Politics, politics, politics

[DTA]

I think you read far to much into a simple graphic.

And I know what you are doing, you are setting me up so you can quote Braniers "no bespoke deal" one liner. And you'll take that as gospel.

While ignoring we have our own stated red lines, which you will conveniently ignore or dismiss (with a swipe at the Tories while you're at it). What suits your agenda is good, what doesnt suit it doesnt count, right?

Both statements, lets be honest, are opening gambits. Trying to set starting positions in a negotiation. I think it would be foolish, personally, to take either as gospel.

What I havent seen, aside from that single line, is anything at all to say "Here is what is on offer" "Here is what we are prepared to do". Only "No Bespoke deals".

What does that even mean? And - looking at your graphic - the EU currently has 7 different arrangements with differing states. Are none of these Bespoke? Do none of these contain/omit things that suit the other party in order to reach an agreement?

Is CETA not the very definition of bespoke?

And this is the thing. Yes, Im more in favour of leave than remain, but - I am not dogmatic about it. I am simply yet to see compelling arguments as to why remaining is such a good thing. So many things put forward by remainers are so easily deconstructed, and as soon as that happens the conversation is moved on and those points ignored. It becomes tedious, to say the least.

The infographic that I gave you is a very simple way to show what is on offer. The EU have repeatedly said that there is no bespoke deal you will have to pick one of the options available (see info graphic) with very little divergence from it.

Now we can huff and puff as much as we want, but I have seen very little evidence that our negociating team has the skills or foresght required to extract what they want from the EU... that is assuming that EU would be interested in a non punitive deal for the UK...

And if you want evidence of this I suggest you look at the first round of negotiations. The EU set out there terms we did a little dance for a few months they raised the bill to 100billion and we said actually you were right the first time 40billion rising sounds good.

Now you say that i have a little swipe at the conservatives... I couldnt give a brick who is running Brexit as long as they are competent.... actually scratch that they should be much more than competent they really should be the best of the best.

This lot are clowns.... they copy brick from Wikipedia...again not a joke ... they actually done that. If Brexit supporters are more than zealots then they should be more mad about that then I am.

Why? Because if Brexit is this big opportunity, then them not doing their due diligence is not doing right by those that voted to leave for honourable reasons

 

[DTA]

And in order to save you from poor form on your part, why dont you answer this question that has so far been ignored?

I have answered that repeatedly. We do know the various options we have (see infographic... I can probably find you another one, if you don't like that one) and therefore we know the range of option we have with very room for divergence.

I would want a cross sector analysis on each option, together with the affects of likely divergences and desired divergences.... tbis will help inform negociations.

I would then want an amalgamation report where the option with the least impact (or greatest potential upside) on the economy and equally on society be championed as the type of Brexit we are going for.

I would then want this highly complex document split into sections where by individuals can see the potential benifits of this vision to their everyday life.
In a meaningful way.... not blue fudging passports

This would be promoted accross the country and hopefully start to heal the divisions that exist.

It would be a vision of a Brexit that people will hopeully get behind. Because we can see the logic and the benifits.

Handling Brexit like that would warm me to it a lot more.

Instead we got these clams telling us about blue passports... Like I said Brexiteers they are taking the tinkle out of you!

 

[SpurMeUp]

And this is the thing. Yes, Im more in favour of leave than remain, but - I am not dogmatic about it. I am simply yet to see compelling arguments as to why remaining is such a good thing. So many things put forward by remainers are so easily deconstructed, and as soon as that happens the conversation is moved on and those points ignored. It becomes tedious, to say the least.

Are you sure you are so balanced? My view is when problems with Brexit are flagged you try to excuse them - ‘we shouldn’t look at models of what will happen’ now! Or when the negotiating reality is flagged and how the exit deal didn’t go to plan, and how will we get better trade terms than we have now, your bias seems to overshadow objectivity. Rather than deconstruct them you follow a dogma. Now I’m not saying I’m different, we’re all biased, but I’m happy to deconstruct and model any points. Not so sure you have been. That’s the interest is to see how things will play out.

