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

declanflynn

theological wrote: »

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.

When you are the stronger party by far you dont need to compromise, that's what the brits don't get

Seth Brundle

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.

The EU is not trying to crush the UK. The UK are doing a great job of damaging the country themselves!

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

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.

I've negotiated plenty of things. I wouldn't approach a negotiation as the UK have done though.
The EU does not need to make too many compromises given that they have the upper hand in the negotiations. Furthermore, the UK is making many unrealistic demands which will never be agreed upon.

theological

theological wrote: »

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.

The UK's principles are made up as they go along depending on whatever might sound good in the press. The Brexit that was promised by the main campaigners is very different to what we have now. It is hard to call the UK's everchanging goals "principles", apart from the whole sovereignty thing I suppose.

The EU has always stuck by a couple of core things. NI border, its four freedoms, and a general protection of its members. These are actual principles. The EU isn't floundering trying to please the public, countries' governments, or members of its parliament. In 2015, I could have told you these principles and the EU has been consistent since then. These are not principles that can be abandoned easily, if at all. Some workarounds like passporting or recognition of standards are possible but they requires good faith negotiations.

You see the EU sticking to these things as if they're being intransigent. As if they don't know how to negotiate to protect the bloc. I don't know why you think this. I don't know why you would expect anything different when negotiating with a third country, unless of course you think the UK is special, which would logically lead to why it is special, which would lead to why the EU has negotiating objectives that are more protective than in other deals. You stumble at the last part citing CETA as if it is remotely relevant.

Pablo Escobar

declanflynn wrote: »

When you are the stronger party by far you dont need to compromise, that's what the brits don't get

That’s it. For the EU the best thing that could happen now is to skip forward to 2021 and build for a future without them. They’re a poison.

declanflynn

theological wrote: »

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.

After the uk negotiated a world beating trade deal with The faroe Islands they assumed dealing with the EU would be easy, The brits should have a look at a map of Europe and they will see that the uk is not mainland Europe it's an island beside the mainland

declanflynn

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

That’s it. For the EU the best thing that could happen now is to skip forward to 2021 and build for a future without them. They’re a poison.

Spot on, when a member leaves the golf club, the club move on and dont spare a thought for the old member(some would get a boot in the whole going out the gate)

Professor Moriarty

Support for the EU has risen across the EU. In Britain, as of June 2020, 57% of people said they would vote to be inside the EU with 35% saying they would vote to stay out of the EU.

The UK wants to leave the club but still enter competitions. While playing off the Junior tees, not paying green fees, and not following the rules.

declanflynn

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Support for the EU has risen across the EU. In Britain, as of June 2020, 57% of people said they would vote to be inside the EU with 35% saying they would vote to stay out of the EU.

Thank God there wasn't a second referendum

declanflynn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The UK wants to leave the club but still enter competitions. While playing off the Junior tees, not paying green fees, and not following the rules.

They will get a shock when they turn up to play new years day 2021 and cant even get in the gate

First Up

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

It is not in the EU's interests to "crush" the UK. However neither is the UK getting anything better than any other third party in its future relationship.

The queue at the EU's door is at the entrance, not the exit. The UK on it's own is doing more than enough to discourage anyone else from leaving. Putting barriers between you and half of your trade and your nearest neighbours doesn't look smart to anyone.

declanflynn

declanflynn wrote: »

They will get a shock when they turn up to play new years day 2021 and cant even get in the gate

If there is No Deal, it will be an amazing night for Brexit supporters counting down. Would be a divisive night socially.

declanflynn

First Up wrote: »

It is not in the EU's interests to "crush" the UK. However neither is the UK getting anything better than any other third party in its future relationship.

The queue at the EU's door is at the entrance, not the exit. The UK on it's own is doing more than enough to discourage anyone else from leaving. Putting barriers between you and half of your trade and your nearest neighbours doesn't look smart to anyone.

agree but it would feel good to tell them to piss off.

First Up

declanflynn wrote:

agree but it would feel good to tell them to piss off.

