Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Of course the Daily Mail is very biased and in the past an anti- Irish and now anti-EU rag.

Not just biassed as completely unreliable. They don't report facts selectively; they report as fact stuff which is untrue.

Infini

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

The Daily Mail claims it's the demands of the EU insisting UK agree to all present and Now FUTURE laws of EU a major stumbling block and that Macron's the chief agitator behind driving a harder bargain but Germany want to go easier. Dont know who to believe

Never believe a word outta the Daily Fail. It's a propaganda rag not a reliable factual news source. Its just one example of the poisonous propaganda publications that helped sow the seeds of this stupidity.

Tell me how

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

The Daily Mail claims it's the demands of the EU insisting UK agree to all present and Now FUTURE laws of EU a major stumbling block and that Macron's the chief agitator behind driving a harder bargain but Germany want to go easier. Dont know who to believe

As others have said, read the Daily Mail and then feel very confident that of all the possible scenarios, the one they have said is occurring is definitely not occurring.

fash

Thinking about it: Johnson's trip to Brussels is no deal. If he comes back with a compromise it would be viewed as a "peace in our time" betrayal, and a failure in line with Cameron's trip to Europe, May's trip to Europe etc. - the offer to "deactivate" parts of the IMB (i.e. "don't worry, we'll piss on you and tell you it's raining") indicates that too.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

Thinking about it: Johnson's trip to Brussels is no deal. If he comes back with a compromise it would be viewed as a "peace in our time" betrayal, and a failure in line with Cameron's trip to Europe, May's trip to Europe etc. - the offer to "deactivate" parts of the IMB (i.e. "don't worry, we'll piss on you and tell you it's raining") indicates that too.

Except that Cameron and May came back without a deal.

There's an obvious risk for Johnson staging a scene in which he goes in search of a deal and returns empty-handed; he has positioned himself as someone so massively incompetent that he has failed to secure the easiest deal in history, and his bluster about the EU caving in order to protect UK sales of prosecco and BMWs is exposed for the sh!te that it is.

Obviously Johnson will have thought of this and will have prepared an alternative spin in which the word "fish" comes up more than once. But he knows that won't wear well; in a no-deal Brexit the UK fishing industry is f'cked anyway, because its catch will rot on the quayside for want of somewhere to sell it. So we'll have Johnson sacrificing the auto industry in order to protect the fishing industry, and yet failing to protect the fishing industry.

So, Johnson would much rather not be in the position of having to defend a trip to Brussels that ends with an empty-handed return. I don't think he would make this trip unless he thought there was a pretty good chance that it would result in a deal. It may be that, even now, he still believes the prosecco-and-BMW nonsense but, frankly, I doubt that. More likely he does have some significant shift in the UK position that he intends to put on the table and that he thinks, rightly or wrongly, will open up enough reciprocal movement on the EU side to make a deal possible.

(Of course he may think that, but incorrectly. The Vote Leave stable which mainly influences him comprehensively misunderstands the EU and therefore reads it wrongly all the time. Virtually every prediction they have made about positions the EU would take has been proved wrong in the event. I don't know if Johnson has drawn the obvious conclusion from this.)

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except that Cameron and May came back without a deal.

Without knowing the exact details, didn't Cameron get quite a good deal for the UK at the time? But because he didn't get what the eurosceptics wanted, which was to be outside of EU laws and regulations but inside the EU, they were always going to belittle what he did return with as they wanted to leave the EU, no matter what.

EU reform deal: What Cameron wanted and what he got

It seems like he got most of what he was looking for, but as I posted, I don't think it was ever going to be enough once the ERG smelled blood in the water and the promise of an EU referendum.

Zubeneschamali

fash wrote: »

oh yes it can - wait until the UK starts breaching the WA, refuses to acknowledge the dispute resolution mechanisms and the EU starts disapplying the WA in specific and limited ways - and see what happens then.

The EU still talk to the US, even after rounds of tit for tat tariffs, sanctions for alleged breaches of state aid rules.

If sanctions must be applied to the UK, the EU will still talk to them and offer a path back to negotiating a deal.

Nobody wins trade wars.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously Johnson will have thought of this and will have prepared an alternative spin

I don't think he has a real plan, he's just giving it a bit of oomph because its all he knows. He still imagines some sort of 11th hour triumph is possible, that VdL might cave at the last second.

