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

davedanon

Funnily enough, no-one here considers a former Labour leader to be of any relevance in this discussion.

fash

theological wrote: »

If the EU were offering the UK an acceptable non-Norway Canada style arrangement and it needed a time to implement that would make some sense. But if the EU are not willing to offer a sensible arrangement then there's no point delaying the inevitable further.

Why should it do that though? From an EU perspective, it is little better than a no deal, without LPF would damage the single market - plus a no deal will (eventually at least) discredit brexit/Brexiters & other eurosceptics. So win/win from EU perspective

blinding

davedanon wrote: »

Funnily enough, no-one here considers a former Labour leader to be of any relevance in this discussion.

Losers are Friendless and Orphans

Professor Moriarty

Macron and Merkel agree a 500 billion fund to help European countries most affected by the pandemic. Fair play to Merkel for changing her stance. This will bolster EU unity even further as it negotiates with the UK. Good news.

eagle eye

fash wrote:

Why should it do that though? From an EU perspective, it is little better than a no deal, without LPF would damage the single market - plus a no deal will (eventually at least) discredit brexit/Brexiters & other eurosceptics. So win/win from EU perspective

You see there is more than Han one way of looking at it. Any other country that wants to leave knows there is this big market out there called the UK that they will likely be able to form a free trade deal with. So while setting an example is a good idea in one sense, leaving a country with a population north of 60 million outside the EU is an alternative trading partner for any country that considers leaving.
And it's quite scary when you think about it because the more that start thinking about it the juicier it gets.

davedanon

eagle eye wrote: »

You see there is more than Han one way of looking at it. Any other country that wants to leave knows there is this big market out there called the UK that they will likely be able to form a free trade deal with. So while setting an example is a good idea in one sense, leaving a country with a population north of 60 million outside the EU is an alternative trading partner for any country that considers leaving.
And it's quite scary when you think about it because the more that start thinking about it the juicier it gets.

So, this nominal 'country that wants to leave' thinks...."hmmm, trading bloc of 440 million, which we're in right now, versus....Hey, this country of 60 MILLION PEOPLE, which we could form a free trade deal with, and of course these deals are quick and easy, 7 years should see it sorted....

Is that what you were thinking of?

eagle eye

davedanon wrote:

So, this nominal 'country that wants to leave' thinks...."hmmm, trading bloc of 440 million, which we're in right now, versus....Hey, this country of 60 MILLION PEOPLE, which we could form a free trade deal with, and of course these deals are quick and easy, 7 years should see it sorted....

Is that what you were thinking of?

So long as there's confidence everything works fine.
But let's say one or two countries get a little antsy, then a third one looks and thinks well and if they go then it's a real alternative.
We are better having a deal in place with the UK both from an EU standpoint and from.an Irish standpoint.

davedanon

eagle eye wrote: »

So long as there's confidence everything works fine.
But let's say one or two countries get a little antsy, then a third one looks and thinks well and if they go then it's a real alternative.
We are better having a deal in place with the UK both from an EU standpoint and from.an Irish standpoint.

This is why Britain's deal with the EU is going to be punitive. Pour encourager les autres.

Peregrinus

The EU would prefer a deal with the UK than no-deal with the UK. But it wouldn't prefer any deal with the UK over no-deal with the UK. If the deal the UK is willing to make doesn't protect core EU interests, then from the EU perspective no-deal is the lesser evil.

And of course you could say exactly the same thing, but in reverse, from the UK perspective.

This doesn't mean the two countries are equally situated, though. The undeniable fact is that no-deal is much, much worse for the UK than it is for the EU. And, on the other side, putting an EU/UK deal in place has much, much more upside for the UK than it does for the EU.

This puts the EU in a very strong negotiating position. They are much more able to walk away from the negotiations, or to accept a UK walkaway, than the UK is. The result is that, while every negotiation involves a blend of give and take, in these negotiations the likelihood is that the UK will do rather more of the giving, and the EU will do rather more of the taking. And even if these negotiations collapse, when they are resumed under different leadership on one or both sides the fundamentals of the two sides' bargaining positions will not have changed - a fact of which the EU is acutely aware.

gormdubhgorm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU would prefer a deal with the UK than no-deal with the UK. But it wouldn't prefer any deal with the UK over no-deal with the UK. If the deal the UK is willing to make doesn't protect core EU interests, then from the EU perspective no-deal is the lesser evil.

