Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Donald Trump

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say you were stupid, I said that's stupid. Bigger economies should be getting better deals.

Ok sorry. My bad. I misread that. I will delete that from my post.


The reason why smaller markets could get better deals is 2-fold:

1) EU wants to help them develop
2) On the protection side, you might not want to give a competitor an advantage. Whereas a small market might have tiny impact even if you give that country a great deal.

fash

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say you were stupid, I said that's stupid. Bigger economies should be getting better deals.

I assume that having read up on it, you understand the logic and realise it's not "stupid"- that in fact it is quite a positive maybe even strategic thing to do?
It was one of the criticisms of UK's proposed tariffs that they will in fact be jeopardizing the economies of some of the poorest places on earth by removing tariffs from wealthy countries (the poor African countries no longer get the protection from the tariffs on these already wealthy countries)

Professor Moriarty

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say you were stupid, I said that's stupid. Bigger economies should be getting better deals.

Friendly bigger economies, yes. Antagonistic bigger economies, no.

Seth Brundle

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say you were stupid, I said that's stupid. Bigger economies should be getting better deals.

"better" for whom?
Do you mean that the bigger economy should be able to exploit the smaller one?

First Up

eagle eye wrote:

From an Irish perspective this is not a good thing. Take transport costs for instance which grow significantly if we are travelling across Europe instead of to the UK. Think about companies being able to set up in Europe and not needing Ireland as transport costs are lower for them in central Europe.

We already do a lot of business across Europe. We'll get our share of the cake.

Of course everyone is looking to take the UK's EU customers; the point is that the EU won't be going out of it's way to help the UK hold on to them.

eagle eye

fash wrote:

I assume that having read up on it, you understand the logic and realise it's not "stupid"- that in fact it is quite a positive maybe even strategic thing to do? It was one of the criticisms of UK's proposed tariffs that they will in fact be jeopardizing the economies of some of the poorest places on earth by removing tariffs from wealthy countries (the poor African countries no longer get the protection from the tariffs on these already wealthy countries)

I really do not care about Africa. I care about my family, my finances and the Republic of Ireland above all else.

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Friendly bigger economies, yes. Antagonistic bigger economies, no.

Bigger economies means we are more powerful and more affluent.

Seth Brundle wrote:

"better" for whom? Do you mean that the bigger economy should be able to exploit the smaller one?

Better for Ireland

Seth Brundle

eagle eye wrote: »

Better for Ireland

Ireland doesn't make trade deals though

Donald Trump

eagle eye wrote: »

I really do not care about Africa. I care about my family, my finances and the Republic of Ireland above all else.


Bigger economies means we are more powerful and more affluent.


Better for Ireland

As you said yourself

eagle eye wrote: »

Your response is not in line with what we were discussing. Get on the right page.

eagle eye

Donald Trump wrote:

As you said yourself

You brought up Africa and I responded, where did I go off topic?

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

I really do not care about Africa. I care about my family, my finances and the Republic of Ireland above all else.


Bigger economies means we are more powerful and more affluent.


Better for Ireland

I don't follow this at all. How does allowing the poorest countries on the planet export to the EU with 0 tariffs and 0 quotas cost you anything?
These countries are dirt poor. We could squeeze them but it wouldn't collect much tax.

Having a 0 rate with Ethiopia doesn't mean we can't horse trade with Brazil over their economy.

Leroy42

The big issue for the UK is how antagonistic they have been throughout. From the campaign itself, to TM telling the EU they get in line or the UK walks away, and now still with the recent letter from Frost basically blaming everything on the EU, there has been very little time throughout this that the UK have tried to act as a conciliatory partner.

It is clear that the UK very much intend on treating the EU as a direct competitor and as such their is little incentive, expect in the short term, for the EU to agree with their demands.

This could have all been handled so much differently, even if they never changed their minds on the EU. THey seemed to have lost all sense of diplomacy and the art of making deals and seemed only ever to consider what they wanted and the pressures they were under.

Even the response to the December 2017 agreement, which the likes of Davies and Johnson almost immediately claimed they didn't have to adhere to, and then the carry on since the WA was signed, whereby Johnson himself continually lied about its implications, means that the EU have very little good will on which to work.

eagle eye

The most important words in all this for me are the Republic of Ireland.

