Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

So Barnier has agreed to both intesify talks and discuss specific legal texts. Not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes, but from a PR perspective this is yet another win for the UK.

They roll out the IM bill, and the EU do nothing, actually it gets more talking done.

The EU remove the word 'intensify' and demand the UK make concessions, after which the PM threatens to stop all talks and EU agrees to intensify talks and get down to legal specifics.

It seems the EU played a very poor hand at the council meeting last week, playing directly into Johnsons game plan.

Patser

Gove defended the truck parks by saying they'll bring jobs and investment to the areas......


It's beyond parody! Unwelcome eyesores, that are a symptom of trade breakdown and will cost millions to run and maintain before factoring in the gactthat their very use is costing businesses millions- are actually good things.....

What next, traffic jams are great as they allow people alone time, car parks to be built everywhere to create jobs....

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Barnier has agreed to both intesify talks and discuss specific legal texts. Not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes, but from a PR perspective this is yet another win for the UK.

They roll out the IM bill, and the EU do nothing, actually it gets more talking done.

The EU remove the word 'intensify' and demand the UK make concessions, after which the PM threatens to stop all talks and EU agrees to intensify talks and get down to legal specifics.

It seems the EU played a very poor hand at the council meeting last week, playing directly into Johnsons game plan.

You've been parading a very nervous attitude for a long while now dearest Leroy.

I don't see how you could see this as "playing a poor hand". The IM bill really hasn't had any effect.

The talks are continuing on as planned. They were never halted despite the UK side's bullshít and pronouncements.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Barnier has agreed to both intesify talks and discuss specific legal texts. Not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes, but from a PR perspective this is yet another win for the UK.

They roll out the IM bill, and the EU do nothing, actually it gets more talking done.

The EU remove the word 'intensify' and demand the UK make concessions, after which the PM threatens to stop all talks and EU agrees to intensify talks and get down to legal specifics.

It seems the EU played a very poor hand at the council meeting last week, playing directly into Johnsons game plan.

No : read his tweet again. Barnier says he would be 'available' to intensify talks and discuss legal texts but neither side has agreed to anything.

L1011

Patser wrote: »

Gove defended the truck parks by saying they'll bring jobs and investment to the areas......

The main type of higher than minimum wage job created by large truckstops is generally prostitution - is that what Gove is suggesting those Tory and Brexit voting areas want to work in after January?

fash

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.

"No deal for White Anglo people ".When it was compared to the Albanian deal, brexiters went ballistic

An Ciarraioch

Jersey wants to maintain control of its own fishing waters, and is annoyed with London:

https://twitter.com/GaryBurgessCI/status/1316772704587067394

bobmalooka

A quiet but perhaps significant development today was the movement on NI protocol - where EU officials will be working alongside UK counterparts in NI but will have no official office. - agreed by Gove.

Goves theatrics in the House of Commons looking like they’re meant for internal consumption only to me.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Barnier has agreed to both intesify talks and discuss specific legal texts. Not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes, but from a PR perspective this is yet another win for the UK.

They roll out the IM bill, and the EU do nothing, actually it gets more talking done.

The EU remove the word 'intensify' and demand the UK make concessions, after which the PM threatens to stop all talks and EU agrees to intensify talks and get down to legal specifics.

It seems the EU played a very poor hand at the council meeting last week, playing directly into Johnsons game plan.

You read too much into his tweet.
He has essentially said that yes, talks can continue, or even intensify, if the UK present firm, legally workable proposals.

As stated by President
@vonderleyen
on Friday, I confirmed that the EU remains available to intensify talks in London this week, on all subjects, and based on legal texts.

We now wait for the UK’s reaction

View

bobmalooka wrote: »

A quiet but perhaps significant development today was the movement on NI protocol - where EU officials will be working alongside UK counterparts in NI but will have no official office. - agreed by Gove.

Goves theatrics in the House of Commons looking like they’re meant for internal consumption only to me.

