richard10012
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
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
username1765117
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#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.
0
reply
username2124911
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#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.
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
0
reply
username1765117
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#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
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
username2124911
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#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.
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
username1765117
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#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?
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
username2124911
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#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.
Watch this: https://youtu.be/UHzmCHcM7cA
0
reply
username1765117
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by asim1999)
Watch this: https://youtu.be/UHzmCHcM7cA
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
username2124911
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#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.
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
username1765117
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#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.
I must say the suggestion that not immediately cutting off relations with the EU means we could be forced to join Schengen and use the Euro is absurd. The EU is not the 4th reich!
0
reply
metaphoricalworm
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#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.
Ah yeah, let's leave the European Union and stay in all of the actually relevant parts of the European Union.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#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.
0
reply
richard10012
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
How will a no deal/ bad deal affect the Aerospace, food, plastic, car manufacturers industries? Will companies move out of the UK?
0
reply
username1765117
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#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?
I'm no expert but if I was the chief exec of Nissan or BMW and I had the choice between keeping the factory in the UK and paying huge tariffs or taking a short ferry crossing and having access to all the glorious benefits of free trade I would definitely pick moving to France. Especially as Scotland will likely go independent now as a result of the referendum, companies could just move their operations to Scotland and they wouldn't even need a ferry.
0
reply
username1765117
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#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.
Perfect 👌. We retain our sovereignty while also having a prosperous economy!
0
reply
NoGCSEs
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
where is Noel Edmonds when you need him?
seriously though, he'd have this brexit deal thing done in no time.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by TheTree0fDeath)
Perfect 👌. We retain our sovereignty while also having a prosperous economy!
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
username1765117
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#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.
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.
0
reply
username2965904
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
No deal would create a lot of short-term uncertainty.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#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.
The decision making process can not be entirely made in UK Parliament due to the nature of the global economy. Factors decided outside the the borders of the UK effect us and we have no say, other than whatever our market position is, on what these factors will be. When economies and decision making happens on a scale above nation states you need supranational political entities if you want to exert more control over the. If we want global capitalism to be more democratic we need to institutions like the EU to exist and to be democratic themselves. From this position the problem with the EU was not that is was supranational, rather it was that it had/has a democratic deficit (see Greece).

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

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you consider Adjustment if your grades were higher than you expected?

Yes, I'd look at higher ranking universities than my current choices (125)
42.96%
Yes, I'd look for a course or uni that is a better fit for me (45)
15.46%
No, I'd stick with my current uni choice (116)
39.86%
Something else (let us know in the thread below!) (5)
1.72%

Watched Threads

View All