How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 5)

[FiF]

Each side is being sold this deal in a different way. Euro-philes are being sold the message "Vote for this deal or there will be no deal." Euro-sceptics are being sold the deal as "Vote for this deal or there will be no Brexit and we will full on Remain."

You can't have both scenarios, they are mutually exclusive.

Imo if the deal is voted down, which seems likely, then the probability rises that the really contentious stuff gets left out, or modified significantly to make it more acceptable to the middle ground.

At the moment you have some Remainers and the more moderate Leavers thinking a no deal would be better than this deal. You have some Leavers thinking that Remain might be better than this deal. Obviously I'm talking of the majority sensible middle ground folks not the extremists at either end.

If I'm wrong and whatever happens, as before, personally will just get on with whatever, planning for various eventualities in place as best possible.

[Digga]

Kermit power said:

Dindoit said:

Does the agreement fulfil the obligations set out in the referendum?

A helpful reminder in case people have forgotten.

Yes. Absolutely, and in every respect.

This was always going to be the problem, as soon as we entrusted such a complex question to such a stupidly fking simple question. Anything which results in the UK no longer appearing in the list of EU member states meets the obligations set out in the referendum.

Does it meet what people thought they were voting for (or even against)? In some cases maybe it does! I suspect in the vast majority it doesn't, but then the referendum never actually told us what we were voting for, so you're back to the conclusion that turning such a complex situation into such a simplistic process was barking fking mental!

On this we agree.

For all sides, leave, remain, UK, EU, it would have been far, far more sensible if the scope of potential leave deals could have been presented, before we were asked to vote.

[silentbrown]

soupdragon1 said:

And here's the rub, DUP are under home pressure to accept the Irish Sea border backstop. They HATE the idea, but NI welcomes it. Most notably the Ulster farmers union, who are asking DUP to reconsider their stance. The farmers unions are HUGE local DUP supporters, so this is very significant. DUP took a very strong stance against T May in the HOC but at this point, it's just bluster, hoping for others to share that opinion and do the dirty work for them (ie, vote against it)
For the DUP to 'actually' vote against it, is another matter entirely. People assume they will vote against it, but in doing so, that comes with very high risk of their electorate turning their back on them.
I'll expand on this later when I've got more time, but looking underneath the surface, there is a lot more to the DUP position than meets he eye.

Interesting. A united Ireland would make the entire Brexit process a whole lot easier

[anonymous-user]

cookie118 said:

Just picking up on point number 3. It may seem ludicrous that we cannot exit the backstop unilaterally, but the flip side to that is that neither can the EU.

Would you want to be in a situation where the EU could suddenly change their mind and remove the backstop/agreement at their will?

Yes. That is the norm in any FTA.

I challenge you to show me a contract you have signed that doesn't have a method of termination.

You won't find one because it would be illegal.

[silentbrown]

lowndes said:

3. Unilateral exit from the Backstop or a maximum period of 10 years, either way gives certainty.

It's not really backstop then, is it? - which is rather point of it.

If exit from the backstop only required agreement between Eire and UK governments, would that be more palatable?

[Murph7355]

cookie118 said:

Just picking up on point number 3. It may seem ludicrous that we cannot exit the backstop unilaterally, but the flip side to that is that neither can the EU.

Would you want to be in a situation where the EU could suddenly change their mind and remove the backstop/agreement at their will?

Except...the backstop gives the EU exactly what they want. And it doesn't give what the UK voted for. So the likelihood of the EU wanting to exit it is slim.

If the backstop was "free trade with the EU, the UK sets it's own external tariffs, does it's own trade deals, pays nothing to the EU, ends FoM etc etc" and the same clause was being referred to, do you think the EU would be quite as comfortable with it?

[Not-The-Messiah]

Coolbanana said:

PH Leave....

It appears that a majority of you do support a full Leave; going out on WTO if the EU does not offer a very favourable deal and having confidence in the Captains of Industry and the Government to overcome the obstacles to full independence from the EU and great success eventually. You all seem satisfied that the unquantified 'period of pain' will be short-lived and manageable for the greater goal.

We get that. Your tick on the Ballot paper provides for that. No question.

But...yes, there is a huge but...you have to look at the Referendum Campaigns in context and understand why large groups of people voted. I would definitely suggest the larger number of Leavers voted for similar reasons to PH Leavers and were happy with what I typed above to happen.

However, we cannot now ignore the fact that another group of Leavers expected a good deal and did not want to crash out completely on WTO and who did not expect nor desire a 'period of pain' nor have the same level of confidence that all will ultimately be better.

We have all agreed here that the Campaigns from both sides were terrible. The sad fallout from that, is while there will be a majority of voters still very comfortable with their original vote from both Leave and Remain camps, there will be a large group of affected individuals who feel hoodwinked and deceived. They are not on track to get what they believed would happen.