We are the ones that will suffer with a no deal. We are part of the EU and they have a responsibility to make sure we don't suffer financially so they should be busting their asses to get a deal done with the UK.

Somebody mentioned completely free trade with poor African countries. Well give the UK that if it's what it takes to keep Ireland financially healthy. I'm sure they'd take something like what they had as members of the EU with control of their own borders. Maybe I'm wrong on that but it seems to me the main reason Brexit won was about controlling their own borders.

I read through all these posts on this thread and I rarely see Ireland being mentioned. Are you all living abroad or something?

Donald Trump

Leroy42 wrote: »

The big issue for the UK is how antagonistic they have been throughout. From the campaign itself, to TM telling the EU they get in line or the UK walks away, and now still with the recent letter from Frost basically blaming everything on the EU, there has been very little time throughout this that the UK have tried to act as a conciliatory partner.

It is clear that the UK very much intend on treating the EU as a direct competitor and as such their is little incentive, expect in the short term, for the EU to agree with their demands.

This could have all been handled so much differently, even if they never changed their minds on the EU. THey seemed to have lost all sense of diplomacy and the art of making deals and seemed only ever to consider what they wanted and the pressures they were under.

Even the response to the December 2017 agreement, which the likes of Davies and Johnson almost immediately claimed they didn't have to adhere to, and then the carry on since the WA was signed, whereby Johnson himself continually lied about its implications, means that the EU have very little good will on which to work.

People do talk about the terrible decay of trustworthiness across the water.


But then you remember that there are old expressions to describe this kind of behaviour and maybe it is just business as normal for those people?

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

The big issue for the UK is how antagonistic they have been throughout. From the campaign itself, to TM telling the EU they get in line or the UK walks away, and now still with the recent letter from Frost basically blaming everything on the EU, there has been very little time throughout this that the UK have tried to act as a conciliatory partner.

It is clear that the UK very much intend on treating the EU as a direct competitor and as such their is little incentive, expect in the short term, for the EU to agree with their demands.

This could have all been handled so much differently, even if they never changed their minds on the EU. THey seemed to have lost all sense of diplomacy and the art of making deals and seemed only ever to consider what they wanted and the pressures they were under.

Even the response to the December 2017 agreement, which the likes of Davies and Johnson almost immediately claimed they didn't have to adhere to, and then the carry on since the WA was signed, whereby Johnson himself continually lied about its implications, means that the EU have very little good will on which to work.

Hence thread title

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Ireland doesn't make trade deals though

All the more reason why Ireland should be encouraging the EU to take a reasonable position in these talks and to conduct a good trade deal for both sides.

Leroy42

But the UK are currently looking for an unreasonable position, basically all the positives and none of the negatives. With that, they will be able to massively undercut RoI.

You have to believe that even when a deal is done that the UK will stick to that deal and not look to take advantage. When everything from the last few years says the exact opposite.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

All the more reason why Ireland should be encouraging the EU to take a reasonable position in these talks and to conduct a good trade deal for both sides.

Irelands view is taken on board by the negotiating team at all times (as is every other country within the EU).
As an example, they are currently discussing the Fishing. Barnier has spoken to each of the fishing member states to discuss recent events - the member states were able to offer the negotiating team advice on how to proceed in the best interests of the members.
Seems to be a very democratic process, very fair and also in the best interests of the member states.
Yet you think it's an unreasonable position?

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Irelands view is taken on board by the negotiating team at all times (as is every other country within the EU).
As an example, they are currently discussing the Fishing. Barnier has spoken to each of the fishing member states to discuss recent events - the member states were able to offer the negotiating team advice on how to proceed in the best interests of the members.
Seems to be a very democratic process, very fair and also in the best interests of the member states.
Yet you think it's an unreasonable position?

I'm glad that EU members chat with each other, but that doesn't mean that the EU's position is reasonable in respect to negotiating with the UK.

My Irish opinion that differs to yours is that it is in Ireland's interests to secure a good trading relationship with the UK.

In order for that to be accepted, the deal needs to be good for the UK rather than substandard. Pretty basic stuff really.

J Mysterio

theological wrote: »

I'm glad that EU members chat with each other, but that doesn't mean that the EU's position is reasonable in respect to negotiating with the UK.

My Irish opinion that differs to yours is that it is in Ireland's interests to secure a good trading relationship with the UK.

