Free trade agreement.

[Corcory]

People keep going on about the fact that we can't be in the single market without agreeing to freedom of movement but why can't we negotiate a free trade agreement like the other countries in the world that are not in the EU?

Mistigri

While no doubt such an outburst would give you 5 minutes of satisfaction, it is not constructive or rational.

I am afraid office jobs even in the export sector often does not provide one with exposure to international trade and relationships pokers which often bring talks to the brink before what needs to be done are done.

I am still assuming that neither EU or our government ministers are mad people and Morgenthau principles will be taken note of.

our government ministers are mad people
but they convincing us they are, without even trying too hard.

Fox telling business people that they are lazy.

May decreeing “The 27 will sign up to a deal with us.” We will be negotiating with them. And … we will be ambitious in what we want to see for the UK. A good deal for the UK can also be a good deal for the other member states because I believe in good trading relations and I have said I want the UK to be a global leader in free trade.”

As we used to be told as children "I want gets nothing."

May is operating under the illusion that 'they need us more than we need them'.

It's not often one fact, 'we are a net importer', can be viewed by different parties as such polar opposites in term of our negioting position.

TM clearly thinks as we import more than we export then the EU will be desperate to keep selling to us.

I think the opposite- we cannot be self sufficient and need to trade with the EU and, with the exception of certain products like German cars, the other EU countries could make up for their lost sales to us much more easily than we can find alternatives to procure.

And that's before the fact we need to be able to continue to export our financial services.

Looks like a very weak bargaining position to me.

North's Flexcit plan was just as unrealistic as the Tory far right.

North wanted an interim EEA deal and then to move onto 'an expanded single market freed from the dominance of Brussels'. UNECE would administrate this new single market, which would cover the whole of Europe and other states, and the EEA would be disbanded.

Sounds like the reality of our situation has now hit him, and is blaming Brexiteers cluelessness on trade deals, on which he was arguably equally naive, ('unbundling' anyone?) in the same way that Liam Fox blamed lazy exporters.

North, like many moderate Leavers, failed to take account of who he was actually in bed with and thus what the outcome of the vote could potentially be.

TM clearly thinks as we import more than we export then the EU will be desperate to keep selling to us.

And of course the EU is substantially bigger than we are. A substantial amount of our total imports does not equal a substantial amount of total EU exports.

I'm sure the EU would like to reach an amicable resolution, but it has been states over and over again that the four freedoms are non negotiable.

Joining in a bit late here, but I have to go back to the posts about the City and "only 10%" of trading being affected by losing passporting. This is yet another instance of failing to understand a single thing about it.

All the international banks will be looking at potential sites elsewhere in Europe, and they will be keeping the details restricted to those who need to know, because they don't want their best employees to get wind of anything and start looking elsewhere. This is standard practice and has been going on for years with various forms of offshoring etc..

More importantly, when they move their base of operations, they will not be taking "just 10%" of their operations. I don't know why this isn't blatantly obvious. They may leave some operations in London if they have a large enough clientele to service there, but the merger between the Deutsche Boerse and LSE means that UK stocks can be traded in Frankfurt, so splitting their portfolios would be stupid when they can simply relocate them all. I expect some banks will leave a token operation in London for a few years, but it's more likely that "just 10%" will be left in London and the other 90% moved to Frankfurt of wherever.

This will be catastrophic for London, and for the UK economy. We've already dropped from 5th largest economy purely as a result of the vote. If we go through with Brexit we'll be in double figures in no time.

1. Export. We will see if EU is more of a Franco-German block or is it a union of equals. Traditionally people say customers are king and in all exports, one thing that is more difficult than tariff and non tariff barriers is finding the customers.

Further, if you look at MIT Atlas about what UK imports - there isn't many (if many) that we cannot buy from elsewhere (US, Japan, Domestic). While some will disagree, I consider Australian wine (or Chilean wines) to be approximate substitute for the equivalent French's products.

1. EU and the rules - Lichtenstein (granted it is very small ) is not fully accepting FoM and EU is leaving it alone. Let's see of EU will kick Swiss out of the bi-laterals next March.

1. Granted there is a conflicting objectives EU internally - one to ensure there is not more UK copycat and one to be realistic about the threat to a very fragile Eurozone economy with a larger and larger anti-establishment following.

City - '10%' is the latest chatter. No one of course knows what it would be yet. However, this has moved from a 'total destruction' on 24 June to about '10%' today. It is still a moving target.

And of course all the big banks already have operations in the EU countries. The operations are already being coordinated from across the Globe - go to any of the big bank website and you will see they have offices dotted across the EU, and the world.

If they could relocate they would have already - London has been a very expensive place to do business during the last few years (before deval).
They haven't go.

When we narrowly escaped joining the Euro, they said they will be gone - but apparently not.

