Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

SantaCruz

Jeez, you should really not see quotes from posters you have on 'ignore' even when quoted. This is a hole in the forum software.

I think I'll head back to the thread where the lunatics are banned.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, he did get an NI consent mechanism added to the deal.

But, in equal fairness, this has only subsequently been reinvented as "the fundamental problem with the backstop to begin with".

Previously the fundamental problem with the backstop was that it created an internal border in the UK, that it left NI subject to laws (and changes in laws) that it would have no participation or representation in making, that separate customs regimes in different parts of the UK are a constititutional change which would violate the Good Friday Agreement, etc, etc. But the revised backstop still has all these characteristics; it just turns out that they are not so fundamental after all.

And in fact this is a typical Johnson manoeuvre. Find out what concession you can secure, secure it, and then retrospectively claim that this was the only problem all along and that you have solved it in a famous victory. The polarisation induced by Brexit is such, and passions run so high, that Brexit supporters who backed Johnson will accept this uncritically, even though it requires them to abandon much of what they previously proclaimed.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."

I don't know what you're trying to get at by "reinvented". It's obvious that the main issue passing Theresa May's deal was the lack of a consent mechanism in the Northern Ireland backstop. People said that Johnson wouldn't be able to get this changed. He did.

Yes the alignment mechanism will involve some alignment of rules but the Assembly can decide to reject this arrangement in 4 years. That's significant. Admittedly it is unlikely but setting up an arrangement with the EU without any democratic way out of it isn't sensible.

SantaCruz wrote: »

Jeez, you should really not see quotes from posters you have on 'ignore' even when quoted. This is a hole in the forum software.

I think I'll head back to the thread where the lunatics are banned.

I'm glad this thread isn't an echo chamber and that those arguing for Brexit are still allowed to contribute unlike in the Politics forum.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

It's good to be negotiating simultaneously for a number of reasons. A wide market from day 1 after the transition period is in its interests. It insulates the UK from the potential failure of EU trade talks if they are advanced in their discussion with other countries. It gives the EU negotiators the idea that the UK isn't entirely beholden to the EU's position.

It's good to be negotiating simultaneously, but mainly because the less time that the UK has to trade without replacements for the trade deals that it abandons through Brexit, the better for the UK.

But it's important to be realistic about what simultaneous negotiation can acheive. For the reasons you mention below, the UK has a dearth of negotiating capacity; spreading that over multiple negotiations obviously comes at a cost in terms of how long those negotiations will take, and how will they will be conducted. Plus, most of the UK's interlocutors badly want to know on what terms the UK will trade with the EU; this will determine their own position and preferences with respect to a trade deal between them and the UK. So while the UK can start negotiations with other countries before it has reached a deal with the EU, it's unlikely to finish very many. And that consideration alone suggests that multiple negotiation tracks are fine, but the UK should have a clear objective of progressing fastest in their negotiations with the EU, if only because concluding those will be necessary to unlock deals with many other countries.

theological wrote: »

As for the UK not having negotiated in 50 years. You know why that is. It is because the EU pooled trade negotiation capacity from member states which in my view is a negative of EU membership. Building up its own trade negotiation capacity (which has more than likely already been happening over the last 3 years of hard remainer dithering in parliament) is a good thing for Britain and it needs to happen.

It absolutely needs to happen; Brexit makes it a compelling necessity. But the very recognition that it absolutely needs to happen should make the UK think twice about pursuing multiple negotiations too far before it has happened. Don't run before you can walk, etc. etc. And the recognition th tit has to happen should make you very cross about Johnson's apparently arbitrary commitment not to extend the transition period; that decision greatly magnifies the detriment to the UK that comes from its weakness in this area.

theological wrote: »

It's amusing that people are using negatives of being an EU member somehow as a gotcha argument in this discussion.

It's only a negative of EU membership if you think the UK is better off having its own negotiationg capacity, and pursuing its own negotiations. Which, naturally, only committed Brexiters believe, and even for them this is an assertion of will rather than a dispassionate analysis of reality. The truth is that by participating in collective negotiations, the UK has been a member of the largest and deepest free trade network the world has ever seen, and the likelihood that they will be able to replicate this through their solo efforts, with the constraints of the policy positions adopted by by the Tory government, is zero.

