Another new Brexit thread

[Saddleworth2]

Lighten up mate - did you miss the ;-)

No. Still think you were being divisive ;-)

 

[Len Rum]

Just heard about Mavis's speech.
Alright she had a pop at Keith but I liked the bit about good deal for EU (products), bad deal for UK (services).
Did she mention anything about giving up huge swathes of sovereignty in one part of the UK - Northern Ireland - which she and her successor both agreed was something no British Prime Minister could contemplate?

 

[Vic]

Hmmmm - that prospect seems to give you a bit of a hard on

But the reality is that it simply proves the approach to negotiating required to deal with the EU now and in the future.

It also shows the value of a deal which provides for a transition period with regards to fishing - some on here could not get their heads around the strategic role of 'fishing' could have in negotiations - they were too busy using the limitations of the current fishing capability to demean the UK.

I would point out that I have said since 2016 that we needed to have started preparations for leaving the EU in 2016 - including a No-Deal if necessary. May lost the UK most of that window - I am hopeful that a pro-Brexit government will not lose the next 4 years.

It is straight-forward - I agree that the EU will act disproportionately - in some 'flying pickets' manner - if that is in their interests. So we just need to make sure that we use these years to prepare for how we would deal with that - and that can drive our strategy on investments.

BTW - the EU behaviour that you raise is nothing new or surprising - it was the 'attitudes' that they used with May and which made her run for cover - it has taken the prospect of a No-Deal outcome to make them modify their approach.

We need to be prepared to face them down again in 5 years - and that is why having the ability to exploit the EU's dependency on fishing is going to be helpful - but we need to prepare other strings to the bow.

Good grief. And we thought Brexit was done, yet we now need a pro-Brexit government.

 

[mcfc1632]

That is the crucial issue, the French have already said they have to go and there is agreement in principle I believe, but is it worth the paper it is written on? How can this be monitored or enforced? Many questions on this.

The Biden Admin opposes this move, it will have its own China strategy, but if the EU and US are divided on strategy, then China will be the beneficiary.

Apparently, Macron and Merkel sat in on these discussions, wasn’t just left to the EU. Too important for them to sit on the sidelines.

Merkel and Macron sat in you say..........

Fair play to them - but given that it is a bloc of 27 equal partners surely it would only be fair to Merkel and Macron for the other 25 leaders to share the burden?

It would also stop people continuing with this apparently stupid view that Germany and France have a greater level of control over the EU than its other members.

The EU is under the control of 27 nations with equally rights and representation isn't it?

 

[mat]

I'm beginning to feel like the prospect of a No Deal wasn't just used by the Government as a threat to the EU, but also to the UK electorate. In other words, accept ANY deal with as little time as possible to debate or it's a scenario that would really be the worst. It almost feels like we have been cowed into accepting.

That is exactly it. Boris can claim he's done what he said he would then leave bollock face Gove to pick up the pieces.

 

[Metal Biker]

I’m not clinging on to it, I accept it’s a loss battle. I guess what I was looking for was some honesty. I mean now we know exactly what the terms are we can better evaluate our position and I just want to know if leavers on here still think we will be better off with what we have on the table or what we had when we were a member of the EU?

Yes, because being a member of the EU in the future at the time was looking increasingly bleak and we made the decision to leave now before it became impossible to do so.

The EU was becoming far too political, with a growing concern it wished to make Europe into a federal state, despite the protestations of some of it's members, namely us. The consultation between Tusk and Cameron in 2016 only highlighted the differences between the UK and EU and the direction it wanted Europe to take.

Europe was to become a "powerhouse", a "new empire" to "take on the world". That was not the Europe we wanted to see. We wanted a union of nations, they wanted a european nation. It was "you don't have to join in, but this IS something we're doing" response from Tusk and the EU representatives. We'd have been 'outside' the EU, but still in it. It made no sense. Better to separate and associate from a distance.

So we've ended that by disassociating from its political intentions entirely, but keeping the economic connections we've made and wished to keep intact. Naturally, to those who WANT what the EU want it will be pointless trying to convince you otherwise. For those who were concerned about what the European Parliament and Commission were aiming for, this is exactly the outcome we wanted.

