Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the EU were going to offer a Canada style deal why would it be a `minus` deal?
I was under the impression the UK wanted a Canada style deal.

They claim they want a Canada style deal but have been demanding much more access to the Single Market at the talks.

It's yet another lie from them to their public : 'we merely want a Canada type deal' whilst looking for much more in private.

McGiver

RobMc59 wrote:

If the EU were going to offer a Canada style deal why would it be a `minus` deal? I was under the impression the UK wanted a Canada style deal.

Brexiters at the helm (not the UK) want a Switzerland style deal minus all the requirements/consequences/rules/tradeoffs for such a deal and call it Canada to brainwash the UK plebs - it's basically Goebels style propaganda. Or doublespeak like from 1984.

They want - no tarrifs, no quotas, no checks, mode 4 access for workers, access for services, no ECJ, no independent arbitration. This is nothing like Canada deal. In fact this is Switzerland+.

Not to mention that Canada was never on offer by the EU as UK is not Canada and even if it was on offer the UK rejected a) any tariffs and quotas and b) any extension which would required to negotiate the said tariffs and quotas item by item.

McGiver

McGiver wrote:

Not to mention that Canada was never on offer by the EU as UK is not Canada and even if it was on offer the UK rejected a) any tariffs and quotas and b) any extension which would required to negotiate the said tariffs and quotas item by item.

Just to clarify - the famous Barnier PowerPoint staircase slide where it shows the Canada type deal as the only possible option given the UK's red lines. That was not an offer but in fact an indication of the starting negotiating position and I presume setting up expectations based on UK's red lines.

However, the UK since then insisted on no tariffs, no quotas, no checks, no proper arbitration, access for services and no extension to the transition period, all of which is mutually exclusive to a Canada style agreement. And of course, from the EU's side the UK is a completely different country than Canada, so it was obvious for the EU (not for the UK?) that exactly the same deal as Canada's wasn't an option - the UK exports 45% of its exports to the EU and is closely integrated with the SM, and is looking to deintegrate, whereas Canada exports <5% to the EU, is not integrated with the SM and is looking to increase exports and integration with the SM. Or simply - the UK is not Canada.

An Ciarraioch

SNIP. Please do not just dump tweets here.

Imreoir2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

SNIP.

Is it just me or are the UK clergy strangely interventionist in politics.

It would be surreal if Catholic bishops tried to intervene in national politics like this in Ireland these days. Imagine a bunch of Bishops attacking Mícheál Martin over the Climate Bill or something like that.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Is it just me or are the UK clergy strangely interventionist in politics.

It would be surreal if Catholic bishops tried to intervene in national politics like this in Ireland these days. Imagine a bunch of Bishops attacking Mícheál Martin over the Climate Bill or something like that.

The Church of England is still the established church in England, and 26 of their bishops sit in the house of Lords.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

The UK is an an anachronism.

Imreoir2

This could shed some light on Johnsons apparent willingness to go for no-deal. There are reports that he is not interested in sticking around to deal with the fallout.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/boris-johnson-resign-spring-2020-3848608

Jizique

Imreoir2 wrote: »

This could shed some light on Johnsons apparent willingness to go for no-deal. There are reports that he is not interested in sticking around to deal with the fallout.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/boris-johnson-resign-spring-2020-3848608

It’s a good thing he was able to get the taxpayer to keep that American pole dancer in financial shape for tech lessons

Snickers Man

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Who recognises Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland as countries?

Well there's FIFA. And World Rugby, formerly the IRB. But that's about it

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the EU were going to offer a Canada style deal why would it be a `minus` deal?
I was under the impression the UK wanted a Canada style deal.

You were under that impression because you were insufficiently sceptical of Brexit bullsh!t. LIft your game, Rob!

Brexiters will say for public consumption that the UK wants a Canada style deal. but the deal the UK has asked the EU to agree is signficantly different from the Canada deal in a number of respects.

(And for good reason - the UK is not a province of Canada and would be in many ways disadvantaged if it were treated as one by the EU, so it's reasonable for the UK to look to be treated differently from Canada. But the obvious corrollary of this is that it would also be in many ways disadvantageous to the EU to treat the UK as though it were a province of Canada, so it is reasonable of the EU not to agree do to so.)

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

Question to the crowd: from a historical Tory perspective, it is rather surprising that "the unfettered right to give state aid" is the particular hill the UK wants to die on. Of course Brexitism contains several non historic Tory values- but it seems a much more convenient hill than "we want the freedom to reduce workers rights", "we want the freedom to reduce environmental protection" "we want the freedom to reduce good standards" from an internal opposition perspective (see opposition to dropping food standards in relation to US deal for example).
Anyone think there is an ulterior motive, and if so what would that be?

