|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The referendum also wasn't to leave EURATOM, which didn't stop Mrs May deciding to add another piece of stupidity to the whole Brexit scheme. I also don't recall much mention, if any, of the ECJ during the referendum campaign.
At least there was a lot of people pointing out that the ECHR was a) not something we were voting on, and b) it was something the UK created anyway.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'm keen to see democracy enacted. If that means leaving the European Court of Human Rights, then yes.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) I didn't know you elected judges in the UK... quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The referendum also wasn't to leave EURATOM, which didn't stop Mrs May deciding to add another piece of stupidity to the whole Brexit scheme. I also don't recall much mention, if any, of the ECJ during the referendum campaign.
I'm not sure if this is a case of accident or design.
I haven't looked into this much, but it seems to me that the ECJ is the highest court of appeal for EU law, so it makes some sort of sense for the UK, leaving the EU, not to recognise it as a jurisdiction. To me the fact that the link between things like EURATOM and the Aviation Single Market and the ECJ has not been well-publicised is more indicative of how ill-thought-through any Brexit plan has been than of conspiracy.
(Indeed, I've just got my paper copy of this week's Economist, cover story: Britain faces up to Brexit)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I haven't looked into this much, but it seems to me that the ECJ is the highest court of appeal for EU law, so it makes some sort of sense for the UK, leaving the EU, not to recognise it as a jurisdiction. To me the fact that the link between things like EURATOM and the Aviation Single Market and the ECJ has not been well-publicised is more indicative of how ill-thought-through any Brexit plan has been than of conspiracy.
I'm sure there's no conspiracy. Ill-thought-through is certainly the case.
ISTM that the role of the ECJ in the UK post-Brexit will depend very heavily on form of Brexit. Any form of trade deal will need mechanisms to address disputes, and I can see that the ECJ could provide a convenient and efficient mechanism for that (but, not essential - after all, other trade deals don't have recourse to a similar body). The aversion to any role for the ECJ within our government seems to be driven by some form of political dogma rather than anything practical, and certainly not anything that can be claimed as "the will of the people" (unlike freedom of movement, where a case can be made that a large portion of the public bought the lies about immigration being a problem and hence based their vote to leave in part on ending freedom of movement). The move to leave EURATOM etc is a consequence of that dogmatic decision to have no role for the ECJ, rather than a decision that was considered on it's own terms.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Meanwhile Labour is getting in an awful mess arguing in public about whether to be in the SM.
Together with Corbyn's claim that he never promised to cancel student debts held by graduates, it makes me wonder if somehow the Corbynistas actually believe there is some kind of political advantage to be gained by pushing the country into a recession.
I think he's losing support. I can't see why anyone in their right mind would vote Labour given their apparent belief in the hardest of hard Brexit outside of the EU and outside of the SM.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Did Labour campaign on the basis of staying in the SM during the General Election or am I mistaken?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Britain can't conclude trade deals. But there is no reason at all why it can't negotiate deals to put in place once Brexit happens. But the EU doesn't want that to happen. Now, I am not a Brexiteer, but as there is no legal impediment, it is possible to speculate that the EU is playing dirty tricks.
Actually I'm pretty sure there is a legal impediment for any EU state conducting any kind of trade discussions outwith of the EU.
You can't say "oh this isn't a negotiation, this is just a discussion about future negotiations.." because that's not allowed.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Labour campaigned for a softer Brexit than the Tories, but the details were as vague as the Tory position on Brexit. At present we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to produce a defined policy on what they want from Brexit - Tories, Labour, even UKIP (though they couldn't agree on the colour of the sky on whatever planet they live on).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Labour campaigned for a softer Brexit than the Tories, but the details were as vague as the Tory position on Brexit. At present we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to produce a defined policy on what they want from Brexit - Tories, Labour, even UKIP (though they couldn't agree on the colour of the sky on whatever planet they live on).
I'm afraid I think they all know what they want isn't possible (ie things to remain exactly the same with respect to trade with the EU but magically without the European courts, without having freedom of movement, without having to be bothered with EU Regulations and so on) so their actual positions with respect of what it is that they do want are being carefully kept in the shadows so they can whip them out when it becomes clear that the EU is never going to accept their ridiculous pipe-dream.
It's like they're all playing poker, holding their cards close to their chest and hoping that nobody is going to ask them to show to see if they're bluffing.
The problem with this approach is that the person they're playing poker with is rather better at it than they are.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I ask because I recollect that they wanted to remain in the Single Market. I wondered at this, because I was also aware that they also proposed nationalising certain industries.