So the question now, is how does the UK appease this group?

Leavers who are content with WTO etc are obviously wanting their fellow Leavers to join the faith and have confidence in a bold future sans EU ties. Remainers are campaigning to woo those disgruntled folks towards the relative 'safety' of staying in the EU.

TM meanwhile, has made the decision that her deal is the compromise needed for all Leavers, Remainers and the group in-between. Like many of you, I am amazed that she is proving so resilient to being ousted thus far.

My feeling has been all along that Leavers will split - as I believe they are, albeit with a strong majority of them happy with No Deal, WTO - and Remainers will win their campaign towards getting a 2nd Referendum and managing to get enough new votes on side to win overall.

TM is looking a bit Teflon though. There is a very real danger her deal will win overall and that would not only kick the can down the road a little further, it leads to EU Lite at the end. EU Lite is not a win for anyone in the UK in my humble opinion. You are either in or out.

As we keep saying, interesting days....

And what would have happened if remain won and the EU changed some part of itself, would you be calling for another vote?

You say you that you believe leave is split and if there is another referendum remain would win.

You are basing you opinion on how things stand now. The leave side have only been arguing against a second referendum not another in out choice. If another vote is called this would switch and full on campaigning and arguing would begin.

The remain side will have the evidence of 2 years of project fear and the shambles the negotiations have been although saying that, that argument could and will be used on both sides.

The leave side.
Voting to now return to the EU with our tails between our legs will be a complete national humiliation. We will inevitable get the gloating and smug reactions from the likes of the French and Germans well all of the EU actually.
We will clearly demonstrate that we are no longer a independent nation and need the EU and it's bureaucrats, politicians to make many of our decisions for us. As we are incapable of doing it ourselves.
The rest of the world will see us as some pointless nobody incapable of sorting out our own affairs nevermind anyone else's.
It's a attack on democracy itself by actually even having this vote without enacting the first and so on.

You think it will be a vote driven by pragmatic rational argument about the implications and affects of leaving the EU.
It won't be it will be a argument on principles. National pride and patriotism, the unwillingness to be humiliated. And are people willing to take a possible financial hit for such things?

If I was going to put money down on the winner I know which one it would be on.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Saturday 17th November 11:33

[Mrr T]

jsf said:

I challenge you to show me a contract you have signed that doesn't have a method of termination.

You won't find one because it would be illegal.

You clearly have a limited knowledge of contract law.

[PurpleMoonlight]

jsf said:

Yes. That is the norm in any FTA.

I challenge you to show me a contract you have signed that doesn't have a method of termination.

You won't find one because it would be illegal.

The landlord for a commercial property letting can often effectively not terminate it.

[Dindoit]

bhstewie said:

I drive a BMW now.

I asked for EU plates and the guy at the dealership was telling me that he has no end of customers who insist on not having EU plates despite having just purchased a German car.

Spotted this a while back

[anonymous-user]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The landlord for a commercial property letting can often effectively not terminate it.

Define effectively.

Show me a contract you have signed that you cant terminate.

[PurpleMoonlight]

jsf said:

Define effectively.

Show me a contract you have signed that you cant terminate.

It would mean the involvement of a third party, a judge.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

The landlord for a commercial property letting can often effectively not terminate it.

Define effectively.

Show me a contract you have signed that you cant terminate.

They have to show you the actual contract with their signature on it to win the argument?

[PRTVR]

FiF said:

Each side is being sold this deal in a different way. Euro-philes are being sold the message "Vote for this deal or there will be no deal." Euro-sceptics are being sold the deal as "Vote for this deal or there will be no Brexit and we will full on Remain."

You can't have both scenarios, they are mutually exclusive.

Imo if the deal is voted down, which seems likely, then the probability rises that the really contentious stuff gets left out, or modified significantly to make it more acceptable to the middle ground.

At the moment you have some Remainers and the more moderate Leavers thinking a no deal would be better than this deal. You have some Leavers thinking that Remain might be better than this deal. Obviously I'm talking of the majority sensible middle ground folks not the extremists at either end.

If I'm wrong and whatever happens, as before, personally will just get on with whatever, planning for various eventualities in place as best possible.

Could the contentious parts be there just to be removed, I used to work for a company that used the rumour mill when in negotiations with the work force, the rumor was always far worse than what the company wanted but conditioned the workforce so when the negotiations started there was relief and acceptance when it wasn't as bad as expected,
will there be general acceptance if the deal is watered down ?

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

Yes. That is the norm in any FTA.

I challenge you to show me a contract you have signed that doesn't have a method of termination.

You won't find one because it would be illegal.

There’s nothing that I’ve signed, but then again I’m not negotiating agreements between countries. The comparison isn’t really valid.