Tl;dr: UK has secured a much better trading outcome by acting collectively than it can possibly, in its wildest dreams, get by acting independently. So not having independent capacity isn't a negative of EU membership; rather, the need to develop it is a negative of Brexit.

theological wrote: »

The idea that the UK is doomed to failure has been disproven time and time again since the referendum.

Brexit hasn't happened yet. But the medium to long-term predictions of the doomsters and gloomsters are mostly pretty much on track. The more cheerful Brexiter predictions, not so much.

theological

There are quite a lot of doom and gloom predictions that have fallen flat.

If as you say the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet how can any long term predictions have been proven right at this stage.

Let's substantiate this claim and work through the predictions.

I'm not in agreement with your assertion that the UK cannot negotiate better trading relationships outside of the EU or that any deal the EU negotiates is likely to be better than what the UK can. There are arguments against negotiating for 28 countries instead of negotiating for 1. Policies that may be in the interests of other countries may not be in the interest of the UK for example. Bespoke arrangements should be quicker to negotiate than for 28 countries also and ratification within the UK should also be quicker.

I accept that we have different opinions on this.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I don't know what you're trying to get at by "reinvented". It's obvious that the main issue passing Theresa May's deal was the lack of a consent mechanism in the Northern Ireland backstop . . .

It's obvious now, but onlty because the logic of Brexitry requires to to be obvious. But it wasn't obvious then, which is why Brexiters objected to it on a variety of grounds that had nothing to do with NI consent.

(NI consent, remember, would have been an embarrassing ground for the government to take its stand on. If they ever conceded the legitimacy of treating NI differently on the basis that NI wanted to be treated differently, they conceded a huge point to Scottish opponents of Brexit, who (a) are numerous, and (b) are in government in Scotland. So pro-government brexiters always took their stand on variations of the "pwecious union" argument, now utterly abandoned in government circles.)

theological

I simply disagree from following what was happening in parliament then. A major issue particularly with the ERG was the lack of a consent mechanism.

It would be revisionist to say this wasn't a big part of the discussion.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I simply disagree from following what was happening in parliament then. A major issue particularly with the ERG was the lack of a consent mechanism.

It would be revisionist to say this wasn't a big part of the discussion.

So you're moving from "the fundamental objection" to "a major issue"?

Can we reach agreement on "it was one of several issues raised"?

theological

No. I'm not "moving" at all. I'm not interested in playing word games I prefer substance.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

There are quite a lot of doom and gloom predictions that have fallen flat.

If as you say the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet how can any long term predictions have been proven right at this stage.

Let's substantiate this claim and work through the predictions.

I'm not in agreement with your assertion that the UK cannot negotiate better trading relationships outside of the EU or that any deal the EU negotiates is likely to be better than what the UK can. There are arguments against negotiating for 28 countries instead of negotiating for 1. Policies that may be in the interests of other countries may not be in the interest of the UK for example. Bespoke arrangements should be quicker to negotiate than for 28 countries also and ratification within the UK should also be quicker.

This point about tailor-made bespoke arrangement focussing on UK concerns is often made, but when people are asked to point to concrete examples of things the UK wants in a trade deal that the EU failed to secure, they fall strangely silent.

In round figures, about two-thirds of all UK trade is done on terms that the UK enjoys as an EU member - say 50% is trade with other members of the Single Market, and another 15% is trade with third countries done on the terms of trade deals that the UK participates in as an EU member state. That leaves about 35% of trade done with no trade deals at all.

For the 50%, the UK has ruled out participating in the Single Market as a non-EU member, so the best that can be hoped is a much less ambitious FTA. And in fact Johnson's commitment not to extent transition (unless he climbs down) in reality precludes anything but a very basic FTA. So that 50% of the UK's international trade is going to face significant new barriers as a result of the UK's Brexit policy.