And of course you could say exactly the same thing, but in reverse, from the UK perspective.

This doesn't mean the two countries are equally situated, though. The undeniable fact is that no-deal is much, much worse for the UK than it is for the EU. And, on the other side, putting an EU/UK deal in place has much, much more upside for the UK than it does for the EU.

This puts the EU in a very strong negotiating position. They are much more able to walk away from the negotiations, or to accept a UK walkaway, than the UK is. The result is that, while every negotiation involves a blend of give and take, in these negotiations the likelihood is that the UK will do rather more of the giving, and the EU will do rather more of the taking. And even if these negotiations collapse, when they are resumed under different leadership on one or both sides the fundamentals of the two sides' bargaining positions will not have changed - a fact of which the EU is acutely aware.

So to Paraphrase Micheal O'Hehir from the 1974 AI football final- "The EU is back and the Union Jacks are Jacked?"

J Mysterio

theological wrote: »

Brexit is a modest proposition. It is simply that all policy decisions concerning the United Kingdom should be made by those in the United Kingdom rather than in Brussels.

Despite the efforts of pro-EU posters here. Europe and the European Union are two different things.

I'm afraid of neither for what it is worth. It is good to maintain temperate language on these issues. Dishonest language should be frowned upon also. ancapailldorcha was being intentionally dishonest by using the phrase Europhobic to describe my position.

I'm so afraid of Europe that one of my lockdown activities has been to take a 90 day German course to improve my command of the language. I hope to make the most of it after everything comes back to normality.

But forgive me for breaking the stereotype that all Brexiteers are either hateful or afraid of Europe.

Brexiteers continuously insist that the EU and Europe are 'different things'. Well, no, they aren't really are they? The majority of European countries are the EU, and if the UK threatens and harms the EU, they are by extension threatening and harming the majority of Europe, and its peoples.

'I love Europe!' My arse.

But whether you love the EU or not, the EU has been successful, and will continue to be. The EU as a major political bloc is also amongst a steadily narrowing field of forces for good in the world. A bloc with values and ethics. And though the EU is still maturing and needs further improvement, it has behaved fairly and with integrity while the UK and it's politicians have acted abominably.

Peregrinus

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So to Paraphrase Micheal O'Hehir from the 1974 AI football final- "The EU is back and the Union Jacks are Jacked?"

Not quite jacked. Remember, the UK has a lot to gain from an EU deal. The fond expectations of the less grounded-in-reality wing of the Hard Brexiter movement are not going to be met, but there is a realistically available deal which is very beneficial to the UK.

The real fight, as ever since 2016, is the domestic one within the UK between those who would make such a deal and those would would rather sacrifice the country on the altar of Brexitry. Though they may be currently in the ascendant, the country is unlikely to be prepared to continue indefinitely to crucify itself for their gratification.

So, in the long run, there is likely to be a deal on terms beneficial to the EU and the UK, even if not acceptable to hard Brexiters.

2u2me

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Macron and Merkel agree a 500 billion fund to help European countries most affected by the pandemic. Fair play to Merkel for changing her stance. This will bolster EU unity even further as it negotiates with the UK. Good news.

Well that's 1/4 of the way there, if all member states agree(which they probably won't).

Parliament(The resolution was adopted on Friday by 505 votes in favour, 119 against and 69 abstentions) insists that the new “recovery and transformation fund” must be of €2 trillion in size.

Source

Let's see how democratic the EU truly are.

dresden8

Good.

Time for Britain, (never the UK, they don't know the difference) to realise their superior position.

theological

J Mysterio wrote: »

Brexiteers continuously insist that the EU and Europe are 'different things'. Well, no, they aren't really are they? The majority of European countries are the EU, and if the UK threatens and harms the EU, they are by extension threatening and harming the majority of Europe, and its peoples.