Either way the uk will be fine, even if poorer and more peripheral. So I’m happy to have a constructive debate which challenges our prejudices.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Grays_1890]

People will be worse off being in the EU and some will be worse of out, its the way of the world. Its the same under a change of government. Labour were good for some bad for others as were the Conservatives. Its the way the world goes when people make political choices that require change, just look at the US.

But like said above, the UK will be ok in the long run and may even be better off because if there is one thing none of us can predict its the future, there are so many variables that we don't have control on or know about that the future is impossible to predict.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The infographic that I gave you is a very simple way to show what is on offer. The EU have repeatedly said that there is no bespoke deal you will have to pick one of the options available (see info graphic) with very little divergence from it.

Now we can huff and puff as much as we want, but I have seen very little evidence that our negociating team has the skills or foresght required to extract what they want from the EU... that is assuming that EU would be interested in a non punitive deal for the UK...

And if you want evidence of this I suggest you look at the first round of negotiations. The EU set out there terms we did a little dance for a few months they raised the bill to 100billion and we said actually you were right the first time 40billion rising sounds good.

Now you say that i have a little swipe at the conservatives... I couldnt give a brick who is running Brexit as long as they are competent.... actually scratch that they should be much more than competent they really should be the best of the best.

This lot are clowns.... they copy brick from Wikipedia...again not a joke ... they actually done that. If Brexit supporters are more than zealots then they should be more mad about that then I am.

Why? Because if Brexit is this big opportunity, then them not doing their due diligence is not doing right by those that voted to leave for honourable reasons

I am yet to see that graphic defined as such. As I said, it looked very much to me like pigeon holing us in the current set up, IE 'based on how things are today, this is where they land'. I havent seen anything describing it as their negotiating stance at all.

But ok - lets say it is. Is that it? Or is that an opening position?

And - genuine question - why would they want to make it a punitive deal. Honestly, the more I think about it the more it just seems like petulance and spite - not something logical at all.

Now I do respect your view on us being weak in negotiation. That much is evident so far. Though I do hesitate to assume that will simply be the case going on.

First round, we arent interested in - we are after round 2. They essentially leverage that and yes, we crack.

Round 2? Well this is where both sides are actually tested, isnt it? What to THEY want? What are they willing to give? And, considering we havent actually signed off the divorce bill, how much clout do we have in things in round 2?

And again - credit to you - the Tories probably should be the best people for this particular job. I respect you putting that out there considering how anti you are.

And, for round 2, heres the thing Im thinking.

Aside from the 40bn ransom we currently hold, we are also a major trading partner.
Despite being dismissed as "only 50m people vs 500m" we are also the 6th largest economy in the world. Why wouldnt the EU want to tap into that?
Especially when we are already completely aligned on standards etc.
Its not like the EU WONT want our trade, is it?
They are willing to trade with Korea and Canada without insisting on free movement of people or budget contributions. Why exactly is it assumed they will insist upon it with us?
And yes, the ace in the hole with them is the Financial passport - a huge part of our economy, but... there is a reason its in London. And it is never going to be as simple as "the financial centre will just move to Frankfurt (or similar)".

Long story short, I dont think this part of negotiation is any where near as one sided as many seem to assume. This is where we will really find out what appetites there are.

Like I said up thread, CETA + Financial passport, would be an absolute win for us. And if the Financial passport meant some sort of ongoing contribution from us, then its a win for them too. Would you agree? And is it really that impossible?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I have answered that repeatedly. We do know the various options we have (see infographic... I can probably find you another one, if you don't like that one) and therefore we know the range of option we have with very room for divergence.

I would want a cross sector analysis on each option, together with the affects of likely divergences and desired divergences.... tbis will help inform negociations.

I would then want an amalgamation report where the option with the least impact (or greatest potential upside) on the economy and equally on society be championed as the type of Brexit we are going for.

I would then want this highly complex document split into sections where by individuals can see the potential benifits of this vision to their everyday life.
In a meaningful way.... not blue fudging passports

This would be promoted accross the country and hopefully start to heal the divisions that exist.

