Another new Brexit thread

[blueinsa]

Remember that Aaron Banks chappie, loudly lambasted for electoral fraud?
Been found not guilty.

Twitter and #FBPE had him banged to rights.

Can't be true as they are never wrong!

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Because that is the UK re-writing the rules of the EU to suit itself and the EU doesn't want a UK dominated EU. The heads of the EU wants the nations of Europe to follow the same rules, economically and politically.

It's been the EU's main criticism of us for the past 30 years. We tried asking them for reforms, remember, and what were we told? "Don't like it, then veto". Here's a better idea; how about the EU disbands and the nations of Europe group together to become nothing more than a tarriff free trading bloc. Wait, we tried that didn't we, and look how it panned out.

Lets just stay in the customs union then. As for, the ‘they never do what we want‘ argument, they implemented Mrs Thatchers plan for the single market and an expanded EU, so I’m not sure that argument holds up.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Twitter and #FBPE had him banged to rights.

Can't be true as they are never wrong!

The rabid accusations were a veritable blizzard on here, as yet another means of trying to
overturn a decision they didn't like crumbles to dust. Still, there's still the blind belief that the reasons
17.5 million voted to leave was because the Russkies told them to, so hope springs eternal and all that.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Remember that Aaron Banks chappie, loudly lambasted for electoral fraud?
Been found not guilty.

Is that the hypocrite who tried to use EU law to defeat HMRC, over an inheritance tax bill?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Is that the hypocrite who tried to use EU law to defeat HMRC, over an inheritance tax bill?

Dunno, but he's not committed any electoral fraud.

 

[Metal Biker]

Lets just stay in the customs union then. As for, the ‘they never do what we want‘ argument, they implemented Mrs Thatchers plan for the single market and an expanded EU, so I’m not sure that argument holds up.

No, let's not "just stay in the CUstoms Union then". The Customs Union is trading with Europe on EU terms. It's the "protectionist bloc" we were, and have been, criticising. We've not been able to have our own independent trade policies with non-EU nations. So scrap the Customs "Union", introduce a free-tarriff European "Agreement" that does not restrict trading with non-EU nations. No more EU rules, we're done in that regard.

We also told the EU that joining economies and having a single currency would be a terrible idea. One financial crash later...

 

[Metal Biker]

Is that the hypocrite who tried to use EU law to defeat HMRC, over an inheritance tax bill?

"EU law"? I think you mean ECHR law, which has nothing to do with the European Union. The EU adopts it, as do 48 other European countries, the UK included.

Prime example of how many people think anything "European" automatically means "EU". EU does not equal Europe.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

No, let's not "just stay in the CUstoms Union then". The Customs Union is trading with Europe on EU terms. It's the "protectionist bloc" we were, and have been, criticising. We've not been able to have our own independent trade policies with non-EU nations. So scrap the Customs "Union", introduce a free-tarriff European "Agreement" that does not restrict trading with non-EU nations. No more EU rules, we're done in that regard.

We also told the EU that joining economies and having a single currency would be a terrible idea. One financial crash later...

The world will be putting up barriers following this virus, not taking them down, and long distance trade will become more and more difficult so who is it you want to trade with, that we currently don’t? Once this virus is over, if it ever is, the economy will be the driver of absolutely everything going forward and anything that reduces our GDP any further than necessary must be madness, surely?

 

[Metal Biker]

The world will be putting up barriers following this virus, not taking them down, and long distance trade will become more and more difficult so who is it you want to trade with, that we currently don’t? Once this virus is over, if it ever is, the economy will be the driver of absolutely everything going forward and anything that reduces our GDP any further than necessary must be madness, surely?

So your plan is to rejoin a failing bloc which has currently closed all it's borders, focusing entirely on it's own self interests, that we'd be expected to bail out whilst abandoning our interests with the rest of the world because... profit?

Yes the world is going to change how it does things and certain economic philosophies are going to be found and made redundant including the concept of the EU. Europe will simply become a free trade haven; the red tape, bureaucracy and parliament will need to be abolished in order for "Europe" to survive along with the rest of the world. Trading with non-European nations is now more necessary than ever.

 

[Vic]

If my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle.

Agreed, but what's that got to do with the price of fish?

