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

davedanon

I see theo is doing his usual thing of seizing upon some minor point and making it a proxy for all his other unproven arguments and assertions. I don't if necessarily "an FTA violates the four pillars", but it seems contradictory to me. And even if there are some situations in which this might be true, surely the position is that in this case, the EU is NOT willing to have an FTA with the UK that violates any of the four freedoms. Because the UK is relatively large, and sits right on its doorstep. Arguing about CETA vs a notional FTA is just another deflection/distraction.

theological

davedanon wrote: »

I see theo is doing his usual thing of seizing upon some minor point and making it a proxy for all his other unproven arguments and assertions. I don't if necessarily "an FTA violates the four pillars", but it seems contradictory to me. And even if there are some situations in which this might be true, surely the position is that in this case, the EU is NOT willing to have an FTA with the UK that violates any of the four freedoms. Because the UK is relatively large, and sits right on its doorstep. Arguing about CETA vs a notional FTA is just another deflection/distraction.

If someone says something that is incorrect, namely that agreeing an FTA somehow violates a deep and spiritual principle of the single market when the EU has already conducted an FTA without doing this, then I'm going to point that out.

Looking to other FTA's is sensible to see the sorts of deals that they are willing to conduct with others. The UK are entitled to point to that in the discussions. If the EU don't want to agree something at the end that is fine. Both sides have principles, not just the EU.

declanflynn

theological wrote: »

If someone says something that is incorrect, namely that agreeing an FTA somehow violates a deep and spiritual principle of the single market when the EU has already conducted an FTA without doing this, then I'm going to point that out.

Looking to other FTA's is sensible to see the sorts of deals that they are willing to conduct with others. The UK are entitled to point to that in the discussions. If the EU don't want to agree something at the end that is fine. Both sides have principles, not just the EU.

I'd say the uk will soon be ****ing itself, it's just about to leave the most sucessful trade block in the world to do a deal with
1.China (a monkey could tell how that's going to go)
2.The US (Joe will be president soon, good luck to the uk with that
3. Japan (playing hardball already)
It's going to be funny watching it all pan out

Padre_Pio

declanflynn wrote: »

I'd say the uk will soon be ****ing itself, it's just about to leave the most sucessful trade block in the world to do a deal with
1.China (a monkey could tell how that's going to go)
2.The US (Joe will be president soon, good luck to the uk with that
3. Japan (playing hardball already)
It's going to be funny watching it all pan out

1. I wonder how China will play this after Hong Kong. Also, China will not want to damage relations with the EU.

2. The US has said that a UK trade deal won't happen if the GFA is jeopardised. Also, it'll take months to get a deal through Congress, we'll be well into 2021 at least before anything is done.

It all comes back to what the UK have to sell. They're a financial services and high tech economy. They can only sell to other first world economies. These economies won't want to play favourites with the UK in case the EU impose restrictions on trade

davedanon

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It all comes back to what the UK have to sell.

Their arms industry might get a shot in the arm. Lots of bloodthirsty dictators to make juicy trade deals with, and no EU looking over their shoulder. The Brexiters liked to evoke a swaggering nautical image of buccaneering Britain sailing the high seas of global trade after shrugging off the yoke of their EU slave-masters.

Not too far from there to full-blown piracy, given that that's exactly what national heroes such as Francis Drake were involved in, with the full blessing of the state.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

If someone says something that is incorrect, namely that agreeing an FTA somehow violates a deep and spiritual principle of the single market when the EU has already conducted an FTA without doing this, then I'm going to point that out.

Looking to other FTA's is sensible to see the sorts of deals that they are willing to conduct with others. The UK are entitled to point to that in the discussions. If the EU don't want to agree something at the end that is fine. Both sides have principles, not just the EU.

It is only sensible if they are looking at replicating those deals.

The UK is not looking to replicate those deals, they are looking for Canada+++ but without having to give anything in return.

