Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

A Dub in Glasgo

RobMc59 wrote: »

suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will only adversally affect the UK without any affect on Europe,I think you're wrong

You read and quoted the piece and still come out with that? Seems you have an agenda

First Up

RobMc59 wrote:

I don't think the EU is trying to "humiliate"anyone but is trying to ensure the UK doesn't have an easy time leaving as this may encourage other counties to do the same which would probably result in the collapse of the EU-the spectre of a "no deal"would hurt the UK and would hurt the EU if the "divorce" settlement was withheld.

The EU is negotiating on behalf of the 27 members and the countries that have entered into agreements with the EU in good faith.

The EU has no responsibility (and relatively little interest) for the consequences for the UK beyond how they impact on EU members - Ireland being the best example.

Nor does the EU need to worry about "discouraging" others. The benefits of EU membership are crystal clear to everyone else.

RobMc59

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will only adversally affect the UK without any affect on Europe,I think you're wrong

You read and quoted the piece and still come out with that? Seems you have an agenda

My point is no one wins in brexit,Britain is hurting itself and Europe-not sure I have "an agenda"though other than to express my opposition to brexit.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I personally disagree with brexit but if you're suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will only adversally affect the UK without any affect on Europe,I think you're wrong-why do you think Macron and Merkel have said they hope Britain remains?

I'm not saying that at all. Brexit will adversely affect the EU, and the EU knows this.

My point is that the EU cares only about the adverse affect on the EU. We don't care at all about the effect on the UK. They expect that effect to be adverse also, but precisely because we don't care about that we won't go out of our way to alleviate adverse effects on the UK unless doing so improves the EU's position.

Ireland, obviously, suffers whenever the UK suffers (although much less than we used to) and this will concern the EU. But they probably won't try to address that by having the UK suffer less from Brexit, but by offering Ireland more support (which is in fact what they are doing).

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

My point is no one wins in brexit,Britain is hurting itself and Europe-not sure I have "an agenda"though other than to express my opposition to brexit.

You're right. No-one wins. The EU understands this, in a way that the UK negotiators and politicians seem not to. Part of the reason why the Brexit negotiations have been such a train wreck (from the UK perspective) is that the UK has treated them as traditional trade negotiations where the parties are seeking mutual gains and mutual advantages and has viewed the EU's position in that light, whereas the EU has seen them entirely as a damage limitation exercise, and has been concerned only to limit damage to the EU.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

My point is that the EU cares only about the adverse affect on the EU. We don't care at all about the effect on the UK. They expect that effect to be adverse also, but precisely because we don't care about that we won't go out of our way to alleviate adverse effects on the UK unless doing so improves the EU's position.

I think this is the point that is eluding some contributers here. The EU is not looking to change the UK's decision; it is dealing with the consequences of Brexit for its members.

seamus

Despite the fact that the EU has no responsibility to the help the UK, I expect given the core ethos of the EU, that it will be far more conciliatory in the break-up than a lone sovereign state might otherwise be.

It can't be ignored that the post-Brexit conditions will be ripe for bad politics & corrupt politicians to use angry nationalism to take control of the UK. The same conditions that created Nazi Germany. The EU wasn't founded just to serve it members, but to maintain and promote peace throughout Europe. So it will try to avoid allowing the same conditions to fester in the UK, even if it means taking an "unfair" hit for the sake of it. Their primary goal is ensuring the ongoing stability of the EU. But there is a secondary goal here to maintain harmonious relations with the UK and prevent them from completely destroying themselves.

If the UK negotiators actually understood this they could use it to their advantage. But they don't, because they assume both parties are negotiating on pure economics, and irritating things like peace and humanity are just expressions of the economy.

Leroy42

I think the main UK negotiators release the negative effects, and so does TM. Hammond and some others seem to as well.

The problem is that TM is so weak (not here position but her personally) that she has tried to be all things to all people and hitched her wagon predominately to the hard Brexit side in order to curry favour and try to stave off the likes of Johnson and Davies.

