Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Spanish Eyes

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What does "prevail" mean here? In cold hard actual terms, rather than the spin of who is winning the negotiations?

Yes, the EU is a bit concerned about the consequences of a no deal. Yes, they are more concerned about it than the UK negotiators. But being concerned is a perfectly normal response to a very real risk. Not being concerned about it is the aberration.

Will the EU chance their stance or "cave"? I dont know. Probably not. If they agree to the UKs recently published proposals, it will mean that the UK gets all of the benefits of the single market with none of the responsibilities. In which case, agreeing to it would effectly end the EU.

Unless im taking you up wrong, it seems like youre saying that Brexit was done solely to make the EU scared. If so, it achieved its purpose. Europe is less united and we will all be poorer for it. If British people want to celebrate that, I suppose they can, but it seems like a very strange thing to celebrate to me.

I don't think I wished to celebrate anything to do with Brexit.

But the UK are playing a blinder and much as I hate to say it, they just might win out now. (the word prevail is not allowed now it seems).

We shall see. But Qui Bono is the big question.

CrabRevolution

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

They will just go for no deal and wait to see what the reaction might be from EU.

That ok for you?

The UK has gone for no deal at least twice at this stage and folded each time, agreeing to extensions despite Boris stating he'd be dead in a ditch before allowing an extension.

Not to mention the numerous sub sections of the withdrawal (e.g. wanting the NI arrangements sorted after they exit, wanting a trade deal signed before leaving, "the row of the summer") they have also folded each and every time.

There's no evidence they are prevailing or will gain any advantages over the EU.

Tell me how

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Brexit to me seems to be just what the UK wanted.

An EU that is a bit scared of the consequences of a No Deal.

Don't get me wrong, I want the EU to be the good ones here. But it is looking like the UK will prevail.

Am I totally wrong or what?

Brexit was initially argued for on the basis of 'They need us more than we need them', 'the first call after we leave will not be to Brussels, it will be to Berlin', 'The german car manufacturers will never let a No deal happen', 'We will have multiple trade agreements ready to go immediately after we leave the EU', 'The US and China will be queuing up to negotiate with us', not to mention the '£250M/week for the NHS'

None of this has happened. From the days immediately after the referendum when Farage admitted the £250M/week for the NHS was a false claim, Brexiteers have been moving the goalposts. Even today Gove talking about increased food prices like it is wasn't something that they explicitly said would not be case before the referendum is more moving of the goalposts.

Enzokk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't think I wished to celebrate anything to do with Brexit.

But the UK are playing a blinder and much as I hate to say it, they just might win out now. (the word prevail is not allowed now it seems).

We shall see. But Qui Bono is the big question.

I think we are having trouble knowing what you mean when you say prevail or win. The UK has asked for extensions when they said they wouldn't, Johnson took a deal from the EU that was worse than the deal May negotiated and as we learn now it has the GI clause in it that not many other countries would accept.

So why do you think they will win and what will they win?

Let's just remember, the UK will accept the GI from the EU but the EU is in no way obligated to accept the GI from the UK. Johnson signed the deal that included this, what else do you think they will miss in the upcoming trade talks, especially when it comes close to a deadline again.

Capt'n Midnight

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Brexit discussion perhaps? I understand trade deals can include protected designations, so might be something for the UK to seek

A non-issue

The EU will protect EU consumers from fraud. If it's described as Scottish booze it had bloody well better be made in Scotland.

But if the UK allows the US to sell them "Champagne" expect some restrictions on UK exports to the EU.


The US - UK trade negotiations will popcorn time.
Remember best case scenario is it would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.
(That model estimated that UK GDP would fall by 7.6% over 15 years if the government failed to reach a trade deal with the EU. )


But it could be 0.07% which is 0.0047% annual, to put it into perspective UK population was expected to grow 4.5% over the next 10 years.

Was , because most of the growth was to have been immigration.

