Another new Brexit thread

[Chippy_boy]

Basically Brexit has not moved on from 2016. We are still facing the same core issue of do we want to trade openly and freely with the EU (and accept the level playing field with EU rules and everything that has always and will always be a condition of that kind of continued access) or do we shoot ourselves in the foot by putting up trade barriers purely to say that we are fully independant of the EU. The EU are asking the question and Boris is trying to ignore the fact the question is exists.

I posted something back in summer 2017 when Teresa May was talking up both sides of the argument and running out of time. That resulted in the infamous chequers meeting where her shit deal failed to impress most of the people in the room, they still wanted unicors and unicors were not offered. BJ is heading for his own crunch in the next couple of months and this will be worse. He has surrounded himself with nutters that are in complete denial about the implications of a hard brexit and the strength of our negotiating position. This will go to shit very quickly.

I don't agree with your assessment that things have not moved on since 2016. There has been a fundamental and profound change.

Prior to last summer, we had two sides across the negotiating table, with one side - us - completely over a barrel, and the other side, fully cognisant of our desperation to not leave with "no deal", dictating whatever terms it wished. Safe in the knowledge that our only option was to suck it up.

This is no longer the case. The EU no longer have that luxurious negotiating position. The can be very confident that if they wish to serve up a load of shite, we will tell them to stuff it. Something they absolutely do not want. We need not debate whether we want it less, or not. What matters is that the EU do not want no deal. Finally, we have something to negotiate with.

As a result I am very confident some kind of deal will be done. It may only be a partial deal and further transition. But neither party wants no deal, so I would be staggered if no deal was the result come December. And I also expect the deal to be significantly better than what the EU is saying is possible today.

 

[BobKowalski]

Do you always take on face value what the person across the negotiating table says to you? If so I can only imagine how many times in your life you must have been right royally ripped off.

"Price for this house is £250,000". Bob = "Oh right then, here's the £250,000"

"The chicken dish comes with chips not mash sir". Bob = "OK can I pay extra for mash then".

etc etc etc.

The object of the post was to report what both VDL and Barnier said in their speeches this morning. At no point did I make any comment as to what I thought about what they said other than to summarise the EU/VDL view on a level playing field.

If you wish to make a comment on what was said by VDL and Barnier then by all means do so.

 

[Len Rum]

EU Commision President has been talking today.

‘Von der Leyen: EU offering the UK "a new model of trade, a unique ambition in terms of access to the single market, but of course this wd require corresponding guarantees and fair competition and the protection of social environmental and consumer standards. In short the level playing field”. VDL surprised to hear PM talk about the Australian model. "Australia is a strong and like minded partner, but the European Union does not have a trade agreement with Australia. We are currently trading on WTO terms. If this is the British choice we are fine with that"

Basically if we want an FTA the level playing field etc are a precondition to negotiating an FTA not a condition within the FTA.

Also Barnier has responded to Javid requesting permanent equivalence for financial services. “There will not be general, open-ended, ongoing equivalence in financial services” Barnier just told the European Parliament. British politicians should not “kid themselves” that there could be, he added.

Well that’s Brexit concluded for today. Back to you in the studio Clive.

Thanks Derek.
Meanwhile in other Brexit news Mick Gove completely reversed his assurances of the past four years that the UK would have frictionless trade with the EU.
In a speech to various business groups Mr Gove said.............

 

[Chippy_boy]

This is a binary issue we either have a comprehensive trade deal or we don't. The EU are pointing out that we keep talking up two sides of this conundrum. The Australia model is basically no deal with a bit of a glitter roll. The EU say if you want that fine. I can 100% guarantee that outcome is not fine, i'd go as far as to say if he tries in line with his own self imposed timeline then it could bring down the government. There is no negotiation going on here - there is the EU who are explaining what this will look like in simple terms and there is the torries sending out very mixed and confused messaging.

This has all the signs of an incoming disaster.

Our replies are crossing I think.

It is not binary at all. We could agree a partial deal in December and further transition. And the EU are not spelling out what is possible. They are spelling out what they want. Nothing more. ANYTHING is possible. Tomorrow, they could agree to giving us all the same rights and privileges we have today, in perpetuity, outside of the EU. They do not want to do this, so are positioning with a load of made up red lines and we will see how much they flex. If they do not flex at all, then we will leave without a deal, and the world will keep spinning.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The object of the post was to report what both VDL and Barnier said in their speeches this morning. At no point did I make any comment as to what I thought about what they said other than to summarise the EU/VDL view on a level playing field.

If you wish to make a comment on what was said by VDL and Barnier then by all means do so.

I have already. Their comments are borderline meaningless.

And BTW, I don't buy your "unbiased reporter" line. You've banged on for 3.5 years about what the EU will and won't accept and reported with glee anything which would appear to back up your argument.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I don't agree with your assessment that things have not moved on since 2016. There has been a fundamental and profound change.

Prior to last summer, we had two sides across the negotiating table, with one side - us - completely over a barrel, and the other side, fully cognisant of our desperation to not leave with "no deal", dictating whatever terms it wished. Safe in the knowledge that our only option was to suck it up.

This is no longer the case. The EU no longer have that luxurious negotiating position. The can be very confident that if they wish to serve up a load of shite, we will tell them to stuff it. Something they absolutely do not want. We need not debate whether we want it less, or not. What matters is that the EU do not want no deal. Finally, we have something to negotiate with.

As a result I am very confident some kind of deal will be done. It may only be a partial deal and further transition. But neither party wants no deal, so I would be staggered if no deal was the result come December.

Delusional - our negotiating position is no different. No deal was a lose lose outcome then and it remains one now. The EU stands to lose far far less, they will be happy to do a deal but will not compromise on the rules of the SM - they will not offer easy access to a country that flatly refuses to accept the rules. It is our government that are laying down the red lines and again backing themselves into a corner. At the core of this is a choice do you accept the rules that apply to the SM / CU and align to them or do you diverge from them on principle and accept the economic damage that will be the result of any limited deal. There is very little middle ground, you either do a deal or you don't and the tories are talking up the kind of red lines that lead to no deal. If that is there choice they will have to own it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Delusional - our negotiating position is no different. No deal was a lose lose outcome then and it remains one now. The EU stands to lose far far less, they will be happy to do a deal but will not compromise on the rules of the SM - they will not offer easy access to a country that flatly refuses to accept the rules. It is our government that are laying down the red lines and again backing themselves into a corner. At the core of this is a choice do you accept the rules that apply to the SM / CU and align to them or do you diverge from them on principle and accept the economic damage that will be the result of any limited deal. There is very little middle ground, you either do a deal or you don't and the tories are talking up the kind of red lines that lead to no deal. If that is there choice they will have to own it.

Again, you are inferring "rules" which do not exist.

It would be silly to imagine that the EU will bend over and give us all of the benefits of EU membership with none of the obligations. But it is equally silly - and self-defeating - to imagine that what they are saying verbatim today is all that is possible. It matters not whether "no deal" is a lose-lose. The fact remains that for the EU it is a lose and that is something they do not want. If they can tempt us into a deal by offering some additional compromises then that is good for them, and that is what they will do.

It may be a bit like Boris acting like a madman with a gun, threatening to shoot himself. But he still has a gun and in that situation, I'd be taking any threats very seriously.

EDIT: And anyway, this is a pointless debate. Unlike 2 weeks ago, we are now in a situation where we can sit back and watch it unfold, not debate about whether it will/will not happen, what the pros/cons are and whether we should/should not. It's happening. Let's sit back and watch.

 

[hilts]

Culturally haha





Oh culturally, well thats great, I feel so much better

Then my work is done Victor

 

[BlueAnorak]

I don't agree with your assessment that things have not moved on since 2016. There has been a fundamental and profound change.

Prior to last summer, we had two sides across the negotiating table, with one side - us - completely over a barrel, and the other side, fully cognisant of our desperation to not leave with "no deal", dictating whatever terms it wished. Safe in the knowledge that our only option was to suck it up.

This is no longer the case. The EU no longer have that luxurious negotiating position. The can be very confident that if they wish to serve up a load of shite, we will tell them to stuff it. Something they absolutely do not want. We need not debate whether we want it less, or not. What matters is that the EU do not want no deal. Finally, we have something to negotiate with.

As a result I am very confident some kind of deal will be done. It may only be a partial deal and further transition. But neither party wants no deal, so I would be staggered if no deal was the result come December. And I also expect the deal to be significantly better than what the EU is saying is possible today.

And if a deal isn't done WTO will be fine.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Harsh unless you don't class things like music films tv fashion sports etc as culture. Not everyone is called Billy bob and Mary Lou:-)

One Mary Lou....
There's only one Mary Lou....
One Mary Lou-ou...
There's only one.... Ooops sorry! Wrong Thread.






;-)

 

[Len Rum]

I don't agree with your assessment that things have not moved on since 2016. There has been a fundamental and profound change.

Prior to last summer, we had two sides across the negotiating table, with one side - us - completely over a barrel, and the other side, fully cognisant of our desperation to not leave with "no deal", dictating whatever terms it wished. Safe in the knowledge that our only option was to suck it up.

This is no longer the case. The EU no longer have that luxurious negotiating position. The can be very confident that if they wish to serve up a load of shite, we will tell them to stuff it. Something they absolutely do not want. We need not debate whether we want it less, or not. What matters is that the EU do not want no deal. Finally, we have something to negotiate with.

As a result I am very confident some kind of deal will be done. It may only be a partial deal and further transition. But neither party wants no deal, so I would be staggered if no deal was the result come December. And I also expect the deal to be significantly better than what the EU is saying is possible today.

'ckin hell you've gone all @mcfc1632 now.
PS As a Tory you should be aware that 'no deal' is not a permitted phrase.
'Failure to negotiate an agreement' is acceptable as is 'Australian type deal' even though the EU does not have a deal with Australia, but it is a nice warm sunny place ( bush fires notwithstanding ).

 

[west didsblue]

Again, you are inferring "rules" which do not exist.

It would be silly to imagine that the EU will bend over and give us all of the benefits of EU membership with none of the obligations. But it is equally silly - and self-defeating - to imagine that what they are saying verbatim today is all that is possible. It matters not whether "no deal" is a lose-lose. The fact remains that for the EU it is a lose and that is something they do not want. If they can tempt us into a deal by offering some additional compromises then that is good for them, and that is what they will do.

It may be a bit like Boris acting like a madman with a gun, threatening to shoot himself. But he still has a gun and in that situation, I'd be taking any threats very seriously.

EDIT: And anyway, this is a pointless debate. Unlike 2 weeks ago, we are now in a situation where we can sit back and watch it unfold, not debate about whether it will/will not happen, what the pros/cons are and whether we should/should not. It's happening. Let's sit back and watch.

The main problem with our negotiating position is that we have a habit of blatantly contradicting ourselves on an almost weekly basis, and our hardline approach to the EU is not backed up by appropriate spending on the infrastructure needed to make that hardline position a reality in the event it is needed. The EU know we're bluffing. We know that the EU know that we're bluffing and it will be all about the messaging to the Tory base when our untenable negotiating position totally collapses.
As long as the Mail and the Sun declare a total victory for Boris's superior negotiating skills then it's job done irrespective of the deal, just like selling out NI in the WA was painted as some kind of victory that only Boris could have secured.

 

[blueparrot]

And if a deal isn't done WTO will be fine.

If WTO is fine why try and bother doing a deals , just go to WTO . It's because WTO is far from fine which is why everyone else in the world has done deals that get them off WTO.