HSBC has reaffirmed that it will remain HQ in London. We don't like the banks much (we tolerate them) but the EU countries dislike them even more. Do they really want to be HQ in Frankfurt?

I am afraid your 90% is way over the top and that is apparent to any informed commentator. You may be able to argue for a 25% case but I think that is still way OTT. 1/3 of the City operation serve the UK domestic market - that is no going anywhere. The other 1/3 serves NA and RoW - no particular reason to go to the over regulated Eurozone (there is only 1 country Denmark that is outside the EZ and they are definitely not going to go there) and 1/3 to the EU.

So, you will have to explain to me why this is 'blatantly obvious' that they cannot wait to rush for the exit.

Sorry

EZ -
Denmark, Sweden on opt out.
Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech, Poland, Hungary may join.

As I said, no understanding of how the City works at all.

Basically a typical Brexiteer, making up what they want to happen and insisting that that is actually the way it is...

Liechtenstein. Give me strength! A mountainous country of 37,000 inhabitants, 25km long. Physically, there is almost nowhere to put any more people. Which is why the EU leaves them alone. For comparison, Oxford City has 159,600 inhabitants. Still you may not be alone in this - I can't remember who it was, Daniel Hannan maybe, who compared Liechenstein to the UK.

The Swiss haven't been having it all their own way, although there is talk of a deal being on the table. But that is just talk at the moment, and the Swiss are running out of time.

Peregrina

I understand that Liechtenstein is small and stated that and we will see if they kick the Swiss out.

However, pretty obvious there is no such thing as rules are rules. They have done the 'illegal' bailout in all but name and a most probably illegal refugee deal with Turkey. German and France breaches the 3% stability pact many times and nothing happened.

Rules are rules and non negotiable - really ?

IAmNotTheMessiah

I think you are right. So now please don't disappear and I bet you to explain to me in details how the city works and why 90% of them with disappear.

Sorry, not 'bet' I beg you to explain.

and please if you can start by explaining to me why the UK focus banks such as Lloyds would want to move to the EU and others who serve the UK market would disappear that will be very helpful indeed....

Yes, there are rules, and rules, and there may be some flexibility. But whatever is "bent" is going to have to be to the benefit, or at least not the detriment of other EU countries or someone will veto it.

Lichtenstein is so small, that they can be in the EEA without doing some of the usual things because they are too small to have any impact.

The UK however can impact on the EU.

Much as I'd love to spend hours explaining all the minutiae to you, you'd only ignore it and pretend to yourself that you know better anyway/

As I said, not all banks would relocate, and many would do it slowly, as replacing London's skilled support staff would take time. They might also want to hedge their bets in case, in the event of a Brexit, there is massive deregulation (oh joy) enabling them to take more risks and expect the (UK) taxpayer to bail them out (again).

That's something to look forward to.

IAmNotTheMessiah

That is fine. Just justify your 90% moving to Frankfurt or whever claim would be much appreciated.

"likely that "just 10%" will be left in London and the other 90% moved to Frankfurt of wherever."

No halfway house will do: Theresa May will go for a hard Brexit
A good article from the FT, but google if you want to read it to avoid the paywall.

One of the comments makes a sensible point about referenda:
If you are going to allow such votes in a parliamentary system, you need clear terms of reference. A good example of a country that has smart laws about referendums is Italy. There are two stipulations. 1. Referendums cannot refer to treaties with foreign powers, as this involves negotiation beyond unilateral decisions. 2. Both options must be capable of immediate implementation. We could have learned something from the Italian constitution.
Alternatively, be like Germany and ban them altogether.

Both countries which suffered under Fascism - says it all for me.

Significant’ Brexit risk for 5,500 UK firms using EU passporting
Another FT article.

I don't need to justify it. Unfortunately we're likely to be here to watch it happen.

Joy.

"I don't need to justify it. "

I see.

Well, nobody on the Brexit side has managed to justify a single thing so far! Or even tried in most cases.

our government ministers are mad people

I don't think they are necessarily mad, but Fox and Davis are either stupid and poorly informed, or doing a good job of pretending to be. (BoJo I'd put in the "just pretending" camp).

Gloria like I said, I disagree with North and his co-conspirators on nearly everything, but at least they had a plan - not necessarily a workable one or even a very good one, but a plan. It's possible to constructively criticise a plan and engage with its authors. It's a considerable improvement over slogans designed to appeal to people with a sub-70 IQ like "Brexit means Brexit".

It's a bit like indyref: you might disagree with the SNP's independence plan, but at least they had gone to the trouble of preparing one.

It's a bit like indyref: you might disagree with the SNP's independence plan, but at least they had gone to the trouble of preparing one.

Indeed. That is what I would like to see the three stooges Brexiteers prepare now - a comprehensive report about the sort of Brexit we would be aiming for, and then the details thrashed out via Parliamentary debate. Before Art. 50 is invoked.