So, the question is, can the UK acheive terms in replacement trade deals on the 15%, or terms in new trade deals on the remaining 35%, that are so much better than they currently enjoy, because the deals they make can be "bespoke" and "tailor made"? It seems improbable, given that the UK brings much less negotiating muscle to the table than the EU did, that they can end up with dramatically better terms than the EU could secure, simply because they are "bespoke" - so much better that they will more than offset the very significant harm that Brexit inflicts on trade with the Single Market. And when advocates of this view can't even identify the bespoke terms they want, or articulate a case for saying why it is reasonable to expect that the UK will get them, or that they will offset the adverse impacts of leaving the SM, I don't find the argument very convincing.

First Up

theological wrote:

It's good to be negotiating simultaneously for a number of reasons. A wide market from day 1 after the transition period is in its interests. It insulates the UK from the potential failure of EU trade talks if they are advanced in their discussion with other countries. It gives the EU negotiators the idea that the UK isn't entirely beholden to the EU's position.

You think other countries haven't noticed that the UK depends on the EU for half of its trade? Nobody will negotiate seriously with the UK until there is clarity about that future relationship.

Two reason;
(1) If it goes badly with the EU then everyone else has them over a barrel;
(2) For some suppliers in India, China, Australia etc. the UK has been a distribution centre for the EU as part of the SM. That is going to end so everyone needs to know how UK- EU trade will work before they can assess the importance of the UK in future.

Everyone knows the UK is desperate.

Donald Trump

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Ireland, Poland, Czech, Slovenia etc..

Perks of being in the EU baby!

This is utterly delusional

Hey Crypto, were you aware of the comments from politicians plus the headlines and stories in the UK papers about Ireland/Varadker being a bollix and holding the UK to ransom over the backstop?

Why do you think the politicians/newpapers were doing that over a country that didn't have any power?

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

I'm glad this thread isn't an echo chamber and that those arguing for Brexit are still allowed to contribute unlike in the Politics forum.

How, from a practical personal perspective, do you think that Brexit will improve your own life? Regaining bendy bananas?

Donald Trump

You couldn't make it up :pac:

https://twitter.com/OxfordDiplomat/status/1219348780157411329

Winning_Stroke

SantaCruz wrote: »

Jeez, you should really not see quotes from posters you have on 'ignore' even when quoted. This is a hole in the forum software.

I think I'll head back to the thread where the lunatics are banned.

Thanks for keeping us updated.

FrancieBrady

Donald Trump wrote: »

How, from a practical personal perspective, do you think that Brexit will improve your own life? Regaining bendy bananas?

As is usual when that question is asked, the silence is golden.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As is usual when that question is asked, the silence is golden.

And a few posts before from Peregrinus

but when people are asked to point to concrete examples of things the UK wants in a trade deal that the EU failed to secure, they fall strangely silent.

Beasty

theological wrote: »

I'm glad this thread isn't an echo chamber and that those arguing for Brexit are still allowed to contribute unlike in the Politics forum.

Give it a rest - you are permanently banned from Politics and can take that to DRP if you wish, but do not have a dig elsewhere on the site

theological

Thanks for reminding me! In a way it was a compliment to this forum for actually being open to diverse perspectives on this issue.

Long may it remain so (no pun intended).

Donald Trump wrote: »

How, from a practical personal perspective, do you think that Brexit will improve your own life? Regaining bendy bananas?

It isn't about me. Truth be told I actually voted in 2016 to remain because I actually believed the doom and gloom predictions which later turned out to be false.

I'm supportive of Brexit at this juncture because it is best for the UK and there are several advantages to leaving. I've posted about many of them already on this thread.

Padre_Pio

theological wrote: »

It isn't about me. Truth be told I actually voted in 2016 to remain because I actually believed the doom and gloom predictions which later turned out to be false.

I'm supportive of Brexit at this juncture because it is best for the UK and there are several advantages to leaving. I've posted about many of them already on this thread.

