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

davedanon

theological wrote: »

I'm not claiming that there are no downsides to leaving the EU. I just think that the benefits are greater than the drawbacks at this point.

Once again, as I said to Rob, Brexiters on here keep saying this, without supplying a shred of evidence.

davedanon

I think what Theo is trying very hard not to say is that he has no problem with the UK adhering to EU standards across a wide range of areas, as long as the decision to abide by EU rules looks as though it was a 'sovereign' one made in Westminster.

WHL

Why are the talks still going on at this stage when there is no evidence of progress. Rather than trying to diverge, will there come a point pretty soon when everybody decides to break on 1st January with no deal but return a few years later (maybe after a new U.K. government) and look to converge again and find a mutually beneficial FTA.

First Up

davedanon wrote:

I think what Theo is trying very hard not to say is that he has no problem with the UK adhering to EU standards across a wide range of areas, as long as the decision to abide by EU rules looks as though it was a 'sovereign' one made in Westminster.

Yes, no matter that the UK helped set most EU laws and standards over the last 40+ years and that every change in UK law is voted through by the UK parliament. The tyranny of the evil EU must be resisted!

timetogo1

WHL wrote: »

Why are the talks still going on at this stage when there is no evidence of progress. Rather than trying to diverge, will there come a point pretty soon when everybody decides to break on 1st January with no deal but return a few years later (maybe after a new U.K. government) and look to converge again and find a mutually beneficial FTA.

I was thinking that too. At what stage do they stop and say "OK we have until Jan to prepare. We'll draw a line under it now to prepare and will start again in the future".

The UK seem to keep on pushing it down the road (and the EU are facilitating this) but the Jan date is a hard limit.

Donald Trump

timetogo1 wrote: »

I was thinking that too. At what stage do they stop and say "OK we have until Jan to prepare. We'll draw a line under it now to prepare and will start again in the future".

The UK seem to keep on pushing it down the road (and the EU are facilitating this) but the Jan date is a hard limit.

The EU need the UK more than the UK needs the EU. UK just needs to hold it's sovereign democratic nerve. And the EU will cave at the last minute like they always do. Especially now that Boris is in power instead of Teresa May. And if Teresa May holds her nerve then the German car manufacturers will push the EU to do a deal. That is, of course, after David Davis will do his trip of the capitals and do the easiest deal in history over a cup of tea




What's that you say?... the EU didn't cave when other deadlines came and went?.....nah..nah..nah I can't hear you

ancapailldorcha

davedanon wrote: »

I think what Theo is trying very hard not to say is that he has no problem with the UK adhering to EU standards across a wide range of areas, as long as the decision to abide by EU rules looks as though it was a 'sovereign' one made in Westminster.

But that's just an inferior version of the status quo where the UK could affect, direct and influence said standards and now will have to face a choice between a form of subservience or economic damage just because Brexiters have successfully peddled the lie that the UK is not a sovereign nation.

davedanon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But that's just an inferior version of the status quo where the UK could affect, direct and influence said standards and now will have to face a choice between a form of subservience or economic damage just because Brexiters have successfully peddled the lie that the UK is not a sovereign nation.

Well, yes, the whole caper is completely mad, of course. I'm trying to get into the Brexiter mindset a bit.

ancapailldorcha

davedanon wrote: »

Well, yes, the whole caper is completely mad, of course. I'm trying to get into the Brexiter mindset a bit.

Aside from dropping some of the pre-referendum BS like the German car manufacturers trope, it's exactly the same narrative about control and immigration. Economically, they're not even pretending that there are benefits to the UK any more.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The only thing I can take from this is that the UK should split since its parliament is dominated by England.

I like this idea:

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I like this idea:

Game Of Thrones.

Donald Trump

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I like this idea:

West Merica :pac:




Imagine going to all that bother and not doing an oul' spellcheck

Professor Moriarty

Donald Trump wrote: »

West Merica :pac:




Imagine going to all that bother and not doing an oul' spellcheck

Making Merica Great Again

ancapailldorcha

Donald Trump wrote: »

West Merica :pac:




Imagine going to all that bother and not doing an oul' spellcheck

It's Mercia. It was a kingdom in pre-Norman times.

