Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

First Up

BBDBB wrote:

I hear what you are saying, I'm not sure a border dispute in the med will be considered reasonable cause to derail the negotiation on its own, I think both sides will be told/urged to stop playing silly buggers and be more conciliatory. Once it's all signed and sealed, then yes they will probably be back at the friction tactics

I wouldn't count on that either. The Brexiteers have taken the lid off a number of cans of worms and by all accounts the Spanish have every intention of putting the opportunity to use.

BBDBB

First Up wrote: »

I wouldn't count on that either. The Brexiteers have taken the lid off a number of cans of worms and by all accounts the Spanish have every intention of putting the opportunity to use.

That's entirely possible and even likely, however, if you consider that a deal is better than no deal for the EU and you've invested 2 years in negotiating a process that deters further exits and leaves you in an advantageous position are you really going to let a centuries old border dispute wreck that?

I think the uk vs Spain is an impasse, neither side will concede. For the uk to throw Gibraltar under the bus just how advantageous would the deal have to be? I can't see the other EU nations allowing it to be a show stopper
Spain will attempt to apply leverage, U.K. Will stand firm but sovereignty won't change in my view as Spain will eventually be pulled into line

BBDBB

indioblack wrote: »

Two of my workmates, one Polish, one Romanian, have quizzed me about Brexit. They seek certainty in a process where there isn't enough information to give it. Except that there will be a price to be paid in the short term. As with the referendum 40 odd years ago on whether Britain continued it's membership of the EEC, there are "experts" from both sides who are probably only a little better informed than I am.
So it's no wonder some people feel anxious about the long term effects.
It's going to be an interesting two years - with political games and maneuverings from either side to gain advantage over the other.
As is often said, a week is a long time in politics - I wonder how it will all look in the next year to eighteen months. It would be unlikely if all of the main characters in this game will remain in place.
There might even be a grovelling u-turn - little can be ruled out.

Are they here legally?
Are they working and paying tax, ie contributing positively?

If the answer is yes then my best guess is that they will be fine in the future.
There's loads of political shenanigans and point scoring to be had, but protecting the rights of people's in both camps is going to be an easy reciprocal agreement in the early stages of the negotiation. It's common sense, it makes both sides look good and it means a minimum of disruption. Both sides want that

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

I wouldn't count on that either. The Brexiteers have taken the lid off a number of cans of worms and by all accounts the Spanish have every intention of putting the opportunity to use.

All accounts?

Capt'n Midnight

Lane Rough Scarecrow wrote: »

The UK could probably sell to China where there is a great appetite. Powdered and packed stuff not time-sensitive so suitable for 8wk shipping.

Everyone sells to China , after the melamine scandals imported food commands a premium. But only over local prices. No one pays more for powered and packaged than for fresh food.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

All accounts?

Look it up.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

I wouldn't count on that either. The Brexiteers have taken the lid off a number of cans of worms and by all accounts the Spanish have every intention of putting the opportunity to use.

It's more of a case that Spain was first off the blocks. They aren't the only ones who can veto a trade agreement.

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's more of a case that Spain was first off the blocks. They aren't the only ones who can veto a trade agreement.

Britain has to satisfy the demands of countries as diverse as Ireland, Croatia, Bulgaria and Denmark. Going to be a rocky road to freedom.

BBDBB

Ultimately, those diverse demands have to satisfy the EU too, too much of those individual nations trying to assert influence using the Brexit negotiations as a vehicle does not serve the EU either and will undermine their own negotiation

4068ac1elhodqr

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Everyone sells to China , after the melamine scandals imported food commands a premium. But only over local prices. No one pays more for powered and packaged than for fresh food.

Would imagine there is a reasonable/growing middle class market for (grass-fed) powdered milk products, ever since 2008. Annual birth rates average around 17,104,123. 18m in 2016, after the policy change.

Professor Moriarty

BBDBB wrote: »

Ultimately, those diverse demands have to satisfy the EU too, too much of those individual nations trying to assert influence using the Brexit negotiations as a vehicle does not serve the EU either and will undermine their own negotiation

Well, if the 27 start using the negotiations to gain advantage over fellow EU members then ultimately everyone loses. However, if unity is maintained then Britain must satisfy the needs of the 27 regarding their collective and individual relationships with Britain. Also, I don't think Mutti will tolerate any disobedience. So I'd rather be one of the 27 than Britain, as things stand.

indioblack

BBDBB wrote: »

Are they here legally?
Are they working and paying tax, ie contributing positively?

