Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

reslfj

brickster69 wrote: »

Of course Albania and Kosovo want to join. Anyone would join a Golf club if they were paid to and got free drinks at the bar.

Big question is who is going to pay for them ?

Kosovo can't and wont' join the EU. It is not (yet) a fully recognised contry, it has an ongoing conflict and isn't recognised as a candidate country.

Do you home work before you write - e.g 10+ times more reading and checking than writing. Be sure to accept those you agree with as the least trustworthy and check their info the most for truthfulness and reliability.

Every time you have fact wrong - everything you write will not be taken of any value.
Read GEN 3.19.

Negotiating with Albania and North Macedonia has just been turned down by more EU members as among other things Albania isn't corruption free enough and NM were at this time grouped with Albania.

Will happen, just not now

Lars

Bit cynical

ambro25 wrote: »

Who's demanding more from Johnson (or May before him)?

However on this thread we have:
"One of the most striking things about Brexit is that people don't actually know what Johnson wants or what his ultimate plan for the UK is.

The British electorate have given him a blank cheque and yet he has only talked in very vague terms of some FTA that is supposedly going to be rushed through this year."

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

However on this thread we have:
"One of the most striking things about Brexit is that people don't actually know what Johnson wants or what his ultimate plan for the UK is.

The British electorate have given him a blank cheque and yet he has only talked in very vague terms of some FTA that is supposedly going to be rushed through this year."

Johnson could easily clarify what type of FTA he wants and whether it would includes services or not. Describing this in a sentence or two wouldn't weaken his hand.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

Johnson could easily clarify what type of FTA he wants and whether it would includes services or not. Describing this in a sentence or two wouldn't weaken his hand.

However he's got to be careful about how far he goes. Yes, he's got to say some things but if he gets too specific then he's committing himself politically and his counterparts in the negotiations can use this to their advantage by demanding more in return.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

The main area that the UK may have clout is security and terrorism related cooperation.

They will still be in Interpol.

They won't be in Europol. There's the European Arrest Warrant.

There's a whole raft of GDPR , Data Adequacy just to get ordinary data sharing. Regaining access to the EU security databases won't be easy.

Under existing EU rules each country has full control over movement of non-EU people and can deport EU citizens who are deemed to be a security risk.

Schengen means the EU can go "shields up" if the UK is perceived as a risk.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

However on this thread we have:
"One of the most striking things about Brexit is that people don't actually know what Johnson wants or what his ultimate plan for the UK is.

The British electorate have given him a blank cheque and yet he has only talked in very vague terms of some FTA that is supposedly going to be rushed through this year."

Johnson has been given a clear mandate: "Get Brexit Done"

Johnson has also specified, in clearer-than-clear terms, that he would seek a Canada+ style arrangement with no automatic and complete regulatory alignment with EU laws.

The key is in the words -style arrangement; as the arrangement is not set in stone, but, for the electorate, it must in some appreciable manner approximate toward that goal.

Furthermore, Johnson repeatedly stated throughout the campaign that there would be no extension beyond Dec. 2020. That commitment must be honored, as those northern Labour voters who lent him their vote did so on these kinds of promises.

It's either an approximation to Canada+, or No Deal.

That's the mandate.

Now Johnson has to step up and deliver.

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson has been given a clear mandate: "Get Brexit Done"

Johnson has also specified, in clearer-than-clear terms, that he would seek a Canada+ style arrangement with no automatic and complete regulatory alignment with EU laws.

The key is in the words -style arrangement; as the arrangement is not set in stone, but, for the electorate, it must in some appreciable manner approximate toward that goal.

Furthermore, Johnson repeatedly stated throughout the campaign that there would be no extension beyond Dec. 2020. That commitment must be honored, as those northern Labour voters who lent him their vote did so on these kinds of promises.

It's either an approximation to Canada+, or No Deal.

That's the mandate.

Now Johnson has to step up and deliver.

Has the EU indicated it would be willing to offer this type of deal to the UK?
On the face of it that type of deal would suit the UK although it could possibly be viewed favourably by other EU nations potentially reevaluating their EU membership so would be a risky move by the EU.

ambro25

Bit cynical wrote: »

However on this thread we have:
"One of the most striking things about Brexit is that people don't actually know what Johnson wants or what his ultimate plan for the UK is.