Seth Brundle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's Mercia. It was a kingdom in pre-Norman times.

...and familiar to those who watch The Last Kingdom

ancapailldorcha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...and familiar to those who watch The Last Kingdom

I read a lot of History. That's a Netflix show, isn't it.

Seth Brundle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I read a lot of History. That's a Netflix show, isn't it.

Initially BBC & then Netflix

Donald Trump

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's Mercia. It was a kingdom in pre-Norman times.

I'm familiar with what it should be.


Merely pointing out the error on the map!


(Was not cutting at you. I assumed you did not make it!)

RobMc59

There's also a Mercian regiment in the British army.

declanflynn

If Scotland, Wales or N Ireland break away from the uk what are the chances of Cornwall looking for independence?

fash

theological wrote: »

That is your opinion.

The fact is that is how the British people voted and that should have been respected from day 1 by MPs.

Yet the vast majority of British voted to stay within the single market: 48.1% who voted remain and a large percentage of leave voters who were told and relied upon assertions that "no one is talking about leaving the single market" - why do you and Brexiters not merely disrespect but s**t all over them?

fash

theological wrote: »

This is a silly remark. Given that I'm Irish I don't have any interest in empires. I just have an interest in regaining more sovereignty in much the same way as other nation states outside of the EU have. The UK is not asking for any more control than Canada or Australia for example. Wanting more control over affairs, and wanting to be an empire are two very different things.

That should indicate to you that I have no strange notions of empire.

Actually the UK is asking for FAR more control than Canada or Australia: it is asking for the most ambitious zero tariff/zero quota FTA ever with calculatedly inadequate level playing field mechanisms, control over EU data, control over EU professional qualification standards, control over EU financial services equivalence, control over professional service access to the EU, control over EU criminal record databases and security data, control over the EU arrest warrant etc. etc. - that is a lot more "control" than Canada or Australia asked for

declanflynn

declanflynn wrote: »

If Scotland, Wales or N Ireland break away from the uk what are the chances of Cornwall looking for independence?

Somewhere between zero and **** all.

Cornish independence seems to be a wet dream for a few Gaelic nationalists in Ireland and no where else.

fash

theological wrote: »

I don't think the UK do want to boycott any "produce" from the EU. All the UK "want" to refer to the previous poster is a reasonable free trade arrangement.

A "reasonable free trade arrangement" is literally the exact opposite of what they want. They already had an unreasonably favourable free trade arrangement in the EU - what they want is an even more unreasonably favourable free trade arrangement, to act as a parasite on the single market and to break the EU.

I'm still pretty hopeful that something will be agreed by the year end. As for how wide ranging it will be will remain to be seen.

Also, I don't feel the exit from the EU is "jingoistic". It is a political decision about how the UK wants to manage its own affairs. It is a reasonable one. The UK wants to decide its own affairs in parliament in the same way that Canada or Australia do.

I don't have a nationalist or a patriotic bone in my body in any direction. I don't think the EU is this all benevolent institution that other posters on this thread seem to think it is when they fawn over it.

It is certainly more benevolent than the UK - or Russia - or the US. Look at the corruption in the UK as they poured covid money into friends of the Tory party - for destined to fail apps, paying £250 million to un-tendered contacts to random companies to provide PPE- despite the fact said companies are one man bands which have nothing to do with medical supplies. Look at the UK pulling all of its foreign aid to as they expressly admit influence trade deals - by means of corruption and bribery. Look at their one law for them, one law for others rulers. Look at their attempts to break Ireland - threatening to starve it, to wage economic war, to deprive it of medical supplies if we failed to submit to its attempt to breach the GFA (and bring back British soldiers with the inevitable killings and murders of innocent Irish that would result).
And of both of these entities - the UK and the EU - which is trying to wriggle out of the European convention of human rights?

Let's have some perspective here. The UK is an appalling corrupt and despicable place.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

Fishing is one area where the EU needs to get real and it's not unreasonable to want to make your own rules and laws ,not be told what to do by some faceless panel in Brussels.