Re negotiating trade deals: can anyone cite a provision in the EU treaties that prevents a member state negotiating? If there isn't one, that means a member state can do so.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As for me: I have no qualifications at all, and even if I did, why should you believe some random name on the Internet? I simply note the fact that the average developed nation outside the EU has pretty decent food security. To state that one needs to be an "expert" (ie, make a living writing for the papers and publishing the odd book) to point this out is as ridiculous as stating that the UK will face food shortages after Brexit. It's in the same league as the rather different claims made by the likes of Boris.
Yeah, experts. Who needs them, eh?
The UK has some fairly unique geographical features which makes it different to anywhere else. Or do you have an uninformed and non-expert opinion as to why those things aren't going to be relevant?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl (on the 'Withdrawal from EU Bill' thread):
A typical article on EEA, as far as I can see. I'm not sure that calling it the Norway option is politic, but never mind.
I've finally got round to reading the Economist article behind the cover story*, and it usefully details six Brexit "menu deals" for membership (no à la carte options are allowed):
1) Full membership (rejected by UK referendum)
2) "Norway": EFTA and EEA membership (Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein); most of the single market including movement of people
3) "Switzerland": EFTA membership but not EEA membership; some single market access including free movement of people
4) "Turkey": in a customs union with the EU (Turkey, San Marino, Andorra); no single market or 'four freedoms', no ECJ, but no third-party free trade deals allowed
5) "May": comprehensive free-trade deal with the EU; as 4 but free trade (but not "frictionless" deals)
6) "WTO".
link; three articles per week available subscription-free; well worth a read
[ 24. July 2017, 11:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As for me: I have no qualifications at all, and even if I did, why should you believe some random name on the Internet? I simply note the fact that the average developed nation outside the EU has pretty decent food security. To state that one needs to be an "expert" (ie, make a living writing for the papers and publishing the odd book) to point this out is as ridiculous as stating that the UK will face food shortages after Brexit. It's in the same league as the rather different claims made by the likes of Boris.
Yeah, experts. Who needs them, eh?
The UK has some fairly unique geographical features which makes it different to anywhere else. Or do you have an uninformed and non-expert opinion as to why those things aren't going to be relevant?
I thought that the notion of food shortages has come up in relation to a hard Brexit, whereby EU regulations, which the UK has followed hitherto, no longer apply.
Some politicians are breezily saying that since we will still be in 'regulatory harmony' with the EU, there will be no problem.
The problem is that we will be a 'third country', to which different regulations apply. For example, the movement of food and animal products is subject to veterinary checks, and hygiene checks, and border checks of other kinds. I think there is also a 6 month delay on this, but this is buried somewhere in EU law.
Some are warning of long queues of trucks at Dover and Calais, because of this.
I don't know if this is correct or not, but I suspect that nobody else does either. But it's possible that if we get close to Brexit day, with no deal, panic may occur.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
"On day one after Brexit, all such exports [of food], including those over the Irish border, could come to an immediate halt. Yet, if Ministers believe we can avoid such devastating disruptions to our trade by being given a unique exemption from the rules, this simply confirms their residence status on another galaxy.
It is here that there is this sense of unreality at its strongest. They have already been told what they stakes are, but they choose to believe that the EU negotiators are bluffing. At the last minute, they believe, Mr Juncker will give the nod, all the "colleagues" will roll over and the trucks will be waved through as the come off the ferries at Calais – all because "they need us more than we need them"."
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86548
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Everyone agrees that the surge in Labour support in the June general election came mainly from younger voters. But it now seems that the motivation was more about soft Brexit than about following Mr Corbyn along the road to Venezuela. The question is will he take this on board?
Sir Keir Starmer has said that he will table an amendment to the Repeal Bill aimed at keeping Britain in the Single Market and Customs Union. But this was already tried by Chuka Umunna which resulted in a three line whip to abstain and the sacking of three people from the shadow cabinet. Although Corbyn will look a bit daft if he now backs soft Brexit after previously rejecting everything which could take us there, perhaps Sir Keir's intervention will be the last chance to do this. Will it work?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
On the news today I hear that Sir Vince Cable has stated strongly that the old Brexit voters 'shafted' the young. I think he is right. Pre-referendum local meeting featured our local Brexiteer MP and Sir Vince. I have always been a remainer but even apart from that I do not know how all the old fogies in that hall could not see that his case was vastly more convincing. I'm not about to become a Lib Dem supporter - it would be useless in this area anyway - but I am very pleased he has said what he did.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I was in the UK during the screaming headlines about longer border checks for holidaymakers "travelling to the EU".
As far as I know, the UK is still - for the moment - part of the EU. The idea that one has to travel to get there embodies the disconnect that is at the root of the current troubles, I feel.