The truth is that there seems to be the outlines of a compromise over state aid/LPF rules. What seems to have pissed the UK off this time is a refusal by the EU to signal a willingness to compromise on fishing.

Fishing is good for Daily Mail headlines, but if there's a no-deal Brexit and in a few months the UK is going through a really torrid time, quite a lot of voters might be asking themselves whether fishing (0.01% of UK economy) was really important enough to trash the rest of the economy over. So government wants to position itself to say that, if there is a no-deal, it isn't just about fishing; it's about other things as well, preferably several other things. Hence they mention things that, actually, aren't fundamentally an obstacle to the deal

fash wrote: »

Secondly, EU expressed "optimism" over the weekend about how things were going. If one were being cynical, much like how the UK was expressing optimism 1-2 weeks ago, is such optimism real - or a way of putting pressure on the UK not to walk away? "Hey those guys were almost there - why did you walk?" Etc. Thoughts?

Yup. There's a view that the UK government, or a least a faction of it, wants the trade talks to fail but wants to manoeuvre the EU into being the one that actually pulls the plug on them. Don' t know if this view is accurate, but it provides a coherent explanation of quite a lot of UK moves that are otherwise hard to explain or understand.

EU is determined not to be manoeuvred like this. They're not going to end the talks, ever; if UK wants to end them, it has to end them. Hence EU will always express a willingness to keep talking, and chipper optimism that this can have a positive outcome.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

CelticRambler wrote: »

It might be worth remembering that even with the most majorest of climbdowns, there simply isn't enough time left for anything to be agreed and put into effect by 31st December, other than a bare bones Canada minus deal.

So however positively Johnson might try to spin his capitulation, the people of Britain are still going to pay a hefty price.

I don't know about that. The UK already complies with all single market legislation and rules. The problem there is politically selling it to the public but I don't see any alternative save for no deal.

It doesn't matter that they are already in perfect alignment with us - they are out, no longer members of the EU, and as such, anything more than a bare-bones deal will require them to enter into a new and complex treaty. Whatever the (remote) possibility of getting every one of the EU27 to accept the UK back on "favourable" terms in the light of all that has happened over the last four years, there's damn-all chance of being able to sell such a deal to the British public.

The existing close alignment regulations argument has been put forward (by myself, amongst others) as a reason why we could expect an independent Scotland's application to join the EU to be fast-tracked - but there's no way that could be applied to a country who's current administration is still going out of its way to say "we want to diverge" at every opportunity.

An Ciarraioch

Barnier sends out a message to both Irish and UK audiences - tweeting a meeting with Máiread McGuinness, and stressing the importance of the Irish Protocol:

https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1318151647500095488

Leroy42

One of the key components of the acceptance of shared standards is the ability of the EU to review them themselves. Usually, they take the word, and records, of the member country but they ability to vouch themselves is inherent.

That and any breaches can be first drop up in the parliament, or other such situation, and then the ECJ.

The UK, having left, is removing itself from any check-up and there is very little, save for a trade war, for the EU to ensure they adhere.

Why would the EU give them even a minute extra? They had the transition period, they refused to ask for an extension to that, presumably because they would be ready.

10000maniacs

Can anyone explain the difference between an Australian type deal and no deal when used to describe a possible deal scenario between the UK and EU on December 31st? I can't see any difference.

10000maniacs

10000maniacs wrote: »

Can anyone explain the difference between an Australian type deal and no deal when used to describe a possible deal scenario between the UK and EU on December 31st? I can't see any difference.

I guess No Deal would actually mean nothing. An Australia type deal would mean things like airplanes still flying.. Basically No Deal with the scary Project Fear bits removed.

10000maniacs

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess No Deal would actually mean nothing. An Australia type deal would mean things like airplanes still flying.. Basically No Deal with the scary Project Fear bits removed.

But Australia has no deal with the EU.
Here is a brief history of the last 4 years.

All the cards. Easiest deal in history.”

“Okay then, Norway style deal.”

“Scrub that, Swiss style deal.”

“What!!!, we need to be in the single market? Okay, let’s go for Canada-plus-plus.”

“No. Plus-plus mean having a level playing field, so let’s go for Canada-plus.”

“It’s oven ready.”

“Prepare for no deal.”

“Hold on. Let’s have an Australia style deal.”