BIB - It would be ridiculous if the EU accepted that and its officials had to resort to sheltering in the nearest bus shelter. The point of an office for any international body in a host country is that such an office enjoys full diplomatic privileges.

View

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Barnier has agreed to both intesify talks and discuss specific legal texts. Not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes, but from a PR perspective this is yet another win for the UK.

They roll out the IM bill, and the EU do nothing, actually it gets more talking done.

The EU remove the word 'intensify' and demand the UK make concessions, after which the PM threatens to stop all talks and EU agrees to intensify talks and get down to legal specifics.

It seems the EU played a very poor hand at the council meeting last week, playing directly into Johnsons game plan.

The European Council statement did not specifically use the word “intensify” (talks) but basically called on both parties to increase their efforts to secure an agreement. As such the wording is a minor point.

BlitzKrieg

View wrote: »

The European Council statement did not specifically use the word “intensify” (talks) but basically called on both parties to increase their efforts to secure an agreement. As such the wording is a minor point.

Didnt someone on the European Council say recently they removed the word intensify simply because they've said intensify so many times already that it felt pointless to keep repeating it at this point?

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Barnier has agreed to both intesify talks and discuss specific legal texts. Not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes, but from a PR perspective this is yet another win for the UK.

They roll out the IM bill, and the EU do nothing, actually it gets more talking done.

The EU remove the word 'intensify' and demand the UK make concessions, after which the PM threatens to stop all talks and EU agrees to intensify talks and get down to legal specifics.

It seems the EU played a very poor hand at the council meeting last week, playing directly into Johnsons game plan.

If you care about winning the PR battle then yes, the UK seems to have outmaneuvered the EU. But if the EU is able to get what they want and let the UK win the war in the papers I wouldn't be too worried about it.

An Ciarraioch

Gove's plan for Indyref 2 is to get the EU to say that an independent Scotland wouldn't be admitted, but Spain apart, hard to see anyone else not wanting them:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-10-19/u-k-s-tories-start-war-gaming-to-stop-scottish-independence?__twitter_impression=true

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Gove's plan for Indyref 2 is to get the EU to say that an independent Scotland wouldn't be admitted, but Spain apart, hard to see anyone else not wanting them:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-10-19/u-k-s-tories-start-war-gaming-to-stop-scottish-independence?__twitter_impression=true

Spain has repeatedly said they wouldn't block Scotland from joining.

But unless Scotland could grandfather in some of the existing UK exemptions then EFTA would be a better deal during a transition period. Pegging to the £ is necessary until the economy diversifies.

Hermy

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Gove's plan for Indyref 2 is to get the EU to say that an independent Scotland wouldn't be admitted, but Spain apart, hard to see anyone else not wanting them:

So the EU needs to accept that it is dealing with an independent and sovereign country while also possibly being invited to meddle in said country's domestic affairs?

More cake and eat it methinks.

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Spain has repeatedly said they wouldn't block Scotland from joining.

But unless Scotland could grandfather in some of the existing UK exemptions then EFTA would be a better deal during a transition period. Pegging to the £ is necessary until the economy diversifies.

Forget EFTA in case of small Scotland. Very unlikely to be accepted by EFTA/EEA/EU and will not achieve anything much for Scotland.

An independent Scotland applying for EU membership will most likely meet great sympathy with EU27 members.

There is a huge difference on being independent and applying for EU membership after Brexit has forced Scotland out of the EU and not after some purely nationalistic indyref.

Ireland already has permission to integrate NI if a UI happens after GFA rules.

Lars

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Barnier has agreed to both intesify talks and discuss specific legal texts. Not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes, but from a PR perspective this is yet another win for the UK.

They roll out the IM bill, and the EU do nothing, actually it gets more talking done.

The EU remove the word 'intensify' and demand the UK make concessions, after which the PM threatens to stop all talks and EU agrees to intensify talks and get down to legal specifics.