 

[BobKowalski]

Hmmmm - that prospect seems to give you a bit of a hard on

But the reality is that it simply proves the approach to negotiating required to deal with the EU now and in the future.

It also shows the value of a deal which provides for a transition period with regards to fishing - some on here could not get their heads around the strategic role of 'fishing' could have in negotiations - they were too busy using the limitations of the current fishing capability to demean the UK.

I would point out that I have said since 2016 that we needed to have started preparations for leaving the EU in 2016 - including a No-Deal if necessary. May lost the UK most of that window - I am hopeful that a pro-Brexit government will not lose the next 4 years.

It is straight-forward - I agree that the EU will act disproportionately - in some 'flying pickets' manner - if that is in their interests. So we just need to make sure that we use these years to prepare for how we would deal with that - and that can drive our strategy on investments.

BTW - the EU behaviour that you raise is nothing new or surprising - it was the 'attitudes' that they used with May and which made her run for cover - it has taken the prospect of a No-Deal outcome to make them modify their approach.

We need to be prepared to face them down again in 5 years - and that is why having the ability to exploit the EU's dependency on fishing is going to be helpful - but we need to prepare other strings to the bow.

I can already hear the pitch to future foreign investors...

”Invest in the UK and every four years or so we will threaten to torch the trade deal with our biggest export market!“

It’s a winner, foreign direct investment will flock to our shores, who doesn’t love an unstable business environment where we fight an internal war with ourselves and then capitulate at the last minute.

Very concerned that you think 27 countries are dependent on our fish...I mean that worked a fucking treat this time around didn’t it? I mean, who needs fucking energy?

 

[Vic]

But do they actually think that? I assumed they said that shit to save face?

No, they really believe that shit.

 

[BobKowalski]

I'm beginning to feel like the prospect of a No Deal wasn't just used by the Government as a threat to the EU, but also to the UK electorate. In other words, accept ANY deal with as little time as possible to debate or it's a scenario that would really be the worst. It almost feels like we have been cowed into accepting.

Mainly the UK electorate. The EU didn’t buy the threat. The last minute concessions mainly came from the UK. Even our fish got smoked.

 

[Vic]

Correct, the UK cannot remain in the EU.

Nobody can choose remain anymore, it is over. Gone. Finito. The only step for you would be to rejoin, but rejoining doesn't look anything like remaining. No vetos anymore, adoption of the Euro, joining the Eurozone; all elements for new joining members of the EU.

This deal gives the majority of leavers, neutrals and accepting remainers exactly the sort of compromise we all sought; ending the political association with the EU, keeping the economic and trade status.

Aside from a few extremists of both sides of the debate, most are welcoming of this deal, both us and the EU combined. Don't be one of 'those' types who are clinging on to 'remain'. It no longer exists.

You did not want this compromise. You wanted EFTA.

 

[mcfc1632]

I’m not clinging on to it, I accept it’s a loss battle. I guess what I was looking for was some honesty. I mean now we know exactly what the terms are we can better evaluate our position and I just want to know if leavers on here still think we will be better off with what we have on the table or what we had when we were a member of the EU?

Absolutely - in the years to come you will see the dramas unfold across the EU and be glad to eating popcorn and watching

The deal we had in years gone was already a thing of history - what you need to compare against is the deal that we would have with the EU in 20 years if we had remained - we would be on the hook for so much that would lead to the UK being on a never-ending and inescapable downward spiral.

This has been a genuine once in a lifetime opportunity for the future of the UK to be improved significantly - we have been very very lucky - and this will become clearer as years roll by

 

[blueparrot]

You did not want this compromise. You wanted EFTA.

It's a compromise I'd have taken too. Difference is I'm not pretending this is better than EFTA.It's worse, being better than no deal doesnt change that it's worse than we had and worse than we could have had.

 

[bugsyblue]

Yes, because being a member of the EU in the future at the time was looking increasingly bleak and we made the decision to leave now before it became impossible to do so.

The EU was becoming far too political, with a growing concern it wished to make Europe into a federal state, despite the protestations of some of it's members, namely us. The consultation between Tusk and Cameron in 2016 only highlighted the differences between the UK and EU and the direction it wanted Europe to take.