BonnieSituation

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Brexit to me seems to be just what the UK wanted.

An EU that is a bit scared of the consequences of a No Deal.

Don't get me wrong, I want the EU to be the good ones here. But it is looking like the UK will prevail.

Am I totally wrong or what?

Yes you are.

Your weekly fears don't really match with the reality in the news. How you could think that the UK is still the boss in all of this I just don't know.

Nate--IRL--

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't think I wished to celebrate anything to do with Brexit.

But the UK are playing a blinder and much as I hate to say it, they just might win out now. (the word prevail is not allowed now it seems).

We shall see. But Qui Bono is the big question.

Prevail is fine, as is win out. But associating them with No Deal doesn't compute initially. You could be clearer that you meant they will win a "No Deal" outcome.

That aside, I agree with you. Also Qui Bono is the correct thing to ask, because overall such a "Win" makes no sense (to me at least).

Nate

Joe_ Public

Maybe there's some circumstance in which the eu would be willing to devise some kind of fudge the uk government, with its endless capacity for spinning even the ugliest of turds, could try to sell as a mini triumph. Not sure i see it though. Probably too much doubt in eu minds that there is total good faith on the other side as well as the very strong likelihood the latter will insist on no extension. I suppose too the eu could grant them a small "win" on fishing but dont really see that either.

reslfj

Joe_ Public wrote: »

... I suppose too the eu could grant them a small "win" on fishing but dont really see that either.

The UK might get a fairly big quota of "Red Herrings" - but that's about all.

Otherwise no FTA and no export of fish from the UK.

It's simple, really.

Lars

The UK playing a blinder? Their moments of maximum leverage have passed. They have now effectively paid 39bn for one year of membership and they have signed up to assuring No Border by putting one in the Irish Sea. If threats of No Deal were ever going to work, it was before the Withdrawal Agreement nullified the UK's two biggest threats to the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Maybe there's some circumstance in which the eu would be willing to devise some kind of fudge the uk government, with its endless capacity for spinning even the ugliest of turds, could try to sell as a mini triumph.

The EU will usually compromise and let you get their own way.


Any chance of Trump scaring Greenland back into the fold ?

Peregrinus

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

They will just go for no deal and wait to see what the reaction might be from EU.

That ok for you?

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't think I wished to celebrate anything to do with Brexit.

But the UK are playing a blinder and much as I hate to say it, they just might win out now. (the word prevail is not allowed now it seems).

We shall see. But Qui Bono is the big question.

It's not so much that "prevail" isn't allowed as a descriptor for this situation. It's more that it isn't remotely accurate. Nor is "win". Unless you think "prevail" and "win" are synonyms for "cut off your nose to spite your face".

It's true that the UK is in a position to ensure a no-FTA crash-out in December. It's also true that this would hurt the EU more than other forms of Brexit would.

But this is a "win" only if you think that the primary purpose of Brexit is to inflict harm on the EU. If you think that the primary purpose of Brexit is to benefit the UK then it's an absolutely disastrous outcome. The simple fact is that, however bad a crash-out may be for the EU, it will be much, much worse for the UK. Brexiters who think to " wait to see what the reaction might be from EU" are overlooking what should be the more pressing concern - what might the reaction be from the UK? Unsaleable fish rotting on the quayside at Grimsby and newspaper headlines like "Why Cummings' Brexit cost you your job" are going to create pressures that make the government's present woes look like a family outing to Barnard Castle.

johnnyskeleton

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't think I wished to celebrate anything to do with Brexit.

But the UK are playing a blinder and much as I hate to say it, they just might win out now. (the word prevail is not allowed now it seems).

We shall see.

The word prevail or win is fine. But what do you mean by it? I would define winning in a negotiation as both sides being able to come to an agreement, or one side getting the better of the deal.

Spending 4 years talking about getting "the easiest deal ever" with the EU and then being unable to get a trade deal doesnt sound like success to me.

