• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The EU set boundaries from the outset they knew we would not like. Boundaries they have relaxed upon in the past. Immediately, this is an aggrivating move, is it not?

They then dragged the divorce bill out, refusing to talk trade at all until they had lined their pockets. Our weak government allowed it, and its another aggrivating move.

The intention is clear. And parroted here plenty - winning and losing. "beating" us.

I do agree with you - we should have walked away. Damn our weak willed leadership.

I am not angry with the EU, I am disappointed, and confused.

I think their approach betrays their intent, intent many anti EU posters get shot down for expressing.

Im still sat here wondering why it even needs to be conducted like that. So far, they set out their stall knowing it doesnt work for us, and then sat and smiled. This is not an intent to negotiate or compromise, which is the essence of any fair agreement.
Click to expand...


I disagree this is an aggravating move, they set out the boundaries that they are comfortable negotiating within, their primary goal is keeping the EU intact as they believe that this is what makes their members more well off. They have also offered us those relaxed options, we are pushing for more.

The divorce bill was horse trading it is purely who needs who the most, it was obvious that we were hoping to hold this over their heads to help our side on the negotiations and its obvious that they were using the no trade talk until it is decided as their tool. We blinked first, both equally combative here.

Are you looking at this from their point of view as well as ours? The best outcome for them would have been for us to remain given that this is not an option they are looking at the least worst option open to them. We had the option to walk away at the outset given their boundaries, they did not have this option as we did not give them our requirements. Given that we didn't walk away or try to argue those boundaries but went into negotiations with those well known I would say we have been negotiating in bad faith not them.
 
milo said:
No problem at all with people choosing to be vegetarian or vegan. I doubt that there would be much support for the government rationing meat and dictating what farmers' can produce in order to meet an unnecessary desire to be self sufficient in food.

The free market is excellent at providing the food that people want. The state has a far less successful track record.
Click to expand...

We should be looking to become self sufficient in food through vertical farming. I agree if it happens through brexit some will be tinkled off but I think it would be an amazing opportunity to set up something we should be doing anyway.

A better Britain though innovation and new outward looking partnerships.
 
From their pov?

We are one of the largest economies in the world. And a close ally in security etc. Of the EU nations our Army is probably the best, and another major asset. And with us leaving there will be a bloody great hole in the budget, divorce bill nor not.

From their pov I would want to maintain a situation that allows me to trade well with the UK, profit from them as much as possible to help businesses across the EU sustain themselves. I would also want continued close relations on things like Security, it makes sense.

I dont think I would be that insistent on the pillars, I dont see why that would be important - it should be more a financial transaction than political.

As Ive said previously, if that meant free trade with some sort of contribution to their budget for the Financial passport, that would seem to be a win-win for all. We get the trade we want, and break from the Pillars, they get to carry on their merry way of ever closer union while still maintaining strong trade and cash flow.

Yes, Im well aware we arent going to be their biggest partner etc - but at the very least we are a significant one that will leave a big gap if a close relationship isnt kept.
 
But they don't want that, they prioritise the Pillars over that. This is not a dogmatic position but one where they believe the strength of the bloc will be beneficial to their members in the long term, by offering us a deal like this they believe that it weakens this position and would likely lead to others leaving. There are negatives in the situation you outline that they believe outweigh the positives. They may be wrong, they may be right but as a group of 27 leaders this is the conclusion they reached.

This is their choice and they were willing to walk away from a deal than move from these principles, in just the same way we had the opportunity to do so.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I dont think I would be that insistent on the pillars, I dont see why that would be important - it should be more a financial transaction than political.
Click to expand...

The EU needs to justify its existence though. It's quite different from what the European nations may or may not want.

If the EU stops being so fundamentalist, it exposes just how little it is needed. A bit like the Church of England - by giving up all the nasty doctrine stuff, it became an old people's support network akin to the WI.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
We should be looking to become self sufficient in food through vertical farming. I agree if it happens through brexit some will be tinkled off but I think it would be an amazing opportunity to set up something we should be doing anyway.

A better Britain though innovation and new outward looking partnerships.
Click to expand...

Even if this is the case (and I think from a National Security standpoint, self-sufficiency in food and energy is desirable) why not at least slow down Brexit until we are at the stage where we produce more of our own food, we have the necessary customs infrastructure etc. etc. What good does it do anybody to cut the cord and then have problems with essential things like food and medicine? That is just plain stupidity imo, bad governance.
 
r-u-s-x said:
But they don't want that, they prioritise the Pillars over that. This is not a dogmatic position but one where they believe the strength of the bloc will be beneficial to their members in the long term, by offering us a deal like this they believe that it weakens this position and would likely lead to others leaving. There are negatives in the situation you outline that they believe outweigh the positives. They may be wrong, they may be right but as a group of 27 leaders this is the conclusion they reached.

This is their choice and they were willing to walk away from a deal than move from these principles, in just the same way we had the opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...

A convenient argument for them to make, but I wonder how likely it really is especially considering that the vast majority of EU nations are net beneficiaries of its budget, unlike the UK.
 
Parklaner81 said:
A convenient argument for them to make, but I wonder how likely it really is especially considering that the vast majority of EU nations are net beneficiaries of its budget, unlike the UK.
Click to expand...

They seem to believe it as it is often repeated, but it doesn't really matter either way why they come to a position, this is their position which they made clear at the outset and were willing to walk away if the conditions were not met. We entered the negotiations knowing this, we had other options and decided not to take them.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
France, Germany and even Italy have bigger armies. We have nukes, and we have reasonably good specialist capabilities. But when it comes to holding a Slavic front line against Putin, we don't have a massive amount to offer.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. Or a false metric anyway. That may be standing soldiers, but not all 3 services combined and accounting for machinery

Germany for reasons of history only maintains the bare minimum forces and is very hesitant to operate outside its borders.