Secondly, the "chaos" invoked relates not to the EU but to the Schengen area, which the UK has never been in. It's not much wonder people don't understand what's going on.
And finally, the article in the "i" I read about this ended by somehow simultaneously arguing this was and wasn't a punishment for Brexit but could in any case become a reality "when Brussels closes the door". Excuse me? Just who closed the door here? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I really hope something better than a cliff-edge Brexit ("6" above) can be avoided by some muddling through, but if I was a UK-based business I would definitely be preparing for it as a contingency, because the gap between the public perception and reality even now is so huge.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Everyone agrees that the surge in Labour support in the June general election came mainly from younger voters. But it now seems that the motivation was more about soft Brexit than about following Mr Corbyn along the road to Venezuela. The question is will he take this on board?
Sir Keir Starmer has said that he will table an amendment to the Repeal Bill aimed at keeping Britain in the Single Market and Customs Union. But this was already tried by Chuka Umunna which resulted in a three line whip to abstain and the sacking of three people from the shadow cabinet. Although Corbyn will look a bit daft if he now backs soft Brexit after previously rejecting everything which could take us there, perhaps Sir Keir's intervention will be the last chance to do this. Will it work?
Oh FFs - what's with this road to Venezuela none sense - did you actually read the Labour manifesto ?
Secondly, do you not understand how politics works ? Both parties are split on Brexit - so if you've just had a much better than expected election result, do you force a vote five seconds later totally distracting the media from the government making a pigs ear of itself ? Not if you have any common sense.
Everybody knows what the hard brexiteers promised is not deliverable, you wait for the negotiations to show some of that before you try to shift public opinion and move to a vote.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Labour campaigned for a softer Brexit than the Tories, but the details were as vague as the Tory position on Brexit. At present we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to produce a defined policy on what they want from Brexit - Tories, Labour, even UKIP (though they couldn't agree on the colour of the sky on whatever planet they live on).
I suspect what Starmer is angling for is something similar to the Swiss / Turkish position and maybe a free movement compromise - by which I mean free movement in the transition deal, using all EU options such as you can't stay if you don't have a job etc. Then moving to a public debate as to whether to end that version of free movement and go full Turkey toward the end of the transition deal. (I.e. Public opinion may move if we continue to have a labour shortage in various sectors as we do now.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If we move to a "Turkey position" do we get to point out the irony that before all this Brexshit nonsense the UK government was alone in the EU in wanting to accelerate Turkish admission to the EU? Or, should we just keep talking about voting for Christmas?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
What's the name for a negotiation where everyone misunderstands the resolve of the other side and imagines that they'll back down eventually but then nobody actually does back down and so everyone gets a shitty deal?
Maybe it doesn't have a name yet but Brexit is going to be the watchword for it going forwards.
It seems to me that the problem here is largely one of perception of the other side;
The Tories think that the EU needs British trade and therefore is going to offer a good trade deal if they hang on and refuse to budge on the freedom of movement issue.
The EU negotiators think that the British will realise that no-deal would be catastrophic for the British economy so they can bombard the British government with paper and set terms of a negotiation.
The two facts that both sides seem to be avoiding are (a) the massive amount of British trade which depends on free access to the EU market and (b) that the UK is one of few contributors to the EU budget.
The reality appears to be that the UK could have tighter policies with regard to EU migrants, as shown by other EU countries. Having freedom of movement does not have to mean having EU workers in the UK for more than 3 months unless they have a job.
And the other reality appears to be that a deal with the UK where it continued to contribute to the EU budget (as per Norway) would be far better than no-deal which would leave a massive hole that may sink the whole EU (given the ongoing economic problems with Greece, political problems with Poland etc).
If both sides had negotiators who were prepared to negotiate rather than shouting constantly over their shoulders about how tough they are, then there is a chance that a deal could be struck which would be good for everyone. If it continues as it is, then we're heading for a recession both in the UK and in the EU in my opinion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The EU negotiators think that the British will realise that no-deal would be catastrophic for the British economy so they can bombard the British government with paper and set terms of a negotiation.
What's your evidence for this? How would you expect someone to behave during a 'normal' set of trade negotiations? How would you differentiate between the two cases?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
What's your evidence for this? How would you expect someone to behave during a 'normal' set of trade negotiations? How would you differentiate between the two cases?
Well the evidence is that the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government and that it (the EU) is seeking to set the parameters of the negotiation.
I am not a trade negotiator. I have no experience of the same.
It might well be that everyone holds all of their cards to their chest until giving concessions at the very last minute, I have no idea. But then I don't think many negotiations have a time limit set as per the Brexit discussions after which the thing reverts to WTO rules.