Leroy42

10000maniacs wrote: »

Can anyone explain the difference between an Australian type deal and no deal when used to describe a possible deal scenario between the UK and EU on December 31st? I can't see any difference.

Here is Alok Sharma, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, explaining the keys differences.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1318112093019774977

To save you the hassle, he basically says its just semantics!

An Ciarraioch

10000maniacs wrote: »

But Australia has no deal with the EU.
Here is a brief history of the last 4 years.

All the cards. Easiest deal in history.”

“Okay then, Norway style deal.”

“Scrub that, Swiss style deal.”

“What!!!, we need to be in the single market? Okay, let’s go for Canada-plus-plus.”

“No. Plus-plus mean having a level playing field, so let’s go for Canada-plus.”

“It’s oven ready.”

“Prepare for no deal.”

“Hold on. Let’s have an Australia style deal.”

They do have a number of mutual recognition agreements with the EU at present, so No Deal would be more like North Korea for the UK:

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/international-aspects/mutual-recognition-agreements_en

fly_agaric

10000maniacs wrote: »

Can anyone explain the difference between an Australian type deal and no deal when used to describe a possible deal scenario between the UK and EU on December 31st? I can't see any difference.

I don't think it has much substance.
The current government in the UK believe strongly in the dark arts of spin and media management. They place a high importance on getting the hook into peoples' minds with the right catchy slogan for the policy you are trying to promote. They are actually quite brilliant at that imo even if they fail at lots of other more important things.
Australia speaks English & is a familiar, well liked country to most people in the UK that doesn't have very close ties to the EU (being on the other side of the planet and all that). So it becomes the "Australia deal".

View

10000maniacs wrote: »

Can anyone explain the difference between an Australian type deal and no deal when used to describe a possible deal scenario between the UK and EU on December 31st? I can't see any difference.

An Australian type deal is code for a no deal for white people. It is not to be confused with no deal for non-white people since that might cause the pro-Brexit voters to ask awkward questions about where their promised Brexit utopia is.

ancapailldorcha

View wrote: »

An Australian type deal is code for a no deal for white people. It is not to be confused with no deal for non-white people since that might cause the pro-Brexit voters to ask awkward questions about where their promised Brexit utopia is.

They're to ask once food prices skyrocket, lorries pile up at Dover and the flow of medicines is interrupted.

But yeah, Australian-style deal sounds better than no deal which is essentially abject failure.

Nody

Call me funny names and fart in my general direction but at this stage I'd want the hardest possible no deal simply to end this farce once and for all and let UK enjoy all the glory and joy it will bring. Anything else is only going to be extending this drama further and let the pain linger for longer. Either UK is right and the land of golden streets and honey will flow and then we can end the EU or it's not and then a quick stab to the heart of the idea with the pain to go with it to force a change is required. Anything else is simply a waste of time, sorry but I'm simply so sick and tired of reading the <SNIP. No insults please> at this stage (not here but on other places such as Youtube, Telegraph etc.).

swampgas

In many ways Johnson's backers (the billionaires and vulture capitalists) have achieved their objective, as it's looking like no deal or a deal so paper-thin it's pretty much the same thing.
Consider Johnson's situation:

• He isn't a career politician. He's an opportunist.
• He is reported to be struggling to live on a PM salary.
• He doesn't like hard work and visibly struggles during PMQs.
• He is connected to very wealthy people who have funded his holidays for example.

So what's his exit strategy, to acquire more money, and have less stress?

Maybe ensure a no-deal Brexit, retire (on health grounds perhaps) in January, leave the mess to someone else, and walk into a well paid job provided by a convenient billionaire?

VinLieger

swampgas wrote: »

So what's his exit strategy, to acquire more money, and have less stress?

Ive been asking this question to myself a lot over the past week and not just for Johnson but for the Tory party as well. Like what happens in Jan with a no deal and if Johnson does quit?

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

Ive been asking this question to myself a lot over the past week and not just for Johnson but for the Tory party as well. Like what happens in Jan with a no deal and if Johnson does quit?

Gove takes over and blames everything that happens over the next number of years on the EU.

An Ciarraioch

The paused negotiations that are, in fact, continuing behind the scenes:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1318191356897013760.html

droidus

In recent months Ive seen a lot of clued up UK commentators saying that he will recuse himself once Brexit is done. It would fit his character and record.

tanko

Leroy42 wrote: »

Gove takes over and blames everything that happens over the next number of years on the EU.

This speech is comedy gold. It's all the EU's fault, who would have guessed it would come to this.

PokeHerKing

No insults please.