And if not, whats the worst that can happen? Boris will fall on his feet into a cushy job thats easier than being PM.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think he has a real plan, he's just giving it a bit of oomph because its all he knows. He still imagines some sort of 11th hour triumph is possible, that VdL might cave at the last second.

And if not, whats the worst that can happen? Boris will fall on his feet into a cushy job thats easier than being PM.

But they have access to Frost, they know the lie of the land. At this stage they must have a pretty good idea if there is a possibility of a deal, and what the probability ot it is. They would have sources in France, Germany, Ireland etc giving them an insight into the thinking.

Johnson had a call Saturday and Monday. Both perfect excuses to walk away. Why now trot off to Brussels, be seen to head to their HQ rather than them coming to No 10, just to walk away?

Obviously its a gamble, but one assumes (I'm already regretting it) that they calculate a high percentage of success.

54and56

fash wrote: »

Thinking about it: Johnson's trip to Brussels is no deal. If he comes back with a compromise it would be viewed as a "peace in our time" betrayal, and a failure in line with Cameron's trip to Europe, May's trip to Europe etc. - the offer to "deactivate" parts of the IMB (i.e. "don't worry, we'll piss on you and tell you it's raining") indicates that too.

Given the smug wink wink ITK behaviour of Ian Smith, Peter Bone and any of the other ERG fundamentalists I've seen interviewed over the past 48 hours I'm also leaning towards the Brussels meeting being an engineered set piece where BoJo can be seen to be doing his utmost to get deal but in reality what he is doing is setting the stage for a grand return home empty handed thus delivering the Brexit hard core their "pure" no deal Brexit whilst providing himself with plausible deniability for the majority who wanted a deal that he did all he could and it was the EU's unreasonable demands, which they haven't made from Canada or Japan etc, which prevented a deal being possible.

By returning from Brussels in this was he'll metaphorically be pulling up the draw-bridge and setting the scene for blaming the EU for the inevitable chaos which will follow.

Such a scenario would achieve several things for BoJo:-

1. He'd forever have the loyalty of the Brexit wing of the Tory party which is now in the ascendency.

2. He'd completely nullify Farage and the Brexit Party thus completely re-claiming the centre right for the Tories.

3. He'd, for better or worse, have made an indelible mark on the history of the UK and his legacy would be secure.

4. He'd be seen to be keeping his promise to the NI Unionists as he'd plough ahead with the IMB and completely ignore the requirements of the WA thus, effectively, forcing the EU to come up with some form of border control between NI and RoI or between RoI and the rest of the EU. This would royally pi$$ off the USA and Biden administration but in a way that could be a good thing for BoJo as it would scupper any hope of an FTA with the US which I actually think he'd be ok with as it'll be a painful negotiation which ultimately would see the UK having to give the US access to food and medical markets or risk a no deal. Both have downside risk for BoJo but the status quo of no FTA has little downside and avoids having to put energy into yet another FTA negotiation with a much larger entity at a time when their is total deal fatigue within the UK and within the UK govt.

5. BoJo and co would be free to slash regulations and turn the UK into the Singapore on Thames they want it to be.

6. He'd be seen to be embarrassing the entire EU by having them gathered together (on Thursday) with the intention of rubber stamping a deal only for BoJo to give them the finger and leave them stranded squabbling amongst themselves as to who is to blame for pushing for more than the UK were prepared to sign up to.

KildareP

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they have access to Frost, they know the lie of the land. At this stage they must have a pretty good idea if there is a possibility of a deal, and what the probability ot it is. They would have sources in France, Germany, Ireland etc giving them an insight into the thinking.

Johnson had a call Saturday and Monday. Both perfect excuses to walk away. Why now trot off to Brussels, be seen to head to their HQ rather than them coming to No 10, just to walk away?

Obviously its a gamble, but one assumes (I'm already regretting it) that they calculate a high percentage of success.

I can't help but think it's pure optics. I'm not personally hopeful of any deal at this stage based on this week's events, both happened and yet to come.



Neither side wants to be seen to be the one to call off the talks.


The UK doesn't, because it hopes if it keeps going long enough it will eventually reach that 11th hour moment where the EU folds and gives in to every single one of the UK's demands. It also knows that the EU's position in a UK walkaway will be "that's disappointing but our door is always open should you ever decide you wish to resume talks again".