The British electorate have given him a blank cheque and yet he has only talked in very vague terms of some FTA that is supposedly going to be rushed through this year."

Those sentences mirror exactly the rest of my post which, I can't help but notice, you studiously did *not* quote.

So, I'm not sure how much of a counterpoint you're offering, here

Bit cynical

ambro25 wrote: »

Those sentences mirror exactly the rest of my post which, I can't help but notice, you studiously did *not* quote.

So, I'm not sure how much of a counterpoint you're offering, here

The basic assertion I've been disputing is the idea that Johnson needs to provide more detail to the public at this stage of the negotiations. You wanted to know who was demanding more from Johnson. I provided a quote from someone on this thread. I'm not sure of the relevance of your other points if you have not been following the discussion.

Imreoir2

Personally I think the UK is going to go rather quite about Brexit this year. They will formally leave at the end of the month and start the long path to agreeing a trade deal, and it will be a long path regardless of what Mr Johnson said while campaigning.

With his electoral victory Mr Johnson can look forward to a decade in power and I don't see him needlessly making life dificult for himself. I hear he is already trying to ban the word Brexit in No. 10. Sounds to me like he wants to focus on other things. He is also not beholden to any segment in his party so has no real reason to posture for the ERG's sake. If he wants to, Mr Johnson could simply let the trade negotiations take their course over the next five or more years, extending the transition period as needed. In the meantime I think Mr Johnson is going to shift the focus to domestic politics, using his majority to implement his policies in the UK.

The general public don't care about the details and technicalities of a trade deal. They care about "getting Brexit done". It will be done on Jan 31st, and Mr Johnson will be the Prime Minister who delivered it and finally brought the UK out of the EU. Why would he wan't to spoil the party by runnng into a wall on the trade deal when he can have his Brexit with none of the consequences for years to come?

ambro25

Bit cynical wrote: »

The basic assertion I've been disputing is the idea that Johnson needs to provide more detail to the public at this stage of the negotiations. You wanted to know who was demanding more from Johnson. I provided a quote from someone on this thread. I'm not sure of the relevance of your other points if you have not been following the discussion.

You're disputing an assertion noone has made.

That quote is not wanting 'more detail', that quote is saying people don't know what end point Johnson is targeting for the UK's new trading relationship.

That's not "more" detail, under any stretches of the imagination: that's "any basic info, pretty please".

A situation which is still current, close to 3 years after triggerring Article 50, with about 3 weeks to the latest Brexit-groudhog day.

Bit cynical

ambro25 wrote: »

You're disputing an assertion noone has made.

That quote is not wanting 'more detail', that quote is saying people don't know what end point Johnson is targeting for the UK's new trading relationship.

That's not "more" detail, under any stretches of the imagination: that's "any basic info, pretty please".

A situation which is still current, close to 3 years after triggerring Article 50, with about 3 weeks to the latest Brexit-groudhog day.

Well, as I've said already, we do know that he's seeking a WTA and probably along the lines of Canada and building upon that.

I can understand wanting to know more but the more that is released the less room for maneuver and the less chance of success from the UK point of view.

Rain Ascending

I've been following the discussions today regarding the UK's position, or lack of one, for the upcoming trade negotiations with the EU. I fall into the camp that believes that the UK doesn't have a clear position beyond a few slogans and a vaguely expressed desire for an agreement that is better than that achieved by Canada ("deep and meaningful" I think was the phrase) without dynamic regulatory alignment (i.e. a commitment to track changes in EU regulations) and no ECJ supervision.

When you start to dig into what the above means, the levels of uncertainty are massive:

• What does the "++" stand for in "Canada++"? What are the key additional areas for the UK?
• Does the UK go for non-regression-type of regulatory alignment (i.e. no reduction in existing standards)?
• What areas does the UK want to diverge from existing EU regulation? From future EU regulation?
• What form of arbitration for dispute resolution is used? What role does ECJ case law play?

And I'm not an expert in this space! Any trade negotiation expert will be able to write up tens of questions of the above type.

