Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[r-u-s-x]

I dont see free movement on people to Canada being a thing. Rather just an expedited visa situation for people in certain sectors, to allow for trade.

The message has very much been one of ramping up pressure on the deadline to try and effect our parliamentary process, to force things their way at that point. Since that passed its changed from "deadline day youre fudged" to "Lets just have a vague ongoing extension, maybe a year?"

Id suggest thats a pretty obvious change. You only need to watch Tusk and Barnier and their briefings to see it.

They don't have free movement of capital or trade either.

I didn't see that message from the EU myself, obviously they were working towards the deadline as were we.

 

[the dza]

They dictated terms throughout, specifically setting them against the red lines May presented (which, lets be fair, are a reasonable reflection of WHY we voted out for many). Then made May look like the unreasonable one for saying "this isnt going to work for us".

There is no reason for them to insist on the four pillars, we would be out of the union. But they did anyway...

I really dont like defending May but she got shafted around that. I cant fathom why shes the worlds biggest clam for trying to reflect the vote but the EU are saintly for drawing lines in the sand that directly contradict that.




Its not at all. And that really is the point. People are so predisposed to picking sides, and obviously siding with the EU, that they lose perspective.

What is crazy about wanting only a trade deal? Really think about it, be honest with yourself - how is that possibly crazy?

Why is it crazy to not want EU pillars imposed upon us? Canada didnt, are they crazy?

Its not cake and eat it at all. Its straightforward.

We do not want ever closer union. We do not want free movement of people, a single currency, EU oversight of our budgets, EU control on taxation. We do not want to be fully integrated at all.

Whether YOU want it or not, you have to accept this is not an unreasonable position. It is perfectly valid.

We want none of those things, but we do want to trade. In a way that is mutually beneficial.

Yeah... mental.

As I say - approach it as a third party (which we would be). We say "Hey EU, lets do a trade agreement and have lots of profitable business together"

Do you think it reasonable for them to reply "Great, lets talk" ? Or "Great, but we'll need to control your borders, your own trade deals, and have a say in your budgets etc... And we wont even talk to you until you agree a fee"

Cake an eat it - this one cracks me up and has done since the start. Just because the UK might want different things than the EU nations, where does this cake and eat it stuff come from? Its just another mental twist to validate their punitive approach to us.

We could have had a Canada deal, that was on offer iirc. But because May lost her majority and depends on the DUP, they don't want the "border down the Irish Sea" which puts paid to a Canada-style arrangement. We can have Canada if we are willing for N.Ireland to be treated differently and the DUP aren't, so the Parliamentary arithmetic phucks this up. May called a General Election asking for the public to strengthen her hand, they told her to go phuck herself -- instead of acknowledging that, she decided to ignore all opinion other than the hard-brexiters, until the last moment when she made a fudge of a deal that nobody wants to vote through. A truly awful politician. That's why she is rightly castigated, because she acts like the 2017 election never happened -- until now, when she has seemingly realised that she needs Labour votes, because she has a minority government dependent on intransigent partners in the DUP.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Um... You mentioned the Canada deal.

We have a bespoke deal or rather withdrawal agreement, they literally did what you are claiming they didn't.

Again why is it ok for the UK to have red lines but the EU (which is much bigger) can't have red lines? Madness.

Ive given you a whole bunch of opportunities to engage on any number of points, and you skip them all - why is that?

You miss the point re Canada. I mean where did it come from originally, not in respect to us. When the EU set about agreeing a trade deal - they made one from scratch, they didnt insist on it being a cookie cutter deal they can reprint and change the names on. That is the point.

As Ive already said - and repeat, I stand to be corrected - the "Deal" isnt a deal. Its an agreement to part and work out the details later. Details which, IMO, the EU will continue to screw us on.

Again - why is it NOT ok for the UK to want a trade deal only, without any further EU oversight/input/interference? Its a very simple premise, one the EU red lines directly contradict and, IMO, purposefully so.

Because instead of going into negotiations in good faith they went into them with the objective of fudging us over.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

They don't have free movement of capital or trade either.

I didn't see that message from the EU myself, obviously they were working towards the deadline as were we.

Right. So red lines for some deals, not for others. Or, as I was saying, things that are negotiable for the EU until they decide its a tool to screw us over.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Right. So red lines for some deals, not for others. Or, as I was saying, things that are negotiable for the EU until they decide its a tool to screw us over.

No the four pillars are you can't have one freedom without all of them, it's consistent with Canada

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

No the four pillars are you can't have one freedom without all of them, it's consistent with Canada

They dont have complete free movement on goods, but it is a FTA on a great number of goods. Like - half a pillar.