The EU doesn't because it knows damn well it's what the UK is banking on, an easy get-out clause to blame the EU for breaking down talks. The EU knows they're inevitably going to have to resume talks again in the future anyway, no point in giving the UK a reason to return more belligerent than ever before.

fash

54and56 wrote: »

6. He'd be seen to be embarrassing the entire EU by having them gathered together (on Thursday) with the intention of rubber stamping a deal only for BoJo to give them the finger and leave them stranded squabbling amongst themselves as to who is to blame for pushing for more than the UK were prepared to sign up to.

I doubt the EU would be squabbling. They know perfectly well that the issue is the UK wants access to the single market - where everyone else is tied to following the rules while the UK is not. Nothing is going to end in no deal because of fish.
As regards "Singapore on Thames" - aside from the fact that that works for a tiny city state only - not for a country of 66 million - it also relies on Singapore being a gateway to Asia (the UK is hardly going to be a gateway to the EU) and having a massive migrant population (let's see how Brexiters respond to that).

peter kern

KildareP wrote: »

I can't help but think it's pure optics. I'm not personally hopeful of any deal at this stage based on this week's events, both happened and yet to come.



Neither side wants to be seen to be the one to call off the talks.


The UK doesn't, because it hopes if it keeps going long enough it will eventually reach that 11th hour moment where the EU folds and gives in to every single one of the UK's demands. It also knows that the EU's position in a UK walkaway will be "that's disappointing but our door is always open should you ever decide you wish to resume talks again".



The EU doesn't because it knows damn well it's what the UK is banking on, an easy get-out clause to blame the EU for breaking down talks. The EU knows they're inevitably going to have to resume talks again in the future anyway, no point in giving the UK a reason to return more belligerent than ever before.

i see it differently the eu still talks becasue germany and ireland want too.
and unlike the poster has said the eu is throwing ireland under the bus its the opposite ireand punches way above its weight in this negotiations and with ireland potntialy losing as much as the uk and of course angelas intrests i do not see them walking away.

peter kern

one thing juncker and tusk seemed to have a much closer working relationship than micheal and van der layen ie always being togheter in important meetings and statements
why did the eu change that ?

Pasteur.

I'm thinking overall GB leaving the EU can only be good for us

We get to consolidate trade with the EU and GB after their breakup

Hermy

peter kern wrote: »

... always being togheter in important meetings and statements
why did the eu change that ?

Covid restrictions?

Seth Brundle

The German government confirm they would like a deal but not at any price. Wonder when their car makers will have a word with them

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336248087556354050

newport2

KildareP wrote: »

I can't help but think it's pure optics. I'm not personally hopeful of any deal at this stage based on this week's events, both happened and yet to come.

I think it is pure optics, but I think the result will be Boris coming home from Brussels with another "world-beating" deal to sell to the British public.

54and56

fash wrote: »

I doubt the EU would be squabbling.

I do think there would be some squabbling. The EU has held together for 4.5 years on this but as in any coalition there will be some internal cracks which we haven't yet seen. Some will prefer to do a deal with the UK at almost any cost in order to minimise economic impact on their own national industries and won't want to answer to their own electorate if they can pass the blame to other EU countries being too intransigent e.g. Ireland over the GFA, France over fisheries etc.

Won't particularly matter whether the perceived issues are real or not, if there isn't a deal each EU country will have their own story to tell their own electorate and it won't be consistent across the 27.

fash wrote: »

As regards "Singapore on Thames" - aside from the fact that that works for a tiny city state only - not for a country of 66 million - it also relies on Singapore being a gateway to Asia (the UK is hardly going to be a gateway to the EU) and having a massive migrant population (let's see how Brexiters respond to that).

Don't disagree with the fact Singapore on Thames may not actually work but it won't prevent BoJo and Co from trying.

listermint

54and56 wrote: »

I do think there would be some squabbling. The EU has held together for 4.5 years on this but as in any coalition there will be some internal cracks which we haven't yet seen. Some will prefer to do a deal with the UK at almost any cost in order to minimise economic impact on their own national industries and won't want to answer to their own electorate if they can pass the blame to other EU countries being too intransigent e.g. Ireland over the GFA, France over fisheries etc.

Won't particularly matter whether the perceived issues are real or not, if there isn't a deal each EU country will have their own story to tell their own electorate and it won't be consistent across the 27.



Don't disagree with the fact Singapore on Thames may not actually work but it won't prevent BoJo and Co from trying.

Well unfortunately that statement from the Germans really puts to bed the stuff about at any cost. Including their own industries.

You seem to really forget that they can't give the UK a deal at any cost because the cost would be the EU itself.

Not going to happen at all.

Pasteur.

Britain needs a deal a lot more than the EU

They won't say it but they're literally fukked without one

fash

54and56 wrote: »

I do think there would be some squabbling. The EU has held together for 4.5 years on this but as in any coalition there will be some internal cracks which we haven't yet seen. Some will prefer to do a deal with the UK at almost any cost in order to minimise economic impact on their own national industries and won't want to answer to their own electorate if they can pass the blame to other EU countries being too intransigent e.g. Ireland over the GFA, France over fisheries etc.

Why would they do that when they have Johnson and the Brexiters to blame (and always said that Brexit was going to be a s**tshow)?
"We really should have been nicer to that Johnson guy - he is a dependable and trustworthy fellow"?

reslfj

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nobody wins trade wars.

But some loses a lot less than others.

Lars

ElJeffe

Pasteur. wrote: »

Britain needs a deal a lot more than the EU

They won't say it but they're literally fukked without one

No. It's a two way street. They both need it but it's not going to happen and was never going to happen. They've being going around in circles for years now and we all know it.

There is no way around the competition rules.

I still think the EU will budge and screw us over as it's no exaggeration to say this very well may lead to the break up of the EU in the long term and they can't take that risk. We are nothing in the grand scale.

fash

ElJeffe wrote: »

No. It's a two way street. They both need it but it's not going to happen and was never going to happen. They've being going around in circles for years now and we all know it.

There is no way around the competition rules.

I still think the EU will budge and screw us over as it's no exaggeration to say this very well may lead to the break up of the EU in the long term and they can't take that risk. We are nothing in the grand scale.

Aside from the fact that the main issue preventing a deal is whether the EU will allow the UK access to the single market while being allowed to undercut everyone else (no chance of that - they might as well abolish the EU), why would the EU run away from a helpless country (and let's not forget the UK is helpless here - it relies on the EU for everything from radio isotopes for medicine, allowing UK planes to fly and providing truck drivers to deliver food - aside from 50% of its external trade) threatening to renege on an agreement with the EU - and what would that signal to every other third party around the world as regards how the EU backs down from (ridiculously vulnerable) bullies - let alone from a real fight?

Leroy42

ElJeffe wrote: »

No. It's a two way street. They both need it but it's not going to happen and was never going to happen. They've being going around in circles for years now and we all know it.

There is no way around the competition rules.

I still think the EU will budge and screw us over as it's no exaggeration to say this very well may lead to the break up of the EU in the long term and they can't take that risk. We are nothing in the grand scale.

Surely by screwing us over, that in itself would mean the breakup of the EU? What is he point of countries bounding together, having to abide by rules they may not necessarily agree with but see it as a reasonable cost for inclusion, if the group is simply going to screw you over?

But let us not forgot or get lost in the real issue here. The UK don't know what Brexit means, had no plan, had no ideas, have no strategy. Everything that has happened has been done to the lack of any actual planning or joined up thinking on the UK's side.

Nody

ElJeffe wrote: »

I still think the EU will budge and screw us over as it's no exaggeration to say this very well may lead to the break up of the EU in the long term and they can't take that risk. We are nothing in the grand scale.

Exactly how is EU suppose to screw Ireland over? By giving in on NI and let unlimited volume of cheap fake goods flow into the market? By putting Ireland outside the single market somehow? By ignoring the international treaty they negotiated as a per-requisite to a FTA? I mean I'm all for doom and gloom but at least have some logic to it.

Cheensbo

ElJeffe wrote: »

No. It's a two way street. They both need it but it's not going to happen and was never going to happen. They've being going around in circles for years now and we all know it.

There is no way around the competition rules.

I still think the EU will budge and screw us over as it's no exaggeration to say this very well may lead to the break up of the EU in the long term and they can't take that risk. We are nothing in the grand scale.

Budge on what particular element, and screw us over - how?

breezy1985

SNIP. No insults please.

Enzokk

I see the meeting between Von Der Leyen and Johnson is "uncharted territory" so we will have to wait and see what happens.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336273970186874882?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336273978843942914?s=20

There is the new deadline I suppose, 31 December. We can actually all just relax as nothing that happens now will be set in stone, unless one side walks away. So basically predictions of an outcome will be premature as there is still a lot of time for things to develop.