Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

briany

moon2 wrote: »

Johnson's 'tough stance' didn't achieve this. The change in agreement was made possible due to him reneging on the promise to keep the UK whole. Keeping rules unified across the UK was one of Theresa Mays three mutually exclusive red lines, and was originally something Johnson himself supported.

Once he told the EU one of the three mutually exclusive red lines was no longer a red line it paved the way for the EU to change the agreement to something more similar to what was originally proposed. The EU had repeatedly said they could alter the agreement *if* the UK terms changed, and without a change in UK terms the agreement would not be reopened.

I think you're being a little revisionist and are attributing too much to Johnson's posturing and forgetting the change in UK position which allowed this to occur.

I'm still a bit worried that Johnson's 'grand plan' is to use every bit of rhetoric he can to wriggle out of the Irish protocol somehow. He's already been recorded saying that there will be no checks between GB and NI. He's been talking out of both sides of his mouth on this since the frontstop was proposed. The EU won't buy his doublespeak for a minute, but it may not be them he's trying to convince. If he can simply make the issue murky enough in the eyes of the international community, he might figure that's good enough. While insisting to the EU that there basically is a customs border, he would be basically insisting to the DUP and ERG that there basically isn't one, playing fast and loose with the definitions of 'de facto' and 'de jure'. The U.S., meanwhile wouldn't be all that discouraged from doing a trade deal with the UK, knowing that in spite of all the verbal gymnastics, the UK needs the U.S. more that the U.S. needs the UK, and this would lead to obedience.

Doesn't the UK also need the EU? It's been noted that it's not a good idea to be on bad terms with many of your geographically closest trading partners, but a huge amount of political capital in the UK right now is based on sticking it to Brussels, and many UK politicians appear set on harming their country's economic future for short-term political gain.

First Up

You flatter him by suggesting he has a plan for anything more than survival.

He knows he will eventually agree to whatever the EU tells him because anything else will see him preside over the destruction of a good chunk of the UK economy. No blame game will insulate him from that.

His strategy (or gamble) is to talk tough. wave a flag and hope that will be enough to bluff his way past enough of the electorate as he quietly gives way. His media friends will help him sell it.

He is also relying on the EU being a lot more responsible about this than he is - and he's probably right.

I see sheep

Censoring of the press now from the Tories. What a great bunch of lads.

William Legrande

Does anyone know when the US-UK trade deal negotiations will be starting up?

This is the one aspect of Brexit that I am looking forward to above all others, I must say.

storker

Leroy42 wrote: »

Spot on, they have created another boggeyman to fight against. Apparently, Brexit was done last week, except for the mean EU that is still holding the UK to ransom.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia..."

stoneill

Interesting article from 1967:

1967: De Gaulle says 'non' to Britain - again
The French President, Charles de Gaulle, has for a second time said he will veto Britain's application to join the Common Market.
He warned France's five partners in the European Economic Community (EEC) that if they tried to impose British membership on France it would result in the break-up of the community.

All five - Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy and Germany - have said they would support negotiations towards British membership.

Only France remains opposed.

'Hostility'

At a news conference at the Elysee Palace in Paris, attended by more than 1,000 diplomats, civil servants and ministers as well as journalists, General de Gaulle accused Britain of a "deep-seated hostility" towards European construction.

He said London showed a "lack of interest" in the Common Market and would require a "radical transformation" before joining the EEC.

"The present Common Market is incompatible with the economy, as it now stands, of Britain," he said.

He went on to list a number of aspects of Britain's economy, from working practices to agriculture, which he said made Britain incompatible with Europe.

Hopes that he might offer clear terms for associate membership were also dashed. He said France would back commercial exchanges with Britain - "be it called association or by any other name" - but that was all.

His remarks were greeted with dismay in Europe, where it is feared an open crisis within the EEC is now inevitable.

Gloom

General de Gaulle's position has hardly changed since he first vetoed Britain's application to join in 1963.

He leaves the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, with no realistic hope of taking Britain into Europe in the near future.

All three political parties are committed to joining the EEC, and the news of General de Gaulle's continuing intransigence on the issue was met with gloom in Westminster.

The only group which was pleased with the General's comments were anti-European campaigners.

They called on the prime minister to withdraw Britain's application immediately.

Only then, they said, could a "humiliating" inquiry into the UK's economic affairs be avoided when Common Market foreign ministers meet to consider Britain's application formally next month.

Mr Wilson himself said he would not countenance what he called "peevish reactions" which might jeopardise Britain's relations with France or the other five EEC countries.

Sam Russell

storker wrote: »

"We have always been at war with Eastasia..."