 

[BobKowalski]

I have already. Their comments are borderline meaningless.

And BTW, I don't buy your "unbiased reporter" line. You've banged on for 3.5 years about what the EU will and won't accept and reported with glee anything which would appear to back up your argument.

No they are not ‘meaningless’. The EU will not grant permanent equivalence on financial services to an non EU, non EEA country outside of the Single Market. Equally I am certain the UK will not offer a permanent deal on fishing based on the current arrangements. Both sides will look to keep a right to review or unilaterally withdraw in these areas.

The EU will only do an FTA if we agree to a level playing field. If we don’t then it is at best a quick and shallow deal on tariffs which is barely a rung or two above no deal and WTO. Point to note. The greater the friction and trade barriers between UK and EU the greater the friction and trade barriers between GB and NI.

Your assessment that our hand is stronger now that we have conceded on the three points the EU most cared about (plus GI’s) in the WA is a novel take and one I look forward to seeing in action over the next eleven months. Please also highlight the preparations, be it construction of new infrastructure, expansion of existing infrastructure, recruitment, training and IT development that we are currently rushing forward with, thereby ensuring we can make good on our threat to ‘walk away’. I have left out preparations for setting up new regulatory bodies from chemicals to medicines as I didn’t wish to appear ‘too negative’.

 

[Len Rum]

And if a deal isn't done WTO will be fine.

Care to expand?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Again, you are inferring "rules" which do not exist.

It would be silly to imagine that the EU will bend over and give us all of the benefits of EU membership with none of the obligations. But it is equally silly - and self-defeating - to imagine that what they are saying verbatim today is all that is possible. It matters not whether "no deal" is a lose-lose. The fact remains that for the EU it is a lose and that is something they do not want. If they can tempt us into a deal by offering some additional compromises then that is good for them, and that is what they will do.

It may be a bit like Boris acting like a madman with a gun, threatening to shoot himself. But he still has a gun and in that situation, I'd be taking any threats very seriously.

EDIT: And anyway, this is a pointless debate. Unlike 2 weeks ago, we are now in a situation where we can sit back and watch it unfold, not debate about whether it will/will not happen, what the pros/cons are and whether we should/should not. It's happening. Let's sit back and watch.

Why would anyone care if he shoots himself?

 

[Mike D]

EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said she was “a little bit surprised” to hear Boris Johnson propose an “Australian-style” Brexit – suggesting it would amount to a no-deal scenario at the end of 2020.

So quite clear old Boris isn't just keen on the immigration points system too. No deal here we come folks!!

 

[BobKowalski]

And if a deal isn't done WTO will be fine.

This is also the view of VDL and the EU commission. The no deal threat was a concern for the EU and member states when it came to the Withdrawal Agreement. Now that the WA has gone through with the EU’s main concerns boxed off, ‘no deal’ is less of an issue because you can actually build up from a no deal situation on trade and put a deal in place over time.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

It's happening. Let's sit back and watch.

I agree with this bit.

The EU SM/CU is a binary concept. We might be able to tinker around the edges and put some spin on the outcome but at the core we will be either in or out. The leave politicians have never really accepted this, they talk up a deal as if there is the option of everything we have now with none of the costs and obligations - never going to happen, access comes hand in hand with the rule book. Denial of this fact is a brick wall they are hurtling at. I see this heading in exactly the same direction as T May and the Chequers meeting. It will come to a head and people will lose their shit when the details come out.

We have no choice but to sit back and watch.

 

[Len Rum]

Do you always take on face value what the person across the negotiating table says to you? If so I can only imagine how many times in your life you must have been right royally ripped off.
"Price for this house is £250,000". Bob = "Oh right then, here's the £250,000"
"The chicken dish comes with chips not mash sir". Bob = "OK can I pay extra for mash then".
etc etc etc.

Invalid and poor example.
But even taking it at face value, 'Bob' is in a much weaker negotiating position if he had already signed a non legally binding agreement in principle to pay the 250k for the house.