It seems the EU played a very poor hand at the council meeting last week, playing directly into Johnsons game plan.

Johnson declared that talks would stop unless there was a major shift in the EU's position. Well, where is this shift? Has this latest red line from Mr Johnson been abandoned just as quickly as it was uttered?

Its not the EU that are on the brink of severe economic hardship and disintegration, so whatever 'game plan' you think Johnson has, it is clearly not working very well.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Spain has repeatedly said they wouldn't block Scotland from joining.

But unless Scotland could grandfather in some of the existing UK exemptions then EFTA would be a better deal during a transition period. Pegging to the £ is necessary until the economy diversifies.

I'd be reasonably optimistic that an independent Scotland could be admitted to the Union without immediately adopting the euro, and retaining a link to sterling for the medium term. Other existing member states have similar arrangements, and there would be no appetite to exclude Scotland over this issue.

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

BIB - It would be ridiculous if the EU accepted that and its officials had to resort to sheltering in the nearest bus shelter. The point of an office for any international body in a host country is that such an office enjoys full diplomatic privileges.

Not at all - embassies have full diplomatic privileges, but it's non unusual for governments to have non-diplomatic premises abroad that don't enjoy any diplomatic status.

For example, the UK Dept of Social Security (as it then was) used to have an office in Dublin to serve the large number of UK pensioners living here. That had no diplomatic status - it was just office space rented in the usual way. I don't know if they still have the office, or if they have moved to all-online service of claimants in Ireland. IDA Ireland maintains a network of offices abroad; some of these are in Irish diplomatic/consular premises but most are not. Etc, etc.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Barnier has agreed to both intesify talks and discuss specific legal texts. Not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes, but from a PR perspective this is yet another win for the UK.

They roll out the IM bill, and the EU do nothing, actually it gets more talking done.

The EU remove the word 'intensify' and demand the UK make concessions, after which the PM threatens to stop all talks and EU agrees to intensify talks and get down to legal specifics.

It seems the EU played a very poor hand at the council meeting last week, playing directly into Johnsons game plan.

No, no, no. This is suiting the EU very well.

Look at it this way: if there's to be a deal on terms that the EU likes, the UK government is going to have to climb down on several points. Climbing down is politically difficult for the UK government; therefore anything which makes it politically easier for them is welcome from the EU's point of view.

The EU is happy to allow the UK the presentation it wants/needs, in return for EU getting the substantive deal it wants/needs. If HMG pretends for the benefit of Brexit supporters to have won a famous victory, and Brexit supporters pretend to believe them (or actually believe them; it doesn't matter) that works just fine for the EU. They are well used to facilitating this kind of face-saving by negotiating counterparties.

Peregrinus

Patser wrote: »

Gove defended the truck parks by saying they'll bring jobs and investment to the areas......


It's beyond parody! Unwelcome eyesores, that are a symptom of trade breakdown and will cost millions to run and maintain before factoring in the gactthat their very use is costing businesses millions- are actually good things.....

What next, traffic jams are great as they allow people alone time, car parks to be built everywhere to create jobs....

This is the equivalent of smashing windows to stimulate the glazing trade.

Peregrinus

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.

Your eyes do not deceive you; there is no difference. "Australia-type deal" or "Australia-type relationship" is a Brexiter soundbite which means no deal. It replaced the similarly content-free soundbite of "WTO deal", meaning no deal, about a year ago.

fash

.
A few takes on David frost's tweet yesterday that the UK has given up on negotiations (or else is too incompetent to get to a landing zone).

54and56

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your eyes do not deceive you; there is no difference. "Australia-type deal" or "Australia-type relationship" is a Brexiter soundbite which means no deal. It replaced the similarly content-free soundbite of "WTO deal", meaning no deal, about a year ago.

Well "WTO Deal" is more accurate in that is does accurately describe the position the UK will be in if it doesn't agree a deal with the EU. The WTO terms is indeed a deal all members of the WTO have subscribed to.