Aside from the fact that there is no "faceless panel" in Brussels - there was a committee in the EU parliament that Farage was part of but never attended, it is entirely unreasonable that you want to make your own rules: fish stock protection is something that must be coordinated internationally- begin to read about it here:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-fish-stocks/international-agreements-on-fisheries/

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course it is significant to the people directly involved, the insignificance comes in relation to the overall.

Just as damage to Ireland is largely insignificant to the entire EU, but it is highly significant to Ireland.

But it comes down to choices. Are the EU going to undermine it very core just to get some access to fishing waters, particularly when the UK seek the majority of that fish to the EU anyay and as such the UK needs access to the EU?

Does it makes sense to trade away access to the single market in exchange for a yearly review of fishing rights? No. Are the Uk willing to sign up to a yearly review of the trade deal, because that is what they are asking for in terms of fishing, that they have complete control and the EU must renogiate every year.

I would suggest that from the EU's side fisheries is something of a red herring (if you pardon the pun). It was a silly rather trivial symbolic thing raised by the Brexiters - and in raising it as a big issue by the EU, the EU can concede on it more readily giving the UK a victory to wave to Brexiters at home while conceding to the EU everywhere else.

fash

theological wrote: »

I'm solidly convinced that the vast majority of people here are fawning over the EU. Insisting that it is unreasonable for the UK to regain a similar level of control to Canada or Australia is an example of how far people are willing to bend over backwards to justify the EU's demands in these negotiations.

I noticed your edit also. As a non-patriotic Irish person, it's a bit odd that you're insinuating my viewpoint is Little Englander xenophobia, but I'll attribute that to a hang up of yours rather than mine. You don't have to be a Little Englander to point out that there are problems with the EU.

The UK is asking for FAR more than Canada or Australia (as mentioned above) - in addition because of geography it sells an order of magnitude more into the EU market than Australia or Canada and directly competes with EU businesses on the type of products it sells. To prevent the unfair undercutting of EU businesses, of course level playing field obligations must be an order of magnitude more robust.

Not only that, it was the UK that sought to be out of the transition period in a year and the UK which informed the 27 member states of the EU to develop and agree a mandate for the negotiations based on a zero tariff/zero quota arrangement with substantial LPFs. It would take several months alone to alter that mandate - even assuming the UK said what it wanted - and it wasn't lying a second time.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

Food standards,employment laws to name two.
The mere mention of the UK wanting control of it's own aviation,fishing or ability to trade elsewhere has caused outrage in some quarters.
Do you think the UK is wrong to want it's own laws?

Yet the UK makes similar demands in its proposed trade agreement with new Zealand and the US demands control of UK food standards and labeling and the UK foreign policy as regards entering free trade agreements (in particular being allowed to prevent the UK from entering trade arrangements with foreign countries).
And the US trade agreement would be worth approximately 1% of the EU's offer and is opposed by many in the UK.
Even the TCPP requires the UK to change its food laws.
Perspective please. The UK is a victim of its own hubris and arrogance only.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wouldn't want a lowering of standards but if the UK was genuinely more competitive with the same regulations then I could understand that would be unacceptable to the EU.

Perhaps you should inform the UK government that you'd be happy to accept level playing field regulations which are specifically designed to prevent the lowering of standards. But that is not what the UK wants - and it has no intention of supporting "genuinely more competitive" entities.

fash

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

That's another point I'd also like to pick up on. What exactly is the difference for a hairdresser from Hull in 'subservience to Brussels' versus 'subservience to Westminster'? I don't see our hairdresser drafting legislation in either case or having much of a say in anything at all apart from the occasional election, in which case one might argue they have lost some agency by no longer having a representative body with a PR system to give a better reflection of differing political opinions.

Indeed- it is quite extraordinary given how undemocratic the UK is with its FPTP voting system, safe seats, an unelected house of lords, an unelected head of state in control of a theocracy, an unwritten constitution not worth the paper it's written on and a mass media system converted into a weaponising propaganda machine- really really wants and needs a small group of Tories without any limitations or controls to make rules and hand out government concessions - and how this is so much better than having it done in an actual democratic, technocratic and relatively impartial system.
Quite bizarre