Maybe that's also normal, I have no idea.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
What's your evidence for this? How would you expect someone to behave during a 'normal' set of trade negotiations? How would you differentiate between the two cases?
Well the evidence is that the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government and that it (the EU) is seeking to set the parameters of the negotiation.
I'm pretty sure that any decent negotiator has done their research before reaching the table - worked out their position, tried their best to guess what the other side will want and produced the responses they would give etc. All of which will result in a significant amount of paperwork. Both sides would also attempt to set the parameters of negotiation, as far as possible in their favour. Thus, just in terms of common sense the rest of the EU producing lots of paper and seeking to set the parameters is what a decent negotiator would do. The UK having nothing prepared and just going with the flow isn't.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Thus, just in terms of common sense the rest of the EU producing lots of paper and seeking to set the parameters is what a decent negotiator would do. The UK having nothing prepared and just going with the flow isn't.
I don't know, it seems to me that both the EU and UK positions with regard to these negotiations is unusual, but I was mostly talking about the disparity between the attitude of the participants which is possibly related to their perceptions of the strength of their own positions and their view of the best outcome being that the other side backs down.
I absolutely believe that the EU trade negotiators are likely extremely well practiced and prepared for this - however it is still possible that they're underestimating the willingness of the British to shoot themselves in the foot and their own economic position. I still believe that the British leaving with no deal would be economically disasterous for the EU.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
What you are missing is that a decrease in contributions is not the only threat to the survival of the EU-27.
If the UK were allowed to leave on generous terms, it would send a message that anyone else could too. Over and above economics, that would be a betrayal of the very ideology of the EU, and I suspect that is seen as more important by the EU-27 than any economic threat.
I believe the UK has consistently and mistakenly viewed the EU as being more about economics than about ideology ever since it joined the "common market" in 1973, and that this misunderstanding has dogged relations ever since.
[ 07. August 2017, 12:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well the evidence is that the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government and that it (the EU) is seeking to set the parameters of the negotiation.
The reason the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government is that the EU has got its act together; whereas the UK government are outclassed by the troupe in Noises Off.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If the UK were allowed to leave on generous terms, it would send a message that anyone else could too.
I have problems with the language around 'generous terms' as it seems to imply that if the EU was operating out of goodwill those 'generous terms' would naturally apply.
The problem is more like the classic 'tragedy of the commons', a single market in goods and services relies on movement of capital and labor, a common regulatory framework, a common dispute regulation framework and so on. For the single market to function properly, all parties have to be signed up to these - or you create areas where business can arbitrage away things like standards, and long term damage the functioning of the market.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What you are missing is that a decrease in contributions is not the only threat to the survival of the EU-27.
If the UK were allowed to leave on generous terms, it would send a message that anyone else could too. Over and above economics, that would be a betrayal of the very ideology of the EU, and I suspect that is seen as more important by the EU-27 than any economic threat.
I'm not missing that, I'm sure it is something that is a major driver of their negotiating strategy. I'm just not sure that this fear should necessarily be the only consideration - because if they end up pushing the UK away without a deal then I think the numbers are not going to stack up with regard to survival of the EU for very long.
quote:
I believe the UK has consistently and mistakenly viewed the EU as being more about economics than about ideology ever since it joined the "common market" in 1973, and that this misunderstanding has dogged relations ever since.
I think that it is absolutely true that the UK sees the EU differently than other countries do. But that's part of the problem with this negotiation.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The reason the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government is that the EU has got its act together; whereas the UK government are outclassed by the troupe in Noises Off.
I think it is deeper than that; the British feel that as they're already working to the EU standards and regulations, then there shouldn't be very much to discuss - and that it is all about economic interests. So the perception is that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving.
On the other side, the EU negotiators obviously feel like they have to take charge of the negotiations and set lines as to what is and isn't discussed and when.
The not-particularly-bright British strategy in return is to turn up to negotiations empty handed.
It's a cycle of stupidity which unfortunately looks like it is going to end up with everyone losing.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
if they end up pushing the UK away without a deal then I think the numbers are not going to stack up with regard to survival of the EU for very long.
I'm not sure how a botched UK referendum, the two main British parties both holding to the line of 'leave' and talks held to ransom by brexiteers can be understood as the EU pushing the UK away! Did you as a country not vote to leave, or did I just dream that? Much as I wish I did dream it, how will this effect he survival of the EU? I know there is a feeling in the UK that somehow in some weird la-la land the UK was the biggest and greatest player in Europe and funded the whole project - albeit in a different currency with countless amendments and opt outs and baby tantrums in a corner all dressed up with media spin and outright lies - but surely you don't believe that anymore? I can understand you might have been forgiven that notion of self importance back when Nelson was commanding his minions, but today? Really?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm not sure how a botched UK referendum, the two main British parties both holding to the line of 'leave' and talks held to ransom by brexiteers can be understood as the EU pushing the UK away! Did you as a country not vote to leave, or did I just dream that?
