|
No need to be so touchy. I wasn't trying to brow beat anyone by mentioning that I had a degree. I mentioned it as I had personally looked at comparisons involving trade blocs and countries before. It had not even occurred to me that anyone could consider that mentioning a degree could be construed as trying to cow someone. (Maybe though, because I work in an industry where you assume everyone else has at least one degree as a matter of course, I consider having a degree as more normal/usual than most other people do.)
OK as you are so focused on wording, lets change the term "EU" to "the 27 countries that we are negotiating with".
Yes, I do believe that if you focus on trade, then we are in a weaker position for negotiating an agreement. We are negotiating with 27 countries and together those countries have a much larger economy. Those countries are also proportionately far less dependent upon trade with us than we are on trade with them. If, for arguments sake, trade between the UK and the EU 27 countries was reduced by X% after Brexit then the unemployment rate in the UK would rise far more significantly than the unemployment rate in the EU 27 countries.
From a purely trade perspective, those 27 countries simply do not need us as much as we need them.
Now, if you invoke other arguments on the relative strength of the two parties in the negotiation you would be on more solid ground.
For example, the UK is the second largest net contributor to the EU budget with a net contribution of around £10bn in 2018 and an average of about £8bn over the last 5 years. However, the existing financial settlement has the UK paying around £5bn a year for a number of years - so there isn't much of a saving/loss on either side for a number of years. The EU can certainly kick the problem of needing to cut spending down the road for a number of years. (Especially as for the next few years the UK will continue contributing but will cease being able to claim funding.) |
|