 

[Vic]

"EU law"? I think you mean ECHR law, which has nothing to do with the European Union. The EU adopts it, as do 48 other European countries, the UK included.

Prime example of how many people think anything "European" automatically means "EU". EU does not equal Europe.

He tried both. He argued that the imposition of a tax charge on the donations involved a breach of the UK’s obligations regarding the Treaty on European Union.

 

[mcfc1632]

I'd imagine as we import most of the fish we eat, and the EU import most of ours there is an economic incentive to reach some sort of adult compromise? Basically annual agreements over access to our own waters and quotas on EU vessels catches set by us. This is what Norway do.

I have been keen to look for signs that there is indeed a real shift in the UK's stance to these negotiations - of course this has not been easy due to the pace of them being impacted by the pandemic - but I believe that the resultant timetable pressure could be a positive for the UK - and I believe that there are signs that we are gaining progress in the upward challenge.

Key is for Barnier and, more importantly, the leaders of the main EU nations, to realise that the UK would walkaway rather than submit. When facing Robbins and May's perpetual acquiescence it was easy for the EU to maintain unanimity across the EU27 - I think that if we hold our positions as June approaches then Barnier will start to get some 'pointers' from key countries and the EU's positions on these key areas will be softened towards accommodation of the UK's - if they don't - then on balance we are better to walkaway anyway.

There are current signs that the UK are indeed resolute in maintaining our positions that an FTA must reflect such deals that the EU has with other nations - and not contain 'special' clauses to provide the EU control over UK policy - this is as it should be and very encouraging - as the bleating from Barnier, others in the EU and Remainers reflects.

On fishing, I found this stance encouraging......

"A UK source on Thursday said no legal text had yet been put forward by Britain because the two sides were currently “talking past each other on the issue”.

And they warned: “We have certain fundamentals on this. At the end of the year we become a country with control over our coastal waters, we become an independent coastal state, we will base our tests on science and it will be up to us to determine access by annual negotiations. That is just fundamental.”

They added: “If the EU wants to talk us about how that will work on that basis then fine.”

But they warned: "There are some fundamentals that we’re not going to change and not going to move on... They’re not just negotiating positions, because they’re what an independent state does. An independent state has control over its coastal waters. “

Mr Barnier last week said "no progress" had been made on the issue of fisheries, and attacked Britain for having "not put forward a legal text”.

He added: “The EU will not agree any future economic partnership that does not include a balanced, sustainable and long-term solution on fisheries — that should be crystal clear.”

But a British source hit back, and made clear the UK would be weighing up “whether this is a productive process or not” as a crucial high-level meeting to decide on whether or not talks will continue looms.

They said: “What we would ideally want to have seen, what we’re wanting now, is an EU understanding that we’re not going to subordinate our laws to them in any areas. We’re not going to accept the European Court’s involvement in settling disputes between us...

“If we can see that they understand our points on that then I think we’re going to be able to reach agreement. At the moment I’m not sure they quite have but it maybe takes a bit of time for some of this to sink in.”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...-collapse-over-fisheries-unless-eu-backs-down

This is the style of approach and language that we should have been expressing/hearing 3 years ago - what a disaster the May-led government was for the UK

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I have been keen to look for signs that there is indeed a real shift in the UK's stance to these negotiations - of course this has not been easy due to the pace of them being impacted by the pandemic - but I believe that the resultant timetable pressure could be a positive for the UK - and I believe that there are signs that we are gaining progress in the upward challenge.

Key is for Barnier and, more importantly, the leaders of the main EU nations, to realise that the UK would walkaway rather than submit. When facing Robbins and May's perpetual acquiescence it was easy for the EU to maintain unanimity across the EU27 - I think that if we hold our positions as June approaches then Barnier will start to get some 'pointers' from key countries and the EU's positions on these key areas will be softened towards accommodation of the UK's - if they don't - then on balance we are better to walkaway anyway.

There are current signs that the UK are indeed resolute in maintaining our positions that an FTA must reflect such deals that the EU has with other nations - and not contain 'special' clauses to provide the EU control over UK policy - this is as it should be and very encouraging - as the bleating from Barnier, others in the EU and Remainers reflects.

On fishing, I found this stance encouraging......

"A UK source on Thursday said no legal text had yet been put forward by Britain because the two sides were currently “talking past each other on the issue”.