Europe was to become a "powerhouse", a "new empire" to "take on the world". That was not the Europe we wanted to see. We wanted a union of nations, they wanted a european nation. It was "you don't have to join in, but this IS something we're doing" response from Tusk and the EU representatives. We'd have been 'outside' the EU, but still in it. It made no sense. Better to separate and associate from a distance.

So we've ended that by disassociating from its political intentions entirely, but keeping the economic connections we've made and wished to keep intact. Naturally, to those who WANT what the EU want it will be pointless trying to convince you otherwise. For those who were concerned about what the European Parliament and Commission were aiming for, this is exactly the outcome we wanted.

Fair answer and you’ve outlined the political reasons (not that I agree, I’d always prefer to be in the empire looking out than a small fish looking in) but what I was more interested in was do you think economically we’ll be better off?

 

[BobKowalski]

Merkel and Macron sat in you say..........

Fair play to them - but given that it is a bloc of 27 equal partners surely it would only be fair to Merkel and Macron for the other 25 leaders to share the burden?

It would also stop people continuing with this apparently stupid view that Germany and France have a greater level of control over the EU than its other members.

The EU is under the control of 27 nations with equally rights and representation isn't it?

I do say.

China isn’t listening to the PM of Slovenia. The EU speaks on their behalf. But China also gets to talk to the top bananas, because it’s fucking China. Macron and Merkel can ignore talking to Johnson, they can’t ignore talking to Xi.

It’s a harsh world

 

[Ban-jani]

Lib Dems say No

There goes my vote for them again in the future, consigned to the history of the last two elections.

Goodbye my liberal chums, cheerio.

 

[west didsblue]

Here’s something I still can’t get my head around. If a good amount of leavers feel this deal will leave us worse off and all remainers (as they’ve stated from the beginning) feel this deal will leave us worse off... why the fuck are we still proceeding?

To make a small number of people very rich, and a larger number of people very smug.

 

[bugsyblue]

Absolutely - in the years to come you will see the dramas unfold across the EU and be glad to eating popcorn and watching

The deal we had in years gone was already a thing of history - what you need to compare against is the deal that we would have with the EU in 20 years if we had remained - we would be on the hook for so much that would lead to the UK being on a never-ending and inescapable downward spiral.

This has been a genuine once in a lifetime opportunity for the future of the UK to be improved significantly - we have been very very lucky - and this will become clearer as years roll by

I hope you are right. Personally I think the opposite. Out of interest what are you looking at that is leading you to think the EU is doomed and we’ll overtake a 26 country union?

 

[Vic]

Merkel and Macron sat in you say..........

Fair play to them - but given that it is a bloc of 27 equal partners surely it would only be fair to Merkel and Macron for the other 25 leaders to share the burden?

It would also stop people continuing with this apparently stupid view that Germany and France have a greater level of control over the EU than its other members.

The EU is under the control of 27 nations with equally rights and representation isn't it?

Yep. They'd all have to support any deal with China.

 

[Ban-jani]

It's a compromise I'd have taken too. Difference is I'm not pretending this is better than EFTA.It's worse, being better than no deal doesnt change that it's worse than we had and worse than we could have had.

Depends what you want.

This is better than EFTA for me, only slightly but my preference would be:

1. Remain
2. This type of deal
3. EFTA
4. Something in between this deal and no deal (a harder Brexit)
5. No deal




2000. May’s deal

 

[mcfc1632]

I can already hear the pitch to future foreign investors...

”Invest in the UK and every four years or so we will threaten to torch the trade deal with our biggest export market!“

It’s a winner, foreign direct investment will flock to our shores, who doesn’t love an unstable business environment where we fight an internal war with ourselves and then capitulate at the last minute.

Very concerned that you think 27 countries are dependent on our fish...I mean that worked a fucking treat this time around didn’t it? I mean, who needs fucking energy?

Sorry - that is some convoluting juggling right there

I was responding to your delight that the EU could 'torch the deal' - by suggesting that the UK needs to use the years to prepare

I fully understand that you will be in the group that will just need longer to come to terms with the fact that we have indeed genuinely left the EU - and there is no going back

My comments were for others - I am not seeking to persuade you of anything