What’s proposed in the current arrangement gives all parties some power in terms of when it ends.

Unilateral arrangements give both parties ultimate, or zero power with regards to ending the arrangement.

I’d rather retain some power in all situations. You say that the EU will ‘hold us to ransom’ with bilateral agreement but I think it is also likely that they would be able to ‘hold us to ransom’ with unilateral withdrawal by effectively being able to pull the rug at any time from under us.

[Mrr T]

jsf said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

The landlord for a commercial property letting can often effectively not terminate it.

Define effectively.

Show me a contract you have signed that you cant terminate.

To be pedantic most contracts do not have termination clauses because they cover specific actions. In ongoing contracts its advisable to have a termination clause but it not always possible. For example some csd contracts do not have any termination clause.

The draft deal does have a termination clause it just the termination must be by mutual consent. That's not that unusual.

[braddo]

gooner1 said:

Edited to add, I actually meant substitute a large % of our meat diet
with fish. Healthier nation, less gas in our atmosphere. Winner winner fishy dinner.

No bad thing. Depends on the UK population liking the fish which is caught in UK waters however. That's a key reason why the UK exports most of its catch to the EU and is a net importer of fish. People's choice would be severely limited (or made much more costly) if there were no deal with the EU since trade barriers would hinder our exporting of the fish we don't want and importing of the fish we do want.

[FiF]

Not-The-Messiah said:

If I was going to put money down on the winner I know which one it would be on

Someone on Twitter summed up one side of the argument in the event of another EU Ref

Can't find it now but went something like this.

James O'Brien **sniggers** and Tweets
"Leavers, they're such a set of thick wrinkly old bds, and they don't wash their hands after a wee."

450,000 Likes, 234,000 Retweets.

Gary Lineker "Oh you're so right m8, never mind they'll be dead soon"

2.5 million likes, 1.3 million Retweets

Etc etc

[FiF]

PRTVR said:

FiF said:

Each side is being sold this deal in a different way. Euro-philes are being sold the message "Vote for this deal or there will be no deal." Euro-sceptics are being sold the deal as "Vote for this deal or there will be no Brexit and we will full on Remain."

You can't have both scenarios, they are mutually exclusive.

Imo if the deal is voted down, which seems likely, then the probability rises that the really contentious stuff gets left out, or modified significantly to make it more acceptable to the middle ground.

At the moment you have some Remainers and the more moderate Leavers thinking a no deal would be better than this deal. You have some Leavers thinking that Remain might be better than this deal. Obviously I'm talking of the majority sensible middle ground folks not the extremists at either end.

If I'm wrong and whatever happens, as before, personally will just get on with whatever, planning for various eventualities in place as best possible.

Could the contentious parts be there just to be removed, I used to work for a company that used the rumour mill when in negotiations with the work force, the rumor was always far worse than what the company wanted but conditioned the workforce so when the negotiations started there was relief and acceptance when it wasn't as bad as expected, will there be general acceptance if the deal is watered down ?

That's pretty much my thoughts encapsulated really, aka negotiation theatre?

[braddo]

Sway said:

I assume you read the link you shared - how much of the issue is due to reclassifying high Street banks as public sector (with their attendant liabilities), and also how they 'hope to improve the accuracy of such estimates' in future assessments...

Further, what does this have to do with Target2 - the analysis done against the eurozone nations won't include Target2 imbalances, as they aren't considered debts.

Yet, they do represent fiscal transfers from one nation to another. No interest, no requirement for repayment - but an expectation that they'll all balance out in the end. They're not...

Then you go on to obfusticate by claiming that Minford expects UK manufacturing to die. He has never said that - what he has said is that he proposes to eliminate import tariffs, as they are subsidies for uncompetitive business - and that some industries have become so uncompetitive they are reliant on those protections.

Come on chap - whataboutism and false testimonies are poor form.

You're not very good at putting comments into the context of the conversations in which they are made.

The point is - the UK is in a monstrous-sized net liability position; the US and the EU have huge debts (but still net assets) as well - there is a massive debt merrygoround amongst the big western nations and there is no reason the Eurozone debt or target2 should be considered a bigger risk for the UK being in the EU compared to the perceived risk that others would see in the UK's debt when considering free trade deals or EU membership.

Ergo, if anyone should be worried about debt when signing free trade agreements it should everyone else worried about the UK. But they don't and nor should it be a worry for us when being in the EU.

If we were talking about joining the Euro that conversation would be very different.


Minford - you're being disingenuous - he is widely quoted as saying manufacturing "would have to be run down" in the UK, i.e. his vision of a future economy includes killing manufacturing. Which is fking crazy and he is rightly ridiculed for it since manufacturing is the most important sector for real wealth creation and long term prosperity for an economy.