'I love Europe!' My arse.

But whether you love the EU or not, the EU has been successful, and will continue to be. The EU as a major political bloc is also amongst a steadily narrowing field of forces for good in the world. A bloc with values and ethics. And though the EU is still maturing and needs further improvement, it has behaved fairly and with integrity while the UK and it's politicians have acted abominably.

No, you're quite wrong. There are several countries in Europe outside of the EU. Europe existed as a continent without the EU. The individual member states aren't defined by the EU.

First Up

theological wrote:

No, you're quite wrong. There are several countries in Europe outside of the EU. Europe existed as a continent without the EU. The individual member states aren't defined by the EU.

Yes, they used to have wars between each other.

25 of the EU members have contiguous borders and have prospered enormously from the free movement and integrated supply chains that EU membership has created.

Nobody in their right mind would walk away from that and try to strike their own deals with the UK or other European outliers, or with the likes of the US, China, India or Japan.

Every EU member knows that they will enjoy the best possible trade terms with a UK in disarray as part of the EU. Everyone is in the room on that.

Brexiteers are dreaming up the straws they are clutching. Brexit has solidified the EU, not weakened it.

Peregrinus

There is zero chance that any EU member state will be tempted to quit the EU by the prospect of replacing EU membership with a more restrictive trading agreement with a much smaller market. Zero. Even the most passionately-committed Brexiter must be able to see that. There may be other considerations that would tempt member states to consider the quitting route, but this is absolutely definitely not one of them.

Worth remembering that the UK's own reasons for choosing the quitting route did not include this. And, of countries which have considered joining the EU but then gone cold on the idea - e.g. Norway, Turkey - none have been motivated by a consideration such as this. This has basically no grounding at all in reality, or even in realistic speculation.

It reflects no credit on the Brexiter movement that anyone in it would take this idea seriously even for an instant. It's the kind of stance that might be adopted by a fifth-columnist seeking to confirm prejudicial stereotypes about Brexitry.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

It's the kind of stance that might be adopted by a fifth-columnist seeking to confirm prejudicial stereotypes about Brexitry.

Or dunces in their bedrooms posting rubbish in forums like this.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is zero chance that any EU member state will be tempted to quit the EU by the prospect of replacing EU membership with a more restrictive trading agreement with a much smaller market. Zero. Even the most passionately-committed Brexiter must be able to see that. There may be other considerations that would tempt member states to consider the quitting route, but this is absolutely definitely not one of them.

Worth remembering that the UK's own reasons for choosing the quitting route did not include this. And, of countries which have considered joining the EU but then gone cold on the idea - e.g. Norway, Turkey - none have been motivated by a consideration such as this. This has basically no grounding at all in reality, or even in realistic speculation.

It reflects no credit on the Brexiter movement that anyone in it would take this idea seriously even for an instant. It's the kind of stance that might be adopted by a fifth-columnist seeking to confirm prejudicial stereotypes about Brexitry.

If you could find a post of mine where I actually said that the EU will fall apart, please feel free to find it.

All I have said so far is that the EU is not the same thing as Europe, which is manifestly true.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

If you could find a post of mine where I actually said that the EU will fall apart, please feel free to find it.

All I have said so far is that the EU is not the same thing as Europe, which is manifestly true.

Sorry, Theo. My post came just after yours but it wasn't directed at you, and I should have made that clear. It was inspired by the exchange between Eagle eye and Davedanon which starts here.

It's certainly true that the EU is not the same thing as Europe, in the way that Ireland (the state of that name) is not the same thing as Ireland (the country). But there are obviously close connections between them, and people will tend to assume that attitudes towards one may reflect attitudes towards the other.

There's a well-established phenomenon of Brexit supporters professing a hatred for the EU but a love for Europe. But if you actually look for evidence of their love for Europe, it can be a bit thin on the ground. A Brexiter who professes love for Europe, but advocates more distant relationship from other European countries - politically, economically, legally, socially and structurally - than any European state except Belarus has must expect his professed love for Europe to be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

(To avoid offence, this is not directed at you.)

theological

theological wrote: »

If you could find a post of mine where I actually said that the EU will fall apart, please feel free to find it.

