we appear to be bending over for every hurdle on the Brexit negotiations - it was quite predictable as one side had an agenda set on principles (agree with them or not they set them out at the outset) while the other had no idea on what it really wanted or how to get it.
What cards are we actually holding?
We were told by politicians, UKIP, people on here, we held the cards. We would be in a strong position to reach a deal with the EU.
That's not a reasonable framework by anyone's standards. You can accurately translate it to "We will discuss how many of your bargaining chips you're going to give away first, then we will discuss ours".
That's not a negotiation, that's a Diktat.
The UK position absolutely has to be that our financial contribution will be entirely dependant on the deal we have for Brexit. That if we are to be close trading nations with no tariffs then the success of the EU is in our interest and of course we will contribute to their development. If we are to be arm's length traders with no regard for our current trading relationship then fudge them, we don't pay a thing. We absolutely have to be prepared to walk if they won't move past the budget.
What led you to believe we would be in a position to negotiate with any authority over them? It was clear to many people who looked at past EU trade agreements and the time they took to complete, that this would not be a simple process and we would not 'hold all the cards' or even be an equal (they have 500m consumers we have 50m). Yet politicians, and people on here, were 100% sure, rooster sure, that we'd be in a strong negotiating position and reach a fast agreement. I think its fair to say their assertions were wholly incorrect. These people - many of whom are now involved in negotiating Brexit - were either ill informed (concerning) or deceptive.
The UKs lack of experience in conducting such international trade relations and talks is apparent. The EU is used to these lengthy trade deals and it can outline its position and not budge, our representatives are learning on the job, and it shows.
The next area to look at with some scrutiny is the Singapore model. Hard Brexiteers see Singapore as their Eden. T
he UK could be a low tax haven attracting business from all over the world. Or so their mantra goes. But this is the most superficial analysis. Singapore has an abundance of cheap, pretty well educated labor, in a region where goods and materials are easy to transport from China. The deluded Brexiteer Toffs have gone, yes we're an island, we're like Singapore, we could do that! It fits with our conservative ethos. But what are they basing our suitability to become a low tax haven on? Where is the research or in-depth studies they have they undertaken to think we can so simply apply this model to our particular economy and location? Furthermore, such a corporation attracting setup would not work with Corbyn's outlook and should he be elected there would a clash of ideologies and vision, undermining the whole premise. Furthermore, the EU would not offer us trade terms if we are undermining them with sexy low tax corporate tax rates.
In short Brexiteers have been deluded throughout this process, and this is the latest incarnation of their grandiose delusions. First we were to be like Norway. UKIP and others are on record saying this is what would happen if we voted Leave, we'd be like Norway and remain in the customs union. Just shows how little even those preaching Brexit really knew. Since, they have been backed into a corner, doubling down on their bet, where only a harder Brexit offers some semblance of sense - we could be like Singapore. Regardless of whether we really could be, its feasibility, or if wanted to be. Singapore has questionable rights for workers and people putting the emphasis on corporate profit.
