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

[r-u-s-x]

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.

You keep saying they have not offered us a deal, this is false,we haven't agreed a deal.

Not once have I said we have a deal.

I am not trying to persuade you to change your mind as you have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion to me, fair enough. I was arguing that the EU have remained consistent.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

You keep saying they have not offered us a deal, this is false,we haven't agreed a deal.

Not once have I said we have a deal.

I am not trying to persuade you to change your mind as you have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion to me, fair enough. I was arguing that the EU have remained consistent.

Being offered a deal is not the same as having a deal.

As it stands there is no deal. Only a promise to pay a whole lot of money and then get trapped under their wing, which quite rightly the house voted down.

They have been very consistent in their actions - everything designed to screw us.

Where I said they have been inconsistent is in their message. They have taken to ramping up the pressure and threatening cliff edge etc only to back down when it actually came to it.

This is an entirely separate point to whether there are deals or not. You disgaree, thats fine, but thats certainly the way I see it. As I said- the message has gone from "sign up or youre fudged" to "lets have an indefinite extension"

 

[r-u-s-x]

Being offered a deal is not the same as having a deal.

As it stands there is no deal. Only a promise to pay a whole lot of money and then get trapped under their wing, which quite rightly the house voted down.

They have been very consistent in their actions - everything designed to screw us.

Where I said they have been inconsistent is in their message. They have taken to ramping up the pressure and threatening cliff edge etc only to back down when it actually came to it.

This is an entirely separate point to whether there are deals or not. You disgaree, thats fine, but thats certainly the way I see it. As I said- the message has gone from "sign up or youre fudged" to "lets have an indefinite extension"

You said they have changed their tune regarding an extension, I said it was consistent with no deal being worse other than the four pillars.

They don't want an extension, they want us to stay but as that's unlikely they want us to carry out the process they have just spent 2years negotiating and thought they had an agreement.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

You said they have changed their tune regarding an extension, I said it was consistent with no deal being worse other than the four pillars.

They don't want an extension, they want us to stay but as that's unlikely they want us to carry out the process they have just spent 2years negotiating and thought they had an agreement.

You dont think their comments RE the extension havent changed over the recent weeks? You dont think they have gone from threatening to accomodating?

As Ive said - the agreement is a divorce bill, not a deal. There is no deal.

 

[r-u-s-x]

You dont think their comments RE the extension havent changed over the recent weeks? You dont think they have gone from threatening to accomodating?

As Ive said - the agreement is a divorce bill, not a deal. There is no deal.

As I said they have offered us a deal, we are negotiating more.

I think they have been consistent that stay> deal>no deal >break four pillars, which I said at the outset.

 

[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.

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.
...............
This was the start of the conversation

 

[DTA]

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.

It comes down to both parties' red lines.

Lets put this way:

They would rather no deal Brexit than cross their red lines, this is their consistent position.

We don't want no deal so we are asking for extensions... And at present are in cross party negotiations to blur Mays red lines and prevent no deal.

 

[the dza]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/apr/10/brexit-eu-to-decide-on-uk-extension-live-news

Varadkar says UK should be allowed to stay in customs union with say over EU trade policy

He said he wanted to see the UK in a customs union with the EU, and that the EU should agree to let the UK have a say when it negotiates trade deals. He explained:
One thing I would like to be considered, and I know it is under consideration, is the possibility of a customs union being formed between the United Kingdom and the EU. Ultimately the European Union, we are the biggest trading bloc in the world. We trade more than China. We’ve a bigger population than the US. And, in a world of big blocs, it’s in the interests of the UK to be part of one of those blocs. It is also in our interests to have the UK in our bloc. I think we would be generous negotiating that, understanding that the UK could not be a silent partner in such an arrangement. It would have to have a say in decisions being made.

 

[Parklaner81]

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 bad intentions.

Fixed that for you

 

[Parklaner81]

It really is though, isnt it? If we take no deal off the table then its all in the EUs hands as to how soft a brexit we are permitted. Thats not negotiation at all.

No deal being a very real option is essential, even if behind closed doors weve no intention of ever going there.

I actually have a sneaking suspicion that this might be the thing Labour get a kicking for next time out from some of their brexiteer voters. The pressure they put on May over this was outrageous in my opinion. I know if I were (still) a Labour voter, this is something I wouldn't forgive.

 

[scaramanga]

I actually have a sneaking suspicion that this might be the thing Labour get a kicking for next time out from some of their brexiteer voters. The pressure they put on May over this was outrageous in my opinion. I know if I were (still) a Labour voter, this is something I wouldn't forgive.

I don't think there are enough Corbyn voters capable of working that out to make a difference.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Thats because it is a deja vu situation.

I remember telling you not that we WOULD get a great deal, but that by rights we SHOULD, which is a very different thing.

We have enough to offer that we SHOULD be able to get a good deal. As I said all along - one that suits all.

The thing is, remainers refuse to see it. Refuse to credit the UK. And refuse to allow the idea that the EU are as to blame as we are for the situation to this point. In both their conduct up to and including meetings with Cameron, and since.

Yes, you did tell me negotiations would go this way. Just as I told you - it neednt be that way.

The EU dont need to "win", to defeat us, or put us in their pocket. They could very simply respect a different point of view and agree a trade deal that means they still get to make billions off of us every year.

If we SHOULD get a great deal, why havn't we???

Slight revision of history. Some maintained negotiation would be simple, easy and equal. That was not true.

Re. the EU "winning" no one wins with Brexit that is the agony of it. People outlined pre-vote that the EU couldn't give us better terms than their members get. That was obvious from the outset. They didn't defeat us, they just didn't give us the exceptional deal that we were mis-sold by lying or ignorant politicians.

What is it you suggest the EU should have given us?

 

[SpurMeUp]

We took all our bargaining chips of the table early in the negotiations thats why it failed. That and we have the worst negotiator to ever live in charge

You honestly think it would have been any different with someone else? What is it that you'd be looking for the UK to be walking away with from negotiations?

 

[SpurMeUp]

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.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the situation. You narrative: the EU want to harm us. Reality: we don't have a strong barging position, as was outlined pre-vote. The EU represents its members. Why do you think they should represent us, a leaving member. You're trying to justify a deluded premise by blaming the EU. Instead admit that the premis that we were going to enter negotiations on an equal footing with the EU was wrong. And take some responsibility rather than blame others. For example, what is it the EU should have given to the UK?

 

[P.D.]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/apr/10/brexit-eu-to-decide-on-uk-extension-live-news

Varadkar says UK should be allowed to stay in customs union with say over EU trade policy

He said he wanted to see the UK in a customs union with the EU, and that the EU should agree to let the UK have a say when it negotiates trade deals. He explained:
One thing I would like to be considered, and I know it is under consideration, is the possibility of a customs union being formed between the United Kingdom and the EU. Ultimately the European Union, we are the biggest trading bloc in the world. We trade more than China. We’ve a bigger population than the US. And, in a world of big blocs, it’s in the interests of the UK to be part of one of those blocs. It is also in our interests to have the UK in our bloc. I think we would be generous negotiating that, understanding that the UK could not be a silent partner in such an arrangement. It would have to have a say in decisions being made.

Complete fabrication, the EU rules don't allow it and the only way to legally allow it would be to have a treaty level change which will never happen. It's just Varadkar doing his best to get a customs union deal as it would suit Ireland especially perfectly to have one.

We were never offered Canada, they said based on the red lines the UK set out they could look at a free trade agreement but as we've seen they refuse to negotiate anything until the WA is sealed and they have the exit money so all we'd be left with is a vague promise of a free trade deal with no guarantees of how it might work or what would be included in it.

 

[r-u-s-x]

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It comes down to both parties' red lines.

Lets put this way:

They would rather no deal Brexit than cross their red lines, this is their consistent position.

We don't want no deal so we are asking for extensions... And at present are in cross party negotiations to blur Mays red lines and prevent no deal.

Except, they are backing off of the cliff edge arent they? You think thats just to do us a favour? Or because they realised it was about to happen and they actually really dont want that?

All throughout they have been firm in letting us hang ourselves, we need them more than they need us etc - but when it came to it the bluff fell apart.

Look below:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/apr/10/brexit-eu-to-decide-on-uk-extension-live-news

Varadkar says UK should be allowed to stay in customs union with say over EU trade policy

He said he wanted to see the UK in a customs union with the EU, and that the EU should agree to let the UK have a say when it negotiates trade deals. He explained:
One thing I would like to be considered, and I know it is under consideration, is the possibility of a customs union being formed between the United Kingdom and the EU. Ultimately the European Union, we are the biggest trading bloc in the world. We trade more than China. We’ve a bigger population than the US. And, in a world of big blocs, it’s in the interests of the UK to be part of one of those blocs. It is also in our interests to have the UK in our bloc. I think we would be generous negotiating that, understanding that the UK could not be a silent partner in such an arrangement. It would have to have a say in decisions being made.

Wouldnt have heard that even a month ago would you? It was an absolute red line (Ive mocked Corbyn enough for wanting it-it is fairy tale stuff) but now we have EU leaders openly challenging the EU line...

Is it because, maybe (just maybe) we actually have a lot to offer, that they stand to lose a great deal, and we should be seen as a more equal partner in negotiations instead of the whipping boy we have been?

This is a favourite of mine. It show no less than 5 different deals. 5 variations on agreements that have been settled with other parties. When negotiating with the Swiss, did they try and force them into the Norway model? Or did they come to a new agreement? Same the Turks, the Canadians... "Hey Canada, we would love to deal - but only if you fit in one of these predefined boxes". No.

But - when its the UK? Oh yeah thats just great and its us who are being difficult for recognising (as the EU knew up front) none of those deals would work for us...

Yes, I know what youll say, they have been consistent. At least here we agree.

 

[r-u-s-x]

But - when its the UK? Oh yeah thats just great and its us who are being difficult for recognising (as the EU knew up front) none of those deals would work for us...

Yes, I know what youll say, they have been consistent. At least here we agree.

they have been flexible with us, they were starting points, you just cant see it.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

they have been flexible with us, they were starting points, you just cant see it.

Not at all. This graphic is always presented in absolute and as evidence of EU flexibility.

Except - on any one of those deals they arent flexible on the bits that matter, are they?

5 deals that dont suit = not flexible.

5 deals that dont suit, but they are a starting point, but the bits that make them unsuitable arent up for discussion = not flexible.

What I see is that every move the EU have made has been designed around BINO. Around keeping us under their umbrella one way or another. I dont believe they have once considered us as a serious trading partner at all, rather someone to conquer and keep in a box.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Not at all. This graphic is always presented in absolute and as evidence of EU flexibility.

Except - on any one of those deals they arent flexible on the bits that matter, are they?

5 deals that dont suit = not flexible.

5 deals that dont suit, but they are a starting point, but the bits that make them unsuitable arent up for discussion = not flexible.

What I see is that every move the EU have made has been designed around BINO. Around keeping us under their umbrella one way or another. I dont believe they have once considered us as a serious trading partner at all, rather someone to conquer and keep in a box.

Yes they wont break the four pillars, on that they wont be flexible and have been consistent in that message.