1984 is so yesterday.

I think the current Nasty Party have greater depths to sink to, what with social Media.

Now with Cambridge Anal ytica. 'We do not just tell you what to think, we will make sure you agree with it before we tell you - we have ways of knowing.'

We are truly entering a frightening era.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

1984 is so yesterday.

I think the current Nasty Party have greater depths to sink to, what with social Media.

Now with Cambridge Anal ytica. 'We do not just tell you what to think, we will make sure you agree with it before we tell you - we have ways of knowing.'

We are truly entering a frightening era.

But Orwell UK is actually pretty isolated. They're more in danger of damaging themselves (or breaking up the union) than hurting their neighbours.

It might be no bad thing that they are now outside the EU political union and Single Market - less opportunities to cause havoc.

serfboard

Sam Russell wrote: »

1984 is so yesterday.

I think the current Nasty Party have greater depths to sink to, what with social Media.

Now with Cambridge Anal ytica. 'We do not just tell you what to think, we will make sure you agree with it before we tell you - we have ways of knowing.'

We are truly entering a frightening era.

You might want to go back and read your 1984 again.

Orwell might not have had the exact technology right, but the outcome is as he predicted. What Orwell could never have anticipated is how much of it we would give up ourselves, voluntarily and willingly.

GhostofKNugget

serfboard wrote: »

You might want to go back and read your 1984 again.

Orwell might not have had the exact technology right, but the outcome is as he predicted. What Orwell could never have anticipated is how much of it we would give up ourselves, voluntarily and willingly.

He was very prescient with things like Emmanuel Goldstein and the two minutes of hate. He just couldn't have foreseen that it would happen on social media.

storker

Sam Russell wrote: »

1984 is so yesterday.

Having a bogeyman to wind up the plebs with is still very "today".

storker

GhostofKNugget wrote: »

He was very prescient with things like Emmanuel Goldstein and the two minutes of hate. He just couldn't have foreseen that it would happen on social media.

He was right about "Big Brother is watching you too", but he can't have known that a large part of that would be the people themselves e.g. smart phones cameras, Twitter...

GhostofKNugget

storker wrote: »

He was right about "Big Brother is watching you too", but he can't have known that a large part of that would be the people themselves e.g. smart phones cameras, Twitter...

Don't forget, the UK are embracing facial recognition cameras just as the EU are putting the brakes on the technology being implemented.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please do not quote from other forums on this site. Thanks.

CrabRevolution

From that article on select members of the press being barred from briefings:

They (Prime Minister's Office) insisted that selected media outlets had not been “banned”. “They’re not banned, they are just not invited.”

“This is the most open and transparent government for decades” the source said.

Riiiight.

An Ciarraioch

A useful compare and contrast primer on the opening positions:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/uk-eu-future-relationship-negotiations-opening-positions

CelticRambler

briany wrote: »

If he can simply make the issue murky enough in the eyes of the international community, he might figure that's good enough. While insisting to the EU that there basically is a customs border, he would be basically insisting to the DUP and ERG that there basically isn't one, playing fast and loose with the definitions of 'de facto' and 'de jure'.

The problem with any such plan is that the "international community" - or the business people who pay DUP membership fees - that he might be trying to befuddle don't deal with politicians when it comes to international trade. It's all very well Johnson telling someone in NI to throw their customs declaration form in the bin, but if they do that, they'll quickly find out that they're suddenly unable to complete the product they've promised to their EU customer, or they'll finish it and find that they can't now get an export license due to incomplete paperwork. It'd be another example of bluster meeting the cold hard facts of reality - an environment in which Johnson doesn't ever appear to have been very comfortable.

RobMc59

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A useful compare and contrast primer on the opening positions:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/uk-eu-future-relationship-negotiations-opening-positions

That`s a useful comparison document.There are many differing views on various things and the EU wanting to treat the UK differently from other countries they have trade agreements with stands out and will be a point of contention imo.
Also,for me the EU position on Gibraltar seems high handed as until the brexit vote the EU were`nt interested, personally I don`t think it`s any of their business.
The EU approach to UK fishing territory also appears high handed ,why should the UK have to seek consent from the EU regarding UK fishing territory?
There was a report from Holland yesterday evening speaking to Dutch fishermen who are very worried about continued access to UK waters-this could well be the UK`s major bargaining chip.

Leroy42

Heavy handed maybe, but they are looking out for their interests. They are trying to leverage their position to get the maximum they can. Every country is going to try to do that.

At perfect example is the recent resigned NAFTA. Trump simply said he didn't like it and despite it being an agreement both Canada and Mexico had little option but to agree.

UK finds itself in the same position.