And they boxed themselves into a corner with their attitude and condescension from the outset. The glee, the "we are going to show them' attitude. TM Lancaster House speech should go down as one of the most ill advised ever given. Talk about not reading the room (the room being the EU).

They have used party conferences to belittle the EU, they have consistently stated that the EU is a basket case, that it is ripe to fall apart. Gove and Frost have stated that the overall aim is to break up the EU!

You take all that together and the fault for the lack of compromise comes down to how the UK approached the EU. David Davis saying he was going to Berlin, that all growth was coming from outside the EU, that the EU had held the UK back for years.

Sure most of it is said for domestic audiences, but the EU cannot fail to hear and take note of their attitude. "No deal is better than a bad deal' signals that the UK were never going to be happy. They row back on the Christmas agreement was another rebuke to the idea that the UK were honest actors in all of this.

THe EU understands that politicians need to sell a particular version of things to their domestic audience, but Johnson basically stated many times that the WA he had just signed was not actually what had been agreed and spent 4 months saying that.

Why even bother having an argument about the EU having an office in NI? IT is entirely irrelevant to anything but it was yet another 'fight' the UK decided to have.

You cannot ignore all of that.

https://www.ft.com/content/3d67d1c1-98ff-439a-90a1-099c18621ee9

China envoy warns of ‘consequences’ if Britain rejects Huawei

Mr Liu implied that the British government’s recent concerns about Huawei were motivated by pressure from Washington. “If you dance to the tune of other countries, how can you call yourself Great Britain?” he asked.


Brexit really could not have happened at a worse time. US - China trade war / Huawei / Covid-19 / Hong Kong. There are all these extra factors making the whole thing so much more complicated.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is only sensible if they are looking at replicating those deals.

The UK is not looking to replicate those deals, they are looking for Canada+++ but without having to give anything in return.

From what I can see there's not a huge difference between the arrangements.

I'm going to cut some of the next bit because I'm not sure how relevant it is to what I'm saying.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You take all that together and the fault for the lack of compromise comes down to how the UK approached the EU. David Davis saying he was going to Berlin, that all growth was coming from outside the EU, that the EU had held the UK back for years.

I'm not really interested in rewinding back the last 3 years. I'm interested in what is being discussed now because that has much more relevance for the future.

However, it isn't true to suggest the UK didn't compromise. In the withdrawal agreement I'd say they rolled over to the EU and could have been harder.

I think it isn't right to compromise if it means getting a bad deal that doesn't serve the UK's interests. Their current position is eminently reasonable from what I can see. The UK shouldn't accept less than what the EU has agreed with other third parties.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why even bother having an argument about the EU having an office in NI? It is entirely irrelevant to anything but it was yet another 'fight' the UK decided to have.

British officials should oversee the arrangements in NI because it is a part of the UK. If the EU aren't convinced that the UK is acting in good faith they shouldn't sign an agreement with them.

First Up

theological wrote:

I think it isn't right to compromise if it means getting a bad deal that doesn't serve the UK's interests. Their current position is eminently reasonable from what I can see. The UK shouldn't accept less than what the EU has agreed with other third parties.

Let's take that bit of nonsense to its logical conclusion. If the UK "doesn't compromise", what will it end up with?

theological

First Up wrote: »

Let's take that bit of nonsense to its logical conclusion. If the UK "doesn't compromise", what will it end up with?

That is up for the EU to decide. I think the UK has compromised significantly already in respect to the withdrawal agreement.

Both sides need to compromise for a deal to be done. Not just the British side.

declanflynn

theological wrote: »

That is up for the EU to decide. I think the UK has compromised significantly already in respect to the withdrawal agreement.

Both sides need to compromise for a deal to be done. Not just the British side.

EU doesn't need to compromise it's the bigger party in the negotiations, it's like a small farmer trying to do a deal with McDonald's to buy his cattle, McDonald's will get everything they want from the deal and the farmer gets screwed, it's the way the modern world works everything is about scale

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

That is up for the EU to decide. I think the UK has compromised significantly already in respect to the withdrawal agreement.

