2 years from triggering article 50 that we end up with agreements with anything close to the 77 countries we currently enjoy.

[jakswan]

Ands if she gets a deal that damages the UK, what then? Will you let her say "we can't accept this, it would be a disaster, so we are staying in" without another referendum?

If she gets a deal that i think damages the UK I will advocate for a vote on that deal. Its not in my power to "let her" do anything only to campaign for what I think should happen.

[jakswan]

No, I'm calling for people to understand and accept the consequences of their actions.

"You did this" is what you wrote.

In what way has it done that?

I should remind you that the EU wanted to impose tariffs on cheap Chinese steel to protect the EU's steel industry but the measure was vetoed by.... the UK. Yay!

Port Talbot steel works was never in trouble because ofd the EU.

Every £ of steel exported is worth 20% more to Tata since the vote.

[jakswan]

We hold very few cards:

Around 45% of everything we sell overseas goes to the EU. 53% of our imports come from the rest of the EU.

The reverse figure, i.e. the proportion of what the rest of the EU sells to the UK as a proportion of exports is just 7% and less than 5% of rest of EU imports come from the EU. And don't forget that the situation isn't the same for every country, but all member states need to agree with the deal. The most affected (Ireland) is still massively lower on impact of change than the UK (15% rather that 45-50% for the UK). But there are countries in the EU (e.g. Romania) for whom trade with the UK is in the noise, pretty well irrelevant to their economic prospects, and who (of course) have an effective veto on any deal. Note too that freedom of movement is going to be much, much more important to Romania.

Therefore, although creating additional costs for these imports and exports would be inconvenient for the rest of the EU, it is pretty easy to absorb. The same isn't the case for the EU.

So what is their motive for introducing this inconvenience?

At the end of the 2 year period following article 50 the vast, vast majority of trade done in the EU, either within country, between EU countries or with the rest of the world will be completely unaffected. By contrast virtually all of our trade will be affected, noting that we cannot actually ratify any trade deal (if agreed) until we have actually left the EU. So likely we will end up on the least preferable WTO terms not just with the EU but with other countries where our existing deal (because we are members of the EU) ceases to apply the moment we leave.

There is talk of transitional deal.

Sure you can live in the fantasy world that everyone will dance to our tune, cos they must, cos were Britain and everyone must bow down to our greatness. But the reality is rather different and I prefer to live in the real world than a fiction.

Can you actually try to have a proper grown up debate, I know its tricky for you my quote-mining chum but it will help you cause no end honestly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Like Canada?

Do you actually understand the details of the EU Canada deal, and therefore understand it is nowhere close to being as good a trade deal as we currently enjoy with the rest of the EU.

So some details:

1. The starting point of the negotiations were at a summit in May 2004 - the deal wasn't actually signed until October 2016, over 12 years later.
2. Although the deal has been signed it isn't actually in force - it is unlikely to be actually operational until late 2017 at the earliest - so probably more than 13 years after negotiations were initiated.
3. The deal really only covers good, not services. There is very little liberalisation of trade in services which are, of course, critical to the UK.
4. There are a huge number of non-tarrif barriers that will remain even with the deal - which aren't the case for our current trading with other EU countries. Examples include regulations on agriculture and a whole raft of issues over intellectual property rights including copyrights.

So feel free to hanker after a deal massively inferior to the one we currently enjoy that (using the timeframe of that deal) might be signed sometime in 2029, but not actually in force until later. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that isn't a good deal from where I am sitting, and I'm already looking at an exceptionally good deal, which we benefit from as a member of the EU.

[jakswan]

We already can trade with all the countries we want. And as a member of the EU we have more trade deals with more countries worldwide than (I gather) any other country in the world (except of course all the other EU member states).

Being in the customs union means that the EU does our trade deals on our behalf, citation required on the other fact please.

And who are always at the front of the queue when countries are considering who they want to do trade deals with - well the largest markets, and what is the largest market on the planet - the EU.

Yeah like Iceland - China free trade deal.

[jakswan]

Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU.

Are you withdrawing this?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yeah like Iceland - China free trade deal.

China is one of the largest economies on the planet, so of course Iceland might want a deal with them.

The reason why China was interested in reciprocating is that Iceland has something rather unique that China wants - i.e. a key role in granting China access to arctic resources.

Sadly I don't think there is anything equivalent that the UK could be offering.

[Aruntraveller]

Are you withdrawing this?

Don't see why he should.


Just a few here courtesy of Another Angry Voice's blog:

"Only a madman would actually leave the market" - Owen Paterson, Tory Vote Leave campaigner

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" - Daniel Hannan, Tory Vote Leave campaigner

"There's a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and Britain will still be part of it after we vote leave." - Chris Grayling, Tory Brexit campaigner and current member of Theresa May's own cabinet!

"There is no question about it, Britain will still have access to the single market after we vote leave" - Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign

"Britain will stay in the single market whatever happens" - Pete North, pro-Brexit blogger

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you withdrawing this?

No because it is true:

"Only a madman would actually leave the market" - Owen Paterson
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" - Daniel Hannan
"There's a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and Britain will still be part of it after we vote leave." - Chris Grayling
"There is no question about it, Britain will still have access to the single market after we vote leave" - Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign
“there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market”, Boris Johnson
 “We say: yes to the single market”, Conservative Party manifesto on which they were elected in 2015

Plus others who clearly implied before the vote that we'd end up like countries who are members of the single market:
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" - Arron Bank
"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing" - Nigel Farage
Norway, Switzerland, all of these countries have complete free trade with the EU, and by the way, I can't help noticing that they're doing pretty well." - Daniel Hannan

[jeremyp]

"You did this" is what you wrote.

Yes I did write that. In no way was I calling for the arrest of the people who voted for Brexit.  I just want them to understand and take moral responsibility for the consequences of their choice.

Here are some more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38663537

Here is Boris behaving like a twat again. He still seems to think it is some kind of a joke.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38658998

One German newspaper had a headline "Little England" and they are correct.

Every £ of steel exported is worth 20% more to Tata since the vote.

No it isn't. The World steel price was unmoved by the vote. What you meant to say is that Tata is paying its British workers 20% less relatively speaking.

[jakswan]

No because it is true:

"Only a madman would actually leave the market" - Owen Paterson
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" - Daniel Hannan
"There's a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and Britain will still be part of it after we vote leave." - Chris Grayling
"There is no question about it, Britain will still have access to the single market after we vote leave" - Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign
“there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market”, Boris Johnson
 “We say: yes to the single market”, Conservative Party manifesto on which they were elected in 2015

Plus others who clearly implied before the vote that we'd end up like countries who are members of the single market:
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" - Arron Bank
"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing" - Nigel Farage
Norway, Switzerland, all of these countries have complete free trade with the EU, and by the way, I can't help noticing that they're doing pretty well." - Daniel Hannan

Davey claims he doesn't quote-mine then delivers the mother-load.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA