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

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

And Gove stated in the commons today that the EU was not being flexible in the negotiations so far and that they needed to start to accept the UK as a sovereign equal.

He also said that access to UK waters "will be on our terms".

So the Uk get to decide their rules and access, but the Eu needs to compromise?

It's a completely meaningless document. I don't know why they've wasted time and taxpayer money making it.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a completely meaningless document. I don't know why they've wasted time and taxpayer money making it.

Well, Frost's lengthy accompanying letter was full of blame. So it's useful from a PR perspective.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a completely meaningless document. I don't know why they've wasted time and taxpayer money making it.

It serves a good purpose. It shows that the UK were reasonable in what they were seeking in the event that the negotiations fall apart at the least. In the best case it serves as a good template for a deal.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, Frost's lengthy accompanying letter was full of blame. So it's useful from a PR perspective.

It is for a few seconds until it fades from our collective memory. It just looks like a "Have our cake and eat it" deal that the EU will never accede to so the Brexiters can then wail about the EU being "ideologically driven" or whatever silly excuse they'll wheel out.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

It serves a good purpose. It shows that the UK were reasonable in what they were seeking in the event that the negotiations fall apart at the least. In the best case it serves as a good template for a deal.

They are not members of a club. They do not want to be in the club and do not want to contribute towards it......but it is reasonable that they want access to its benefits on their terms??


Reasonable is subjective. Lets see how they get on with their reasonable US trade suggestions!! Now might be the time for them to ramp up on those (They can officially be negotiating other deals now can't they?)

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

It serves a good purpose. It shows that the UK were reasonable in what they were seeking in the event that the negotiations fall apart at the least. In the best case it serves as a good template for a deal.

Which parts in particular do you see as being reasonable?

First Up

theological wrote:

It serves a good purpose. It shows that the UK were reasonable in what they were seeking in the event that the negotiations fall apart at the least. In the best case it serves as a good template for a deal.

The EU will be reasonable too. It will look to protect businesses in the 27 from disruption to their markets or supply chains. That's reasonable.

It will also be reasonable about ensuring that a country that has chosen to leave the union does not retain any advantages over the countries that remain.

Another area of reasonableness will be that the former member will get no preferential treatment over other third countries in its terms of trade with the EU.

It is also normal (and reasonable) for the larger partner in such negotiations to use their superior bargaining power to their advantage.

That's the real template for a deal.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

They are not members of a club. They do not want to be in the club and do not want to contribute towards it......but it is reasonable that they want access to its benefits on their terms??


Reasonable is subjective. Lets see how they get on with their reasonable US trade suggestions!! Now might be the time for them to ramp up on those (They can officially be negotiating other deals now can't they?)

The UK are looking for a Canada style FTA.

They aren't looking for similar terms to EU member states or even EFTA member states. If you believe this isn't the case you can provide reasons as to why you are claiming this.

They are right to reject terms that require them to hand over more sovereignty to the EU for the same arrangement as Canada.

2u2me

First Up wrote: »

The EU will be reasonable too. It will look to protect businesses in the 27 from disruption to their markets or supply chains. That's reasonable.

It will also be reasonable about ensuring that a country that has chosen to leave the union does not retain any advantages over the countries that remain.

Another area of reasonableness will be that the former member will get no preferential treatment over other third countries in its terms of trade with the EU.

It is also normal (and reasonable) for the larger partner in such negotiations to use their superior bargaining power to their advantage.

That's the real template for a deal.

Thankfully for us they willingly gave up their best bargaining chip; the Irish border. They surely could have used that as leverage. Those idiots hah!

timetogo1

theological wrote: »

The UK are looking for a Canada style FTA.

They aren't looking for similar terms to EU member states or even EFTA member states. If you believe this isn't the case you can provide reasons as to why you are claiming this.

They are right to reject terms that require them to hand over more sovereignty to the EU for the same arrangement as Canada.

I thought the UK wanted a deal in services? Kind of important for the UK.
Is that not correct? A "Canada style FTA" wouldn't cover services.

So does that mean they may want a different style deal? A different style deal will have different requirements. I know this is obvious but Brexiters don't really seem to get the obvious.

theological

theological wrote: »

The UK are looking for a Canada style FTA.

They aren't looking for similar terms to EU member states or even EFTA member states. If you believe this isn't the case you can provide reasons as to why you are claiming this.

They are right to reject terms that require them to hand over more sovereignty to the EU for the same arrangement as Canada.

David Frost's letter to Michel Barnier references Canada, Japan, Norway, South Korea, Chile, third countries, New Zealand, Australia...

The UK want a bespoke deal.

An extract from the letter:

First, we have tried to be clear consistently that we are looking for a suite of agreements
with a Free Trade Agreement at the core. We do not seek to remain part of the Single
Market or Customs Union, as we do not believe this is in the UK’s interest.
Accordingly, as you know, our legal texts draw on precedent where relevant precedent
exists (and we have made pragmatic proposals where it does not, for example on road
transport or energy cooperation). So, for example, our draft FTA approximates very
closely those the EU has agreed with Canada or Japan. Our draft fisheries agreement is
very close to the EU / Norway Agreement. Our aviation proposals are similar to those
the EU has agreed with other third countries. Our draft civil nuclear agreement is very
close to similar cooperation agreements that Euratom (and indeed the UK) has
concluded with other third countries. And so on.
Given this reality, we find it perplexing that the EU, instead of seeking to settle rapidly
a high-quality set of agreements with a close economic partner, is instead insisting on
additional, unbalanced, and unprecedented provisions in a range of areas, as a
precondition for agreement between us.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-approach-to-the-future-relationship-with-the-eu

It's all pretty meaningless. The UK signed up to pay 39bn and put a border in the Irish Sea for one extra year of EU membership.

What is amazing is that Brexiteers who love Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement and how he stuck it to Europe also want No Deal now. They actually support paying all that money and splitting their country so they could have an extra year of something they desperately want to leave.

Kermit.de.frog

Apparently the UK is publishing a document today outlining how they intend implementing the protocol.

Doubt either us or the EU will be happy with it.

fash

theological wrote: »

It serves a good purpose. It shows that the UK were reasonable in what they were seeking in the event that the negotiations fall apart at the least. In the best case it serves as a good template for a deal.

It *shows* this does it? Have you actually read the UK's proposals - or summaries thereof? If you have had, I am sure you would agree that they are outrageous and insulting - yet more cake and eat it nonsense

fash

theological wrote: »

The UK are looking for a Canada style FTA.
.

Then they should limit their ask on quotas to the volume of trade coming from Canada - they do not- because nearly 50% of their trade is with the EU and will remain that way because of gravity.

That is aside from all of the other asks on recognitions etc.

They are right to reject terms that require them to hand over more sovereignty to the EU for the same arrangement as Canada.

And the EU is just as right - or even more so - to tell them to go f**k themselves.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

The UK are looking for a Canada style FTA.

They aren't looking for similar terms to EU member states or even EFTA member states. If you believe this isn't the case you can provide reasons as to why you are claiming this.

They are right to reject terms that require them to hand over more sovereignty to the EU for the same arrangement as Canada.

You can't have read the document, or Frosts letter, and actually believe this.

Even without those, the UK have consistently said they want a Canada + agreement, si based on CETA but with add ons.

They do want similar terms as EU states. Look at origin. Also they want their standards and professional equivalence without applying the EU standards.

You stated earlier it was reasonable. Can you give particulars of where it is reasonable?

What Frosts letter inadvertently shows is that the UK sees the value in a lot of the EU policies and is upset thatvthecEU do not simply want to give them to the UK for nothing. This shows just how deluded the entire Brexit position is. They only ever focused on freedom without ever considering the price for that supposed freedom.

fash

Fantasy suggestion:
I'm wondering about the following counter proposal:
If UK wants CETA LPF mechanism only, EU can agree to quota/tariff match - based on (say) 2019 Canada-EU imports volumes. Anything extra subject to tariffs.
EU exports to UK would be tariff/quota free to maintain the UK preferred timetable of end of December - or (and given that UK failed to notify this as its preferred solution earlier) if UK wishes to go line by line, additional time to be provided to EU MSs to internally agree a position - plus fish.

Gives the UK what it claims to want (Canada deal), If they believe geography doesn't matter then this addresses it very well. EU exports protected etc. No UK extras discussed.
Also puts onus on UK to explain it commitment to its "out by December" timetable - and points out the trade offs in relation to that .

theological

fash wrote: »

Fantasy suggestion:
I'm wondering about the following counter proposal:
If UK wants CETA LPF mechanism only, EU can agree to quota/tariff match - based on (say) 2019 Canada-EU imports volumes. Anything extra subject to tariffs.
EU exports to UK would be tariff/quota free to maintain the UK preferred timetable of end of December - or (and given that UK failed to notify this as its preferred solution earlier) if UK wishes to go line by line, additional time to be provided to EU MSs to internally agree a position - plus fish.

Gives the UK what it claims to want (Canada deal), If they believe geography doesn't matter then this addresses it very well. EU exports protected etc. No UK extras discussed.
Also puts onus on UK to explain it commitment to its "out by December" timetable - and points out the trade offs in relation to that .

The UK has already provided its preferred solution in the document.

In a scenario where the UK would be paying tariffs above the quota, the EU would be doing the same in return for imports into the UK. I don't see why you think there would be a scenario where the UK would be doing this and the EU wouldn't.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

The UK has already provided its preferred solution in the document.

In a scenario where the UK would be paying tariffs above the quota, the EU would be doing the same in return for imports into the UK. I don't see why you think there would be a scenario where the UK would be doing this and the EU wouldn't.

So have you any update on the areas you find reasonable in the document yet?

Sure they have provided their preferred solution, doesn't mean it is reasonable or even rationale of the EU to agree.

Frost letter reads like an entitled child screaming that their parents won't let them watch what they want. Is that supposed to be diplomacy?