If the answer is yes then my best guess is that they will be fine in the future.
There's loads of political shenanigans and point scoring to be had, but protecting the rights of people's in both camps is going to be an easy reciprocal agreement in the early stages of the negotiation. It's common sense, it makes both sides look good and it means a minimum of disruption. Both sides want that

Yes, they're both legitimate. And you're guess about their future here is probably correct. Some of their concern, I'd say, is down to the juvenile "it's the foreigners" attitude.

BBDBB

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, if the 27 start using the negotiations to gain advantage over fellow EU members then ultimately everyone loses. However, if unity is maintained then Britain must satisfy the needs of the 27 regarding their collective and individual relationships with Britain. Also, I don't think Mutti will tolerate any disobedience. So I'd rather be one of the 27 than Britain, as things stand.

The key phrase is "if unity is maintained" the EU by its makeup needs to get 27 different views to coincide. So using only the Spanish claim on Gibraltar as one example, as someone assured me above, they won't be the only one who will be trying to exert influence or extract some kind of benefit, which is entirely understandable, but if 26 nations say yes, we have the uk where we want them, this is the deal we want, the price is right, do you think Spain will be allowed to prevent progress by digging her heels in over Gibraltar? I don't. Protecting the rights of citizens is not an area where problems are anticipated in this negotiation. This is Brexit, not a 2017 treaty of Versailles, the U.K. Won't budge on Gibraltar and Spain will eventually have to step in behind the EU stance

I appreciate the strength of the EU, it's size is an impressive and imposing force, but it's also it's greatest weakness. It's ultimately why the EU is in so much trouble as an institution. Getting 27 nations to agree is slow and cumbersome, so how do you get unity? You have to cut deals or make demands, but that's all internal politics in the EU. That's not a Uk concern

BBDBB

indioblack wrote: »

Yes, they're both legitimate. And you're guess about their future here is probably correct. Some of their concern, I'd say, is down to the juvenile "it's the foreigners" attitude.

I know, it's one of the most depressing aspects of the the Leave supporters and how they are portrayed. Bigoted views being given a platform has become the main stage rather than a sideshow that it barely even deserves

Professor Moriarty

BBDBB wrote: »

The key phrase is "if unity is maintained" the EU by its makeup needs to get 27 different views to coincide. So using only the Spanish claim on Gibraltar as one example, as someone assured me above, they won't be the only one who will be trying to exert influence or extract some kind of benefit, which is entirely understandable, but if 26 nations say yes, we have the uk where we want them, this is the deal we want, the price is right, do you think Spain will be allowed to prevent progress by digging her heels in over Gibraltar? I don't. Protecting the rights of citizens is not an area where problems are anticipated in this negotiation. This is Brexit, not a 2017 treaty of Versailles, the U.K. Won't budge on Gibraltar and Spain will eventually have to step in behind the EU stance

I appreciate the strength of the EU, it's size is an impressive and imposing force, but it's also it's greatest weakness. It's ultimately why the EU is in so much trouble as an institution. Getting 27 nations to agree is slow and cumbersome, so how do you get unity? You have to cut deals or make demands, but that's all internal politics in the EU. That's not a Uk concern

It will boil down to the needs of the Franco-German axis. Other countries will huff and puff and make opportunist claims but pragmatism will prevail. And that will include Gibraltar.

Here's the thing, though. The EU must only think about Britain and Britain's goals when planning strategy as the 27 will (hopefully) have signed up to the negotiating position outlined by Barnier. Britain must think about what the EU's goals are and what might cause one of the 27 to veto any agreement. Plus time is on the EU's side if any one of the 27 demands changes, not Britain's.

Christy42

BBDBB wrote: »

That's entirely possible and even likely, however, if you consider that a deal is better than no deal for the EU and you've invested 2 years in negotiating a process that deters further exits and leaves you in an advantageous position are you really going to let a centuries old border dispute wreck that?