I believe it also encourages investment which is treading on the movement of capital I would think.

So things can be worked around to suit, cant they?

 

[DTA]

Ive given you a whole bunch of opportunities to engage on any number of points, and you skip them all - why is that?

You miss the point re Canada. I mean where did it come from originally, not in respect to us. When the EU set about agreeing a trade deal - they made one from scratch, they didnt insist on it being a cookie cutter deal they can reprint and change the names on. That is the point.

As Ive already said - and repeat, I stand to be corrected - the "Deal" isnt a deal. Its an agreement to part and work out the details later. Details which, IMO, the EU will continue to screw us on.

Again - why is it NOT ok for the UK to want a trade deal only, without any further EU oversight/input/interference? Its a very simple premise, one the EU red lines directly contradict and, IMO, purposefully so.

Because instead of going into negotiations in good faith they went into them with the objective of fudging us over.

What is the points you want me to engage in... I'm not deliberately trying to avoid them, I thought I was addressing them. If not please point them as I do want to engage.

And also please tell me why it's ok for us to have red lines but for the more powerful senior negotiating partner not to.

A few points that I may have missed.

1) how long did the Canada deal take to negotiate?
2) it's ok to have a trade deal with the EU of course it is. But with trade deals there has to be agreements reached and laws written.
3) the EU27 as a much bigger partner in the negotiations has more power that is just fact... therefore they will get the better end of the deal. IF you don't like that you don't like capitalism.
4) Again.... If we have red lines... They do to. If we had no red lines... Then maybe they wouldn't either... Maybe. But again we are the junior negotiating partner here.
5) what is the deal that you want? Be specific please

 

[r-u-s-x]

They dont have complete free movement on goods, but it is a FTA on a great number of goods. Like - half a pillar.

I believe it also encourages investment which is treading on the movement of capital I would think.

So things can be worked around to suit, cant they?

The EU are open to trade deals, which Canada is, we have the same around the globe, its not giving one of the freedoms without the others.

They offered us a trade deal and parliament have decided not to take it.

 

[Gutter Boy]

We could have had a Canada deal, that was on offer iirc. But because May lost her majority and depends on the DUP, they don't want the "border down the Irish Sea" which puts paid to a Canada-style arrangement. We can have Canada if we are willing for N.Ireland to be treated differently and the DUP aren't, so the Parliamentary arithmetic phucks this up. May called a General Election asking for the public to strengthen her hand, they told her to go phuck herself -- instead of acknowledging that, she decided to ignore all opinion other than the hard-brexiters, until the last moment when she made a fudge of a deal that nobody wants to vote through. A truly awful politician. That's why she is rightly castigated, because she acts like the 2017 election never happened -- until now, when she has seemingly realised that she needs Labour votes, because she has a minority government dependent on intransigent partners in the DUP.

The 2017 election was all about domestic policies (e.g. tuition fees). Labour neutralised Brexit by mirroring the Tory policy. It was a huge mistake by May to call it, and we are all suffering the consequences now. But it wasn't an electorate signal on Brexit.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The EU are open to trade deals, which Canada is, we have the same around the globe, its not giving one of the freedoms without the others.

They offered us a trade deal and parliament have decided not to take it.

What deal have they offered? From what I can see theres something about common rule book and thats its, Ive seen nothing tangible about any supposed deal.

All I have seen is a withdrawal agreement, which states we pay a brick tonne of money to them and could well be trapped under their control if a deal isnt agreed post Brexit.

 

[r-u-s-x]

What deal have they offered? From what I can see theres something about common rule book and thats its, Ive seen nothing tangible about any supposed deal.

All I have seen is a withdrawal agreement, which states we pay a brick tonne of money to them and could well be trapped under their control if a deal isnt agreed post Brexit.

We know they offered Canada etc at the outset. What comes next is what's out there +/- other stuff depending on what we want to add or withhold.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

What is the points you want me to engage in... I'm not deliberately trying to avoid them, I thought I was addressing them. If not please point them as I do want to engage.

And also please tell me why it's ok for us to have red lines but for the more powerful senior negotiating partner not to.

A few points that I may have missed.