And they warned: “We have certain fundamentals on this. At the end of the year we become a country with control over our coastal waters, we become an independent coastal state, we will base our tests on science and it will be up to us to determine access by annual negotiations. That is just fundamental.”

They added: “If the EU wants to talk us about how that will work on that basis then fine.”

But they warned: "There are some fundamentals that we’re not going to change and not going to move on... They’re not just negotiating positions, because they’re what an independent state does. An independent state has control over its coastal waters. “

Mr Barnier last week said "no progress" had been made on the issue of fisheries, and attacked Britain for having "not put forward a legal text”.

He added: “The EU will not agree any future economic partnership that does not include a balanced, sustainable and long-term solution on fisheries — that should be crystal clear.”

But a British source hit back, and made clear the UK would be weighing up “whether this is a productive process or not” as a crucial high-level meeting to decide on whether or not talks will continue looms.

They said: “What we would ideally want to have seen, what we’re wanting now, is an EU understanding that we’re not going to subordinate our laws to them in any areas. We’re not going to accept the European Court’s involvement in settling disputes between us...

“If we can see that they understand our points on that then I think we’re going to be able to reach agreement. At the moment I’m not sure they quite have but it maybe takes a bit of time for some of this to sink in.”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...-collapse-over-fisheries-unless-eu-backs-down

This is the style of approach and language that we should have been expressing/hearing 3 years ago - what a disaster the May-led government was for the UK

Brilliant, territory is not up for discussion, we discussed it yesterday.
They are certainly not dealing with pussies anymore.

 

[mcfc1632]

I'd imagine as we import most of the fish we eat, and the EU import most of ours there is an economic incentive to reach some sort of adult compromise? Basically annual agreements over access to our own waters and quotas on EU vessels catches set by us. This is what Norway do.

Also, on fishing, some Remainers do not seem to be able to look at the subject in the wider context of the negotiations and seem limited to repeating the same old tired lines of ".....the UK imports the type of fish that we eat…." and ".....we export the fish caught in our waters....." and "...we haven't got a fleet capable of undertaking the fishing of those waters anyway....."

All this does is seek to position fishing as a 'non-issue' and something that we should therefore simply give on - but it wholly misses the value of the topic in the wider negotiations in a number of ways. It is simply more Remainer undermining of the UK's positions.

Whilst it may be true that the 'net' contribution to the UK economy is limited - this does not reflect its value in the negotiations. It is the EU side that is making this issue one of the key areas to be addressed in the negotiations - it is always good in negotiations to have something that the other party places a much higher value on than you do.

I would continue to insist on annual agreements controlled by the UK and eventually settle on providing a fixed transition term - say 5-years - before then switching to annual agreements. Such agreement made against the EU trading for something else such as equivalence along with scrapping the nonsense of 'level-playing field' regulations.

But also, setting out the position as an example of the UK as an independent coastal state from 2021 - as was set out in by the UK representatives in my previous post - is an excellent way of clearly defining the future UK model and the attitudes we will take.

Another area I took some comfort from today was the planning assumptions of the banks that would be most impacted by a no-deal outcome - if they are increasingly resigned to the UK government not changing its position - then the penny will start to drop with Barnier et al...…..

"Miles Celic, chief executive of TheCityUK, which promotes Britain as a financial centre, said the government had to be taken at “face value”, and bankers said the sector would not ask for an extension.

“People are looking at no deal preparedness again,” said Rachel Kent, a financial services partner at Hogan Lovells law firm who was present at the industry talks on Brexit.

Banks are largely reviving plans they had when a no-deal Brexit loomed several times in 2019 before Britain and the EU signed off on a divorce settlement and transition period...…"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lans-as-december-deadline-looms-idUSKBN22C253

 

[blueinsa]

I have been keen to look for signs that there is indeed a real shift in the UK's stance to these negotiations - of course this has not been easy due to the pace of them being impacted by the pandemic - but I believe that the resultant timetable pressure could be a positive for the UK - and I believe that there are signs that we are gaining progress in the upward challenge.

Key is for Barnier and, more importantly, the leaders of the main EU nations, to realise that the UK would walkaway rather than submit. When facing Robbins and May's perpetual acquiescence it was easy for the EU to maintain unanimity across the EU27 - I think that if we hold our positions as June approaches then Barnier will start to get some 'pointers' from key countries and the EU's positions on these key areas will be softened towards accommodation of the UK's - if they don't - then on balance we are better to walkaway anyway.

