How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 4)
Discussion
Digga said:
Garvin said:
The cracks are now showing in the business communities of both Germany and France as they were bound to given the EU approach. Is this additional pressure too late, we shall see but it is clear that the level of discomfort is definitely growing within the EU business communities.
Just had a meeting with a German colleague. He's pretty sanguine about Brexit; he thinks that, at the very end, after all the grandstanding of the EU great and good, the cold, hard facts of economics and trade will trump all other concerns and a deal will be done.Based on May's mantra's for the last 2+ years of 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'No deal is better than a bad deal', her current path is far from either of those platitudes, and more along the lines of 'Brexit means Brino' and 'The proposed deal is worse than a no deal'.
One has to question May's motives and current stance, when it appears to many that her speeches and rhetoric since taking office have been far from the truth, and her current rhetoric is at odds with her speech at Lancaster House, and her own manifesto.
Based on what one reads in the MSM, one has to wonder what a 2nd referendum based on 2 options would end up as:
1.Leave with May's current proposal.
2.Leave with no deal.
Option 2 is looking more attractive.
Replace Option 2 with Remain in the EU based on the UK's membership status as of June 2016, and that is more attractive than option 1, albeit marginally.
don'tbesilly said:
Digga said:
Garvin said:
The cracks are now showing in the business communities of both Germany and France as they were bound to given the EU approach. Is this additional pressure too late, we shall see but it is clear that the level of discomfort is definitely growing within the EU business communities.
Just had a meeting with a German colleague. He's pretty sanguine about Brexit; he thinks that, at the very end, after all the grandstanding of the EU great and good, the cold, hard facts of economics and trade will trump all other concerns and a deal will be done.Based on May's mantra's for the last 2+ years of 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'No deal is better than a bad deal', her current path is far from either of those platitudes, and more along the lines of 'Brexit means Brino' and 'The proposed deal is worse than a no deal'.
One has to question May's motives and current stance, when it appears to many that her speeches and rhetoric since taking office have been far from the truth, and her current rhetoric is at odds with her speech at Lancaster House, and her own manifesto.
Based on what one reads in the MSM, one has to wonder what a 2nd referendum based on 2 options would end up as:
1.Leave with May's current proposal.
2.Leave with no deal.
Option 2 is looking more attractive.
Replace Option 2 with Remain in the EU based on the UK's membership status as of June 2016, and that is more attractive than option 1, albeit marginally.
The Guardian and the author are targets of hate on PH, but on this I stand shoulder to shoulder with him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
An example I am only too familiar with, 250,000 euro to stick some cattle on a biological and geographical SSSI and partly includes an area of ancient woodland. The environment is now being completely stuffed.
pgh said:
FiF said:
Any option that keeps us in the Common Agricultural Policy is not attractive under any circumstances imo. Yes it's only one factor I know.
The Guardian and the author are targets of hate on PH, but on this I stand shoulder to shoulder with him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
An example I am only too familiar with, 250,000 euro to stick some cattle on a biological and geographical SSSI and partly includes an area of ancient woodland. The environment is now being completely stuffed.
Even the Guardian are coming around - smashing The Guardian and the author are targets of hate on PH, but on this I stand shoulder to shoulder with him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
An example I am only too familiar with, 250,000 euro to stick some cattle on a biological and geographical SSSI and partly includes an area of ancient woodland. The environment is now being completely stuffed.
Fully agree on CAP - it's a great example of the worst sort of fudge.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/700183743101...
Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
mx5nut said:
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/700183743101...
Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
Is there any country in the world that doesn't have access to the single market?Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
Dr Jekyll said:
mx5nut said:
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/700183743101...
Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
Is there any country in the world that doesn't have access to the single market?Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
mx5nut said:
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/700183743101...
Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
Give it a week and Helicopter will post the very same tweet.Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
don'tbesilly said:
Cheers Mike.
A prerequisite of any country wanting to join the EU is adoption of the Euro and Schengen.
If you were given the opportunity to join the EU (the UK would be joining as a new entrant, the UK leaves in March 2019) would you be happy with those terms alone, let alone the chances of any rebate being nil, as would any vetoes on anything be nil.
Sorry catching up from a few days ago! <damn social life getting in the way of the thread A prerequisite of any country wanting to join the EU is adoption of the Euro and Schengen.
If you were given the opportunity to join the EU (the UK would be joining as a new entrant, the UK leaves in March 2019) would you be happy with those terms alone, let alone the chances of any rebate being nil, as would any vetoes on anything be nil.
>Personally, I think we should have gone into the EU full bore. So, I have no objection to Schengen or the Euro. We need MEPs who will actually stand up for the UK rather than sniping and undermining - that way we actually get a sensible say in the EU rather than a miserable, sniffing, UK protectionist view.
