This was their position laid out prior to negotiations, so in my view we lay out our position and allow them to walk away if they can not come to terms with it or we walk away ourselves. We do not enter negotiations after being told they wont move on these parts and then get upset when they don't move.
-
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
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Right, but you can't talk about the EU not being fair and giving us terms like Canada, because that is on offer. That the leave side dismissed the problems with Northern Ireland in the leave campaign is not the fault of the EU. Our government have made red lines that mean we struggle to have a Canada deal and solve the Irish border issue. We could just put up a hard border there and deal with the consequences, something we might have to do in the event of WTO terms anyway. Our government don't want that.
Our government's so-called red lines is what limits the options. The EU have been clear on that from the start. They have said we can have Canada, as it doesn't cross the red-lines (the graphic you posted earlier shows that iirc). But then, N.Ireland and The Tories rotten deal with the DUP puts a spanner in the works.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Only because we've not hit the nuclear option on that. Saying we'll unilaterally not put a border up and dare them to do a Neum
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Another failing in the remain argument. Ignore the word "like" and think in absolute.
The point of a deal like Canada - IE not exactly the same - is that the EU were willing to set up a free trade deal without insisting on the pillars. That is the key fact being alluded to. It is not "I WANT THE SAME DEAL AS CANADA".
What is being said is simple, the EU have proven they will compromise on the pillars, while still offering free trade. The single thing we are told they wont do. The thing they have decided against in our case.
so all those nasty eastern Europeans can keep flooding into the UK?
Perhaps they compromised as much as they were willing to do with Canada, perhaps it was more than they wanted so this is the red line. I don't know if this is the case but they did say they wouldn't go any further for us two years ago. This was met with the arguments such as "they need us more than we need them", "german car makers" etc. and now this hasn't proved to be the case their are calls of foul.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Only into Northern Ireland. People wont be able to move into Britain without a visa or Irish passport.
They have said we can have a deal "like" Canada (IIRC this was the language used by Barnier, not that the deal would be exactly the same -- hence why he also said such a deal would take time to negotiate). But we can't have the benefits of the single market and customs union with a deal "like" Canada, and they don't offer that to anybody. What is it you want them to compromise on with regards a deal "like" Canada and the EU's 4 pillars?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Ive never said they need us more than we need them. Though I have always said they lose a lot in losing us, and it needs consideration. I do recognise you are speaking in general, of course.
The obvious compromise is free movement of people. Despite Brexit never really being defined, immigration is clearly one of the driving factors (if not THE driving factor).
After that its about whatever makes NI work, which honestly I dont have a full enough understanding of to put forward an answer.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The compromise we want is Canada plus no border infrastructure in NI.
The Chequers plan is coming out of the SM and CU on capital, services and labour; while medium-term staying in on goods, because of Ireland
No dude this is a failing in the Leave sides articulation and comprehension.
When you say 'like' you mean 'better' . This is where your argument falls apart.
You can have something like a Canada deal. what you cant have is something better than the Canada deal. Not without making more compromises... Because... Ah fudge it I can't be bothered... If you can't see why. it is literally a waste of my time trying to explain it to you.
I could be wrong, but don't the EU27 all have to agree on whatever deal we strike with them for it to get the go ahead? Why would many of those nations agree to give us the benefits of EU membership without free movement? Why would the governments in Eastern European countries want to go for that (maybe they would, but why?)
"Whatever makes N. Ireland work." -- nobody on the leave side has come up with a concrete solution. The obvious things that make it work cross the government's red lines. Those red lines and the whole situation aren't of the EU's making.
Should be no problem implementing it then, everybody is happy. Solved.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Perhaps we'd have done so had we realised that the EU would be taking a somewhat different interpretation of the word 'negotiation' to us. I'm not defending the UK governments approach here, but I do think that they expected a little bit more movement - a negotiating process, in essence. Otherwise, opening positions were effectively 'best and final' positions - that doesn't sound like much of a negotiation to me. This is getting a little bit away from the original point, but is probably a reasonable enough explanation of why we are where we are.
So border on the the Irish Sea then?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
"Dude", Like means like - as in - a willingness to compromise. I can be no clearer than that, and if you cant see why then...
Why didnt they take the opportunity to force FOM onto Canada?
"Benefits of EU membership" is an interesting point though, and I think its worth pointing out - it will mean different things to different people.
One of the benefits we want, is trade. In fact - thats the only one.
Other benefits include free movement of people, for some at least - take the influx from poorer eastern nations coming west to make money.
Subsidy - 23 (I think?) - actually take out more from the EU that they put in.
Infrastructure - the divorce bill nicely illustrates all the major projects countries are benefiting from across europe
There are plenty of others, Im sure you would find many if you shifted your perspective to each nation and saw what they got from it.
The point is though - trade is far from the only benefit. Getting free trade is not the same as getting "The benefits of being a member".
And why, if we are outside of the bloc, should free movement be essential? When all was want is trade - IE financial transaction?
Who is proposing this or discussing this or is it one of your ideas? at the moment its not a possibility I cant see even the next tory leader advocating the breaking up of the EU and if Labour get in then customs union negates the need.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Its the most obvious solution, from my understanding, Im yet to work out quite why the DUP are so against it.
There are separate currencies already, implement a system whereby people cant take residence etc without being qualified to do so and you then have all the border you need at the coast.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Barnier actually only kicked back the technical tariff collection proposal, not the principle of keeping goods-only SM access
Because Canada were not asking for the benefits of single market and customs union membership. Canada weren't asking for a lot, so had no need to have free movement, it would never have come up as an issue. If we want a deal "like" Canada, then free movement won't be an issue for us either.
Again, we can have a simple trade deal "like" Canada without much problem. Our government's deal with the DUP is one of the main barriers to such a deal, because of the Irish border issue. This is not a problem of the EU's making, this is for the leave side to figure out. Their only solution thus far is a technological one that doesn't exist yet. The EU have a solution but it crosses government red-lines. If the leave side solves it, we can have a deal "like" Canada, free trade deal with no free movement etc.
Now I'm sure there are problems for us with a deal "like" Canada, if we can even get to that point. And that's yet another discussion.