Both sides need to compromise for a deal to be done. Not just the British side.

Compromise how?
By sticking to their international peace agreements and agreeing to pay their financial liabilities?

That wasn't compromise, that was accepting the inevitable.

What alternative do you think the UK actually had?

The EU already did compromise by allowing extension after extension and then the transition period. That the UK turned it nose up at another extension given the impact of Covid is not the EU's fault, and if anything is yet another thumb nose up at the EU.

They compromised by first agreeing to keeping NI in the SM/CU, then allowing the entire UK to stay int, before compromising yet again when the UK changed it mind again.

RobMc59

declanflynn wrote: »

EU doesn't need to compromise it's the bigger party in the negotiations, it's like a small farmer trying to do a deal with McDonald's to buy his cattle, McDonald's will get everything they want from the deal and the farmer gets screwed, it's the way the modern world works everything is about scale

Was`nt Goliath the bigger party in another well known skirmish?

Leroy42

Would the UK compromise if it had the upper hand? Germany car makers, French wine producers, Ireland will starve?

No, not a chance. In fact the entire reasoning behind Brexit is that the UK were tired of compromise, they want to make the rules.

theological

The UK position as it stands in its negotiating documents is pretty good for both sides in respect to trade. I don't see any reason why the UK should accept any terms that Canada wouldn't accept at this stage particularly considering it has a bigger market.

declanflynn

RobMc59 wrote: »

Was`nt Goliath the bigger party in another well known skirmish?

Who normally wins in those sort of skirmishes?

declanflynn

theological wrote: »

The UK position as it stands in its negotiating documents is pretty good for both sides in respect to trade. I don't see any reason why the UK should accept any terms that Canada wouldn't accept at this stage particularly considering it has a bigger market.

The problem the uk has is that the EU has to be seen to crush them to discourage any other country from leaving

RobMc59

theological wrote: »

The UK position as it stands in its negotiating documents is pretty good for both sides in respect to trade. I don't see any reason why the UK should accept any terms that Canada wouldn't accept at this stage particularly considering it has a bigger market.

Perhaps the EU fears the UK will out perform the cosy uncompetitive EU cartel.If the UK was as inferior as many posters here would have us believe the EU would give the UK at least the same deal.

theological

declanflynn wrote: »

The problem the uk has is that the EU has to be seen to crush them to discourage any other country from leaving

If that's the attitude of the EU then I think taking WTO terms is the best option. I don't think it is, I think it is one of the typical outbursts of bravado from the Eurofederalists on this thread.

The UK isn't looking for what Canada has. I don't even know why it is being discussed.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

That is up for the EU to decide. I think the UK has compromised significantly already in respect to the withdrawal agreement.

The UK did not compromise in terms of NI; not one iota.
The UK was forced (in the face of threats from the US) to abide by an international treaty. The EU would not have allowed any trade deal had the UK not signed up to the WA.

theological wrote: »

Both sides need to compromise for a deal to be done. Not just the British side.

more of this nonsense :rolleyes:

declanflynn

theological wrote: »

If that's the attitude of the EU then I think taking WTO terms is the best option. I don't think it is, I think it is one of the typical outbursts of bravado from the Eurofederalists on this thread.

No it's not, it's already happening, example - today Ineos have scrapped plans to build a massive factory in Merthyr (Ford are also pulling out of Merthyr) its going to France instead, next year expect to hear announcements like this every day until theres no manufacturing jobs left in britian with the exception of Leicester

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The UK did not compromise in terms of NI; not one iota.
The UK was forced (in the face of threats from the US) to abide by an international treaty. The EU would not have allowed any trade deal had the UK not signed up to the WA.

more of this nonsense :rolleyes:

I mean if negotiating on the basis of your interests is something new to you I'm surprised. Apparently you think the UK should just roll over to all of the EU's requests!