Away from a close trading relationship.
quote:
Much as I wish I did dream it, how will this effect he survival of the EU? I know there is a feeling in the UK that somehow in some weird la-la land the UK was the biggest and greatest player in Europe and funded the whole project - albeit in a different currency with countless amendments and opt outs and baby tantrums in a corner all dressed up with media spin and outright lies - but surely you don't believe that anymore? I can understand you might have been forgiven that notion of self importance back when Nelson was commanding his minions, but today? Really?
Look at the net contributors to the EU budget. And look at the likely ongoing costs. Now ask yourself how the EU will pay for the ongoing costs without a major contributor.
The UK could walk away with no deal and presumably no contributions to the EU budget. This would be stupid from a British point of view, but also terrible from an EU point of view. How would the hole in the budget be filled?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is deeper than that; the British feel that as they're already working to the EU standards and regulations
Maybe some of the present front bench do, in which case they are sadly mistaken - part of any such regulation will be a mechanism to prevent regulatory divergence and the dispute resolution mechanism. The UK currently doesn't really have a approach to solving the first issue that would scale, and wants to opt out of main body that does the second.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I agree with Dafyd: as far as I can see the EU-27 are "setting the terms" solely because the UK hasn't got its act together. quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Away from a close trading relationship.
How do you see the EU-27 pushing the UK away from a close trading relationship? It seems to me that basically the UK could have one, except for the domestic consideration that it more or less requires the corollary of free movement of labour, which is politically unpalatable. The UK has swallowed Boris' "have your cake and eat it" line with a contented burp of entitlement.
[ 07. August 2017, 13:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Maybe some of the present front bench do, in which case they are sadly mistaken - part of any such regulation will be a mechanism to prevent regulatory divergence and the dispute resolution mechanism. The UK currently doesn't really have a approach to solving the first issue that would scale, and wants to opt out of main body that does the second.
Yes. There is something of unreal ideology on the Tory frontbench about this. I suspect this is blinding them to the reality of the shit they've got themselves into.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How do you see the EU-27 pushing the UK away from a close trading relationship? It seems to me that basically the UK could have one, except for the domestic consideration that it more or less requires the corollary of free movement of labour, which is politically unpalatable. The UK has swallowed Boris' "have your cake and eat it" line with a contented burp of entitlement.
Well I suppose what I mean is that if the negotiators were a bit more concerned about the hole in their budget, they might be less inclined to negotiate in such a testosterone filled way.
I don't know how we get out of this mess - you are absolutely right that if the EU gives too much to a leaving country then there might as well be no EU. On the other hand, if they continue giving every indication that there is nothing to discuss beyond the black/white options ("no deal" vs "massive bill and freedom of movement") then they might be left with nothing.
It seems to me like there ought to be some kind of mutual arrangement fairly quickly in areas where everyone benefits from the free market, such as agriculture. There is perhaps more to discuss about areas where the balance is tipped in favour of the UK and away from other states.
But ultimately it seems to me that the best outcome from the point of view of the EU is one where the UK continues contributing to the budget, takes little or nothing from it and where the flow of tourists and funds into the common market isn't reduced. If they can also do this in such a way as to cherry-pick some of the high-performing parts of the UK economy whilst also leaving the door open to allow freeish trade in some sectors which depend on UK consumers, then that's also good.
But a scenario where the door is closed and there is WTO barriers at the border and there is nothing coming from the UK into the EU coffers and there are much reduced tourist and capital flows has got to be a bad thing.
Again, I don't know how anyone is going to circle this square - but I'm pretty convinced that the current posturing by the EU negotiators isn't coming anywhere close.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
Look at the net contributors to the EU budget. And look at the likely ongoing costs. Now ask yourself how the EU will pay for the ongoing costs without a major contributor.
Well, for a start they won't have to put any money into the Uk anymore, whether that be through arts, infrastructure, farming or whatever else. They also won't have to spend a fortune on giggling the legislation to match UK tantrums when the same legislation seems to suit everyone else perfectly fine - or at least workable around without throwing some shit fit about an imagined 'sovereignty', whatever that is. But this is all part and parcel of the twisted view the UK has of itself within Europe, a 'they can't do without us' attitude. The whiff of testosterone that drifts across Europe from the UK currently is nauseating.
quote:
Away from a close trading relationship.