Unfortunately, for me, I think that ship has long sailed, having had 20 odd year of sniping - so I (we) need to adapt to a new set of rules for the game of economic success.. (I am just not sure what rules we need to adapt to?) No doubt the British rigour and vigour will spot the opportunities - I just hope these outweigh the risks. Let's see what the rules bring......
mx5nut said:
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/700183743101...
Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
For once, Blair is right. Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
We could indeed have aimed for EEA membership, with all that entails.
Would have happened too, if there hadn't been a "check vote" where 84.2% of the electorate voted for parties making it very clear that the 'type of leave' desired included leaving the Single Market and Customs Union...
Those pesky voters, putting crosses in boxes that don't match magnetic whiteboards since 2015.
mike9009 said:
don'tbesilly said:
Cheers Mike.
A prerequisite of any country wanting to join the EU is adoption of the Euro and Schengen.
If you were given the opportunity to join the EU (the UK would be joining as a new entrant, the UK leaves in March 2019) would you be happy with those terms alone, let alone the chances of any rebate being nil, as would any vetoes on anything be nil.
Sorry catching up from a few days ago! <damn social life getting in the way of the thread A prerequisite of any country wanting to join the EU is adoption of the Euro and Schengen.
If you were given the opportunity to join the EU (the UK would be joining as a new entrant, the UK leaves in March 2019) would you be happy with those terms alone, let alone the chances of any rebate being nil, as would any vetoes on anything be nil.
>Personally, I think we should have gone into the EU full bore. So, I have no objection to Schengen or the Euro. We need MEPs who will actually stand up for the UK rather than sniping and undermining - that way we actually get a sensible say in the EU rather than a miserable, sniffing, UK protectionist view.
Unfortunately, for me, I think that ship has long sailed, having had 20 odd year of sniping - so I (we) need to adapt to a new set of rules for the game of economic success.. (I am just not sure what rules we need to adapt to?) No doubt the British rigour and vigour will spot the opportunities - I just hope these outweigh the risks. Let's see what the rules bring......
If the EURef 2016 had once again been a resounding vote for Remain, then the fully in target would have been my choice of destination.
However having said respect for those who want the full membership as outlined above, I have great difficulty having much respect for the faction claiming things like stay in at status quo, or stay to reform from within, those are options that were clearly never going to happen judging by EU responses. For example the response to Cameron, immediately after thoughts were questioning whether that because he was telling the commission Remain would take the vote so no real pressure to reform, or is it because of no intention to reform. I think subsequent events suggest it's clearly the latter.
It's now gone too far, as you say, let's see.
I remember being taught in history about the Darien Scheme.
The utter failure of the scheme brought Scotland into the Union, at considerable cost to the country, although on GDP measurement - the point of the Darien Scheme - it was a total success for Scotland.
The reasons it failed are multiple and each is in dispute but the way I was told was that Scotland made a number of rather obvious and fundamental errors:
1/ It turned away from its biggest market, the one right on its doorstep, with few oncosts,
2/ There was little planning. Everything happened in a short time,
3/ No one, least of all the voluable leader, had any idea of what was going to happen,
4/ The Scottish public, or at least a probable majority, bought into the suggestion that it would bring in untold riches, untold because there were no specific promises. There were a number of voice raised in objection, but the person pushing it had, for some unknown and unexplained reason, a lot of sway with the public. They were uncritical of the lies,
5/ England didn't cooperate with the plan, no reason why it should, and this came as a surprise,
6/ Other countries, not wanting another competitor on the ground, worked against it, probably to more effect than England.
D'you know, it rings a bell somewhere, at the back of my mind. A sort of deja vu.
The one thing history teaches us is that we never learn from it.
The utter failure of the scheme brought Scotland into the Union, at considerable cost to the country, although on GDP measurement - the point of the Darien Scheme - it was a total success for Scotland.
The reasons it failed are multiple and each is in dispute but the way I was told was that Scotland made a number of rather obvious and fundamental errors:
1/ It turned away from its biggest market, the one right on its doorstep, with few oncosts,
2/ There was little planning. Everything happened in a short time,
3/ No one, least of all the voluable leader, had any idea of what was going to happen,
4/ The Scottish public, or at least a probable majority, bought into the suggestion that it would bring in untold riches, untold because there were no specific promises. There were a number of voice raised in objection, but the person pushing it had, for some unknown and unexplained reason, a lot of sway with the public. They were uncritical of the lies,
5/ England didn't cooperate with the plan, no reason why it should, and this came as a surprise,
6/ Other countries, not wanting another competitor on the ground, worked against it, probably to more effect than England.