That view mutating into "now we want no deal" likewise doesnt suggest that nondela would be a win, rather its an attempt to spin a very bad outcome as a win

johnnyskeleton

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

That aside, I agree with you. Also Qui Bono is the correct thing to ask, because overall such a "Win" makes no sense (to me at least).

Nate

Well the US, Russia and China benefit from a fractured European Union politically, and only a few shrewd investors benefit from Brexit economically

kalych

It seems to me based on the "prevail" or "win" comment (open to correction) that Spanish eyes approaches the whole Brexit negotiation as EU trying to force the UK to stay in as close a relationship as possible and strong-arming the UK into it by leaving them with very little negotiating space.

If you look at Brexit negotiations from this perspective then indeed by finally managing to procure internal consent by means of a strong mandate and being able to move on with any form of Brexit (even if a no-deal one) might appear as a 'win'.

Let's be clear here Boris managed to push through his desired outcome. Sadly we can't be sure it's the best (or even not an absolutely terrible) outcome for the economic future of the UK. But Boris is definitely 'winning'. It's up to the UK electorate to judge whether it is what they consider to be in their best interest. History will judge him.

First Up

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The EU will usually compromise and let you get their own way.

Examples?

Leroy42

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But the UK are playing a blinder and much as I hate to say it, they just might win out now. (the word prevail is not allowed now it seems).

How have you arrived at the position that the UK have played a blinder?

Their country is effectively split down the middle, with such disagreement that many people don't even talk about Brexit anymore due to arguments.

The individual nations withing the Union believe they are not being listened to by England and NI in particular feel they are being sacrificed on the altar of Brexit. The gap between Scotland and England continues to grow.

They have wasted the last four years trying to politically deal with this, rather than the issues of the country. So much so that people recently voted for the party to 'get it done' without knowing what it was (as shown by nobody understanding the NI Border with GB agreed).

Their economy has fallen 2% since the vote based on the trends (pre Covid). English pound lost value.
There have been stories of UK companies losing out on EU contracts due to the uncertainty.

They have lost out of their right to work and travel freely with 27 other countries.

They didn't save any money on agreements they had made.

They have agreed to split their own union in terms of trade. An oft missed product of the NI agreement part of the WA, is that NI is now effectively going to have to be treated differently in every trade deal going forward. And the UK now needs to ensure that NI complies with all current and future EU regulations.

And now they run the very real risk of getting nothing at all from the EU.

The only way one can consider that playing a blinder is if one thinks that A) that was the plan all along and that they had to in someway force the EU to give all this to them.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Examples?

The border in the Irish Sea.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

The border in the Irish Sea.

How is that an example of the EU giving in? This is what the EU wanted from the start ) well they really wanted the UK to stay so that all this added complexity could be avoided but given that wasn't an option then it is pretty great result.

The only other options were leave the border open (and basically open a back door to the EU and give massive competitive advantage to the UK) or close the border with the very real possibility of either a return to violence or that Ireland may seek to leave the EU - thus increasing the likelihood as the EU falling apart.

johnnyskeleton

kalych wrote: »

It seems to me based on the "prevail" or "win" comment (open to correction) that Spanish eyes approaches the whole Brexit negotiation as EU trying to force the UK to stay in as close a relationship as possible and strong-arming the UK into it by leaving them with very little negotiating space.

If you look at Brexit negotiations from this perspective then indeed by finally managing to procure internal consent by means of a strong mandate and being able to move on with any form of Brexit (even if a no-deal one) might appear as a 'win'.

Let's be clear here Boris managed to push through his desired outcome. Sadly we can't be sure it's the best (or even not an absolutely terrible) outcome for the economic future of the UK. But Boris is definitely 'winning'. It's up to the UK electorate to judge whether it is what they consider to be in their best interest. History will judge him.