All I have said so far is that the EU is not the same thing as Europe, which is manifestly true.

Sure Europe and the EU are different things but in what context is that relevant to the UK leaving the EU?

The UK won't be negotiating with individual members, trading with individual members, competing with individual members - it will all be through the prism of the EU.

Brexiteers might like a looser economic community in Europe but that doesn't exist anymore - the only meaningful body is the EU.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sorry, Theo. My post came just after yours but it wasn't directed at you, and I should have made that clear. It was inspired by the exchange between Eagle eye and Davedanon which starts here.

It's certainly true that the EU is not the same thing as Europe, in the way that Ireland (the state of that name) is not the same thing as Ireland (the country). But there are obviously close connections between them, and people will tend to assume that attitudes towards one may reflect attitudes towards the other.

There's a well-established phenomenon of Brexit supporters professing a hatred for the EU but a love for Europe. But if you actually look for evidence of their love for Europe, it can be a bit thin on the ground. A Brexiter who professes love for Europe, but advocates more distant relationship from other European countries - politically, economically, legally, socially and structurally - than any European state except Belarus has must expect his professed love for Europe to be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

(To avoid offence, this is not directed at you.)

It is obviously directed at me if I advocate the position that the UK shouldn't be in a political union with EU countries.

However, it is worth emphasising that I can enjoy the culture, the peoples, and the countries of Europe without liking the institution that is the European Union.

The reason for emphasising this is because some posters have started using the term "Europhobic" in respect to views that are critical of the European Union.

The term is problematic in that it implies that there is hatred or fear involved in the simple proposition that policy concerning the UK should be determined in London rather than in Brussels.

People make this argument personal when it shouldn't be.

Edit:

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure Europe and the EU are different things but in what context is that relevant to the UK leaving the EU?

The UK won't be negotiating with individual members, trading with individual members, competing with individual members - it will all be through the prism of the EU.

Brexiteers might like a looser economic community in Europe but that doesn't exist anymore - the only meaningful body is the EU.

It is relevant when people equate both the EU and Europe together in argumentation as has been done several times on this thread. You ought to read back over the last few pages.

The UK has already left the EU. It is now what is the landing spot after this is over.

First Up

theological wrote:

It is relevant when people equate both the EU and Europe together in argumentation as has been done several times on this thread. You ought to read back over the last few pages.

During the Brexit referendum campaign, Farage came on stage to the sound of air raid sirens. Don't be in any doubt what is at the root of the anti EU argument.

It isn't the EU that is blurring the distinction.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

It is obviously directed at me if I advocate the position that the UK shouldn't be in a political union with EU countries.

However, it is worth emphasising that I can enjoy the culture, the peoples, and the countries of Europe without liking the institution that is the European Union.

That might suggest that your love for Europe need be no different from your love for Africa or Asia, whose culture, peoples and countries you can also enjoy. Which would make it a pretty watery kind of love.

theological wrote: »

The reason for emphasising this is because some posters have started using the term "Europhobic" in respect to views that are critical of the European Union.

The term is problematic in that it implies that there is hatred or fear involved in the simple proposition that policy concerning the UK should be determined in London rather than in Brussels.

Oh, come now, Theo. The issue is not where it is determined. You wouldn't suggest, would you, that if two UK ministers should happen to be in Brussels, they are precluded from considering matter of UK policy until they happen to find themselves in London again? That would be silly.

No, the issue is how it is determined. I think the essence of Brexitry is the view that policy affecting the UK should be determined autonomously, by and for the UK alone, rather than collaboratively, for and in cooperation with other European countries.

Does this have implications for the quality of Brexiters' "love for Europe"? I think it does. It's striking that, as I have pointed out already, hard Brexiters appear to have a stronger distaste for collaborative and collective policymaking than prevails in any European country except Belarus. Or, to put it another way, they love their fellow Europeans so much that they are unusually averse to co-operating with them. So they shouldn't be completely astonished if that kind of love gets interrogated a bit.

theological wrote: »

The UK has already left the EU. It is now what is the landing spot after this is over.