In order for that to be accepted, the deal needs to be good for the UK rather than substandard. Pretty basic stuff really.

Why would the EU willingly build up a belligerent ex? The UK have been antagonistic, self serving and deceitful. They openly call for and wish the demise of the body they wish everything from.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

I'm glad that EU members chat with each other, but that doesn't mean that the EU's position is reasonable in respect to negotiating with the UK.

My Irish opinion that differs to yours is that it is in Ireland's interests to secure a good trading relationship with the UK.

In order for that to be accepted, the deal needs to be good for the UK rather than substandard. Pretty basic stuff really.

Hang on, weren't the UK going to get themselves the best trade deals from around the world?
Yet here you are almost pleading that the EU should be nice to the UK? Are you high?

Ask yourself why in your view the UK has not been offered a "good trading relationship" so far and who's fault is that?

Also what's going to happen when the UK start proper negotiations with the US? Should the EU be nice and come to help the UK then too?

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Hang on, weren't the UK going to get themselves the best trade deals from around the world?
Yet here you are almost pleading that the EU should be nice to the UK? Are you high?

Ask yourself why in your view the UK has not been offered a "good trading relationship" so far and who's fault is that?

Keep up. We were talking about what's good for Ireland with the other poster.

Edit: he's right. A good trading relationship with the UK is important for Ireland.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

Keep up. We were talking about what's good for Ireland with the other poster.

Edit: he's right. A good trading relationship with the UK is important for Ireland.

You really seem to have no idea in how the EU works.
I've already made the point that the EU when negotiating will take Ireland's interests into account. Ireland has a say in the outcome of the deal.
So despite calls by senior UK politicians over the last number of years to destroy Ireland's trade, we have a say in the final trading relationship between the UK and Ireland (or the EU).
However, don't for a minute think that the nonsense spouted by the likes of Patel will have any influence on the deal as Ireland's interests are probably in a much stronger position at the table that the UK's!

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You really seem to have no idea in how the EU works.
I've already made the point that the EU when negotiating will take Ireland's interests into account. Ireland has a say in the outcome of the deal.
So despite calls by senior UK politicians over the last number of years to destroy Ireland's trade, we have a say in the final trading relationship between the UK and Ireland (or the EU).
However, don't for a minute think that the nonsense spouted by the likes of Patel will have any influence on the deal as Ireland's interests are probably in a much stronger position at the table that the UK's!

Not agreeing with you and your opinion about the EU being automatically a benevolent entity is not the same thing as not knowing how the EU works. It's slightly amusing that you're almost unable to fathom this not being the case.

It wouldn't be in Ireland's interests for there not to be a good deal arranged with the UK. That's an obvious point. I'm simply suggesting that it may actually be in Ireland's interests to come to a more reasonable arrangement with the UK.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

Keep up. We were talking about what's good for Ireland with the other poster.

Edit: he's right. A good trading relationship with the UK is important for Ireland.

But it is only a good deal if it results in positives for Ireland.

If, for example, the UK can lower food standards to import cheap GMO feed from the US, but still sell unhindered into the EU, they Ireland will lose out.

If a company can locate in the UK, have full access to their market and unlimited and unhindered access to the EU, whilst an Irish based company must meet higher standards then the advantage is to the UK.

And all the experience of the last few years is that the UK is not to be taken at its word. That it is going to try and find every possible angle and workaround to put itself ahead of the EU.

So whilst a deal may look like it solves something, it is merely giving the UK the time and cushion to continue on its current path.

The EU is undoubtedly stronger with the UK in it, and it is in Irelands interests to have the UK in the EU. The best way to achieve that is it make is clear that being in the EU is better than being outside.

Doing a deal will reduce the impact and thus reduce the argument about the benefits of the EU.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

Not agreeing with you and your opinion about the EU being automatically a benevolent entity is not the same thing as not knowing how the EU works. It's slightly amusing that you're almost unable to fathom this not being the case.

It wouldn't be in Ireland's interests for there not to be a good deal arranged with the UK. That's an obvious point. I'm simply suggesting that it may actually be in Ireland's interests to come to a more reasonable arrangement with the UK.