They are being told to piss off plenty of times in private. Have no worries about that.

EU companies want to keep as much of their UK business as they can. They also want to take as much business as they can from their UK competitors. The "deal" they are given will balance those two.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Support for the EU has risen across the EU. In Britain, as of June 2020, 57% of people said they would vote to be inside the EU with 35% saying they would vote to stay out of the EU.

Many leave voters I've spoken to now regret their decision.Although now that the UK is out it does seem ridiculous to agree to be shackled to the EU without any input,unable to negotiate with anyone else incase it upsets the EU applecart. Painful but a clean break and strike out on our own is best for all concerned if that's all that's on offer.

declanflynn

RobMc59 wrote: »

Many leave voters I've spoken to now regret their decision.Although now that the UK is out it does seem ridiculous to agree to be shackled to the EU without any input,unable to negotiate with anyone else incase it upsets the EU applecart. Painful but a clean break and strike out on our own is best for all concerned if that's all that's on offer.

I dont think the EU have the balls to tell the Brits to piss off but it's what should be done

briany

Personally, I'm tired of hearing how support for EU membership has risen across Britain in the wake of Brexit. It's basically immaterial anyway because I can even remember hearing pro-EU sentiment was over 50 percent before their last GE, but that didn't really translate in the vote. So, what you might find on the breakdown of the numbers is that the support is concentrated in certain areas like the city of London or the country of Scotland. Until that support can translate to a constituency basis, or the UK decides to hold a rejoin ref, a majority of support for the EU is little other than symbolic.

briany

declanflynn wrote: »

I dont think the EU have the balls to tell the Brits to piss off but it's what should be done

If the British think they can crash out and that's fine, I think it is the duty of EU negotiators to tell the British to p*ss off and come back when they have some responsible leaders in charge of their country.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

Many leave voters I've spoken to now regret their decision.Although now that the UK is out it does seem ridiculous to agree to be shackled to the EU without any input,unable to negotiate with anyone else incase it upsets the EU applecart. Painful but a clean break and strike out on our own is best for all concerned if that's all that's on offer.

You really know how to pick your words so you can sound just like Farage or JRM.

declanflynn

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You really know how to pick your words so you can sound just like Farage or JRM.

That's why I keep saying all them little englanders should be told where to go

fash

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.

Actually it is the UK which is a corrupt uncompetitive cartel: which entity is attempting to roll back on international public procurement and has handed out £250 million contracts without tendering to fly by night companies?

And which entity has the most trade agreements of any in history? Rather staggeringly incompetent behaviour of an "uncompetitive cartel" to accidentally end up with the most trade agreements in history - don't you think? An awful lot of people need to get fired if the plan was to set up an uncompetitive cartel.

It should be noted that the UK's only Brexit plan was to be a parasite feeding off the single market while rolling back on welfare, labour and environmental standards in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage.

The UK does c10 times as much trade with the EU as Canada, therefore any opportunity the parasitical UK can get to steal from the EU will result in c10 times greater damage than Canada could achieve - and so LPFs need to be c10 times as effective to be equivalent.

That is aside from the fact that Canada is a stable democracy, has a complimentary economy rather than a direct competitor economy manufacturing the same stuff, has sought a much less ambitious trade agreement and, unlike various people in UK state hasn't sworn to destroy the EU by any means necessary - with none of the unique and outrageous demands made by the UK for control over various aspects of the EU.

Further, given that the UK has a history of abusing state aid in order to wage economic war - as it did against Ireland upon Ireland achieving independence, one would have to be really really stupid to allow the UK tariff and quota free access without having tough level playing field provisions.

It also ignores the fact that the UK already informed the member states as to what it wanted (a no tariff/no quota deal as that was the only form of agreement that could be given in the short time frame requested by the UK - and the member states agreed a mandate for the EU commission on that basis - for the UK to now change its mind, it would take the EU member states months to then meet and agree a new mandate - assuming you even knew what the UK wanted - and assuming the UK knows what it wanted and wouldn't change that the moment it was offered. Even then, a less ambitious trade agreement such as that with Canada takes years to negotiate line by excruciating line- which the UK does not want.
That is also to ignore all of the UK's asks for control of EU banking, equivalence, recognition of professional qualifications, freedom of movement for services, access to data and security and criminal databases, rights to certify compliance with EU rules etc. All of that cake and eat it nonsense they keep going on about.