1) how long did the Canada deal take to negotiate?
2) it's ok to have a trade deal with the EU of course it is. But with trade deals there has to be agreements reached and laws written.
3) the EU27 as a much bigger partner in the negotiations has more power that is just fact... therefore they will get the better end of the deal. IF you don't like that you don't like capitalism.
4) Again.... If we have red lines... They do to. If we had no red lines... Then maybe they wouldn't either... Maybe. But again we are the junior negotiating partner here.
5) what is the deal that you want? Be specific please

Ive offered a number of reasons and perspectives as to why I disagree with you, youve not countered any. Simply said "they are bigger" and thats it.

They are, but does that mean we cannot expect a fair deal? Does it justify them screwing us?

When this came up 3 years ago, right up front - I suggested a FTA on goods with us paying for access to services.

I see literally no reason why a FTA on goods should be an issue. We buy plenty of each others produce, it works both ways.

I understand services is the cash cow for us, and so fully expected that to be the more negotiable aspect and figured they wouldnt mind us paying some into their coffers going forward.

They may well be "bigger", but it is complex. We are one of the few major contributors to their budget. Losing us isnt simply a "we'll tighten our belts" thing, its a massive hole in the finances of the whole project. So what is "Bigger"? Looking at population, or £££?

We are the 5th (I think) largest economy in the world. Yes, in part thanks to EU trade, but even so thats still a huge partner to have.

Between us we could have a very profitable relationship without any political integration. And not wanting that integration is completely valid.

Our red lines reflect the populations decision to leave the EU.

The EU red lines reflect their decision to fudge us over instead of look to set up a trading relationship.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

We know they offered Canada etc at the outset. What comes next is what's out there +/- other stuff depending on what we want to add or withhold.

Thats not a deal is it? Thats nothing. Thats "Heres a starting point and lets see what happens". Long after theyve taken their money on the divorce bill.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Thats not a deal is it? Thats nothing. Thats "Heres a starting point and lets see what happens". Long after theyve taken their money on the divorce bill.

Sure it is. The divorce bill is money owed by their point of view.

We Could have Canada tomorrow if we wanted it, the issue is we (parliament) can't agree on an achievable deal just a moon on a stick.

We know what's on offer but want more, the EU have been fairly consistent imo.

 

[the dza]

The 2017 election was all about domestic policies (e.g. tuition fees). Labour neutralised Brexit by mirroring the Tory policy. It was a huge mistake by May to call it, and we are all suffering the consequences now. But it wasn't an electorate signal on Brexit.

I think it was both, but regardless, the reality is that she went from a small majority to a minority government, after specifically calling for an election to "strengthen her hand" re. Brexit. And she has acted like this hasn't been the case, up until about 2 weeks ago.

Also, Labour did not mirror the Tory policy on Brexit. May's mantra was "no deal is better than a bad deal." Labour's 2017 manifesto states "we will reject 'no deal' as a viable option." Labour have always been in favour of a Customs Union with the EU and they have always wanted Parliament to have "a truly meaningful vote" (another quote from the 2017 manifesto), the Tories opposed both of these things at the time of the last election.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Decision makers have looked at available information and decided no deal is not a good path, given that we are playing by the EUs rules.

We have decided their red lines are better than no deal and are trying to get the best within that.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Sure it is. The divorce bill is money owed by their point of view.

We Could have Canada tomorrow if we wanted it, the issue is we (parliament) can't agree on an achievable deal just a moon on a stick.

We know what's on offer but want more, the EU have been fairly consistent imo.

Thats not a deal.

Thats pay up now (and IMO its steep), stay as is while we work something out.

Completely intangible and lacking any meaning.

That is not a deal. It is a trap and some good intentions.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Thats not a deal.

Thats pay up now (and IMO its steep), stay as is while we work something out.

Completely intangible and lacing any meaning.

That is not a deal. It is a trap and some good intentions.

They have offered us Canada etc .. That is a deal but we are now negotiating different terms.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

They have offered us Canada etc .. That is a deal but we are now negotiating different terms.

You keep saying that, but I dont know why.

We all know the off the shelf options arent suitable, they know that - its their game.

What we have right now is an agreement to split and thats it. That is not a deal.

There is no deal. You cannot say "we have a deal" because we dont. What we have is nothing, other than some language about what we hope for. No specifics, no timescales, and (IMO) no doubt plenty of room for the EU to screw us completely.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Eszter Zalan, from the EUObserver, says that the EU Council is looking at the best way to put pressure on the UK to agree the withdrawal agreement.

"The core of the debate" tonight is whether it should be a short or long extension, she says.

Member states will be seeking a "strong political commitment" that the UK should not try to disrupt the work of the EU too much.




So they want to effect our parliamentary process, but we have to promise (legally I assume?) not to disrupt their work.