"Australian Terms" is Brexiteer PR spin to try and project a false equivalence between the perception of Australia being a successful texport country who trade on WTO terms with the EU and the UK's ability to do the same.

The problem is the EU is the UK's main export market with 44% of it's total output going to EU countries.



Funnily enough, the EU isn't Australia's main market, that would be it's nearest economic neighbours in SE Asia so of course it can trade with the EU on WTO terms and still be successful as the EU simply isn't an important market for it!!



Australia also benefits from some very specific side deals with the EU to allow important export products like it's wine into the EU which the UK will not be granted by the EU, at least in the short term.

Even then Australia has been working hard for years to agree a much deeper FTA with the EU and is relatively close to doing so as it recognises that trading on WTO terms with the EU is a major barrier to it's exporters.

Leroy42

Well, there is a difference between No Deal and Australia type deal, as alluded to by Alok in yesterdays LBC interview.

The UK are of the opinion that even in a no deal situation, one where they are ended the talks no less, there will be side deals done to deal with some of the issues that would arise.

This be be most easily seen in the view that since UK standards are currently in line with EU standards then there are no need for checks on Day 1. Also in the fact that UK controls will no be ready until at least July 2021.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not at all - embassies have full diplomatic privileges, but it's non unusual for governments to have non-diplomatic premises abroad that don't enjoy any diplomatic status.

For example, the UK Dept of Social Security (as it then was) used to have an office in Dublin to serve the large number of UK pensioners living here. That had no diplomatic status - it was just office space rented in the usual way. I don't know if they still have the office, or if they have moved to all-online service of claimants in Ireland. IDA Ireland maintains a network of offices abroad; some of these are in Irish diplomatic/consular premises but most are not. Etc, etc.

They have an office in Sligo, operated by The Dept of Social Protection, who handle all issues for the UK and Irish related matters, but from Jan 1st 2021, that will end. Not sure what will happen after that. For direct issues that are UK only, they have an office in Newcastle upon Tyne, with telephone support, for enquiries that deal with overseas cases. They do not deal online.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK are of the opinion that even in a no deal situation, one where they are ended the talks no less, there will be side deals done to deal with some of the issues that would arise.

More of the Brexiter self-delusion. En masse, they have real difficulty in hearing what the EU say, even when it's expressed in plain English! Any "side deals" will not be deals at all: they will be unilateral measures taken by the EU because they suit the EU, to be terminated unilaterally when they no longer suit the EU.

The EU has been rock steady in saying that the multi-mini-deal Swiss model is absolutely, definitely, no-way-never, the kind of arrangement they'll agree to with anyone, ever again. But hey, why start taking the EU at its word now when you're on a victorious roll ... :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

More of the Brexiter self-delusion. En masse, they have real difficulty in hearing what the EU say, even when it's expressed in plain English! Any "side deals" will not be deals at all: they will be unilateral measures taken by the EU because they suit the EU, to be terminated unilaterally when they no longer suit the EU.

The EU has been rock steady in saying that the multi-mini-deal Swiss model is absolutely, definitely, no-way-never, the kind of arrangement they'll agree to with anyone, ever again. But hey, why start taking the EU at its word now when you're on a victorious roll ... :rolleyes:

Plus the Swiss model is a form of BRINO anyway.

McGiver

reslfj wrote: »

Forget EFTA in case of small Scotland. Very unlikely to be accepted by EFTA/EEA/EU and will not achieve anything much for Scotland.

An independent Scotland applying for EU membership will most likely meet great sympathy with EU27 members.

Scotland in fact is very similar to Norway in terms of population, geography and economy. EFTA is a good match for Scotland, at least temporarily while it's waiting to be processed by the EU for membership (will take years). I believe EFTA membership would happen quickly. Negotiating EU membership can take years. Would just Scotland sit nowhere in the interim?