That is why we see things like the December Agreement, the extension to the transition period. These are all accepted by those in the negotiations as necessary but then TM falls apart as soon as the microphone is placed in front of her or she is asked any questions.

In effect there are parallel negotiations going on. Those between the UK and UK, and those between the UK itself.

Yesterdays 1922 committee shows that TM is perfectly fine in her position, she has the backing of the vast majority of the party. SHe needs to stop beig such a weak leader and start to actually be the PM rather than simply looking to stay on as leader of the Tories. She needs to take the momentum from yesterdays meeting and pay out exactly what HAS to happen from now on. This is the deal she is going to get, this is what the EU are willing to do and this is why she won't countenance a no deal.

Anyone doesn't like it send your letters to the 1922 committee or STFU.

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

Despite the fact that the EU has no responsibility to the help the UK, I expect given the core ethos of the EU, that it will be far more conciliatory in the break-up than a lone sovereign state might otherwise be.

It can't be ignored that the post-Brexit conditions will be ripe for bad politics & corrupt politicians to use angry nationalism to take control of the UK. The same conditions that created Nazi Germany. The EU wasn't founded just to serve it members, but to maintain and promote peace throughout Europe. So it will try to avoid allowing the same conditions to fester in the UK, even if it means taking an "unfair" hit for the sake of it. Their primary goal is ensuring the ongoing stability of the EU. But there is a secondary goal here to maintain harmonious relations with the UK and prevent them from completely destroying themselves.

If the UK negotiators actually understood this they could use it to their advantage. But they don't, because they assume both parties are negotiating on pure economics, and irritating things like peace and humanity are just expressions of the economy.

That is a very good point, but the EU have internals problems of their own in regards to Hungary, Italy, France, hell pretty much everywhere.

So they certainly do not want to help foster the type of issues that you highlight in the UK, but they must also be conscious that any favourable deal to the UK will adversely effect the EU and therefore may well lead to the furtherment of these issues within the likes of Italy etc.

lawred2

Do you have any faith in her doing so?

Enzokk

The capitulation to single market and customs union membership but being out of the EU has moved a step closer, not by anything the UK or EU has done but by Russia.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1055363460291272704

seamus

To be expected. Russia will continue to do whatever it can to destabilise the UK.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

Despite the fact that the EU has no responsibility to the help the UK, I expect given the core ethos of the EU, that it will be far more conciliatory in the break-up than a lone sovereign state might otherwise be.

It can't be ignored that the post-Brexit conditions will be ripe for bad politics & corrupt politicians to use angry nationalism to take control of the UK. The same conditions that created Nazi Germany. The EU wasn't founded just to serve it members, but to maintain and promote peace throughout Europe. So it will try to avoid allowing the same conditions to fester in the UK, even if it means taking an "unfair" hit for the sake of it. Their primary goal is ensuring the ongoing stability of the EU. But there is a secondary goal here to maintain harmonious relations with the UK and prevent them from completely destroying themselves.

It's a very secondary goal.

Plus, there's a fairly low limit to what the EU can do here in any case. Brexiteer victim fantasies notwithstanding, the UK is a sovereign and independent state which is in control of its own destiny. If it's going to punch itself repeatedly in the testicles, so to speak, there's not a great deal the EU can do about that. And there's certainly nothing the EU will be willing to do about that which would in any way impair the integrity or coherence of the Union, or be detrimental to the interests of any member state.

I'm afraid the notion that the EU will rescue Brexit from the Brexiteers is pretty much on a par with the notion that the German car manufacturers, or the Italian prosecco producers, or whoever, would do so. They are all fantasies.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

To be expected. Russia will continue to do whatever it can to destabilise the UK.

Actually, this isn't being done to destabilise the UK, or at least not primarily so. It was always to be expected that many countries would object in order to try to secure advantages for themselves, and several have already done so. A country doesn't need to have the likes of Vladimir Putin in charge of it to take this step.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, this isn't being done to destabilise the UK, or at least not primarily so. It was always to be expected that many countries would object in order to try to secure advantages for themselves, and several have already done so. A country doesn't need to have the likes of Vladimir Putin in charge of it to take this step.