In terms of Ireland coming to a more reasonable agreement with the UK, it will not be Ireland coming to an agreement with the UK it will be the EU. However, as I said, ireland will have a large say in that agreement and first off Ireland will look for what's best for Ireland (as any country would do). It will obviously want to continue a good relationship with the Uk (within the parameters allowed by the EU rules).
From how I interpret your second paragraph above, it's almost like you're suggesting that we should exit the EU and create our own agreement with the UK - which is obviously a totally preposterous notion and I don't think you're stupid enough to suggest that.

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In terms of Ireland coming to a more reasonable agreement with the UK, it will not be Ireland coming to an agreement with the UK it will be the EU. However, as I said, ireland will have a large say in that agreement and first off Ireland will look for what's best for Ireland (as any country would do). It will obviously want to continue a good relationship with the Uk (within the parameters allowed by the EU rules).

You need to read my posts again. I never said that it was.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

From how I interpret your second paragraph above, it's almost like you're suggesting that we should exit the EU and create our own agreement with the UK - which is obviously a totally preposterous notion and I don't think you're stupid enough to suggest that.

No. I didn't say this either. You need to read my posts more carefully.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Not agreeing with you and your opinion about the EU being automatically a benevolent entity is not the same thing as not knowing how the EU works. It's slightly amusing that you're almost unable to fathom this not being the case.

It wouldn't be in Ireland's interests for there not to be a good deal arranged with the UK. That's an obvious point. I'm simply suggesting that it may actually be in Ireland's interests to come to a more reasonable arrangement with the UK.

You've been parroting non-stop that the UK is benevolent and reasonable with no detail whatsoever. It's been patently obvious since day one that the UK can have whatever deal it wants. If it wants something like Canada then it's going to have to be bespoke which means that it will take years.

It's spectacularly baffling that you're coming out with exactly the same silly nonsense since the referendum.

Leroy42

When I saw how they completely lied about the WA, made it out to be some massive climb down by the EU, some incredible deal by Johnson. You could put this off as being electioneering, but even since then, until recently, they have continued to say that there would be no controls on the border, messing about with an EU presence in NI and the like.

Even know, they are continuing to claim that NI will not have to do anything different and Frost letter trying to blame it all on Barnier was the last straw.

Appeasement will not work with these guys. No matter what you do they will always want more. They want everything, and pay for nothing.

First Up

This show has a ways to run yet but if I had to predict the eventual outcome, I'd go for the UK entering into a Customs Union with the EU - probably with some sectors and industries excluded as per Turkey's CU arrangements.

This will allow most (but not all) of the UK's current EU trade to survive and also dodges the customs checks at Larne.

Of course it ties their hands in striking all those wonderful trade deals the Brexiteers dream and boast about but that was always nonsense anyway. It also leaves them plenty of knots to untangle in trade elsewhere but they've already guaranteed that.

We are still less than half way down the bereavement curve and who knows how UK politics will deal with the dawning of reality. There's a few twists and turns to come at Westminster and I wouldn't care to bet when, who and from what party will sign the eventual surrender.

But someone will.

fash

eagle eye wrote: »

The most important words in all this for me are the Republic of Ireland.

We are the ones that will suffer with a no deal. We are part of the EU and they have a responsibility to make sure we don't suffer financially so they should be busting their asses to get a deal done with the UK.

As context, I think we can all agree that Ireland owes the EU more than the EU owes Ireland. The EU is responsible for bringing down the border in NI and in face of British underhandedness and threats, keeping it down.
Ireland is finally independent of the UK and Ireland is now a wealthy country - because of its membership.
Back when no deal in the WA was on the table because of NI, do you think it appropriate that if there was a no deal, then all other EU States ought to have been able to recoup their costs from Ireland?

Somebody mentioned completely free trade with poor African countries. Well give the UK that if it's what it takes to keep Ireland financially healthy. I'm sure they'd take something like what they had as members of the EU with control of their own borders. Maybe I'm wrong on that but it seems to me the main reason Brexit won was about controlling their own borders.

It doesn't sound you'd make a good business man. Why don't you ask Microsoft to give you a copy of Windows + all packages for €1 or ask Netflix to give you a monthly subscription for €.01. Sure they'll make a €1 or €0.1 if they do. Have you ever wondered why they don't do that? On the same theme, have you ever wondered why the principle of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" evolved and is the correct strategy for countries etc.?
So no, negotiating with terrorists does not make sense. Microsoft selling you a copy of Windows for €1 does not make sense. And giving the UK what it wants does not make sense.