Go to first unread
Back
to top
No Deal
Watch
Given the recent breakdown in talks are the chances of a no deal more likely than ever? How bad would a no deal been for the UK and for the EU?
0
reply
Report
#2
For the EU it would not be very bad at all really. Members still include France, Germany, Italy... many big economic players. Bigger than many Brits realise. And all of these remain committed to supporting an economically prosperous trade union for their citizens in the future.
For many British businesses, however, it could spell disaster as many import materials from, and export produce to, the European Union and many of these businesses might very quickly go under if unable to continue taking advantage of these vital trading benefits. Some, no doubt, would adapt but unfortunately there is a wider economic problem. The UK is a geographically small island nation with nowhere near enough natural resources to support its huge population. Consequently an entirely self-sufficient U.K. is impossible which is why the U.K has always relied on trade and commerce to survive. Historically it even used an empire to plunder resources from poorer civilisations around the globe. Isolating the U.K, especially a 21st century when increasing life expectancy coupled with government failure to meet immigration targets has skyrocketed the population, would make it very difficult for Brits to maintain their current lifestyles; at least until a productive trade deal was struck elsewhere. An alternative trade deal might sound like the holy grail for Brexiteers but there is real doubt with regards to where this would actually come from. Add the lack of resources to a commitment from the government to spend even less on public services over the next few years and you have a recipe for economic disaster.
While the U.K may benefit from being able to govern itself outside the E.U it is imperative Theresa May and her team sort out a productive deal with Brussels. Somehwhat discouragingly, May has stated before she believes that no deal is better than a bad deal but for the U.K no deal would perhaps be the worst deal of all.
For many British businesses, however, it could spell disaster as many import materials from, and export produce to, the European Union and many of these businesses might very quickly go under if unable to continue taking advantage of these vital trading benefits. Some, no doubt, would adapt but unfortunately there is a wider economic problem. The UK is a geographically small island nation with nowhere near enough natural resources to support its huge population. Consequently an entirely self-sufficient U.K. is impossible which is why the U.K has always relied on trade and commerce to survive. Historically it even used an empire to plunder resources from poorer civilisations around the globe. Isolating the U.K, especially a 21st century when increasing life expectancy coupled with government failure to meet immigration targets has skyrocketed the population, would make it very difficult for Brits to maintain their current lifestyles; at least until a productive trade deal was struck elsewhere. An alternative trade deal might sound like the holy grail for Brexiteers but there is real doubt with regards to where this would actually come from. Add the lack of resources to a commitment from the government to spend even less on public services over the next few years and you have a recipe for economic disaster.
While the U.K may benefit from being able to govern itself outside the E.U it is imperative Theresa May and her team sort out a productive deal with Brussels. Somehwhat discouragingly, May has stated before she believes that no deal is better than a bad deal but for the U.K no deal would perhaps be the worst deal of all.
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by TheTree0fDeath)
For the EU it would not be very bad at all really. Members still include France, Germany, Italy... many big economic players. Bigger than many Brits realise. And all of these remain committed to supporting an economically prosperous trade union for their citizens in the future.
For many British businesses, however, it could spell disaster as many import materials from, and export produce to, the European Union and many of these businesses might very quickly go under if unable to continue taking advantage of these vital trading benefits. Some, no doubt, would adapt but unfortunately there is a wider economic problem. The UK is a geographically small island nation with nowhere near enough natural resources to support its huge population. Consequently an entirely self-sufficient U.K. is impossible which is why the U.K has always relied on trade and commerce to survive. Historically it even used an empire to plunder resources from poorer civilisations around the globe. Isolating the U.K, especially a 21st century when increasing life expectancy coupled with government failure to meet immigration targets has skyrocketed the population, would make it very difficult for Brits to maintain their current lifestyles; at least until a productive trade deal was struck elsewhere. An alternative trade deal might sound like the holy grail for Brexiteers but there is real doubt with regards to where this would actually come from. Add the lack of resources to a commitment from the government to spend even less on public services over the next few years and you have a recipe for economic disaster.
While the U.K may benefit from being able to govern itself outside the E.U it is imperative Theresa May and her team sort out a productive deal with Brussels. Somehwhat discouragingly, May has stated before she believes that no deal is better than a bad deal but for the U.K no deal would perhaps be the worst deal of all.
For the EU it would not be very bad at all really. Members still include France, Germany, Italy... many big economic players. Bigger than many Brits realise. And all of these remain committed to supporting an economically prosperous trade union for their citizens in the future.