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

Personally, I'm tired of hearing how support for EU membership has risen across Britain in the wake of Brexit. It's basically immaterial anyway because I can even remember hearing pro-EU sentiment was over 50 percent before their last GE, but that didn't really translate in the vote. So, what you might find on the breakdown of the numbers is that the support is concentrated in certain areas like the city of London or the country of Scotland. Until that support can translate to a constituency basis, or the UK decides to hold a rejoin ref, a majority of support for the EU is little other than symbolic.

More people voted for pro second referendum parties than voted for pro Brexit parties.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

More people voted for pro second referendum parties than voted for pro Brexit parties.

Labour wasn't pro second referendum. Wasn't that only the Lib Dems?

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

Labour wasn't pro second referendum. Wasn't that only the Lib Dems?

Does anyone really know what Corbyn`s referendum policy actually was?

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

Does anyone really know what Corbyn`s referendum policy actually was?

No. He barely knew.

declanflynn

fash wrote: »

Actually it is the UK which is a corrupt uncompetitive cartel: which entity is attempting to roll back on international public procurement and has handed out £250 million contracts without tendering to fly by night companies?

And which entity has the most trade agreements of any in history? Rather staggeringly incompetent behaviour of an "uncompetitive cartel" to accidentally end up with the most trade agreements in history - don't you think? An awful lot of people need to get fired if the plan was to set up an uncompetitive cartel.

It should be noted that the UK's only Brexit plan was to be a parasite feeding off the single market while rolling back on welfare, labour and environmental standards in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage.

The UK does c10 times as much trade with the EU as Canada, therefore any opportunity the parasitical UK can get to steal from the EU will result in c10 times greater damage than Canada could achieve - and so LPFs need to be c10 times as effective to be equivalent.

That is aside from the fact that Canada is a stable democracy, has a complimentary economy rather than a direct competitor economy manufacturing the same stuff, has sought a much less ambitious trade agreement and, unlike various people in UK state hasn't sworn to destroy the EU by any means necessary - with none of the unique and outrageous demands made by the UK for control over various aspects of the EU.

Further, given that the UK has a history of abusing state aid in order to wage economic war - as it did against Ireland upon Ireland achieving independence, one would have to be really really stupid to allow the UK tariff and quota free access without having tough level playing field provisions.

It also ignores the fact that the UK already informed the member states as to what it wanted (a no tariff/no quota deal as that was the only form of agreement that could be given in the short time frame requested by the UK - and the member states agreed a mandate for the EU commission on that basis - for the UK to now change its mind, it would take the EU member states months to then meet and agree a new mandate - assuming you even knew what the UK wanted - and assuming the UK knows what it wanted and wouldn't change that the moment it was offered. Even then, a less ambitious trade agreement such as that with Canada takes years to negotiate line by excruciating line- which the UK does not want.
That is also to ignore all of the UK's asks for control of EU banking, equivalence, recognition of professional qualifications, freedom of movement for services, access to data and security and criminal databases, rights to certify compliance with EU rules etc. All of that cake and eat it nonsense they keep going on about.

It wont sink in the average brit until london turns into leicester what Brexit was all about

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Labour wasn't pro second referendum. Wasn't that only the Lib Dems?

They were for renegotiating Johnson's deal to achieve closer ties with the EU and putting their deal to a second referendum.

declanflynn

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They were for renegotiating Johnson's deal to achieve closer ties with the EU and putting their deal to a second referendum.

I dont think labour knew what it wanted, they mite know now but it's too late

Professor Moriarty

declanflynn wrote: »

I dont think labour knew what it wanted, they mite know now but it's too late

The vast majority of members and MPs were/are pro Europe. Corbyn was the problem.