I think the uk vs Spain is an impasse, neither side will concede. For the uk to throw Gibraltar under the bus just how advantageous would the deal have to be? I can't see the other EU nations allowing it to be a show stopper
Spain will attempt to apply leverage, U.K. Will stand firm but sovereignty won't change in my view as Spain will eventually be pulled into line

The UK will be destroyed if no deal is done. Spain can live with it. Why would the EU pull the UK into line? They will each have their own demands, if they back up Spain then Spain will back them up.

The UK can tank it's economy even more than even more than needed on a rock that voted to stay in the EU. I am very curious as to how they would feel on the issue on nationality now as they are being separated from the closest serious land mass. Unless they really believe the UK will take great care of them specifically instead of fighting to own them and forgetting about them once they do.

FrancieBrady

I can't believe he was taken seriously enough to warrant wasting paper and ink on after saying 'NI would not be damaged in any way by Brexit', there are 3 or 4 similarly deluded people who wander around my border town who never get in the papers. (Apart from that incident with the bottle of buckfast and the goat )

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/republic-to-be-crucified-by-brexit-senior-unionist-says-1.3032574

BBDBB

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It will boil down to the needs of the Franco-German axis. Other countries will huff and puff and make opportunist claims but pragmatism will prevail. And that will include Gibraltar.

Here's the thing, though. The EU must only think about Britain and Britain's goals when planning strategy as the 27 will (hopefully) have signed up to the negotiating position outlined by Barnier. Britain must think about what the EU's goals are and what might cause one of the 27 to veto any agreement. Plus time is on the EU's side if any one of the 27 demands changes, not Britain's.

Agreed, pragmatism will win. Which is why your second paragraph doesn't quite add up. UK need only focus on what it will and won't concede, various nations applying the brakes for their own agenda, which they have a perfect right to do, will slow the process and interfere with later items on the agenda

Theresa May laid out a balanced and reasonable way forward, Tusk has cleverley countered with a hint of concession but retaining the control over the agenda. I see why that's considered to be the advantageous to the EU, however both parties could have made their lives a lot easier by discussing what the future relationship looked like first. It's much easier to gain agreement on paying the bill, trade etc if you both understand how you want the future to look

Failing to meet the two year deadline screws over both sides, not just the UK, time is not on the EUs side, that's why their phased approach will prove to be a poor start for the process, hopefully pragmatism will kick in as the clock ticks on

Professor Moriarty

BBDBB wrote: »

Agreed, pragmatism will win. Which is why your second paragraph doesn't quite add up. UK need only focus on what it will and won't concede, various nations applying the brakes for their own agenda, which they have a perfect right to do, will slow the process and interfere with later items on the agenda

Theresa May laid out a balanced and reasonable way forward, Tusk has cleverley countered with a hint of concession but retaining the control over the agenda. I see why that's considered to be the advantageous to the EU, however both parties could have made their lives a lot easier by discussing what the future relationship looked like first. It's much easier to gain agreement on paying the bill, trade etc if you both understand how you want the future to look

Failing to meet the two year deadline screws over both sides, not just the UK, time is not on the EUs side, that's why their phased approach will prove to be a poor start for the process, hopefully pragmatism will kick in as the clock ticks on

Hmmm. May's balanced and reasonable way forward was to initiate proceedings with a threat.

The EU responded quickly by rejecting the threat and telling May to cop on. Merkel then flatly rejected May's assumption that there would be parallel talks. And so day number 1 ended.

Cui bono if the two year deadline isn't made? Or who loses most, perhaps? Remember, the EU is happy for things to remain as they are. Britain, however, needs change asap. Make no mistake, as long as the EU remains united, Barnier has all the cards - the status quo suits the EU, the EU is nine times the size of Britain, Britain has to satisfy 27 different agendas etc.

BBDBB

Christy42 wrote: »

The UK will be destroyed if no deal is done. Spain can live with it. Why would the EU pull the UK into line? They will each have their own demands, if they back up Spain then Spain will back them up.

The UK can tank it's economy even more than even more than needed on a rock that voted to stay in the EU. I am very curious as to how they would feel on the issue on nationality now as they are being separated from the closest serious land mass. Unless they really believe the UK will take great care of them specifically instead of fighting to own them and forgetting about them once they do.

I don't agree the uk will be destroyed if no deal is done. It will suffer, as will the EU. No deal benefits no one

As described above, consider the logical conclusion of what you seem to be advocating and in the light of the stances taken by both sides. Yes the EU is pisssed off that the UK is leaving as they will miss its contribution to the coffers, they won't miss it's bolshyness, it's always been a difficult relationship. So what deal suits the EU most?