I agree that you are walking away from a close trading agreement. This was a large part of what the EU was and continues to be about. But you walked away from it. Nobody is playing hard ball with you and nobody is showing you the door or pushing you through it; you went through it of your own free choice and all of Europe begged you to stay. You left and imagined that everyone wanted you to stay because you were so big and powerful and special and important. In reality we all wanted you to stay because none of us wanted a basket case economically and socially on our doorstep, and closer to home from my perspective, nobody here wanted to see a hard border and a re-ignition of the Northern Ireland troubles.
quote:
Well I suppose what I mean is that if the negotiators were a bit more concerned about the hole in their budget, they might be less inclined to negotiate in such a testosterone filled way.
How exactly are the EU negotiators tester one fuelled? When faced with the hard facts about what brexit actually means the UK is having another hissy fit - in exactly the same way it always had. It's sense of self importance is so blinding that it thinks it can have everything it wants with no perceived consequence or concern for anyone else but itself. I know that this has been the modus operandi from the empire years, but it's gone - get over it.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well, for a start they won't have to put any money into the Uk anymore, whether that be through arts, infrastructure, farming or whatever else. They also won't have to spend a fortune on giggling the legislation to match UK tantrums when the same legislation seems to suit everyone else perfectly fine - or at least workable around without throwing some shit fit about an imagined 'sovereignty', whatever that is. But this is all part and parcel of the twisted view the UK has of itself within Europe, a 'they can't do without us' attitude. The whiff of testosterone that drifts across Europe from the UK currently is nauseating.
The UK is a net contributor. That means that even taking those deductions into account, it is still overall paying into the pot.
I'm sorry but this is just a fact. When the UK leaves, the EU loses a net contributor unless some kind of deal is struck whereby the UK somehow continues to contribute.
quote:
I agree that you are walking away from a close trading agreement. This was a large part of what the EU was and continues to be about. But you walked away from it. Nobody is playing hard ball with you and nobody is showing you the door or pushing you through it; you went through it of your own free choice and all of Europe begged you to stay. You left and imagined that everyone wanted you to stay because you were so big and powerful and special and important. In reality we all wanted you to stay because none of us wanted a basket case economically and socially on our doorstep, and closer to home from my perspective, nobody here wanted to see a hard border and a re-ignition of the Northern Ireland troubles.
OK first of all, before you start accusing me of things, kindly remember that it wasn't me, I voted Remain and continue to believe that Brexit is bloody stupid.
Second of all, as I've already explained, the UK is a net contributor to the EU coffers, so if the EU negotiators allow the UK to leave without having something in place to cover the losses of funds, then it is going to be tough to see how the EU can pay the bills.
Once again, this is a fact. Whether or not one is in favour of Brexit, the reality is that if the EU doesn't do something to continue the filling EU funds with payments from the UK, then it has a big hole to fill.
Instead of ranting as if by raising this issue I'm somehow a cheerleader for something I didn't vote for and don't support, how about addressing the points I've actually made?
quote:
How exactly are the EU negotiators tester one fuelled? When faced with the hard facts about what brexit actually means the UK is having another hissy fit - in exactly the same way it always had. It's sense of self importance is so blinding that it thinks it can have everything it wants with no perceived consequence or concern for anyone else but itself. I know that this has been the modus operandi from the empire years, but it's gone - get over it.
Well you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.
It seems to me that the EU position will ultimately hurt the EU if they don't find a way to get the UK to continue paying in cash to the EU pot. If they allow the UK to walk away with no-deal, that will potentially be very bad for the union.
To me the reason that nobody is talking about this reality is because there is too much testosterone in the negotiation from both sides.
I don't like this and I don't expect you to.
But kindly keep your criticisms, which can fairly be fired at those in the Tory party who are actively creating this mess, firmly pointed away from me.
[ 07. August 2017, 16:23: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You made the allegation that the EU-27 negotiators were "testosterone-fuelled" without adducing any evidence whatsoever.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You made the allegation that the EU-27 negotiators were "testosterone-fuelled" without adducing any evidence whatsoever.
No, I said they appeared to me to be negotiating in a testosterone-filled way. I don't need evidence when I'm expressing what I feel is happening and using an descriptive term which I think is appropriate.
Nobody who uses the term "hamfisted" is asked to give evidence that the hands are covered in pigfat or "cackhanded" that they're covered in shit.
I have explained several times what I think the problem is - namely that the negotiators appear to be be prepared to allow the UK to walk away without a deal and that this appears to me to be something that would cause lasting damage to the EU.