Clearly Frost is getting nowhere in the negotiations and the UK have decided to tell on Barnier to his parents. It shameful for what is supposed to be such a powerful and independent nation.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

The UK are looking for a Canada style FTA.

They aren't looking for similar terms to EU member states or even EFTA member states. If you believe this isn't the case you can provide reasons as to why you are claiming this.

They are right to reject terms that require them to hand over more sovereignty to the EU for the same arrangement as Canada.

They can ask for what they want. It doesn't mean they're going to get it.



It's a bit like breaking up with your girlfriend because of all the other countries girls that you want to do trade deals with ride ..... and then crying when your now-ex says "no, you can't come over for the ride anymore when it suits you"

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

They can ask for what they want. It doesn't mean they're going to get it.



It's a bit like breaking up with your girlfriend because of all the other countries girls that you want to do trade deals with ride ..... and then crying when your now-ex says "no, you can't come over for the ride anymore when it suits you"

Again, these analogies are silly.

There's no point personalising the argument. The UK are simply outlining what they are and are not willing to accept, and they should act accordingly in the event that these aren't met.

Focussing on ensuring maximum control in the long term is the right strategy and if things aren't moving further to an acceptable solution now is the time to be preparing for the adjustments that need to be made.

Leroy42

But when the EU do it it is being inflexible? That is the contradition that I cannot understand.

"We will decide what happens on our waters" Gove stated yesterday, yet he is part of a government that sent a letter decrying that the EU are looking to abide by the exact same principal.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Again, these analogies are silly.

There's no point personalising the argument. The UK are simply outlining what they are and are not willing to accept, and they should act accordingly in the event that these aren't met.

Focussing on ensuring maximum control in the long term is the right strategy and if things aren't moving further to an acceptable solution now is the time to be preparing for the adjustments that need to be made.

And the EU have outlined from the start what they are willing or not willing to start. Literally a few years ago at this stage.



If the UK has finally figured out among themselves what they want and finally realised that it is incompatible with Brexit then they should piss off and get on with it rather than crying and being unreasonable!

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

If the UK has finally figured out among themselves what they want and finally realised that it is incompatible with Brexit then they should piss off and get on with it rather than crying and being unreasonable!

It's in the document. That's the point.

And from what I can see it is a good arrangement for both sides. If the EU aren't willing to be reasonable, then I would say that the UK should fall onto WTO terms at the end of the year.

It's a pretty simple proposition. I hope for a sensible arrangement, but in the event that there is none the UK should still ensure that it isn't bound by EU decisions after December.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

It's in the document. That's the point.

And from what I can see it is a good arrangement for both sides. If the EU aren't willing to be reasonable, then I would say that the UK should fall onto WTO terms at the end of the year.

It's a pretty simple proposition. I hope for a sensible arrangement, but in the event that there is none the UK should still ensure that it isn't bound by EU decisions after December.

Again, what particular parts do you think are reasonable?

And what areas are the UK willing to be flexible to mirror the EU's flexibility.

Should they open up their waters for fishing for example? What about freedom of movement for EU citizens?

steddyeddy

Im looking at Primeminister's questions here and I realise that Keir Starmer is the PM the UK should have had. I'm embarrassed for BJ.

blinding

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im looking at Primeminister's questions here and I realise that Keir Starmer is the PM the UK should have had. I'm embarrassed for BJ.

80 Seat majority for the Tories, thanks to the Anti-Democratic Re-mainers :D

Starmer can be as good as he likes but the Tories are not going anywhere for FIVE Years and it usually takes 10 Years to come back from where Labour are.

You almost certainly ( due to the Anti-Democratic Re-Mainers ) have at Least TEN Years of Tories to look forward. They were infact in power for 18 Years from 1979. Who knew that the Democratic People of Britain would take a Dim View of Anti-Democratic Re-Mainers trying to take their Democracy Away ! ! !

eagle eye

Leroy42 wrote:

Again, what particular parts do you think are reasonable?

It's not what particular parts are reasonable. It's reasonable for the most part but there are unreasonable parts to it.

fash

theological wrote: »

The UK has already provided its preferred solution in the document.

In a scenario where the UK would be paying tariffs above the quota, the EU would be doing the same in return for imports into the UK. I don't see why you think there would be a scenario where the UK would be doing this and the EU wouldn't.

Very simple: the parties had agreed in the political declaration to aim for a 0/0 with suitable LPF. The UK is now reneging on that.
The entire 1 year timetable was built on that. It takes years to agree line by line negotiations - again this was all at the behest of the UK.

It is not possible for the EU to change direction in the time available - it takes months for the individual member states to reagree a new mandate for Barnier. Hence, the UK either agrees to the 0/0 for EU exports or if that is not its preference, agrees to extend the timetable to allow suitable time for the MSs to decide on a negotiating position. To recall : this is all the consequences of the UK failure to notify its intentions prior to the WA signing. The UK is reneging on its undertakings in the political declaration - so it is at a minimum responsible for the delay arising therefrom.

theological

I think the UK has been pretty clear that it doesn't support handing over huge swathes of control to Brussels at least since the beginning of Boris' term as Prime Minister.