Indeed. And, given that the UK has already left the EU, the fact that hard Brexiters continue to campaign for a still more distant and less co-operative relationship than other non-member states have does cast a certain light on their claims to "love Europe". Most relationships of love do not manifest in a continuing quest for ever-greater separation from the beloved.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

That might suggest that your love for Europe need be no different from your love for Africa or Asia, whose culture, peoples and countries you can also enjoy. Which would make it a pretty watery kind of love.

Again, one can love and value the people of the continent, our shared history and so on in a unique way, whilst not wanting to be in political integration. For example, no offence to Africa or Asia, but I definitely feel more of an affinity to the peoples of Europe for the aforementioned reasons.

It is a bizarre idea that in order to love other people from different places that we have to cede huge swathes of national sovereignty. It doesn't make much sense.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, come now, Theo. The issue is not where it is determined. You wouldn't suggest, would you, that if two UK ministers should happen to be in Brussels, they are precluded from considering matter of UK policy until they happen to find themselves in London again? That would be silly.

Parliament is the place where these key policy decisions should be made. Perhaps I should have been clearer and used Westminster or something similar. If it moves to York I'd also say York but for now it is in Westminster

Peregrinus wrote: »

Indeed. And, given that the UK has already left the EU, the fact that hard Brexiters continue to campaign for a still more distant and less co-operative relationship than other non-member states have does cast a certain light on their claims to "love Europe". Most relationships of love do not manifest in a continuing quest for ever-greater separation from the beloved.

Again, I don't get the bizarre argument as to why political union is required to love Europe (the continent and its peoples) as opposed to the European Union. I definitely don't love the European Union as a political organisation or the nebulous European project.

blinding

I have to pop out for a few hours.

If any of ye Channel 4 Type Luvvies / Re-Mainers / Champagne Socialists can find their Election Night Coverage ?

I would be frightfully great full. To see the penny drop with that lot is Un-intentional Comedy Gold ?

I wonder why Channel 4 took it down from the Internet. They have so much other stuff up there ! ! !

Donald Trump

So much for cheaper goods for the UK population. Free trade and all that making imports cheaper

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/factbox-britain-retains-tariffs-on-beef-in-new-post-brexit-global-tariff-regime-39216854.html

UK citizens will have a 10% tariff on all beef imported as things stand.

gormdubhgorm

J Mysterio wrote: »

But whether you love the EU or not, the EU has been successful, and will continue to be. The EU as a major political bloc is also amongst a steadily narrowing field of forces for good in the world. A bloc with values and ethics. And though the EU is still maturing and needs further improvement, it has behaved fairly and with integrity while the UK and it's politicians have acted abominably.

Exactly, people seem to forget the main reason for founding the European Common Market was to foster inclusiveness, togetherness and a shared sense of solidarity.
The logic was/is: countries would be less inclined to bomb each other and start wars if they had more open economies. And were economically more prosperous as a result.

gormdubhgorm

blinding wrote: »

I have to pop out for a few hours.

If any of ye Channel 4 Type Luvvies / Re-Mainers / Champagne Socialists can find their Election Night Coverage ?

I would be frightfully great full. To see the penny drop with that lot is Un-intentional Comedy Gold ?

I wonder why Channel 4 took it down from the Internet. They have so much other stuff up there ! ! !

I didn't see it but feel I have at this stage, given the amount of hype you are giving it.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Does this have implications for the quality of Brexiters' "love for Europe"? I think it does. It's striking that, as I have pointed out already, hard Brexiters appear to have a stronger distaste for collaborative and collective policymaking than prevails in any European country except Belarus. Or, to put it another way, they love their fellow Europeans so much that they are unusually averse to co-operating with them. So they shouldn't be completely astonished if that kind of love gets interrogated a bit.

Indeed. This loathing they have for the EU may now have cost British lives given that they refused to join the EU's PPE procurement scheme almost certainly based on ideological reasons.