France and Britain are the only two European military superpowers
 
r-u-s-x said:
But they don't want that, they prioritise the Pillars over that. This is not a dogmatic position but one where they believe the strength of the bloc will be beneficial to their members in the long term, by offering us a deal like this they believe that it weakens this position and would likely lead to others leaving. There are negatives in the situation you outline that they believe outweigh the positives. They may be wrong, they may be right but as a group of 27 leaders this is the conclusion they reached.

This is their choice and they were willing to walk away from a deal than move from these principles, in just the same way we had the opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...

This has been a persistent line in the remain argument, in a particularly dismissive manner usually (not you), and it just doesnt stack up IMHO.

Now I appreciate you are putting forward their pov, and that it may be wrong, but it really does grind my gears.

Of the 28 only a few are actual net contributors. For what reason would a net beneficiary want to leave? Just on that single point alone.

Same as this idea of us getting a "better deal", it just doesnt add up. Yes, leaving and continuing to trade is a better deal - FOR US. Does it necessarily follow it would be better for any other? Will Poland be eyeing it up thinking "I want some of that!". I sincerely doubt it.

Also, us leaving allows for the EU to move toward its ever closer union unimpeded. At that point there are not special case countries in the bloc with their own currency, veto, and general reluctance to follow the program.

I would think getting us out, while capitalising on us financially, would be agreeable to the bloc. I do not understand this insistence on the political elements of their pov. What is the big deal with the pillars to a 3rd party? (when it suits them, not an issue with Canada.)
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I would think getting us out, while capitalising on us financially, would be agreeable to the bloc. I do not understand this insistence on the political elements of their pov. What is the big deal with the pillars to a 3rd party? (when it suits them, not an issue with Canada.)
Click to expand...

The EU have offered a Canada deal, that's on the table. Our government haven't taken the offer.
 
the dza said:
The EU have offered a Canada deal, that's on the table. Our government haven't taken the offer.
Click to expand...

Knowing it doesnt work with NI, isnt it?

This idea of "Canada deal" "Norway deal" frustrates me.

Not that Im looking for a cake and eat it solution, Im well aware of the need to compromise - its the idea of just boxing us into existing models (none of which particularly suit).

There are all those models because boxing people into existing models didnt work before, and they made compromises to make things viable. Except now they dont.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
This has been a persistent line in the remain argument, in a particularly dismissive manner usually (not you), and it just doesnt stack up IMHO.

Now I appreciate you are putting forward their pov, and that it may be wrong, but it really does grind my gears.

Of the 28 only a few are actual net contributors. For what reason would a net beneficiary want to leave? Just on that single point alone.

Same as this idea of us getting a "better deal", it just doesnt add up. Yes, leaving and continuing to trade is a better deal - FOR US. Does it necessarily follow it would be better for any other? Will Poland be eyeing it up thinking "I want some of that!". I sincerely doubt it.

Also, us leaving allows for the EU to move toward its ever closer union unimpeded. At that point there are not special case countries in the bloc with their own currency, veto, and general reluctance to follow the program.

I would think getting us out, while capitalising on us financially, would be agreeable to the bloc. I do not understand this insistence on the political elements of their pov. What is the big deal with the pillars to a 3rd party? (when it suits them, not an issue with Canada.)
Click to expand...


You may disagree with their position but its the one the 27 leaders arrived at, they then made this clear at the outset. They felt that strongly about this position that they were willing to walk away. Its up to the EU to decide what trade deals they are comfortable looking at the impact both politically and economically, they decided that they were not able to relax any more for the UK although they have offered similar deal as they offered Canada (its on that slide).

Arguing about their position is moot (its the one they have) and was played out two years ago, you and many others see it as punishing the UK and I and many others see it as them doing what's best for themselves - I don't think this is going to change.

Discussing how they have conducted themselves during the negotiations - They laid out a position in detail, gave a number of options and have remained consistent throughout. We entered the discussions knowing their position and trying to call their bluff. Just because they were not bluffing does not equate to bullying behavior. They said they will not move and they have not moved.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Knowing it doesnt work with NI, isnt it?

This idea of "Canada deal" "Norway deal" frustrates me.

Not that Im looking for a cake and eat it solution, Im well aware of the need to compromise - its the idea of just boxing us into existing models (none of which particularly suit).

There are all those models because boxing people into existing models didnt work before, and they made compromises to make things viable. Except now they dont.
Click to expand...
It suits them - that's why they offered these deals to those countries and not more.
 
r-u-s-x said:
They seem to believe it as it is often repeated, but it doesn't really matter either way why they come to a position, this is their position which they made clear at the outset and were willing to walk away if the conditions were not met. We entered the negotiations knowing this, we had other options and decided not to take them.
Click to expand...

Just because it is often repeated doesn't mean they believe it. As I suggested in my original post, it is being used to support/justify the stance that they are taking, and for that purpose it's a very convenient line for them to take. It is therefore also entirely reasonable to question it's validity.

Similarly, I'd suggest that it matters very much why the position was arrived at - afterall, you yourself were arguing about who was/wasn't negotiating in good/bad faith a few posts ago.
 
Last edited:
They laid out unfavourable positions, having started from an unecessary point - thats where my issue begins.

You are right, it is their choice and they have at least been consistent. I dont think its "right" (for want of a better word), I do think it betrays a rather unfavourable side to their attitude, and I do think it was unecessary.

Again, you are right though - we didnt need to play ball. And shouldnt have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back