It would be a vision of a Brexit that people will hopeully get behind. Because we can see the logic and the benifits.

Handling Brexit like that would warm me to it a lot more.

Instead we got these clams telling us about blue passports... Like I said Brexiteers they are taking the tinkle out of you!

I think that is an enormous and near impossible task. Aside from the fact you havent even considered post Brexit influences, there is already just so much to even begin to compute. Where does the data come from? How reliable are assumptions to be made? And how simply do you suppose we can put together analysis of each sector cut 5 ways?

What is the Norway deal, where are there differences, how do we calculate fees, if some things arent included in the trade deal - what if we trade those things elsewhere? If so, what are the duties involved? Sales quantities?...

It is, to my mind, near impossibly complex.

Now I do agree with you, it would be very nice to have - I just dont see HOW its supposed to have happened.

With R2 kicking off, I would imagine it will be immediately apparent what options are even viable - and then it will be much easier to focus energies into working out the cost/benfit of each.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Are you sure you are so balanced? My view is when problems with Brexit are flagged you try to excuse them - ‘we shouldn’t look at models of what will happen’ now! Or when the negotiating reality is flagged and how the exit deal didn’t go to plan, and how will we get better trade terms than we have now, your bias seems to overshadow objectivity. Rather than deconstruct them you follow a dogma. Now I’m not saying I’m different, we’re all biased, but I’m happy to deconstruct and model any points. Not so sure you have been. That’s the interest is to see how things will play out.

Either way the uk will be fine, even if poorer and more peripheral. So I’m happy to have a constructive debate which challenges our prejudices.

I genuinely cannot get a grip on what your deal is.

You throw out these big issues, they get completely shot down (with reason, not hyperbole) and then you simply move the goal posts and start talking about something else. Look at your post upthread, suddenly trade with the USA is a part of the conversation when it hasnt featured for weeks, funnily enough when there is a fairly comprehensive response to one of your earlier posts.

And that really illustrates how you essentially dodge any point made, or deliberately ignore/mis interpret and just answer what you think works better for you.

And you call me biased and dogmatic?

I havent excused anything. Ive put forward a consistent and reasoned point, on any matter.

You say the EU is a trading bloc only. It is shown, on their own terms, to be political. You barely acknowledge and never mention again.

You say we have to be in the EU to get good deals on phone charges (as if thats even especially important!) and 3 very conveniently show that is not the case. Barely acknowledged, never mentioned again.

You say we cannot have a deal without free movement of people. CETA sets a precedent that says the opposite. I think you are still at the stage of just ignoring this.

We are told we already have the means to manage immigration, it is shown to be patently false (@scaramanga reading the EUs own policy was enough!). Never mentioned again...

You try painting people pro immigration control as wanting NO immigration, again proven to be ridiculous - barely acknowledged, never mentioned again.

You continue to state the current economic climate is somehow proof of a disasterous Brexit when it is quite clearly a case of current uncertainty. Another one you havent quite let go of, but I expect it to follow the barely acknowledged, never mentioned again pattern we have seen.

It goes on and on. Every major issue you have raised hasnt actually stood up to scrutiny.

The only thing I can see that I have "excused", if you want to call it that, is the impact assessments. And that is not because I dont care, its because I simply do not understand how they are supposed to have been done to an acceptable level. Which is the sole reason Im willing to wait until the field of options narrows before expecting them. Its not excuse, its more like patience.

I conceed, I have genuine fears for workers rights post Brexit. I also wonder what will happen with environmental initiatives, something the EU is pretty good for.

There after I am yet to come across a genuinely compelling pro-EU argument.

Honestly, for me, much depends on them. I actually think our stance is quite reasonable, and if they take a sensible approach I see no reason why a deal cannot be struck that suits all parties.

So have at it - take your shot - what is the most compelling argument you can come up with as to why it is better to stay in the EU?

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/944844101438013440

 

[SpurMeUp]

@nayimfromthehalfwayline lots of you did this and that. First and foremost, I appreciate you standing your ground and debating the issues. None of it should be personal.

Why should we stay in the EU?