And don't for one minute think that if the tables were turned that the UK would not do the same. Even now, they are using the threat of No Deal to try to get what they want.

SantaCruz

RobMc59 wrote: »

Also,for me the EU position on Gibraltar seems high handed as until the brexit vote the EU were`nt interested, personally I don`t think it`s any of their business.

Well it's now a member's interest versus a non-members' interest. Their position is the only logical one.

They would have supported the UK on the Malvinas/Falklands in the past for the same reason.

Leroy42

SantaCruz wrote: »

Well it's now a member's interest versus a non-members' interest. Their position is the only logical one.

They would have supported the UK on the Malvinas/Falklands in the past for the same reason.

Exactly. It was posted earlier in the thread that the EU (or EEC I guess back then) stood by the UK when Spain wanted to join in relation to Gibraltar. Why would the UK think that the EU should be any different now?

And this is the staggering thing. People like Farage have worked their lives for this, the country as a whole has waited 3 years, and yet despite all the celebrations (let Big Ben ring out!) they are still complaining.

Surely they, since they knew the EU was such a protectionist racket, was going to try to, well, protect itself!

I would much rather the EU fight hard for fish rights, LPF, anti dumping etc, then simply allow the UK to get the advantage. The UK have clearly stated, and Brexit is pointless without it, focused on being a direct competitor to the EU. Maybe not in terms of direct trade, but even in terms of what they offer the US will have an effect on what the US demand from the EU for any trade deals.

ArthurDayne

RobMc59 wrote: »

That`s a useful comparison document.There are many differing views on various things and the EU wanting to treat the UK differently from other countries they have trade agreements with stands out and will be a point of contention imo.
Also,for me the EU position on Gibraltar seems high handed as until the brexit vote the EU were`nt interested, personally I don`t think it`s any of their business.
The EU approach to UK fishing territory also appears high handed ,why should the UK have to seek consent from the EU regarding UK fishing territory?
There was a report from Holland yesterday evening speaking to Dutch fishermen who are very worried about continued access to UK waters-this could well be the UK`s major bargaining chip.

But this “different treatment” should not be a bone of contention, because the UK have already accepted it. Brexiteers talk up CETA while blisssfully ignoring the fact that it involves a certain degree of alignment — so being ‘treated differently’ from Canada or any other faraway country (i.e. being asked to align more extensively) is a product of the fact that from a geopolitical perspective none of those countries are comparable to the UK. Why? Because the UK is right on the EU’s doorstep and is already deeply integrated with it — with a much more constant and fast-moving supply chain between the two.

Ultimately, the EU knows that the UK’s proximity means that any undercutting of regulation could damage the EU and lead to an arms race of regulation cutting in Europe — which could reverse many years of beefing up things like workers’ rights and environmental policy. Both sides say they don’t want that, and indeed section 77 of the Withdrawal Agreement says :

“The parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid.”

The UK is pretending to be shocked by a theme it has long been aware of and already signed up to.

RobMc59

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But this “different treatment” should not be a bone of contention, because the UK have already accepted it. Brexiteers talk up CETA while blisssfully ignoring the fact that it involves a certain degree of alignment — so being ‘treated differently’ from Canada or any other faraway country (i.e. being asked to align more extensively) is a product of the fact that from a geopolitical perspective none of those countries are comparable to the UK. Why? Because the UK is right on the EU’s doorstep and is already deeply integrated with it — with a much more constant and fast-moving supply chain between the two.

Ultimately, the EU knows that the UK’s proximity means that any undercutting of regulation could damage the EU and lead to an arms race of regulation cutting in Europe — which could reverse many years of beefing up things like workers’ rights and environmental policy. Both sides say they don’t want that, and indeed section 77 of the Withdrawal Agreement says :

“The parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid.”

The UK is pretending to be shocked by a theme it has long been aware of and already signed up to.

I agree that the UK should maintain EU standards but this should be by mutual agreement,as should any agreement on fishing and as I said,why should the UK have to obtain agreement with the EU over how it manages it`s fishing territory as said in the comparison document?

Leroy42

And just to make it clear, there is a line being trotted out that the UK have no intention of reduction in standards and in fact currently have higher standards that the EU in many cases and want to be even higher.

The problem with that is that EU standards are minimum standards. There are no maximums (except where safety is concerned). The there is no reason to leave the EU because you want to maintain standards. The only other option is that the UK do intend to lower standards. At that will cause a massive problem for the EU.