1)No deal? Both sides suffer as the uncertainty will be flavoured with bitterness and a uk economy in the doldrums would be a comparatively **** trading partner, satisfying to a few who are motivated to get their just desserts but dreadful for European business
2) a deal where the uk does well? Disastrous for the Eu as an institution, better for trade though, would that be enough to discourage other nations leaving
3) a deal where the Uk does badly? Sounds good from an Eu perspective, but harder to get the uk to agree, the art of good negotiation is not screwing the other side to the wall. Also it devalues future trading relationships.
4) a deal where both sides get a reasonable deal, enough to convince the electorate that they should sign rather than walk away as in option 1

That's why a deal will not be held to ransom by a border dispute over Gibraltar.
If you think that the whole of the EU will get behind Spain then I can't see it, if it were to happen, I can be wrong after all, do you think that the uk will throw Gibraltar under the bus? If so, what will be their incentive to sign such a deal? It would have to be pretty favourable wouldn't it. Otherwise it's lose Gibraltar and get shafted in the negotiation. I think they'd walk away first

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can't believe he was taken seriously enough to warrant wasting paper and ink on after saying 'NI would not be damaged in any way by Brexit'

I think he might be taking the title 'Lord' a little too seriously the moron.

BBDBB

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. May's balanced and reasonable way forward was to initiate proceedings with a threat.

The EU responded quickly by rejecting the threat and telling May to cop on. Merkel then flatly rejected May's assumption that there would be parallel talks. And so day number 1 ended.

Cui bono if the two year deadline isn't made? Or who loses most, perhaps? Remember, the EU is happy for things to remain as they are. Britain, however, needs change asap. Make no mistake, as long as the EU remains united, Barnier has all the cards - the status quo suits the EU, the EU is nine times the size of Britain, Britain has to satisfy 27 different agendas etc.

No it didn't, that's a biased view of a statement of fact, that happens to suit an anti uk agenda. Trade and security are intertwined, to separate them is a mistake for political ends.

Yes, U.K. Loses more than the eu, that's not in dispute. But does the Eu really wish to walk away from the billions of £ it would lose if it takes a might is right attitude and holds a gun to the head of the U.K. That's a very naive view and largely driven by egos rather than anything rational

No, U.K. In the Eu suits the Eu. Screwing the uk is not in their interest
No it doesn't, the Eu has to present a united stance or it falls to infighting which the uk can sit back and wait and point to their watches

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think he might be taking the title 'Lord' a little too seriously the moron.

These guys are staring down the barrel of showing their passports to get on to their beloved mainland while May keeps fudging their futures and he can claim that Brexiteer nonsense?
Moronic isn't close

Junkyard Tom

BBDBB wrote: »

If you think that the whole of the EU will get behind Spain

An accumulation of issues may make any settlement impossible, or at least impossibly slow, leaving Britain in some sort of in-out limbo, or out with no deal, which will hurt Britain far more than it hurts the EU.

A long drawn-out negotiation process will destabilise Britain internally. A quick Brexit with Britain reverting to WTO terms will damage its economy.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Moronic isn't close

It's like the spurned spouse still believing they're loved by the person who doesn't care about them any more. This unrequited love unionists have for Britain is really pitiful.

BBDBB

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

An accumulation of issues may make any settlement impossible, or at least impossibly slow, leaving Britain in some sort of in-out limbo, or out with no deal, which will hurt Britain far more than it hurts the EU.

A long drawn-out negotiation process will destabilise Britain internally. A quick Brexit with Britain reverting to WTO terms will damage its economy.

Yep that's entirely possible, and again knowing the uk is suffering more may be enough for some people, but such a halt would also hurt European business, in particular France and Germany. I know some people will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of the U.K. Suffering, serve em right etc but I think people are struggling to get their heads around the massive sums of money involved. Pragmatism will win

Professor Moriarty

BBDBB wrote: »

No it didn't, that's a biased view of a statement of fact, that happens to suit an anti uk agenda. Trade and security are intertwined, to separate them is a mistake for political ends.