So the real question is, does this matter? Is withholding this kind of information a good negotiation tactic for the UK?

Looking at the experience of recent history would suggest that the answer is an emphatic "no". One poster referenced the TTIP negotiations between the US and the EU as an example where much of the negotiations where held behind closed doors. The process fell apart when the results became public -- opposition mounted when the draft deal became known within the EU beyond the Commission's negotiation team. One of the outcomes was that the EU started to change its approach and increased the levels of transparency and stakeholder engagement.

This was clearly the case during the Article 50 negotiations. TF50 (Barnier's team) spent a huge amount of time in discussions with various groups across Europe. Irish groups, in particular, had special access. Read up about it in Tony Connelly's book "Brexit and Ireland". UK groups found that they had better access to Brussels than they had to Whitehall: I remember reading an article about a representative of UK nationals living in EU27 countries describing tough meetings with TF50 where they were told brutal facts about the precariousness of their position, but got next to nothing from equivalent contacts with May's team. At the end of the day, they much preferred Brussels' engagement with them, over that from London.

Another example: the US has published an overview of its negotiating objectives with the UK. 18 pages of detail on what it wants. By the way, remember the TTIP negotiations I referred to above, where the EU got stung by the lack of transparency? Here's what they've published on their position.

All of this points to a basic principle: negotiating a trade treaty is as much about negotiating with the business, industry, and societal stakeholders on your side as it is about negotiating with your opposite number in the other country or trade block. You need to do this for three basic reasons: (a) to understand what opportunities your country/trade block could open up, (b) what are the risks that could result from concessions made, and (c) to build internal support for the eventual agreement when you decide on the trade-off between (a) and (b).

So far, the UK's approach to Brexit has been a textbook case in how not to do this.

listermint

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Personally I think the UK is going to go rather quite about Brexit this year. They will formally leave at the end of the month and start the long path to agreeing a trade deal, and it will be a long path regardless of what Mr Johnson said while campaigning.

With his electoral victory Mr Johnson can look forward to a decade in power and I don't see him needlessly making life dificult for himself. I hear he is already trying to ban the word Brexit in No. 10. Sounds to me like he wants to focus on other things. He is also not beholden to any segment in his party so has no real reason to posture for the ERG's sake. If he wants to, Mr Johnson could simply let the trade negotiations take their course over the next five or more years, extending the transition period as needed. In the meantime I think Mr Johnson is going to shift the focus to domestic politics, using his majority to implement his policies in the UK.

The general public don't care about the details and technicalities of a trade deal. They care about "getting Brexit done". It will be done on Jan 31st, and Mr Johnson will be the Prime Minister who delivered it and finally brought the UK out of the EU. Why would he wan't to spoil the party by runnng into a wall on the trade deal when he can have his Brexit with none of the consequences for years to come?

Everyone seems to be forgetting how much clout Cummings is having in all these. His whole charade is winning by creating chaos. It's to to so much mad stuff constantly moving the goalposts that your enemies don't know what you are doing.

With his push now on the civil service in the UK there is no real reason to believe anything will quiten down at all. In fact we can look forward to ramping up. Yes they will kill the term brexit because it's usefulness is long over. The electorate is tired of hearing the term. So in that sense brexit is done.


But you can dam well count on a bucketload of more chaos theory . Mainly directed at the EU Ireland itself and any internal sane voices.

Zubeneschamali

Rain Ascending wrote: »

*Does the UK go for non-regression-type of regulatory alignment (i.e. no reduction in existing standards)?

There was language to that effect in the WA before the election to say there would be no regression in workers rights, to try to get Labour Leavers to back it.

As soon as Johnson had a majority, he deleted that language. This suggests he will not go for that sort of alignment.

However, as with everything else that has happened since the referendum, you could argue that deleting that text was more about domestic politics, giving the Tories a visible win and kicking Labour when they were down, than about any strategic plan.

Zubeneschamali

Meanwhile, in the Telegraph, "Alarm bells ringing" as UK manufacturers suffer biggest slowdown since 2012

The PMI has been below 50 since May, and is not improving.

https://twitter.com/telebusiness/status/1212671256492937216

SantaCruz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the Telegraph, "Alarm bells ringing" as UK manufacturers suffer biggest slowdown since 2012

The PMI has been below 50 since May, and is not improving.

https://twitter.com/telebusiness/status/1212671256492937216

I wonder if the Telegraph has a theory as to what is going on here?