Russia is the first country to formally lodge an objection. Many of the "allies" that the UK were looking towards after Brexit seemed to have lodged informal objections before this as you say. This is not about friends or enemies but about business and the UK will find out quickly that being friends and being in business are two different things.

flatty

Peregrinus, you suggest in a previous post that the EU will be happy to suffer harm on a given negotiation, if the UK suffers more. Do you think this is the case?

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Russia is the first country to formally lodge an objection. Many of the "allies" that the UK were looking towards after Brexit seemed to have lodged informal objections before this as you say. This is not about friends or enemies but about business and the UK will find out quickly that being friends and being in business are two different things.

Russia is the first one that we know about. Other countries may already have formally lodged an objection. I think 19 countries (so far) have indicated objections to the draft UK tariff schedule; it hardly matters which of them is the first to lodge a formal objection.

And, for the record, the effect of the objections is that the tariff schedule doesn't get certified by WTO. Is this a big deal? To be honest, no. It won't stop the UK trading, and it won't stop it negotiating free trade deals. It might signal that the objecting states, or some of them, intend to lodge a complaint with the WTO at some point in the future about how the UK is treating them, or at least that they are keeping their powder dry for a possible complaint. But time enough to worry about complaints when they are actually lodged.

Hurrache

seamus wrote: »

To be expected. Russia will continue to do whatever it can to destabilise the UK.

I believe the US has also raised objections a while ago too. Where they at a different level?

edit, according to this NZ have already, maybe the US said they would but just haven't done it formerly yet
https://www.explaintrade.com/blogs/2018/8/11/why-there-are-objections-to-the-uks-wto-schedule-and-why-you-shouldnt-care

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

Do you have any faith in her doing so?

TM, no. Sadly for the UK, and Ireland and the EU, the UK is currently unled by possibly the worst PM in its history. That combined with a senior party totally divided, a coalition (or whatever they call it) partner totally out of step with the rest of the UK, an opposition that doesn't know what it wants or even if it dislikes the government that much.

I was making a suggestion of what she should do, given the momentum from the no event of last nights 1922 committee. Clearly the likes of JRM, Johnson, Davies etc are all talk with no actual balls to do anything.

TM has been allowed to get away with being awful and the pretense that she is on the knife edge of being removed. Yesterdays meeting shows that is not even remotely true. So the only reason she is failing to lead is that is is singularly incapable of doing so.

She now has a chance, a chance to make up for all the mistakes she has made. Triggering A50 without any plan about a No deal, allowing the likes of Johnson and Davies and Patel to be in cabinet without any responsibility. To allow the likes of JRM and IDS to continually spout the nonsense they do. To simply sit there and allow IDS etc to go to Brussels last week for 'alternative negotiations'! the mind boggles as to why she allows all this to happen and yet still expects anyone to take her, or indeed the UK, seriously.

kuro68k

The UK should just go for the Norway option.

Solves the Irish border. Remainers like it, Nigel Farage and Tory Brexiteers like it, the EU likes it...

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1055363460291272704

Time for WTOBrExit! Take back control ! Of course this was predicted years ago. But was call Project Fear.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

Peregrinus, you suggest in a previous post that the EU will be happy to suffer harm on a given negotiation, if the UK suffers more. Do you think this is the case?

No, you misunderstand me. Or, I expressed myself badly.

What I'm trying to say is this:

The Brexit negotiation is not a normal negotiation.

In a normal negotiation, there is no agreement unless it's beneficial to both parties. This is because you can always abort the negotation and just continue with the status quo, so neither party has any reason to settle for something which is worse than the status quo.

So each party in a normal negotiation is looking for something that will benefit both parties, and it knows that the other party is doing the same.

But the Brexit negotiation is radically different, for two reasons.

First, Article 50 notice has already been served. The status quo (UK membership of EU) is definitely coming to an end, so it doesn't set a floor to what the parties will accept from the negotiations.