For many British businesses, however, it could spell disaster as many import materials from, and export produce to, the European Union and many of these businesses might very quickly go under if unable to continue taking advantage of these vital trading benefits. Some, no doubt, would adapt but unfortunately there is a wider economic problem. The UK is a geographically small island nation with nowhere near enough natural resources to support its huge population. Consequently an entirely self-sufficient U.K. is impossible which is why the U.K has always relied on trade and commerce to survive. Historically it even used an empire to plunder resources from poorer civilisations around the globe. Isolating the U.K, especially a 21st century when increasing life expectancy coupled with government failure to meet immigration targets has skyrocketed the population, would make it very difficult for Brits to maintain their current lifestyles; at least until a productive trade deal was struck elsewhere. An alternative trade deal might sound like the holy grail for Brexiteers but there is real doubt with regards to where this would actually come from. Add the lack of resources to a commitment from the government to spend even less on public services over the next few years and you have a recipe for economic disaster.
While the U.K may benefit from being able to govern itself outside the E.U it is imperative Theresa May and her team sort out a productive deal with Brussels. Somehwhat discouragingly, May has stated before she believes that no deal is better than a bad deal but for the U.K no deal would perhaps be the worst deal of all.
People voted to leave, so we cannot make big concessions to the EU
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by asim1999)
I think what Theresa means is that a bad deal would mean being like a partial of the EU, such as accepting things like freedom of movement, and jurisdiction by the ECJ.
People voted to leave, so we cannot make big concessions to the EU
I think what Theresa means is that a bad deal would mean being like a partial of the EU, such as accepting things like freedom of movement, and jurisdiction by the ECJ.
People voted to leave, so we cannot make big concessions to the EU
Many people argue freedom of movement leads to mass immigration but most immigration comes from outside the EU anyway and the government fails to meet immigration targets with them so treating EU citizens with that status still wont stop them coming in. Freedom of movement is not the problem.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by TheTree0fDeath)
There was nothing on the ballot that specified a hard Brexit. There was nothing on the ballot specifying cutting all ties with Europe and the European Union. Jurisdiction by the ECJ is a major bad thing of course but freedom of movement is a small price to pay for membership of the single market.
Many people argue freedom of movement leads to mass immigration but most immigration comes from outside the EU anyway and the government fails to meet immigration targets with them so treating EU citizens with that status still wont stop them coming in. Freedom of movement is not the problem.
There was nothing on the ballot that specified a hard Brexit. There was nothing on the ballot specifying cutting all ties with Europe and the European Union. Jurisdiction by the ECJ is a major bad thing of course but freedom of movement is a small price to pay for membership of the single market.
Many people argue freedom of movement leads to mass immigration but most immigration comes from outside the EU anyway and the government fails to meet immigration targets with them so treating EU citizens with that status still wont stop them coming in. Freedom of movement is not the problem.
Plus having a soft Brexit would mean being an EEA member, that means having to follow around 75% of current and future EU law. How is that Brexit?
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by asim1999)
Feeedom of movement was designed for the big multinationals for cheap labour, that is why Blair allowed the Eastern European countries to join. All the big players in the leave and remain side said during the referendum would mean leaving the single market.
Plus having a soft Brexit would mean being an EEA member, that means having to follow around 75% of current and future EU law. How is that Brexit?
Feeedom of movement was designed for the big multinationals for cheap labour, that is why Blair allowed the Eastern European countries to join. All the big players in the leave and remain side said during the referendum would mean leaving the single market.
Plus having a soft Brexit would mean being an EEA member, that means having to follow around 75% of current and future EU law. How is that Brexit?
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by TheTree0fDeath)
It's a Brexit as we would no longer be members of the European Union. That's all people voted for. Everything else is still up for debate.
It's a Brexit as we would no longer be members of the European Union. That's all people voted for. Everything else is still up for debate.
0
reply
Report
#8
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by TheTree0fDeath)
Ok I watched it. So? What the leave campaign said is completely irrelevant. They also said leaving the EU means £350 million a week extra for the NHS for gods sake! Both leavers and remainers had a huge range of opinions and political beliefs and in the case of the leave campaign they also lied a great deal. Brexit means Brexit but there was no referendum on what kind of Brexit. Campaign quotes CANNOT be used to interpret what the electorate was intending when it voted to leave.