LuckyLloyd

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, as I've said already, we do know that he's seeking a WTA and probably along the lines of Canada and building upon that.

I can understand wanting to know more but the more that is released the less room for maneuver and the less chance of success from the UK point of view.

The U.K. will need to sell some domestic interest groups down the river as part of a Canada + deal, so it’s in its own interest to take an EU approach to the process - i.e. distribute summary info on objectives and progress. At some point the pipers will have to be paid...

LuckyLloyd

SantaCruz wrote: »

I wonder if the Telegraph has a theory as to what is going on here?

Brexit uncertainty no doubt, maybe them being part of a ‘dying’ EU. No doubt British manufacturing will roar back to a glorious future once unleashed from the shackles of the bloc and free to negotiate with the US and the rest of the world.

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

Everyone seems to be forgetting how much clout Cummings is having in all these. His whole charade is winning by creating chaos. It's to to so much mad stuff constantly moving the goalposts that your enemies don't know what you are doing.

With his push now on the civil service in the UK there is no real reason to believe anything will quiten down at all. In fact we can look forward to ramping up. Yes they will kill the term brexit because it's usefulness is long over. The electorate is tired of hearing the term. So in that sense brexit is done.


But you can dam well count on a bucketload of more chaos theory . Mainly directed at the EU Ireland itself and any internal sane voices.

But the chaos of the TM regime ended up getting nowhere. And remember when Johnson first got in that the media was full of stories how he would, with Cummings, lead the EU a merry dance and get what they wanted?

And they ended up with agreeing to everything that the EU had wanted.

So whilst clearly the Cummings play book works well with a media which seems more interested in gossip that actual reporting and following up, with a population that seems more interested in 'just getting it done' rather that with 'it' actually means, it seems to have little to no effect on a group that, due to its size and diverse nature, tales longer to react and needs a conversation with numerous people before making a decision.

You can't really get anymore chaotic that the TM government, it was a complete mess and yet throughout all that, despite some apparent missteps, the EU stuck to a very linear course.

So whilst it is of course useful from a political POV to have the domestic audience on your side, the battle will take place in the boardrooms of the EU not in the media.

CelticRambler

Rain Ascending wrote: »

All of this points to a basic principle: negotiating a trade treaty is as much about negotiating with the business, industry, and societal stakeholders on your side as it is about negotiating with your opposite number in the other country or trade block. You need to do this for three basic reasons: (a) to understand what opportunities your country/trade block could open up, (b) what are the risks that could result from concessions made, and (c) to build internal support for the eventual agreement when you decide on the trade-off between (a) and (b).

So far, the UK's approach to Brexit has been a textbook case in how not to do this.

What you've described there is the very essence of consensual governance, and about as far from traditional winner-takes-all British politics as you can get. A tradition that would appear to be alive and well, and of which Johnson is an enthusiastic supporter. Therein lies the greatest challenge for Brexiters - how to behave and negotiate like coalition-loving Europeans when they despise the very concept.

listermint wrote: »

Everyone seems to be forgetting how much clout Cummings is having in all these. His whole charade is winning by creating chaos. It's to to so much mad stuff constantly moving the goalposts that your enemies don't know what you are doing.

And again: that's a very British (and American) political thing - see everyone who's not you as an enemy to be beaten. The last three years, however, have shown us that it is entirely possible for chaos and unity to co-exist in the same sphere. France has had its gilets jaunes, Spain has had the Catalonians, Germany has seen a renaissance of the neo-Nazis, Poland has had a run-in with the judicial system, Italy has flipped and flopped ... yet despite so much chaos, all 27 rEU states have remained united and stared down the UK, time and time again.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

What you've described there is the very essence of consensual governance, and about as far from traditional winner-takes-all British politics as you can get. A tradition that would appear to be alive and well, and of which Johnson is an enthusiastic supporter. Therein lies the greatest challenge for Brexiters - how to behave and negotiate like coalition-loving Europeans when they despise the very concept.