Secondly, as far as the EU is concerned, there is no possible outcome from the negotiation which is as good as the status quo. All possible outcomes are worse than that.

So, there is no question of seeking mutual advantage. As far as the EU is concerned this is not a normal negotiation; it is a damage limitation exercise. And the damage the EU is interested in limited is the damage to the EU. They only care about what damages the UK if and to the extent that it also damages the EU.

So they have no interest in punishing or humiliating the UK, but equally they have no interest in protecting or saving it. The EU's position in the negotiations is chosen to minimise harm to the EU; the effects those stances have for the UK, whether good or bad, are pure by-product.

The problem is that even measuring the just the harm to the EU from a particular stance can be complex; there can be trade-offs involved. For example:

One particular kind of damage that Brexit threatens - and one that Brexiters used to trumpet a lot, though they are now much quieter about it - is the force of example. If the UK leaves the EU, and is perceived to be better off as a result, that could encourage other countries to consider the same course. That would be a problem for the EU.

That's why the EU has been dead-set against "cherry-picking". If you can have all the benefits of the single market, without accepting the bits you find onerous, well, we'd all like a bit of that, wouldn't we? If the EU gave the UK unrestricted trade in goods without requiring regulatory alignment or free movement, other members states would reckon then could get similar selective treatment if they, too, left the Union. So, even though the EU-27 have a substantial trade surplus with the UK and this is jeopardised by trading barriers, they will accept trading barriers rather than allow the UK to cherry-pick free trade and possibly lead to the disintegration of the Union, which would cost a lot more than just a reduction in UK trade.

So the EU refusal to allow cherry picking is damaging to the EU because it means a reduction in trade with the UK, in which they enjoy a considerable surplus. But they will accept that damage because the alternative stance would, from the EU's point of view, be even more damaging.

Things like checks and inspections at Calais are part of this. They are the kind of things that are going to reduce trade to the UK, and so make both sides poorer. The UK wants the EU just to waive the checks and inspections, which would mean trade was easier and both sides would benefit from increased trade (and the UK would suffer less from massive dislocation) but the EU won't do that for several reasons, one of which is the no-cherry-picking stance.

What's going on here is that the EU will not agree to something which would improve the UK's situation (and so reduce the costs of Brexit to the UK) because it would make the EU's situation worse (and so increase the costs of Brexit to the EU).

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

TM, no. Sadly for the UK, and Ireland and the EU, the UK is currently unled by possibly the worst PM in its history. That combined with a senior party totally divided, a coalition (or whatever they call it) partner totally out of step with the rest of the UK, an opposition that doesn't know what it wants or even if it dislikes the government that much.

I was making a suggestion of what she should do, given the momentum from the no event of last nights 1922 committee. Clearly the likes of JRM, Johnson, Davies etc are all talk with no actual balls to do anything.

TM has been allowed to get away with being awful and the pretense that she is on the knife edge of being removed. Yesterdays meeting shows that is not even remotely true. So the only reason she is failing to lead is that is is singularly incapable of doing so.

She now has a chance, a chance to make up for all the mistakes she has made. Triggering A50 without any plan about a No deal, allowing the likes of Johnson and Davies and Patel to be in cabinet without any responsibility. To allow the likes of JRM and IDS to continually spout the nonsense they do. To simply sit there and allow IDS etc to go to Brussels last week for 'alternative negotiations'! the mind boggles as to why she allows all this to happen and yet still expects anyone to take her, or indeed the UK, seriously.

If you think what May has done is out of character, go and read about her nickname that she has in parliament. Look how long it took her to take action on make statements on what Trump has done or said. How long did it take her to respond to Trump retweeting Britain First? Or when he attacked Sadiq Khan with lies?

Her defenders would say that she is just being vigilant and ensuring she takes her time to respond, but seeing as she is known from hiding from a difficult position and then surfacing when the trouble has passed this is not some admirable personality trait. This is who she is, not willing to take responsibility for her own actions (Amber Rudd says hello).