And I have explained why I think this is happening, namely that nobody wants to back down, which I believe is neatly encompassed by the term "testosterone filled".
If you don't like the argument, then refute it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have explained several times what I think the problem is - namely that the negotiators appear to be be prepared to allow the UK to walk away without a deal and that this appears to me to be something that would cause lasting damage to the EU.
Who was it again who said "no deal is better than a bad deal"? I just can't quite remember...
And who was it who recently said the following? quote:
We want to be ready for all eventualities, including ‘no deal’, a possibility that has been mentioned again recently by several British ministers... In practice, ‘no deal’ would worsen the ‘lose-lose’ situation which is bound to result from Brexit. And the UK would have more to lose than its partners ... There is no reasonable justification for the ‘no deal’ scenario. There is no sense in making the consequences of Brexit even worse ... a fair deal is better than no deal
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
I'm sorry but this is just a fact. When the UK leaves, the EU loses a net contributor unless some kind of deal is struck whereby the UK somehow continues to contribute.
And you mention repeatedly that there will be this enormous hole in the EU budget. What is that figure? Can you give a source (other than the Daily Mail hopefully)?
quote:
OK first of all, before you start accusing me of things, kindly remember that it wasn't me, I voted Remain and continue to believe that Brexit is bloody stupid.
Yes, but it is kind of the convention of debate; otherwise things might get complicated and confused rather fast. If you're arguing something, making a case, then it seems reasonable to me to address the response to you. I understand you may have voted differently, but my responses were in the case of the UK as a whole. I'm sorry you were unable to see that and took it personally.
quote:
the UK is a net contributor to the EU coffers, so if the EU negotiators allow the UK to leave without having something in place to cover the losses of funds, then it is going to be tough to see how the EU can pay the bills
If they 'allow' the UK to leave? Surely this is a slip of the tongue..or rather, the pen...or the keyboard? The UK have decided to leave. I don't think the UK leaving will leave the EU in such a decrepit and bankrupt state that they will be unable to pay the bills. The UK on the other hand.....
quote:
how about addressing the points I've actually made?
Haven't I done that? There are a few trifling points regarding figures and facts - hard to respond without that really.
quote:
Well you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you said testosterone 'filled' not testosterone 'fuelled'.
quote:
If they allow the UK to walk away with no-deal, that will potentially be very bad for the union.
There's that weird term again; 'allow'. Did they 'allow' the UK to have a referendum?
quote:
the negotiators appear to be be prepared to allow the UK to walk away without a deal
Look, I have no idea how this whole thing is being reported on in your part of the world, but 'allowing' the UK to walk away? Nobody needs to 'allow' you to walk off into the abyss of eternal happiness in your (royal use of 'your') new 'make Britain great again' fantasy, but where I am we were told the UK voted for this shambles and even send its own negotiators who sit and twiddle their thumbs at meetings.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Who was it again who said "no deal is better than a bad deal"? I just can't quite remember...
And who was it who recently said the following?
The thing you don't seem to be appreciating is that I have no love for the British negotiating position. And you simply seem to be failing to appreciate my point regarding the damage that a no-deal would do to the EU.
I'd totally agree that the UK negotiating position is pathetic compared to the EU. But that doesn't make the EU position good and doesn't mean that if they are not prepared to give some kind of ground that there will somehow be no damage to the EU.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
And you mention repeatedly that there will be this enormous hole in the EU budget. What is that figure? Can you give a source (other than the Daily Mail hopefully)?
There are EU and UK Parliament estimates. Use google and find them.
quote:
Yes, but it is kind of the convention of debate; otherwise things might get complicated and confused rather fast. If you're arguing something, making a case, then it seems reasonable to me to address the response to you. I understand you may have voted differently, but my responses were in the case of the UK as a whole. I'm sorry you were unable to see that and took it personally.
Oh I'm so sorry you took offense at me accusing you of believing something you don't.
No. That's not good enough.
quote:
quote:
the UK is a net contributor to the EU coffers, so if the EU negotiators allow the UK to leave without having something in place to cover the losses of funds, then it is going to be tough to see how the EU can pay the bills
If they 'allow' the UK to leave? Surely this is a slip of the tongue..or rather, the pen...or the keyboard? The UK have decided to leave. I don't think the UK leaving will leave the EU in such a decrepit and bankrupt state that they will be unable to pay the bills. The UK on the other hand.....
Again, you misunderstand the importance to the EU of losing a net contributor.
quote:
Haven't I done that? There are a few trifling points regarding figures and facts - hard to respond without that really.
Nope. You've added a load of bluster and accused me of holding to the British government position. That's pathetic.
quote:
quote:
Well you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you said testosterone 'filled' not testosterone 'fuelled'.