Yes, U.K. Loses more than the eu, that's not in dispute. But does the Eu really wish to walk away from the billions of £ it would lose if it takes a might is right attitude and holds a gun to the head of the U.K. That's a very naive view and largely driven by egos rather than anything rational

No, U.K. In the Eu suits the Eu. Screwing the uk is not in their interest
No it doesn't, the Eu has to present a united stance or it falls to infighting which the uk can sit back and wait and point to their watches

Well, one of two things happened.

(A) Britain threatened the EU as reported by the press across the world and the British press. And as interpreted by various EU leaders.

Or

(B) Britain didn't threaten the EU. So the press across the world, the press in Britain and EU leaders got it wrong. In which case, the letter was a diplomatic clusterfúck.

Look, as long as the EU remains united, Britain is on the back foot. Apart from threatening to withdraw from cooperation on security matters, it really doesn't have much of a hand to play with. Any delay will hurt both parties but it will hurt Britain the most. It must negotiate the biggest trade deal it's ever negotiated using civil servants who have never negotiated trade deals. They will be dealing with seasoned EU negotiators.

In two years time, a block nine times its size will be relatively indifferent if no deal is negotiated whereas Britain will be twisting in the wind. Forget any Commonwealth nonsense. Just forget it.

The EU has remained relatively united for decades. Things aren't so rosy in the 'United' Kingdom. Just today, Sturgeon submitted a letter demanding another referendum. Meanwhile, Stormont fragments.

The Little Englander Tories, with the craven acquiescence of the other Tories, created this mess and Britain will suffer. And the conditioned Brits will vote them back in with an increased majority. As de Maistre said, every nation gets the government they deserve. I like English people in general, but they've brought this upon themselves and to say that they have anything other than a weak negotiating position is, at best, wishful thinking.

Junkyard Tom

BBDBB wrote: »

such a halt would also hurt European business, in particular France and Germany.

Not as much as it would hurt Britain and that reality doesn't need any great understanding of economics - more an understanding of simple arithmetic.

I know some people will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of the U.K. Suffering

Pretty stupid considering the more Britain suffers the more Ireland will need the EU's backing or suffer itself.

Pragmatism will win

Let's hope so.

BBDBB

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, one of two things happened.

(A) Britain threatened the EU as reported by the press across the world and the British press. And as interpreted by various EU leaders.

Or

(B) Britain didn't threaten the EU and press across the world, in Britain and EU leaders got it wrong. In which case, the letter was a diplomatic clusterfúck.

Look, as long as the EU remains united, Britain is on the back foot. Apart from threatening to withdraw from cooperation on security matters, it really doesn't have much of a hand to play with. Any delay will hurt both parties but it will hurt Britain the most. It must negotiate the biggest trade deal it's ever negotiated using civil servants who have never negotiated trade deals. They will be dealing with seasoned EU negotiators.

In two years time, a block nine times its size will be relatively indifferent if no deal is negotiated whereas Britain will be twisting in the wind. Forget any Commonwealth nonsense. Just forget it.

The EU has remained relatively united for decades. Things aren't so rosy in the 'United' Kingdom. Just today, Sturgeon submitted a letter demanding another referendum. Meanwhile, Stormont fragments.

The Little Englander Tories, with the craven acquiescence of the other Tories, created this mess and Britain will suffer. And the conditioned Brits will vote them back in with an increased majority. As de Maistre said, every nation gets the government they deserve. I like English people in general, but they've brought this upon themselves and to say that they have anything other than a weak negotiating position is, at best, wishful thinking.

B is closer to the truth, but lacks the major contribution of a press desperate to see dischord which fuelled an interpretation that was entirely fabricated and false. The Eu has made a serious miscalculation in separating the two, firstly because the issue is so important, but secondly because it shows so much of how they will behave in negotiation and for all their experience that's a naive mistake to have made. No wonder negotiations take years for them.

A united EU is a big if, already Spain is getting twitchy, Ireland will have to do something similar if the border issue isn't satisfactory, Greece, may well choose to act up, what do they have to lose? Talk of a United EU is wishful thinking and that's without the elections in Germany and France and the pressure being exerted by the far right.