She is flawed basically, but she is in power and being kept in power because taking over is not viable for anybody with a shred of ambition. Johnson knows this and it is why he has not challenged her. So the reason the 1922 committee didn't challenge her leadership is because whoever takes over will be faced with the same problems. They cannot go for no deal because it is suicide. They cannot break the GFA because who wants to be known as the person that potentially killed hundreds of their own citizens. But they cannot go against to the people for a new mandate as they will probably be destroyed by the only other person more incompetent than May in Corbyn. So you just let her take the blame and carry on as long as your preferred candidate doesn't get hit by the crap that will hit the fan.

Enzokk

kuro68k wrote: »

The UK should just go for the Norway option.

Solves the Irish border. Remainers like it, Nigel Farage and Tory Brexiteers like it, the EU likes it...

They should, but Theresa May has ruled that out repeatedly. Yesterday she confirmed again that the ECJ will not have any say in the UK after Brexit so that rules out the Norway option.

lawred2

kuro68k wrote: »

The UK should just go for the Norway option.

Solves the Irish border. Remainers like it, Nigel Farage and Tory Brexiteers like it, the EU likes it...

Do they?

Zubeneschamali

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the EU is trying to "humiliate"anyone but is trying to ensure the UK doesn't have an easy time leaving as this may encourage other counties to do the same which would probably result in the collapse of the EU-the spectre of a "no deal"would hurt the UK and would hurt the EU if the "divorce" settlement was withheld.

We often hear from the UK side that the EU is bullying them, humiliating them etc. We also often hear this other narrative - that the EU is anxious that brexit might be a success and that they don't want that to happen or other countries will leave.

Neither of these stories is true. What the EU has is rules, not feelings. It's a club with very different members, and the only way it works at all is by following the rules.

The EU side set out the rules and what was on offer years ago. They have explained that a small exception for NI is possible given it's circumstances, and that's it. The UK have been humiliating themselves by pretending to themselevs that all sorts of other deals are on the table. Nope.

The EU also does not want the UK to fail - the UK will be a new, big trading partner as soon as it leaves, and the EU will make more money if the UK is a success. The EU simply wants the UK to succeeed while following the rules.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

They should, but Theresa May has ruled that out repeatedly. Yesterday she confirmed again that the ECJ will not have any say in the UK after Brexit so that rules out the Norway option.

Which, as usual, flies in the face of what is going on in the negotiations. And this is the biggest problem.

She is doing two conflicting sets of negotiation at the same time.

People have expressed that the Norway option could be useful. Imagine if, rather than giving the Lanchaster House Speech and drawing all the red lines, TM and the UK had gone with that approach from the start.

Brexit would have been a cakewalk for both sides. Lots of Photo calls, lots of smiling and hugs. UK taking a new, but welcome position, in the world.

Instead we has this disaster, where the UK have thrown away any semblance of goodwill and now how other countries actively seeking to take advantage of the situation.

First Up

Negotiation is most effective when you understand the options available to the other side. Its called the Best Alternative; the better the options available to them, the stronger their hand and you calibrate your position accordingly.

The alternatives to an EU FTA available to the UK are universally dismal. The EU hold all the cards and all the power.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

Negotiation is most effective when you understand the options available to the other side. Its called the Best Alternative; the better the options available to them, the stronger their hand and you calibrate your position accordingly.

The alternatives to an EU FTA available to the UK are universally dismal. The EU hold all the cards and all the power.

And have done from the start. Essentially, negotiations have consisted of Britain coming to the table with cherry-picked vague notions about what might just get through parliament and the EU saying no.

Leroy42

The UK seemed to have entered this whole process on the basis of it all being done in a vacuum. It was only ever about the EU/UK and they took no time to ever consider that the EU would have other considerations.

Considerations such as the stability of the EU itself, other third party trade deals, countries looking to join, other countries agitating to leave.

They also don't seem to have taken any time to consider what other countries would do, such as Russia etc in terms of WTO. They seem to have simply expected everyone to agree with them on everything.

They are starting to hit reality, but have dug themselves into such a corner that they think that to step back is a humiliation and as such as going to go through with it to 'save face'.