Why cant you answer the question?
How do you believe you will benefit from Brexit?

theological

It isn't that I can't answer the question. It's that I don't think it is helpful. I don't think of Brexit in a selfish way. I think of it in terms of how it can benefit the society that I live in and how it can address the concerns raised in the referendum. I think Britain is incompatible with EU membership and the EU is incompatible with Britain being a member politically also.

In personal terms I don't expect to profit much financially or lose much financially from Brexit. Brexit is about what type of country the UK wants to be and how it wants to be governed.

Do I have skin in the game? Sure. I live in the UK and find it a great country to live in. I'm thankful for the opportunities it has provided to me and the great friends I've gained as a result. I'm even due to be married to one of these pesky Brits in due course.

It's really not as bad as it is made out to be and I have serious doubts of the dark apocalypse ahead.

Is that good enough for you?

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Thanks for reminding me! In a way it was a compliment to this forum for actually being open to diverse perspectives on this issue.

Long may it remain so (no pun intended).



It isn't about me. Truth be told I actually voted in 2016 to remain because I actually believed the doom and gloom predictions which later turned out to be false.

I'm supportive of Brexit at this juncture because it is best for the UK and there are several advantages to leaving. I've posted about many of them already on this thread.

So there are no upsides that you can name that will improve your own circumstances?

It will just mean that the traditional cadre of Eton old boys can regain what they feel is their rightful place as the ultimate decision makers over their lesser commoners across what remains of their ancestors' "great" empire.

First Up

theological wrote:

In terms of personally. I don't expect to profit much financially or lose much financially from Brexit. Brexit is about what type of country the UK wants to be and how it wants to be governed.

So you think the EU threatens the UK's identity and sense of self? Are the other members similarly unsure of their identities or is this just a British insecurity?

theological

First Up wrote: »

So you think the EU threatens the UK's identity and sense of self? Are the other members similarly unsure of their identities or is this just a British insecurity?

No. I think the British people have decided they want a looser relationship with the EU and I respect that as a legitimate option. It has been conclusively settled democratically at this stage. I respect the vote of the people.

I don't believe the scare stories and neither do the British public at this stage. They seem to have been repeatedly incorrect particularly the earliest prophecies. I think the UK has every opportunity of prospering outside of the EU.

And I don't believe the British people are nasty for having voted for Brexit and to take back more control of their own affairs domestically. I respect that desire.

In 2019 I voted Tory and contributed to breaking the stagnation in parliament. I'm glad they won for that reason so clear decisions can be made finally. Political stability is important.

A lot of the comments on this thread come across as more resentful than logical. I choose not to be resentful at my friends.

RobMc59

First Up wrote: »

So you think the EU threatens the UK's identity and sense of self? Are the other members similarly unsure of their identities or is this just a British insecurity?

I think he`s Irish.
As regards British insecurity,I believe johnson and co are under the impression they are somehow superior to the rest of Europe which is ridiculous and the rest of the ordinary people who voted for brexit are misguided and naive,still believing the Empire can return-France have accepted their empire has gone and so should the UK.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Is that good enough for you?

No. You've just listed empty platitudes.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No. You've just listed empty platitudes.

Better than empty scare stories I guess. Let me know when you want to improve the tone.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Better than empty scare stories I guess. Let me know when you want to improve the tone.

Can't name one specific, benefit? Not even one?

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can't name one specific, benefit? Not even one?

I've mentioned several over the course of the thread for British society generally if you've been reading.

I don't expect any personal benefit because my support for Brexit isn't about selfish ambition. You can read what I've already said.

Let me know when you have something substantial to add from your perspective.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

I've mentioned several over the course of the thread for British society generally if you've been reading.

I don't expect any personal benefit because my support for Brexit isn't about selfish ambition. You can read what I've already said.

Let me know when you have something substantial to add from your perspective.

That's a no, then. Thanks.

amacca

theological wrote: »

Better than empty scare stories I guess. Let me know when you want to improve the tone.

They are not necessarily empty scare stories.

Remember Britain has not left the EU yet....it will still be aligned for another year at least (and probably beyond but that's just my opinion)

The real **** has not made it as far as the fan yet