• For our economy first and foremost.
• As a means to collaborate with our neighbouring countries.
• To ensure things that are cross-boarder work well. Beit controlling pollution, roaming charges, controlling airlines, opening trade with a level playing field, unifying trade law and legal agreements to facilitate commerce. Cliche alert, we live in a global world...national laws hold back trade and and looking after our environment.
• While we collaborate on these things with european nations, we retain our own Parliament and sovereignty imo. No one is interested in EU elections, just our sovereign UK ones, which should tell us all we need to know about sovereignty.
• As means to ensure peace in Europe privails
• To have complete freedom to live, work, retire, visit any country in the union unencumbered. Want to open a bar in Spain and retire there? We can. It doesn't work out...move back, or try the cheap Bulgerian coastline etc
• To have a seat at the top table. The US, the EU, China, and in the future Russia, Brazil, India are the global powers. Trade regulations are determined by these blocks. Regulations are key, because they are used to protect the large countries industries. At the moment we input into these regulations. In the future we won't.
• To save our Government the cost and bureaucracy of setting up and looking after things like international trade laws, trade negotiations, enlarged custom departments, an airline regulator, a medicines regulator etc etc. all dull things the EU handles for us.

A few things to set straight:

I did not say the EU is a trading block only. At its core it is a customs union, which is the EUs primary function above all others.

The reason the US entered the debate was because you said what if Norway + US free trade comes to pass as Brexit - in response to my hypothetical point about rating theUK economy, value of the pound, based on such a positive (now unlikely) scenario.

Your other points are already answered in previous posts. CETA + services would likely require free movement imo. Otherwise, why would any country be in the EU, if the UK can cherry pick the best bits, and be outside it?

But ultimately, I wish you a nice Christmas, and hope to continue banging our heads against the Brexit wall in the new year ...might have to visit Ireland do that...

 

[DTA]

Like I said up thread, CETA + Financial passport, would be an absolute win for us. And if the Financial passport meant some sort of ongoing contribution from us, then its a win for them too. Would you agree? And is it really that impossible?

If we are leaving then given the choice I would want the Norway option. But CETA plus passporting rights would be seen as a big win.

 

[DTA]

I think that is an enormous and near impossible task. Aside from the fact you havent even considered post Brexit influences, there is already just so much to even begin to compute. Where does the data come from? How reliable are assumptions to be made? And how simply do you suppose we can put together analysis of each sector cut 5 ways?

What is the Norway deal, where are there differences, how do we calculate fees, if some things arent included in the trade deal - what if we trade those things elsewhere? If so, what are the duties involved? Sales quantities?...

It is, to my mind, near impossibly complex.

Now I do agree with you, it would be very nice to have - I just dont see HOW its supposed to have happened.

With R2 kicking off, I would imagine it will be immediately apparent what options are even viable - and then it will be much easier to focus energies into working out the cost/benfit of each.

It's a big task no doubt. But Brexit is a big big change. So respect and due diligence need to be paid.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

@nayimfromthehalfwayline lots of you did this and that. First and foremost, I appreciate you standing your ground and debating the issues. None of it should be personal.

It most certainly is not personal, and I would be quite upset if I lead you to think it were.

A few things to set straight:
I did not say the EU is a trading block only. At its core it is a customs union, which is the EUs primary function above all others.

You were very insistent on emphasising the trade aspect. It started as a trading bloc, yes, and then decided it needed its own Parliament, council etc - and now has - in its own terms - has a desire for "ever closer union". Do you honestly think that trade is even the primary intention at this point? Or, if you do, that it will stay that way?

The reason the US entered the debate was because you said what if Norway + US free trade comes to pass as Brexit - in response to my hypothetical point about rating theUK economy, value of the pound, based on such a positive (now unlikely) scenario.

This is the frustration with you. The US was not the point, it was inconsequential. It could have been Australia, India or the Mars colonies - the "who" was irrelevant. The POINT was around how well/reliably are we supposed to model scenarios.

Its all well and good saying "we know what we are getting", but we actually dont. If we model a Norway option, that is only part of the equation. The point was - what if we took a Norway option AND ALSO struck a deal with someone else...? How do you start modelling that? And what if you try adding that one variable (in itself entirely complex) to each scenario listed?

The whole intention was to try and illustrate just how hard a job it is to even begin to make those assessments.

I thought that was clear, then you start going on about the US - showing you entirely missed the point I was making.

Your other points are already answered in previous posts. CETA + services would likely require free movement imo. Otherwise, why would any country be in the EU, if the UK can cherry pick the best bits, and be outside it?

Why would it likely require free movement?

The whole "why would any country stay in otherwise..." argument is short sighted, to say the least.
"Any country" bar Us, Germany and France would stand to lose, significantly, were they to follow the same path. They simply dont have the weight to make the sort of move we are making. Its as simple as that. And France and Germany show no sign of wanting to go that route.

They do, however, need our money. Especially when it comes to propping up the 20+ countries that take out far more than they put in themselves.

CETA has no free movement, so why would we be required to accept it?

The Financial passport? Well, if it was "free movement of accountants and bankers" then I doubt that would be a problem. Free movement of the entire EU though? How or why would that even factor in? Especially if it ended up with us paying for the passport.

Its an argument that, the more I think about it and the more I read, just doesnt stack up.

If we try to take on an existing model that includes the 4 pillars then yes, it becomes a real sticking point in the conversation. But something like CETA? Why would it even be in the conversation?

Why should we stay in the EU?

• For our economy first and foremost.
• As a means to collaborate with our neighbouring countries.
• To ensure things that are cross-boarder work well. Beit controlling pollution, roaming charges, controlling airlines, opening trade with a level playing field, unifying trade law and legal agreements to facilitate commerce. Cliche alert, we live in a global world...national laws hold back trade and and looking after our environment.
• While we collaborate on these things with european nations, we retain our own Parliament and sovereignty imo. No one is interested in EU elections, just our sovereign UK ones, which should tell us all we need to know about sovereignty.
• As means to ensure peace in Europe privails
• To have complete freedom to live, work, retire, visit any country in the union unencumbered. Want to open a bar in Spain and retire there? We can. It doesn't work out...move back, or try the cheap Bulgerian coastline etc
• To have a seat at the top table. The US, the EU, China, and in the future Russia, Brazil, India are the global powers. Trade regulations are determined by these blocks. Regulations are key, because they are used to protect the large countries industries. At the moment we input into these regulations. In the future we won't.
• To save our Government the cost and bureaucracy of setting up and looking after things like international trade laws, trade negotiations, enlarged custom departments, an airline regulator, a medicines regulator etc etc. all dull things the EU handles for us.

Fair enough.

A few things in there Id like to give some thought, but it wont surprise you to hear it really doesnt change my view much. Honestly I thought Id hear an argument with more punch. There isnt anything in there that is revelatory in a "pause for thought" sort of way.

But ultimately, I wish you a nice Christmas, and hope to continue banging our heads against the Brexit wall in the new year ...might have to visit Ireland do that...

Thank you. Clearly I didnt come near the internet over Christmas, so have only just seen this, but I hope your festivities went well as well!

 

[milo]

This is an interesting read

https://twitter.com/x/status/946019535429267456

 

[milo]

This is very good too

https://twitter.com/x/status/945991880080314368

 

[Baleforce]

jesus @milo, you are the ghost of christmas crappy future

 

[milo]

jesus @milo, you are the ghost of christmas crappy future

I was reading this on Christmas Eve but I saved sharing it for fear of you all thinking that I am even more of a sad bastard than you already do

https://twitter.com/x/status/944188906387525632

Plenty of interest but this is a key passage

 

[parklane1]

People will be worse off being in the EU and some will be worse of out, its the way of the world. Its the same under a change of government. Labour were good for some bad for others as were the Conservatives. Its the way the world goes when people make political choices that require change, just look at the US.

But like said above, the UK will be ok in the long run and may even be better off because if there is one thing none of us can predict its the future, there are so many variables that we don't have control on or know about that the future is impossible to predict.

At last some sense in this thread without the prejudice of how folks voted. Bravo

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't think there is a secrete government vision of Brexit, just a tightrope walk with them trying to get any kind of brexit agreement through that might work. Its uncharted territory, the gov are learning as they go, and to presume there is some grand plan and undercover expertise that we don't know about its naive imo. The Brexit deal the government will serve to us will not come about from them dictating terms. It is more of a case of what they manage to cobble together that has a whiff or respectability. In a sense @nayimfromthehalfwayline is correct, whats the point in impact assessments when we're not going to be able to control negotiations? It's not like we'll be in the driving seat with a trade deal with the EU. Same applies to trade deals we'll try and do with the US and China. Even Russia, Brazil etc won't be easy to set up trade deals with, because we're not a massive market and their populations dwarf ours.

As for whether it matters if we lose out financially...its not just a few quid less in your pocket - yes already our money doesn't buy as much - but its also a downgrading of the UK. We've already dropped from 5th largest economy to 6th since the Brexit vote. When we go abroad we're not as rich as we were, we can't afford as much. Brexit is also hitting the UK Exchequer. Just as the world is emerging from the effects of the credit crunch, and we would have been able to spend more again on the NHS, schools etc. we're now facing another freeze on spending. That has a very real impact on the level of health care, the level of spending on our kids education etc. Real impacts. The UK also becomes more peripheral, we don't have a seat at the top table. Diplomatically the UK becomes less important.

On the flip side, Brexit offers what? @nayimfromthehalfwayline a year and 2 months away it is late in the day to say it's "too early" for us to outline what benefits Brexit will bring. If Brexit is going to deliver something, why can't it be talked about? Brexit is the Emperors New Clothes is it not? It's just waiting for someone to shout out: it will do nothing for us, apart from make us poorer, and more peripheral in a global world.

Happy to listen to more expansive positive Brexit scenarios.

Why is being more peripheral a bad thing? I don't want to be a fat western pig consuming everything in sight, I don't want to crush you with my military might. Happiness is surely a might better measure of a country than might? Scandinavians are the happiest people in the world, and they are peripheral. We need to look inside and get things sorted, not worry about a pointless tinkling contest like 'growth'. Plus it's our nukes that really give us that seat at the top table anyway.

 

[the dza]

I was reading this on Christmas Eve but I saved sharing it for fear of you all thinking that I am even more of a sad bastard than you already do

https://twitter.com/x/status/944188906387525632

Plenty of interest but this is a key passage

The @Gutter Boy theory is that the demographics will lead to a United Ireland and it will get taken care of that way -- that might be true in the future, but for the negotiations that are taking place in the present, the government has promised: 1. no hard border; 2. the same regulations applied to the rest of the UK as to Northern Ireland (at the insistence of the DUP).

So how does the government apply 1 and 2 without staying in the EEA (for the regulatory alignment) and the customs union too?

Norway deal plus customs union is basically being in the EU -- Tory Brexiters won't have that, so they will have to tell the DUP to go phuck themselves at some point. Does that then necessitate a General Election? Can the Tories attempt to govern as an outright minority? I can't see a way out of this for the government that doesn't end with one of the DUP or the far right of the Tory Party rebelling against the government.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The @Gutter Boy theory is that the demographics will lead to a United Ireland and it will get taken care of that way -- that might be true in the future, but for the negotiations that are taking place in the present, the government has promised: 1. no hard border; 2. the same regulations applied to the rest of the UK as to Northern Ireland (at the insistence of the DUP).

So how does the government apply 1 and 2 without staying in the EEA (for the regulatory alignment) and the customs union too?

Norway deal plus customs union is basically being in the EU -- Tory Brexiters won't have that, so they will have to tell the DUP to go phuck themselves at some point. Does that then necessitate a General Election? Can the Tories attempt to govern as an outright minority? I can't see a way out of this for the government that doesn't end with one of the DUP or the far right of the Tory Party rebelling against the government.

I think there could be a sector-specific fudge. Ulster agricultural produce gets made to conform to EU regulation (but nothing else), whilst British doesn't, or something along those lines.