D'you know, it rings a bell somewhere, at the back of my mind. A sort of deja vu.
The one thing history teaches us is that we never learn from it.
Ivan Rogers made a speech this week about Brexit. I don't agree with a lot of it, but it's definitely worth a read.
https://share.trin.cam.ac.uk/sites/public/Comms/Ro...
https://share.trin.cam.ac.uk/sites/public/Comms/Ro...
Derek Smith said:
I remember being taught in history about the Darien Scheme.
The utter failure of the scheme brought Scotland into the Union, at considerable cost to the country, although on GDP measurement - the point of the Darien Scheme - it was a total success for Scotland.
The reasons it failed are multiple and each is in dispute but the way I was told was that Scotland made a number of rather obvious and fundamental errors:
1/ It turned away from its biggest market, the one right on its doorstep, with few oncosts,
2/ There was little planning. Everything happened in a short time,
3/ No one, least of all the voluable leader, had any idea of what was going to happen,
4/ The Scottish public, or at least a probable majority, bought into the suggestion that it would bring in untold riches, untold because there were no specific promises. There were a number of voice raised in objection, but the person pushing it had, for some unknown and unexplained reason, a lot of sway with the public. They were uncritical of the lies,
5/ England didn't cooperate with the plan, no reason why it should, and this came as a surprise,
6/ Other countries, not wanting another competitor on the ground, worked against it, probably to more effect than England.
D'you know, it rings a bell somewhere, at the back of my mind. A sort of deja vu.
The one thing history teaches us is that we never learn from it.
Are you sure you were told that by a history teacher? The state of education...The utter failure of the scheme brought Scotland into the Union, at considerable cost to the country, although on GDP measurement - the point of the Darien Scheme - it was a total success for Scotland.
The reasons it failed are multiple and each is in dispute but the way I was told was that Scotland made a number of rather obvious and fundamental errors:
1/ It turned away from its biggest market, the one right on its doorstep, with few oncosts,
2/ There was little planning. Everything happened in a short time,
3/ No one, least of all the voluable leader, had any idea of what was going to happen,
4/ The Scottish public, or at least a probable majority, bought into the suggestion that it would bring in untold riches, untold because there were no specific promises. There were a number of voice raised in objection, but the person pushing it had, for some unknown and unexplained reason, a lot of sway with the public. They were uncritical of the lies,
5/ England didn't cooperate with the plan, no reason why it should, and this came as a surprise,
6/ Other countries, not wanting another competitor on the ground, worked against it, probably to more effect than England.
D'you know, it rings a bell somewhere, at the back of my mind. A sort of deja vu.
The one thing history teaches us is that we never learn from it.
davepoth said:
Ivan Rogers made a speech this week about Brexit. I don't agree with a lot of it, but it's definitely worth a read.
https://share.trin.cam.ac.uk/sites/public/Comms/Ro...
I agree very good read and kind aligned with my own opinion that the destination was always gonna be "all out" with a few things agreed on the sidehttps://share.trin.cam.ac.uk/sites/public/Comms/Ro...
Jockman said:
.... .
In the interest of balance, the US also points out that a no deal outcome will affect the special relationship.
Actually it's not the "US". It's former US vice-president Joe Biden's opinion.In the interest of balance, the US also points out that a no deal outcome will affect the special relationship.
I imagine former US president Barrack Obama feels similarly but that counts for feck all too. Indeed I suspect his views were a contributory factor to the referendum result (so we have much to thank him for I guess).
Tuna said:
Are you sure you were told that by a history teacher? The state of education...
It wasn't history when Derek was taught it, it was current affairs 
(I love the "lies" stuff that gets bandied about by Remain proponents, conveniently ignoring the equivalent nonsense spouted by the Remain campaign. More comforting justification...
Attempts to rewrite history this early on are amusing. Both campaigns were shambolic and economical with the truth. I suspect Remain "lies" were actually the most effective, only not in the way intended).
don'tbesilly said:
mx5nut said:
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/700183743101...
Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
Give it a week and Helicopter will post the very same tweet.Everybody knew we were voting to give up our access to the single market.
Murph7355 said:
Jockman said:
.... .
In the interest of balance, the US also points out that a no deal outcome will affect the special relationship.
Actually it's not the "US". It's former US vice-president Joe Biden's opinion.In the interest of balance, the US also points out that a no deal outcome will affect the special relationship.
I imagine former US president Barrack Obama feels similarly but that counts for feck all too. Indeed I suspect his views were a contributory factor to the referendum result (so we have much to thank him for I guess).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff