Another new Brexit thread

[blueinsa]

Truly stunning deconstruction of someone with a mild speech impediment. Bravo sir

Just pretend he is a Tory.

It will soothe your faux outrage.

 

[mcfc1632]

I repeat, I am not for a pause in Brexit. On that you are just wrong.

I talked yesterday about a 'fair deal for both parties' let me say a little more about that.

LPF is not a EU plot to hamstring the UK's future prosperity, it is a normal part of any trade agreement negotiation be that USA/Mexico, EU/Japan and typically the larger trading party (EU in our case) will want the more stringent rules to be applied to protect their market. All quite normal. The EU has called out the need for strong LPF as part of any FTA from the start. It was committed to by May and then Johnson in the PD. That Frost has proposed the very minimum and refuses to commence detailed negotiations around them tells me quite a lot about the seriousness with which the UK are trying their best to get a deal. After all Johnson has already committed Northern Ireland to LPF provisions. If he implemented something entirely different for the rest of the UK that would bring a new level of complexity to the NI solution.

If we were seriously trying to get a deal we would be in detailed negotiations around LPF right now as there is plenty opportunity for compromise to be made - for example we might give ground on Environmental standards and workers rights - Johnson has already claimed ours are better that the EU's so whats the problem with signing up to that? In return the EU might give on governance and allow the UK to self govern rather than the ECJ. We cant tell what would be possible without doing the spadework.

Johnson seems to want a 'distant' relationship with the EU but, enjoy all the benefits of a FTA for both goods and services whilst having the ability to undercut the EU left right and centre. Yeah right.

So a fair deal for me is one that sees compromise on both sides and reflects the reality of the situation, we are a major economic power sitting on the doorstep of a larger one and any agreement will reflect that reality.

I will reply to this more fully later - some work commitments first

But briefly, whilst all that could be seen to sound very plausible / sensible - why, even the term 'Level Playing Field' conveys such a sense of fair play - there is a need to understand the extent of damage that May/Robbins did to the UK's future status as an independent nation, in their acquiescence to the EU during the development of the WA, which has, by necessity, became the starting point for the new government.

So - yes - aspects of what are termed 'LPF' conditions are common in lots of TAs - but there needs to be a balance in order to 'make it fair to both parties'.

My view is that the positions agreed by May/Robbins were obscenely unbalanced.

What is your view of the 'unfettered backstop'? and how that would have been used in the years and decades to come?

 

[Vic]

I will reply to this late - some work commitments first

But briefly, whilst all that could be seen to sound very plausible / sensible - why even the term 'Level Playing Field' conveys such a sense of fair play - there is a need to understand the extent of damage that May/Robbins did to the UK in their acquiescence to the EU during the development of the WA, which has, by necessity, become the starting point for the new government.

So - yes - aspects of what are termed 'LPF' conditions are common in lots of FTA - but there needs to be a balance in order to 'make it fair to both parties'.

My view is that the positions agreed by May/Robbins were obscenely unbalanced.

What is your view of the 'unfettered backstop'? and how that would have been used in the years and decades to come?

I look forward to the explanation of an obscenely unbalanced level playing field.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I will reply to this late - some work commitments first

But briefly, whilst all that could be seen to sound very plausible / sensible - why even the term 'Level Playing Field' conveys such a sense of fair play - there is a need to understand the extent of damage that May/Robbins did to the UK in their acquiescence to the EU during the development of the WA, which has, by necessity, become the starting point for the new government.

So - yes - aspects of what are termed 'LPF' conditions are common in lots of FTA - but there needs to be a balance in order to 'make it fair to both parties'.

My view is that the positions agreed by May/Robbins were obscenely unbalanced.

What is your view of the 'unfettered backstop'? and how that would have been used in the years and decades to come?

It’s gone, replaced by the NI protocol. I’m struggling to see why it’s relevant to the here and now of negotiation.

 

[BobKowalski]

Politician who became PM on the back of promises to prevent the entry of Europeans into the UK begs Europeans to return to the UK. Got to love the irony.

 

[journolud]

Just pretend he is a Tory.

It will soothe your faux outrage.

Your usual pearl of nothingness

 

[blueinsa]

Your usual pearl of nothingness

I'm consistent if nothing else.

Are you over your outrage yet?

Stay strong fella.

 

[mcfc1632]

I suspect that what @BlueAnorak fails to grasp in the point @mcfc1632 was making in terms of how we will be governed post Brexit........business will try to shape the future. They offered the carrot last week and the skip this week. The UK electorate has no say its down to the Govt to be lobbied by business and professionals then make a decision on what we do based on the most/least harmful threat - welcome to the new world

You just cannot stop yourself can you...…………??

Can you begin to understand just how much this post is 'shooting yourself in the foot'??

And of cause there are the other good examples from yesterday of your habit in doing this - all you and others do is demonstrate that you do not understand how key things work and that you are not bothered enough to try and work it out.

Please advise if you want some genuine help in your understanding and if so we can put the snide comments to one side and I will post information and in a manner to help you.

That would seem fair wouldn't it...?

 

[journolud]

I'm consistent if nothing else.

Are you over your outrage yet?

Stay strong fella.

In the absence of anything big happening in the world it’s the little things that sustain us.

 

[mcfc1632]

It’s gone, replaced by the NI protocol. I’m struggling to see why it’s relevant to the here and now of negotiation.

Because it was an example of the obscenely unbalanced provisions but just one - that May committed the UK to and it was - as I have often said - the EU's 'jewel in the crown' of the provisions that presented control over the UK's key policies to the EU for decades and generations to come.

You say that "LPF is not an EU plot to hamstring the UK's future prosperity" I do not see this as something akin to a fanciful 'Black Op' by the CIA - just the professional management of negotiations - with one team being much better qualified than the other.

You know that I have experience of leading large negotiations - whilst there always needs to be a win for both sides - such perceptions can be managed. The aim is to get all positions to reflect the Ideal outcomes for the party that you act for - not the minimum acceptable (Fallback).​

The WA brought forward by May/Robbins was the embodiment of the provisions that resulted from a couple of years of an EU team that contained a highly qualified team of professionals facing off against a muppet.

As a prelude to later discussions I just wanted to see the starting point of your thinking on this. If you cannot see how the Unfettered Backstop would have been used by the EU (through its proxy Ireland) that tells me a lot of your position - and I do not mean that in any negative way.

That you say: "I’m struggling to see why it’s relevant to the here and now of negotiation....." could lead me to make an assumption.

And - given that I have seen a usual snide comment from one of the thread vandals I might do this via PM.

I know that you do not wish me to do that, but:

a) there are some that just get so 'locked on' to slagging of information that I genuinely post for debate that it drags the thread down and

b) I continue to hold the view that you do nothing to discourage this

So if the intention on my part is to discuss with you - why not via PM? If you then have a desire to converse with the vandals - that is up to you - but I do not.

 

[mcfc1632]

Politician who became PM on the back of promises to prevent the entry of Europeans into the UK begs Europeans to return to the UK. Got to love the irony.

You must have one special set of ears and eyes Bob - I had thought that the intention was to introduce 'controls' and thereby level the playing field for people wishing to come into the UK from around the world and end the discrimination that is inherent to the EU's FOM.

Got to love the scope of Remainers to be disingenuous.....

 

[BobKowalski]

You must have one special set of ears and eyes Bob - I had thought that the intention was to introduce 'controls' and thereby level the playing field for people wishing to come into the UK and end the discrimination that is inherent to the EU's FOM.

Got to love the scope of Remainers to be disingenuous.....

Correct. To introduce controls to prevent Europeans coming here. And now begging Europeans to come here.

Try not to shoot your own foot off next time you post.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Because it was an example of the obscenely unbalanced provisions but just one - that May committed the UK to and it was - as I have often said - the EU's 'jewel in the crown' of the provisions that presented control over the UK's key policies to the EU for decades and generations to come.

You say that "LPF is not a EU plot to hamstring the UK's future prosperity" I do not see this as something akin to a fanciful 'Black Op' by the CIA - just the professional management of negotiations - with one team being much better qualified than the other.