Yes the uk will be twisting in the wind and a bloc 9 times the size of it will now be reliant upon basically two nations to prop it up and rather than choose to keep the uk close and supportive through trade it preferred to screw it to the wall. Talk of the 27 sounds grand, but those 27 are not all equal in terms of their contribution to the Eu. The EU is better served by finding a way to keep the money from the uk rolling into the Eu, with the U.K. Out of the eu then the way to achieve that is to keep the deal alive, squashing internal power plays and discussing trade as soon as possible. If the negotiations spend too long talking about the exit bill then they run out of time to discuss the really important aspect going forward for decades which is the future trading relationship.

Take the vengeance out of it, which is more important to devote time to
The exit bill, or the amount of business that can be done and how everyone can benefit for decades to come?

BBDBB

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not as much as it would hurt Britain and that reality doesn't need any great understanding of economics - more an understanding of simple arithmetic.



Pretty stupid considering the more Britain suffers the more Ireland will need the EU's backing or suffer itself.



Let's hope so.

Why is this even being seen as a reasonable response? It's the stuff of playground disputes, oh yeah, well my dads bigger than your dad type thing. Given the massive sums involved, damaging both sides helps no one, much better to keep the uk paying into the Eu. Obliterating their economy may be satisfying but it's the millions of people like me and you who will end up paying in the end.
A stronger uk, who pays for access to the single market can be coddled to suit everyone

Junkyard Tom

BBDBB wrote: »

my dads bigger than your dad type thing.

Really? You really believe the EU needs Britain as much as Britain needs the EU?

Really?

FrancieBrady

BBDBB wrote: »

Why is this even being seen as a reasonable response? It's the stuff of playground disputes, oh yeah, well my dads bigger than your dad type thing. Given the massive sums involved, damaging both sides helps no one, much better to keep the uk paying into the Eu. Obliterating their economy may be satisfying but it's the millions of people like me and you who will end up paying in the end.
A stronger uk, who pays for access to the single market can be coddled to suit everyone

If the UK ends up better off you kill the EU. Simple as that really. I get your point but real politik trumps it as far as I can see, ive been watching European politics for 40 odd years now.

Christy42

BBDBB wrote: »

I don't agree the uk will be destroyed if no deal is done. It will suffer, as will the EU. No deal benefits no one

As described above, consider the logical conclusion of what you seem to be advocating and in the light of the stances taken by both sides. Yes the EU is pisssed off that the UK is leaving as they will miss its contribution to the coffers, they won't miss it's bolshyness, it's always been a difficult relationship. So what deal suits the EU most?

1)No deal? Both sides suffer as the uncertainty will be flavoured with bitterness and a uk economy in the doldrums would be a comparatively **** trading partner, satisfying to a few who are motivated to get their just desserts but dreadful for European business
2) a deal where the uk does well? Disastrous for the Eu as an institution, better for trade though, would that be enough to discourage other nations leaving
3) a deal where the Uk does badly? Sounds good from an Eu perspective, but harder to get the uk to agree, the art of good negotiation is not screwing the other side to the wall. Also it devalues future trading relationships.
4) a deal where both sides get a reasonable deal, enough to convince the electorate that they should sign rather than walk away as in option 1

That's why a deal will not be held to ransom by a border dispute over Gibraltar.
If you think that the whole of the EU will get behind Spain then I can't see it, if it were to happen, I can be wrong after all, do you think that the uk will throw Gibraltar under the bus? If so, what will be their incentive to sign such a deal? It would have to be pretty favourable wouldn't it. Otherwise it's lose Gibraltar and get shafted in the negotiation. I think they'd walk away first

You are missing a massive concept of scale. The UK accounts for 17% of the EU exports (to countries outside the EU). It hurts but no where near the 40% + that the UK has on the line. You are using language to obscure the effects on the two sides here as the UK has far more at risk here.

I don't really think May is willing to take that much pain over Gibraltar. I really don't get why you think the EU will blink first when it will suffer a small cut on the arm if no deal is done while the UK can remain firm when it takes broken bones if no deal is done.

The incentive to sign the deal would be a far better economy under having a deal over not having a deal. Pretty simple really. You keep saying that each of the countries will have their own demands which is true but I fail to see how that makes the EU's stance weaker ad they tend not to contradict each other. Ireland won't argue against Spain getting Gibraltar - it would far rather Spain's help when getting a decent border deal on NI. You say why would the UK back down, well why would Spain back down? They have the veto power and no other European country will challenge that as they want to keep their own veto.