There are current signs that the UK are indeed resolute in maintaining our positions that an FTA must reflect such deals that the EU has with other nations - and not contain 'special' clauses to provide the EU control over UK policy - this is as it should be and very encouraging - as the bleating from Barnier, others in the EU and Remainers reflects.

On fishing, I found this stance encouraging......

"A UK source on Thursday said no legal text had yet been put forward by Britain because the two sides were currently “talking past each other on the issue”.

And they warned: “We have certain fundamentals on this. At the end of the year we become a country with control over our coastal waters, we become an independent coastal state, we will base our tests on science and it will be up to us to determine access by annual negotiations. That is just fundamental.”

They added: “If the EU wants to talk us about how that will work on that basis then fine.”

But they warned: "There are some fundamentals that we’re not going to change and not going to move on... They’re not just negotiating positions, because they’re what an independent state does. An independent state has control over its coastal waters. “

Mr Barnier last week said "no progress" had been made on the issue of fisheries, and attacked Britain for having "not put forward a legal text”.

He added: “The EU will not agree any future economic partnership that does not include a balanced, sustainable and long-term solution on fisheries — that should be crystal clear.”

But a British source hit back, and made clear the UK would be weighing up “whether this is a productive process or not” as a crucial high-level meeting to decide on whether or not talks will continue looms.

They said: “What we would ideally want to have seen, what we’re wanting now, is an EU understanding that we’re not going to subordinate our laws to them in any areas. We’re not going to accept the European Court’s involvement in settling disputes between us...

“If we can see that they understand our points on that then I think we’re going to be able to reach agreement. At the moment I’m not sure they quite have but it maybe takes a bit of time for some of this to sink in.”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...-collapse-over-fisheries-unless-eu-backs-down

This is the style of approach and language that we should have been expressing/hearing 3 years ago - what a disaster the May-led government was for the UK

Its refreshing to finally see us doing what we should have done from day one in negotiations.

 

[mcfc1632]

Its refreshing to finally see us doing what we should have done from day one in negotiations.

Indeed - as I said the other day - all the bleating is coming from Barnier, the EU and Remainers - that is telling.

The recent weeks have clearly been used by the UK team to establish their positions and lines to take - and they are being refreshingly consistent - this from the Guardian.....

"......However, the UK source said: “What is slowing us up is the EU’s insistence on extra provision, notably the level playing field area, aspects of governance and, of course, there is no meeting of minds on fisheries.

“If they continue to insist on their position on a so-called level playing field, and on continuing the common fisheries policy, for example, we are never going to accept that.

“Draw your own conclusion from that but I hope they will move on. There are some fundamentals that we are not going to change, we are not going to move on because, not so much that they are negotiation positions, as they are what an independent state does.”

He added: “I am confident we will get over that … but probably a bit more noise has to happen before we get to that point.”...…"

I love how that last line leaves the ball so much in the EU's court - it could be taken as the UK saying a version of "....bothered?..."

Things can become very straight-forward and clear in negotiations.....

If the current stance of the EU on level-playing field and other areas are wholly unacceptable to the UK - they are - then you make that clear and plan to give effect to the management of the consequences.

We hear that the government had a team doing just that before the onset of the pandemic - again this is good to hear

We need to keep hearing these positions repeated and no rowing back - again - it demonstrates what a disaster May and Robbins were.

 

[Blue Hefner]

So given the economic damage of Coronavirus we are going full steam a head for no-deal?

Is the thinking burn everything down and start from the bottom?

 

[west didsblue]

So given the economic damage of Coronavirus we are going full steam a head for no-deal?

Is the thinking burn everything down and start from the bottom?

I think it’s more that we’re in the shit anyway and any additional Brexit related shit can be blamed on the pandemic.

 

[blueinsa]

So given the economic damage of Coronavirus we are going full steam a head for no-deal?

Is the thinking burn everything down and start from the bottom?

No its full steam ahead for a FTA.

Unless you are saying the EU are intransigent and not interested in negotiating?

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Delusional!

We either get no deal or a very limited deal that just keeps the ports moving - that will be hailed as a great success. I can 100% guarantee we will be worse of as a result of it.