If that is what you are assuming then rational discussion on this thread is going to be pretty minimal.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

Perhaps the EU fears the UK will out perform the cosy uncompetitive EU cartel.If the UK was as inferior as many posters here would have us believe the EU would give the UK at least the same deal.

How is the EU a "cosy uncompetitive EU cartel"?
Nobody said the UK was inferior. The UK however has less negotiating "power" than the EU because of their size, they're a net importer, the fact that they're an island effectively surrounded by the EU, politically they are extremely weak, etc.
If all of this was a game of poker, the UK is busy bluffing with a pair of twos with everyone else knowing what hand they have.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

I mean if negotiating on the basis of your interests is something new to you I'm surprised. Apparently you think the UK should just roll over to all of the EU's requests!


If that is what you are assuming then rational discussion on this thread is going to be pretty minimal.

Well you said that "the UK has compromised significantly already in respect to the withdrawal agreement" - are you disagreeing with what you posted five minutes ago? Or are you referring to the point about both sides need to negotiate when one side isn't actually trying to negotiate and is simply making demands (guess which side and as a hint, it's not the EU!)

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

Perhaps the EU fears the UK will out perform the cosy uncompetitive EU cartel.If the UK was as inferior as many posters here would have us believe the EU would give the UK at least the same deal.

No. The EU will ensure that the Tories don't deregulate Britain. It's what they would do given the chance.

It may not be understood in Britain, but Britain's reputation as a democracy, a society and an economy has tanked. That's a fact. Europeans outside of Britain are now glad that they live where they do and not in Britain. It's a sad truth that Johnson's Britain is now held in the same regard as Trump's America.

bmc58

declanflynn wrote: »

The problem the uk has is that the EU has to be seen to crush them to discourage any other country from leaving

The EU are making a big mistake if they think they will crush the UK.The more Barnier squeeses the UK the more stubborn Boris and his gang of muppets will get.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

British officials should oversee the arrangements in NI because it is a part of the UK. If the EU aren't convinced that the UK is acting in good faith they shouldn't sign an agreement with them.

Let's just unpick this a bit. First of all, Tony Connelly of RTE wrote a piece, which was flagged up here, detailing how the UK unilaterally reversed their stance on this. The relevant British govt. had a discussion with an EU counterpart about a year ago (names don't come to mind), in which he not only endorsed the notion of an EU office in Belfast, but suggested ones in Scotland and Wales as well. Fast forward a year, when Boris has become PM, packed his cabinet with hardline Brexiters, and decided that his hefty 80 seat majority amounts to a mandate to re-negotiate a legally-binding international agreement that he personally signed, and you wonder why ANYONE, let alone the EU, would trust them to carry out customs checks on its behalf. And this was only the latest in a string of acts of bad faith carried by the British govt. in its dealings with the EU.

And the fact of the matter is, the UK isn't remotely suggesting that the EU allow them to do this. It entirely accepts the idea that this is for the EU to carry out. What it's suggesting is that the EU send in people periodically to carry out these checks - perhaps as often as once a week. The unnecessary hassle and disruption is obvious. The Brits attitude is just petty and self-serving. This is Cummings 'controlling the narrative', as per usual. They don't want a Sun headline trumpeting "EU HAS OFFICE IN UK HOW DARE THEY".

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well you said that "the UK has compromised significantly already in respect to the withdrawal agreement" - are you disagreeing with what you posted five minutes ago? Or are you referring to the point about both sides need to negotiate when one side isn't actually trying to negotiate and is simply making demands (guess which side and as a hint, it's not the EU!)

Negotiation requires knowing which principles are worth sticking to and which aren't.

Apparently you think negotiations just means accepting everything the other side asks for without question!

I guess you've never had to negotiate for yourself in your life if that's what you're seriously suggesting.

declanflynn

bmc58 wrote: »

The EU are making a big mistake if they think they will crush the UK.The more Barnier squeeses the UK the more stubborn Boris and his gang of muppets will get.

Who cares let them do their worst, if someone wants to jump off a cliff it's best not be tied to them in anyway