You know that I have experience of leading large negotiations - whilst there always needs to be a win for both sides - such perceptions can be managed. The aim is to get all positions to reflect the Ideal outcomes for the party that you act for - not the minimum acceptable (Fallback).​

The WA brought forward by May/Robbins was the embodiment of the provisions that resulted from a couple of years of a EU team that contained a highly qualified team of professionals facing off against a muppet.

As a prelude to later discussions I just wanted to see the starting point of your thinking on this. If you cannot see how the Unfettered Backstop would have been used by the EU (through its proxy Ireland) that tells me a lot of your position - and I do not mean that in any negative way.

That you say: "I’m struggling to see why it’s relevant to the here and now of negotiation....." could lead me to make an assumption.

And - given that I have seen a usual snide comment from one of the thread vandals I might do this via PM.

I know that you do not wish me to do that, but:

a) there are some that just get so 'locked on' to slagging of information that I genuinely post for debate that it drags the thread down and

b) I continue to hold the view that you do nothing to discourage this

So if the intention on my part is to discuss with you - why not via PM? If you then have a desire to converse with the vandals - that is up to you - but I do not.

We talked about the backstop at length a number of times last year and I shared your view that it gave the EU a significant lever with which to dictate terms to the UK in future dealings. It was unbalanced. Did you also forget I have a history of contract negotiations in my career :-)
Still really don't see the relevance to any current negotiations on the hear and now of LPF.

 

[mcfc1632]

Correct. To introduce controls to prevent Europeans coming here. And now begging Europeans to come here.

Try not to shoot your own foot off next time you post.

Oh - how you are so obviously disingenuous in how you squirm and twist words;-) - and it is obvious to all those that are not part of your mindset.

Your cheap intent was clear - and I just pointed it out - carry on squirming

 

[mcfc1632]

We talked about the backstop at length a number of times last year and I shared your view that it gave the EU a significant lever with which to dictate terms to the UK in future dealings. It was unbalanced. Did you also forget I have a history of contract negotiations in my career :-)
Still really don't see the relevance to any current negotiations on the hear and now of LPF.

Oh - I remember the exchanges and your experience;-)

I will send you a PM later

 

[Saddleworth2]

Oh - I remember the exchanges and your experience;-)

I will send you a PM later

Then why ask me again. Genuinely puzzled.

 

[bluethrunthru]

its BRINO - you were all conned

 

[Vic]

Politician who became PM on the back of promises to prevent the entry of Europeans into the UK begs Europeans to return to the UK. Got to love the irony.

You must have one special set of ears and eyes Bob - I had thought that the intention was to introduce 'controls' and thereby level the playing field for people wishing to come into the UK from around the world and end the discrimination that is inherent to the EU's FOM.

Got to love the scope of Remainers to be disingenuous.....

"Last year, 270,000 people came to this country from the EU and net migration was 184,000. That means we are adding a population the size of Oxford to the UK every year just from EU migration.

"Since 2004, 1.25 million people have been added to the population due to EU migration. That is bigger than the city of Birmingham."

Boris Johnson, 26 May 2016

He certainly sounded most welcoming then.

Perhaps having an Italian doctor saving his life had an effect. But as for controls he's just said (in Italian) "You're all welcome".

 

[meltonblue]

You must have one special set of ears and eyes Bob - I had thought that the intention was to introduce 'controls' and thereby level the playing field for people wishing to come into the UK from around the world and end the discrimination that is inherent to the EU's FOM.

Got to love the scope of Remainers to be disingenuous.....

To be fair though, as much as you might have thought that, it’s equally disingenuous to say that was a consistent message conveyed throughout by people on the leave side of the argument too.

You can’t just argue your interpretation of it and not consider what people were actually saying to voters.

 

[BobKowalski]

Oh - how you are so obviously disingenuous in how you squirm and twist words;-) - and it is obvious to all those that are not part of your mindset.

Your cheap intent was clear - and I just pointed it out - carry on squirming

You mean when I directly quote your posts?