The UK is out of the common market and will lose the passport. A good deal for the UK is already off the table even according to May. The UK decided it wanted out of the favourable terms, not the EU here. The EU states will argue for what is best for them which will not be what is best for Britain in all cases.

Junkyard Tom

I laughed.

https://twitter.com/Number10cat/status/847877982098268160

Christy42

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the UK ends up better off you kill the EU. Simple as that really. I get your point but real politik trumps it as far as I can see, ive been watching European politics for 40 odd years now.

At which point the good deal for the UK is no longer valid as the EU no longer exists and we are back to the UK needing 27 different trade deals suffering as a result.

The EU countries would obviously all massively suffer from no EU as well but looking at it from a UK perspective there is no good deal possible.

Grayson

Trump is a bit of an idiot.

http://www.politico.eu/article/juncker-threatens-to-promote-ohio-independence-after-trumps-brexit-backing/

VALLETTA, Malta — European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday he would promote the independence of U.S. states if Donald Trump continues to encourage EU countries to follow the U.K.’s example and leave the bloc.

At a meeting of leaders of the center-right European People’s Party in Malta, Juncker said Brexit would not be the end of the European Union — even if some people, such as Trump, would like that outcome.

In response to White House claims that Trump was “a leader on Brexit,” Juncker declared: “If that continues, I’ll call for Ohio to be independent and Texas to leave the United States.”

Juncker’s remarks came a day after Britain formally notified the EU that it intended to depart.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL_LtDRMHLM

MrPudding

BBDBB wrote: »

Possible, but sophisticated reasoning, not all his newspapers were rags, his cleverness was to adapt his bias and skewed reporting to suit the audience,
The times readers needed to have a reasoned explanation with evidence to support the anti eu agenda, whereas at the other extreme the sun readers just need to know how much bigger her tits will be away from the EU

The Times was pro-remain.

MrP

BBDBB

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Really? You really believe the EU needs Britain as much as Britain needs the EU?

Really?

you really believe the EU is ambivalent to the loss of its second biggest nett contributer? Really?

We can both play this game , but that's not what I've been saying at all.

It's not about who needs the other more, it's not about who would win or who would be more or less damaged, that's playground stuff and the wrong argument to be making and the wrong argument to be ascribing to what I'm writing

What do the EU want beyond the two years?
A solid eu bloc, no one getting ideas to leave, ok so screw the uk, be punitive, make them suffer, make them realise that no one can leave, it's a bad idea. If that's all the Eu want then sure, nosedive the economy of uk and absorb the hit, it's but a flesh wound after all

But if the eu wants more than that from these negotiations, and I think they do, on issues like the rights of citizens, trade, security, border control, then whilst punishing the uk might be satisfying for some it's not a good idea, if the uk becomes a busted economy then all those suffer in the Eu, is it a mortal blow? No, but to brush it off because well at least the uk is suffering more is cold comfort.

What is the best way to get what the Euro want, It isn't by nose diving the uk economy

First Up

BBDBB wrote:

you really believe the EU is ambivalent to the loss of its second biggest nett contributer? Really?

The EU will be just fine without the UK's contribution. If you (or more importantly the UK's negotiators) think that is a bargaining chip, you/they are on very thin ice.

BBDBB

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the UK ends up better off you kill the EU. Simple as that really. I get your point but real politik trumps it as far as I can see, ive been watching European politics for 40 odd years now.

And I get the point that a better off uk would be very damaging, potentially a mortal blow for the eu. That cannot be allowed to happen if it's preventable. This is the conjuring trick that these nations need to pull off in two years. As I understand it real politik is about pragmatism trumping ideology, as I've said continually, pragmatism will win and the vengeful/ punitive path is an ideology, it certainly isn't a pragmatic solution beyond two years

BBDBB

First Up wrote: »

The EU will be just fine without the UK's contribution. If you (or more importantly the UK's negotiators) think that is a bargaining chip, you/they are on very thin ice.

Did you stop reading?

Galwayguy35

A guy from Gibraltar was talking there on Sky giving out that Ireland wasn't on their side over the wording about Spain in Donald Tusks statement.

They seem a right arrogant lot on that little rock over there, Spain can make life very difficult for them if they want to go down that road.