And again: that's a very British (and American) political thing - see everyone who's not you as an enemy to be beaten. The last three years, however, have shown us that it is entirely possible for chaos and unity to co-exist in the same sphere. France has had its gilets jaunes, Spain has had the Catalonians, Germany has seen a renaissance of the neo-Nazis, Poland has had a run-in with the judicial system, Italy has flipped and flopped ... yet despite so much chaos, all 27 rEU states have remained united and stared down the UK, time and time again.

I doubt France are in the least bit concerned with 'staring down 'the UK with the transport and anti corruption strikes taking place there.

First Up

RobMc59 wrote:

I doubt France are in the least bit concerned with 'staring down 'the UK with the transport and anti corruption strikes taking place there.

France can deal with more than one thing at a time but it is much more interested in the EU's possible expansion to the East than with the fossil to its West.

For the 27 EU countries, Brexit is finished, bar some tidying up.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, as I've said already, we do know that he's seeking a WTA and probably along the lines of Canada and building upon that.

I can understand wanting to know more but the more that is released the less room for maneuver and the less chance of success from the UK point of view.

If there is frustration with the lack of detail from Johnson on his objectives it is to do with the fact he has made the same undeliverable promises from the referendum and that he doesn't seem to understand his own deal he negotiated. So how will he understand a more complicated trade deal that has so many elements in it that will have their own priorities for the UK or EU?

I guess it doesn't matter, hr doesn't need to understand it he just needs to sell it to the people via the newspapers or fake stories from No.10 sources.

brickster69

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the Telegraph, "Alarm bells ringing" as UK manufacturers suffer biggest slowdown since 2012

The PMI has been below 50 since May, and is not improving.

https://twitter.com/telebusiness/status/1212671256492937216

Are you pointing out that it is still higher than most the bigger economies.

ITALY DATA: DEC MANUFACTURING PMI 46.2

FRANCE DATA: DEC FINAL MANUFACTURING PMI 50.4

GERMAN DATA: DEC FINAL MANUFACTURING PMI 43.7

EUROZONE DATA: DEC FINAL MANUFACTURING PMI 46.3

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

I doubt France are in the least bit concerned with 'staring down 'the UK with the transport and anti corruption strikes taking place there.

You may have missed Macron's New Year address. The message was crystal clear, and the strikers can expect the same treatment -and end game- as the gilets jaunes sometime in 2020 (...and just in case you were minded to up the ante with some Frexit-based retort, kindly allow me to disabuse you early). Moreover, I have it mind that, unlike Hollande, he will not sanction paying the strikers for their striking days. Boo-f*****-hoo, tbh.

These strikes aren't impeding the latent exodus of UK financial business to Paris in the least, one of the (many) reasons why France is indeed keeping the pressure on the UK to *actually* Brexit (you may remember Macron's serial 'bad cop' role in respect of the UK's earlier Art.50 extension requests: follow the brexoding money for an explanation).

brickster69

SantaCruz wrote: »

I wonder if the Telegraph has a theory as to what is going on here?

Probably blame it on Brexit, but the other EU states falls will be blamed on the Global slowdown.

declanflynn

brickster69 wrote: »

Probably blame it on Brexit, but the other EU states falls will be blamed on the Global slowdown.

I think its the opposite, the brits will blame it on the fact that Brexit has not been done yet

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the Telegraph, "Alarm bells ringing" as UK manufacturers suffer biggest slowdown since 2012

The PMI has been below 50 since May, and is not improving.

https://twitter.com/telebusiness/status/1212671256492937216

Don't forget the pre-brexit splurge which resulted in warehouses full to the brim all over the EU & UK in fear of customs delays in the event of a no deal crash-out last November..

RobMc59

First Up wrote: »

France can deal with more than one thing at a time but it is much more interested in the EU's possible expansion to the East than with the fossil to its West.

For the 27 EU countries, Brexit is finished, bar some tidying up.

I'd have preferred to remain in the EU but as that ship has sailed I wish the EU well for the future.
Your attitude is typical of the 'I'm not bothered about Brexit'prevailant amongst many on this thread.The level of bitterness in their posts would suggest that's not really true.