Ok I watched it. So? What the leave campaign said is completely irrelevant. They also said leaving the EU means £350 million a week extra for the NHS for gods sake! Both leavers and remainers had a huge range of opinions and political beliefs and in the case of the leave campaign they also lied a great deal. Brexit means Brexit but there was no referendum on what kind of Brexit. Campaign quotes CANNOT be used to interpret what the electorate was intending when it voted to leave.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by asim1999)
What about remain? They used project fear but they only talked about short term and immediate consequences. If we remain or have a soft Brexit, that could lead to further integration such as joining schengen and being made to join the euro as our opt outs aren’t permanent as said in the Lisbon treaty.
What about remain? They used project fear but they only talked about short term and immediate consequences. If we remain or have a soft Brexit, that could lead to further integration such as joining schengen and being made to join the euro as our opt outs aren’t permanent as said in the Lisbon treaty.
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by TheTree0fDeath)
There was nothing on the ballot that specified a hard Brexit. There was nothing on the ballot specifying cutting all ties with Europe and the European Union. Jurisdiction by the ECJ is a major bad thing of course but freedom of movement is a small price to pay for membership of the single market.
Many people argue freedom of movement leads to mass immigration but most immigration comes from outside the EU anyway and the government fails to meet immigration targets with them so treating EU citizens with that status still wont stop them coming in. Freedom of movement is not the problem.
There was nothing on the ballot that specified a hard Brexit. There was nothing on the ballot specifying cutting all ties with Europe and the European Union. Jurisdiction by the ECJ is a major bad thing of course but freedom of movement is a small price to pay for membership of the single market.
Many people argue freedom of movement leads to mass immigration but most immigration comes from outside the EU anyway and the government fails to meet immigration targets with them so treating EU citizens with that status still wont stop them coming in. Freedom of movement is not the problem.
0
reply
Report
#12
Sticking with my previous prediction that there will either be:
A) A crash out with no deal by default, or
B) A Norway-style deal that changes very little and leaves us inside or under the jurisdiction of most EU institutions, that is presented as a temporary deal while the more long term deal is worked out, but actually just ends up being the permanent state of affairs.
A) A crash out with no deal by default, or
B) A Norway-style deal that changes very little and leaves us inside or under the jurisdiction of most EU institutions, that is presented as a temporary deal while the more long term deal is worked out, but actually just ends up being the permanent state of affairs.
0
reply
How will a no deal/ bad deal affect the Aerospace, food, plastic, car manufacturers industries? Will companies move out of the UK?
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by richard10012)
How will a no deal/ bad deal affect the Aerospace, food, plastic, car manufacturers industries? Will companies move out of the UK?
How will a no deal/ bad deal affect the Aerospace, food, plastic, car manufacturers industries? Will companies move out of the UK?
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by metaphoricalworm)
Ah yeah, let's leave the European Union and stay in all of the actually relevant parts of the European Union.
Ah yeah, let's leave the European Union and stay in all of the actually relevant parts of the European Union.
0
reply
Report
#16
where is Noel Edmonds when you need him?
seriously though, he'd have this brexit deal thing done in no time.
seriously though, he'd have this brexit deal thing done in no time.
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by TheTree0fDeath)
Perfect 👌. We retain our sovereignty while also having a prosperous economy!
Perfect 👌. We retain our sovereignty while also having a prosperous economy!
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
That sovereignty is pointless if the decision making gets done outside the sovereignty of UK Parliament. All that has happened is we get less say with whatever the EU side proposes to us. We go through all this trouble of wasted time and money for absolutely nothing and find ourselves in a less favourable position.
That sovereignty is pointless if the decision making gets done outside the sovereignty of UK Parliament. All that has happened is we get less say with whatever the EU side proposes to us. We go through all this trouble of wasted time and money for absolutely nothing and find ourselves in a less favourable position.
0
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by TheTree0fDeath)
I agree the decision making process should be done entirely in the UK parliament. However, nobody is suggesting that we should hand over control to Brussels. All I'm doing is emphasising that an isolationist Britain is impossible when we are such a tiny island for 70 million people. We lack natural resources so must trade our skills for these. We cannot do that without a relationship with Europe.
I agree the decision making process should be done entirely in the UK parliament. However, nobody is suggesting that we should hand over control to Brussels. All I'm doing is emphasising that an isolationist Britain is impossible when we are such a tiny island for 70 million people. We lack natural resources so must trade our skills for these. We cannot do that without a relationship with Europe.
Retreating into a nationalistic enclave will not solve the problems of democracy, no matter how much parliamentary sovereignty we have.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