R P McMurphy

BBDBB wrote: »

And I get the point that a better off uk would be very damaging, potentially a mortal blow for the eu. That cannot be allowed to happen if it's preventable. This is the conjuring trick that these nations need to pull off in two years. As I understand it real politik is about pragmatism trumping ideology, as I've said continually, pragmatism will win and the vengeful/ punitive path is an ideology, it certainly isn't a pragmatic solution beyond two years

To get an insight into how willing the EU is in terms of compromising on principles during negotiations you could look at what happened in the case of Switzerland. The lesson is they are 'not for turning'. There is only one direction the negotiations will be going so Ireland could be in a very precarious position.

BBDBB

Christy42 wrote: »

You are missing a massive concept of scale. The UK accounts for 17% of the EU exports (to countries outside the EU). It hurts but no where near the 40% + that the UK has on the line. You are using language to obscure the effects on the two sides here as the UK has far more at risk here.

I don't really think May is willing to take that much pain over Gibraltar. I really don't get why you think the EU will blink first when it will suffer a small cut on the arm if no deal is done while the UK can remain firm when it takes broken bones if no deal is done.

The incentive to sign the deal would be a far better economy under having a deal over not having a deal. Pretty simple really. You keep saying that each of the countries will have their own demands which is true but I fail to see how that makes the EU's stance weaker ad they tend not to contradict each other. Ireland won't argue against Spain getting Gibraltar - it would far rather Spain's help when getting a decent border deal on NI. You say why would the UK back down, well why would Spain back down? They have the veto power and no other European country will challenge that as they want to keep their own veto.

The UK is out of the common market and will lose the passport. A good deal for the UK is already off the table even according to May. The UK decided it wanted out of the favourable terms, not the EU here. The EU states will argue for what is best for them which will not be what is best for Britain in all cases.

Yes, you are using percentage terms and I'm the one not understanding the scale here? And using language to obscure facts? Do us all a favour and write out what those two percentages actually equate to, annually, in any currency you fancy and then you may appreciate why using percentages doesn't help an understanding of scale. Measuring the size of the wounds in comparative terms is next to useless when you see the size of those wounds and understand that they can be avoided and ideally both sides will try to ensure that happens

The EU will blink first for two reasons, the U.K. would make an issue of it and in my view would hold firm, probably even refusing to discuss it and if pushed would even be an incentive to walk away with no deal, an extreme reaction but one I think that's possible, From an EU perspective, they won't risk the bigger issues on the table for a centuries old border dispute. Spain will stamp it's foot a bit and in diplomacy terms may well need to be re-assured or recompensed in some way but it won't be allowed by the Eu to hold up proceedings over it for too long.
Secondly in bargaining terms it's a useful tactic for the Eu to play good cop to Spain's bad cop

Veto power is only really powerful in its threatened use. Once actually used it becomes more of a problem than a help as you can't go anywhere else. Don't believe me? Ok, I herby veto your continued posting in this thread, your reaction wouldn't be one of compliance now would it? And what of the reaction of other posters if I asserted that this bar on you remains in place until you concede that a personal dispute between us is resolved to my satisfaction. Even if I had 26 allies who backed me initially, eventually if the rest wanted your contributions to continue someone would pull me to one side and tell me to find a way to wind my neck in

First Up

BBDBB wrote:

Did you stop reading?

Why, did I miss something important?

BBDBB

R P McMurphy wrote: »

To get an insight into how willing the EU is in terms of compromising on principles during negotiations you could look at what happened in the case of Switzerland. The lesson is they are 'not for turning'. There is only one direction the negotiations will be going so Ireland could be in a very precarious position.

Yep, an interesting perspective and of course Not just Ireland, the EUs stance is a precarious one, giving every nation an equal vote and power of veto is fraught with difficulty, time spent wrangling its own house would be better spent thrashing out a deal with the U.K.

BBDBB

First Up wrote: »

Why, did I miss something important?

i believe so

stefanovich

Galwayguy35 wrote:

They seem a right arrogant lot on that little rock over there, Spain can make life very difficult for them if they want to go down that road.

Arrogant? 99% of the population want to be part of the UK. They also voted to stay in the EU cause they were worried they'd be used.

Galwayguy35

stefanovich wrote: »

Arrogant? 99% of the population want to be part of the UK. They also voted to stay in the EU cause they were worried they'd be used.

Yes arrogant in thinking Ireland should be on their side.

The island was originally Spain's, so I can see how it's a bit of a sore point for them.