As an Irish consumer, will I be happy to pay the higher cost of a product made to EU standards when the product is available cheaper on UK standards. Especially as Brexit as shown that the majority of people do really understand the importance of standards or the difference.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree that the UK should maintain EU standards but this should be by mutual agreement,as should any agreement on fishing and as I said,why should the UK have to obtain agreement with the EU over how it manages it`s fishing territory as said in the comparison document?

Because otherwise the UK will simply wave the threat of removing fishing rights at the EU every time they don't get their way. The EU have the maximum advantage now. The UK position has always been to try to unlink everything, do a series of side deals and try to limit the clear disparity in power that way.

If the EU have learnt nothing else over the past 40+ years about the UK, is that no position is ever the final position. It is always simply a next step. (and btw I don't blame them in any way for that, it is what they should be doing).

swampgas

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree that the UK should maintain EU standards but this should be by mutual agreement,as should any agreement on fishing and as I said,why should the UK have to obtain agreement with the EU over how it manages it`s fishing territory as said in the comparison document?

Welcome to the world of international trade negotiations. The EU want something the UK have, and the UK want something the EU have. There is no reason why the EU shouldn't push hard for the best deal they can get, even if that seems like unfair treatment from where you're sitting.

The UK are in a weak position and they should be smart enough to know that this will be used against them. If the shoe were on the other foot, and they had the EU over a barrel in some way, you can be very sure they would be putting the boot in with equal or greater gusto.

Nody

RobMc59 wrote: »

Also,for me the EU position on Gibraltar seems high handed as until the brexit vote the EU were`nt interested, personally I don`t think it`s any of their business.

Well until the Brexit vote it was an internal question between two member states (Spain and UK); with UK leaving how much has UK actually bothered to discuss Gibraltars situation again? You know the 95.5% remain vote and all? The fact that it was laid out from day 1 UK would need to discuss Gibraltars treaty with Spain? How many discussions did they have with Spain? Oh yea, sod all. Now that UK is leaving it's suddenly a discussion between a third party country and an EU country; I wonder which side EU will choose to support? Hmm... this is a hard one to figure out how EU will act. If you got an issue about Gibraltar you can take it directly back to the UK government's door and their complete lack of interest in even starting a discussion with Spain on the topic. It's not like it was a surprise; it was stated back in 2016 when discussion were starting after all.

The EU approach to UK fishing territory also appears high handed ,why should the UK have to seek consent from the EU regarding UK fishing territory?

Because fish don't swim along borders? That the fish stock in the sea would be fished out? Because importing fish to EU requires the fishing policy to be approved to avoid over fishing (hence the qouta split etc.)? Or how about you actually read any of the answers given to this question over the last three years as it's not a new one? For crying out loud Rob this is not some suddenly new revelation coming up here; if you did not know then I'd go look for better news sources because this has been discussed, and linked, to death already.

There was a report from Holland yesterday evening speaking to Dutch fishermen who are very worried about continued access to UK waters-this could well be the UK`s major bargaining chip.

It's about their only chip and that's why it's tied with services. Of course there's a second part to this that Boris is to stupid to recognize which is UK exports 80%+ of their caught fish directly to EU as fresh fish; want to take a guess what happens when that fish has to go through a 70% border check for a couple of days with JIT delivery to fish markets? Sure UK can control their waters and fish away except for the issue that no one is there to actually buy the fish which is why these leave voting areas started demanding to be special exempt zones to allow export. In short UK may control their waters but their fishermen will not fish after a few years simply because they can't actually sell the fish and make a profit to keep running the ships without a very good deal from EU (frozen fish can easily be imported from other countries cheaper).

RobMc59

swampgas wrote: »

Welcome to the world of international trade negotiations. The EU want something the UK have, and the UK want something the EU have. There is no reason why the EU shouldn't push hard for the best deal they can get, even if that seems like unfair treatment from where you're sitting.

The UK are in a weak position and they should be smart enough to know that this will be used against them. If the shoe were on the other foot, and they had the EU over a barrel in some way, you can be very sure they would be putting the boot in with equal or greater gusto.

I have no idea how all this will pan out but I suspect it`s going to be one of two scenarios,either a lot of brexiteers who thought the UK was taking back control are in for a big shock or alternatively the EU are in for a very big shock!

Zubeneschamali

RobMc59 wrote: »

as should any agreement on fishing

Fishing is worth roughly twopence. The EU should just give it all to England and shut them up, really, who cares.

Zubeneschamali

RobMc59 wrote: »

I have no idea how all this will pan out but I suspect it`s going to be one of two scenarios,either a lot of brexiteers who thought the UK was taking back control are in for a big shock or alternatively the EU are in for a very big shock!

When I let go of this brick I'm holding, it will either fall to the ground or shoot off into space!