I have never ever said anything in favour of the British flag waving Imperialism. You can immediately take back any comment that associates me with it.
Until you do so, I have nothing else to say to you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
There are EU and UK Parliament estimates. Use google and find them.
Well yes, I could do that, but you brought that up (repeatedly) in your argument, so I assumed you were arguing from a position of knowledge about it. Clearly not.
quote:
No. That's not good enough.
Awww, diddums. There, there now. Let me explain how this works. I posted this initially:
"Did you as a country...."
I thought that made it clear what I meant when using 'you' for the sake of argument, but I guess there's no assuming reading comprehension ability.
quote:
Again, you misunderstand the importance to the EU of losing a net contributor.
That would be the question of figures again? The question you refuse to answer? And anyway, who cares right, seeing it has nothing at all to do with your personal claim that the EU 'allows/allowed' the UK to leave.
Just for clarity sake, I'm not using the royal 'your' there.
quote:
Nope. You've added a load of bluster and accused me of holding to the British government position. That's pathetic.
Well, at least we're agreed on one thing; the British governments position is most certainly that.
quote:
I have never ever said anything in favour of the British flag waving Imperialism. You can immediately take back any comment that associates me with it.
Until you do so, I have nothing else to say to you.
You know, I can imagine that this is almost exactly what is going on around a table in Brussels right now.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing you don't seem to be appreciating is that I have no love for the British negotiating position.
You said: quote:
I have explained several times what I think the problem is - namely that the negotiators appear to be be prepared to allow the UK to walk away without a deal
The clear implication of your words is that it is the EU-27 that would somehow be responsible for any lack of a deal.
To this I quoted the UK Prime Minister's oft-repeated preference for no deal, and contrasted it with the EU-27's lead negotiator's recent expressed preference for a fair deal in clear preference to no deal.
On the face of it it's hard to see at this point how the EU-27 could be more responsible for the prospect of no deal than the UK.
quote:
you simply seem to be failing to appreciate my point regarding the damage that a no-deal would do to the EU
You simply seem to be failing to read what I quoted Michel Barnier as saying in this respect.
All the evidence I've seen so far suggests it is the UK that is not playing ball, and I think the reasons it is not doing so are a) due to divisions within the Cabinet b) the gap between the realistic options facing the UK and the spin, which is simply unbridgeable. On this side of the Channel we have far fewer illusions in this respect, I believe.
In this respect, the UK government are acting to save their political skins in the short term (admitting the truth being political suicide) and hoping that something might turn up to save them in the longer term. I cannot think of a better recipe for a cliff-edge Brexit and again the responsibility lies clearly in Westminster.
quote:
that doesn't make the EU position good and doesn't mean that if they are not prepared to give some kind of ground that there will somehow be no damage to the EU.
What kind of "ground" do you expect them to "give"?
As I see it the UK broadly has the choice between the six menu options I outlined earlier, and is currently fixated on "none of the above" by default. It's hard to see how there can be much negotiating - apart from over the size of the divorce bill, which I believe is going on - until the UK decides on one of those options.
[ 07. August 2017, 18:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The clear implication of your words is that it is the EU-27 that would somehow be responsible for any lack of a deal.
Everyone is responsible if a situation is caused by negotiators where everyone loses out.
Making this solely about the British government intransigence is getting pretty tiring.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Of course, all parties would bear some responsibility for any failure to make a deal.
But when the avowed starting point of the UK PM is that "no deal" is preferable to anything she decides is a "bad deal", while the declared position of the EU's chief negotiator is that "no deal" is the worst of all possible options for both sides, and the UK appears essentially to be sitting on its hands at present while the clock the UK set in motion ticks, it's hard to apportion blame for any lack of a deal 50-50.
I ask you again: precisely what "ground" would you like the EU-27 to "give"?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
The UK currently has precisely what as bargaining chips, aside from the remnants of that mouldy mostly finished portion of fish and chips currently being swept out of the last carriage of the Brussels Eurostar?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
While waiting for an answer from mr cheesy, I went looking for statistics on net contributions to the EU budget. They proved harder than expected to find.
The EU-27 contributions from 2007-2013 on this page are confusing: net contributions from a country to the EU appear to be shown as negative numbers. If I've got that right, it seems to me that for that period the UK was not the largest net contributor in either proportional or absolute terms.
Again, going off the data on that page, it would appear that the EU's net revenue is set to shrink by some 7% when the UK leaves, ignoring other effects and any option whereby it continues paying into the system ("Norway").
Can anyone demolish my findings or point to alternative statistics?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