Makes sense. In which case, its the no deal faction of the UK winning over the deal amd remain factions, rather than the UK winning over the EU though

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is that an example of the EU giving in? This is what the EU wanted from the start ) well they really wanted the UK to stay so that all this added complexity could be avoided but given that wasn't an option then it is pretty great result.

The only other options were leave the border open (and basically open a back door to the EU and give massive competitive advantage to the UK) or close the border with the very real possibility of either a return to violence or that Ireland may seek to leave the EU - thus increasing the likelihood as the EU falling apart.

Read the original OP quote more carefully.

Nate--IRL--

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well the US, Russia and China benefit from a fractured European Union politically, and only a few shrewd investors benefit from Brexit economically

Indeed, but who in Britain benefits I think was the gist of the question..

Nate

fash

https://beergbrexit.blog/2020/06/01/tale-of-two-speeches

Pessimistic assessment of likelihood of agreement here. I think it's hard to fault. There isn't any version of reality that I can see being acceptable to the brexiters -so better to go down with the delusion

Leroy42

fash wrote: »

Read the original OP quote more carefully.

Great, I did. What now?

serfboard

Damning report from the House Of Lords: https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/0601/1143712-house-of-lords-irish-protocol/

A key report by the House of Lords has highlighted a litany of uncertainties and contradictions in the British government's approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Peers have also accused the UK of appearing to "reinterpret" the Protocol when it comes to one of its central elements.

The report repeatedly warns of what it calls the "Herculean" task facing Northern Ireland business to come to terms with the Protocol, and the fact that time is running out for them to prepare for the changes involved.

The Tony Connelly article is well worth reading.

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

Great, I did. What now?

To quote and emphasise:

The EU will usually compromise and let you get *THEIR* own way.

I.e. it was an ironic statement that the EU was happy to appear to concede such that the other side got to dress up a loss as a win - see for example Johnson's border in the Irish sea.

kalych

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Makes sense. In which case, its the no deal faction of the UK winning over the deal amd remain factions, rather than the UK winning over the EU though

Yes and No. The initial internal political struggle in the UK is only the result of a strong EU position in the negotiations.

You will always have a number of political camps with those that have something to lose and those who are insulated and have less to lose (or hope that the change will remove unnecessary competition). Short term pain for the rich can result in a long term Monopoly in the UK market for their respective business with little competition from the pesky EU competitors.

In their view the enemy has always been the EU, not the local opposition which the peculiarities of the electoral system have always helped to manage.

moon2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The border in the Irish Sea.

Correct me if I'm wrong here - but didn't Boris resign a few years ago after Theresa May accepted a deal which included this?

I believe he said that no PM could possibly accept a deal which split the union?

He did end up accepting this though, after he became PM.

If I've remembered correctly then this is hardly a UK victory... Unless agreeing to the EU proposals is now a UK negotiating victory?

moon2

moon2 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here - but didn't Boris resign a few years ago after Theresa May accepted a deal which included this?

I believe he said that no PM could possibly accept a deal which split the union?

He did end up accepting this though, after he became PM.

If I've remembered correctly then this is hardly a UK victory... Unless agreeing to the EU proposals is now a UK negotiating victory?

Maybe, he's decided that NI is more trouble than it's worth, he has bigger fish to fry with the EU. Also he probably remembers that the NI Unionists voted against the previous deal that forced the election last year.

Imreoir2

moon2 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here - but didn't Boris resign a few years ago after Theresa May accepted a deal which included this?

I believe he said that no PM could possibly accept a deal which split the union?

He did end up accepting this though, after he became PM.

If I've remembered correctly then this is hardly a UK victory... Unless agreeing to the EU proposals is now a UK negotiating victory?

Actually Mrs May said that no PM could ever accept what Mr Johnson eventually accepted, a border in the Irish Sea.

Mrs May's deal would have included the whole UK within a temporary Backstop, thus removing the need for a border in the sea until a new trade deal was done. TM's deal would have been far better for the UK, but was not Brexity enough so had to be rejected even at the cost of economically dividing their precious Union.