How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Angrybiker said:
So Barnier has no remit to negotiate, which is rather fundamental to the role of negotiator. I don't think that that means that we therefore have to cave in; rather it would be quite reasonable for us to demand from the EU a negotiator with the remit to so do.
That’s not what my post said. Bernier has a mandate from the Council to negotiate on 3 matters relating to Brexit. That is what he is doing. If you want him to negotiate on other matters the Council must change his mandate."If Bernier is being inflexible it’s because he has no flexibility"
richie99 said:
I believe the original statement to be absolutely correct. Not only will we not get to travel to the sunny uplands beloved of Liam Fox, we will also have much more damage done by a lunatic left wing government, unencumbered by pesky European legislation.
I listened carefully to your cogent counter argument but remain unconvinced.
As before, what is stated without evidence can be refuted without evidence.I listened carefully to your cogent counter argument but remain unconvinced.
And as before, the possible outcomes are not as binary as you appear to believe.
Angrybiker said:
1. We were always going to see a lot of huffing and puffing from the EU team calling the UK inflexible because 'they won't meet the demands'
Angrybiker said:
2. That a 'no deal' was the most likely outcome from the start (assuming we stood our ground, like we should) and if they manage to pull off a deal, I rather suspect it'll be last minute when the people with the real decision making capability panic and get involved.
t will hit the fan in the UK. I have said many times the best way not to leave the EU was put the BB in charge.Angrybiker said:
3. Given the EU lack of willingness to take the negotiation seriously, evidenced by putting a patsy in front of us, I think we are perfectly entitled to play hardball and go to WTO. I have every confidence that this may be bad for both sides at the very start but once the pain starts to bite then trade deals will be agreed with individual states at a fair rate of knots. At this point both sides will be talking to people who can actually negotiate and those people will know the exact size and shape of the pain, rather than theory.
Ex-president of biggest net gainer from EU says EU must stay together shock:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41733429
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41733429
The main protagonists on the EU side are the French and the Germans.
The French, at political and senior industry level, are extremely arrogant believing themselves to be better and above all else. Their school tie system breeds them this way. They will sacrifice financial performance for control satisfying themselves that control of a smaller piece of the cake is preferable to no, or shared, control of a larger piece. They are, however, not stupid and there is a limit to this approach for them.
The Germans are equally arrogant but much more pragmatic and sensible. They will be swayed toward better financial performance.
You can see this playing out in the way Macron and Merkel are behaving at the moment. Macron all for giving the Brits a bloody nose whilst Merkel is now coming out more conciliatory.
The best approach to negotiations the Brits can play is hardball and take it all the way to the wire. The British 'stiff upper lip' really does phase all our continental colleagues.
Macron will eventually yield and a reasonable deal will be achieved as Merkel and German industry and bankers will make sure that it does.
The biggest threat to this approach is not the EU but the wobbly bottom lipped Brits!
The French, at political and senior industry level, are extremely arrogant believing themselves to be better and above all else. Their school tie system breeds them this way. They will sacrifice financial performance for control satisfying themselves that control of a smaller piece of the cake is preferable to no, or shared, control of a larger piece. They are, however, not stupid and there is a limit to this approach for them.
The Germans are equally arrogant but much more pragmatic and sensible. They will be swayed toward better financial performance.
You can see this playing out in the way Macron and Merkel are behaving at the moment. Macron all for giving the Brits a bloody nose whilst Merkel is now coming out more conciliatory.
The best approach to negotiations the Brits can play is hardball and take it all the way to the wire. The British 'stiff upper lip' really does phase all our continental colleagues.
Macron will eventually yield and a reasonable deal will be achieved as Merkel and German industry and bankers will make sure that it does.
The biggest threat to this approach is not the EU but the wobbly bottom lipped Brits!
ORD said:
Murph7355 said:
The economy has been in a bad way for 9yrs. IMO we've done better than most of the rest of the member states in that period, but we are far from clear from hassles. And that is not because we were in the EU.
Would we be better able to weather future storms inside the EU? I'm far from convinced. I'm not sure it'd be worse inside either tbf. But I do think other member states are in for a tough time and that will ripple out (IMO). No one is yet in the clear because fundamentally nothing material has changed since 2008.
The key thing about the "fact" that we'll be poorer than we would otherwise be is that there is not a single person on this planet that will ever be able to prove that. I don't think anyone, even the most pessimistic forecasters, have noted we'll be absolutely worse off. So the rest will either be people crying into their cornflakes about what could have been, or cracking on thanking their lucky stars they were born in a country of opportunity. And shades in-between.
I guess we all just need to decide which end of the spectrum we want to be on. But then life is always thus.
All good points.Would we be better able to weather future storms inside the EU? I'm far from convinced. I'm not sure it'd be worse inside either tbf. But I do think other member states are in for a tough time and that will ripple out (IMO). No one is yet in the clear because fundamentally nothing material has changed since 2008.
The key thing about the "fact" that we'll be poorer than we would otherwise be is that there is not a single person on this planet that will ever be able to prove that. I don't think anyone, even the most pessimistic forecasters, have noted we'll be absolutely worse off. So the rest will either be people crying into their cornflakes about what could have been, or cracking on thanking their lucky stars they were born in a country of opportunity. And shades in-between.
I guess we all just need to decide which end of the spectrum we want to be on. But then life is always thus.
But you would be very hard-pressed to find any credible economist who thinks the UK will be better off over a 5-10 year time period. Beyond that, it is pure speculation.
So, ultimately, we have a very likely substantial disbenefit in the medium term that we are asked to swallow on the promise of entirely vague and uncertain long term benefits.
That's why I say the economic case for Brexit is disingenuous. It simply does not stack up on any sensible CBA.
A further factor is this: Brexit almost guarantees us an extreme left wing government without any restrictions on its ability to do bonkers left wing things. So that rules out any supposed long term economic benefits. And it will aggravate the medium term disbenefits.
It's a no-brainer that Brexit is a bad thing for the economy.
I'm not sure anybody - anywhere - has suggested that the UK will be better off over a 5-10 year time period. Why bother raising the point when most people accept that ?
There is no evidence that we will have a very substantial disbenefit in the medium term (assuming you mean after 10 years), the simple fact is that nobody knows one way or the other. Most people expect the benefits to be in the longer term.
To many, the benefits of Brexit can't be just read from a spreadsheet, or calculated in £, p or $. I doubt that the majority of those voting in the Referendum put the economy at the top of their priorities [but I realise that you would have done].
Brexit doesn't almost guarantee us an extreme left wing government etc etc - you're just being extreme, again. As mentioned above, if you honestly believe that the electorate has just the one, financial, viewpoint then you're very much out of touch with normal people around the UK.
skahigh said:
I agree with most of this, the article is a bit negative towards the 'French way' but that's probably because it's written from a British perspective. I also think the output of the Spectator errs marginally on the side of being pro-Brexit.
You're right, it could have been predicted that Barnier would be a difficult man to negotiate with but, I'm not sure what the British side could have done to mitigate this?
I think there are some things that could have been done. For starters I’m not sure about the choice of Davis. As mentioned in the article he’s the exact opposite of Barnier-and as a result I think they potentially struggle to find common ground between them. Eg from the article it sounds like Davis arriving with no papers in front of him as one photo showed would come off badly with Barnier. I struggle to think who would replace him but someone a bit closer to Barnier in character might have been a better shout.You're right, it could have been predicted that Barnier would be a difficult man to negotiate with but, I'm not sure what the British side could have done to mitigate this?
I also think the uk is trying to do too much at once, in particular with the sweeping withdrawals from everything linked to the ECJ. Again it seems to exacerbate the differences in the negotiation teams with the brits wanting to lump everything together and the EU wanting to do things one by one. Having less to negotiate might have brought the positions closer together.
Garvin said:
The best approach to negotiations the Brits can play is hardball and take it all the way to the wire. The British 'stiff upper lip' really does phase all our continental colleagues.
Macron will eventually yield and a reasonable deal will be achieved as Merkel and German industry and bankers will make sure that it does.
The biggest threat to this approach is not the EU but the wobbly bottom lipped Brits!
There is a negotiating strategy called the Russian roulette technique. You point a gun at your opponents head and say give us what we want or I shoot. The UK government strategy is a variation where we point a gun at our own head and say give us what we want or we shoot ourselves. Now it’s an unusual strategy and I am not sure disagreeing is wobbling, maybe just pointing out its a bloody stupid strategy.Macron will eventually yield and a reasonable deal will be achieved as Merkel and German industry and bankers will make sure that it does.
The biggest threat to this approach is not the EU but the wobbly bottom lipped Brits!
cookie118 said:
I think there are some things that could have been done. For starters I’m not sure about the choice of Davis. As mentioned in the article he’s the exact opposite of Barnier-and as a result I think they potentially struggle to find common ground between them. Eg from the article it sounds like Davis arriving with no papers in front of him as one photo showed would come off badly with Barnier. I struggle to think who would replace him but someone a bit closer to Barnier in character might have been a better shout.
I also think the uk is trying to do too much at once, in particular with the sweeping withdrawals from everything linked to the ECJ. Again it seems to exacerbate the differences in the negotiation teams with the brits wanting to lump everything together and the EU wanting to do things one by one. Having less to negotiate might have brought the positions closer together.
I think there is a lot of truth to this. I also think the uk is trying to do too much at once, in particular with the sweeping withdrawals from everything linked to the ECJ. Again it seems to exacerbate the differences in the negotiation teams with the brits wanting to lump everything together and the EU wanting to do things one by one. Having less to negotiate might have brought the positions closer together.
I imagine that the UK position seems pretty extreme and ideological. The irrational fear of CJEU jurisdiction is pretty cringe-worthy, for example.
Garvin said:
The French, at political and senior industry level, are extremely arrogant believing themselves to be better and above all else. Their school tie system breeds them this way. They will sacrifice financial performance for control satisfying themselves that control of a smaller piece of the cake is preferable to no, or shared, control of a larger piece. They are, however, not stupid and there is a limit to this approach for them.
Isn't this the Brexit argument? To hell with the financial pain, we're "taking back control"? 
Garvin said:
The main protagonists on the EU side are the French and the Germans.
The French, at political and senior industry level, are extremely arrogant believing themselves to be better and above all else. Their school tie system breeds them this way. They will sacrifice financial performance for control satisfying themselves that control of a smaller piece of the cake is preferable to no, or shared, control of a larger piece. They are, however, not stupid and there is a limit to this approach for them.
The Germans are equally arrogant but much more pragmatic and sensible. They will be swayed toward better financial performance.
...
So it is OK to trot out nationality based stereotypes, but that ain't Xenophobic?The French, at political and senior industry level, are extremely arrogant believing themselves to be better and above all else. Their school tie system breeds them this way. They will sacrifice financial performance for control satisfying themselves that control of a smaller piece of the cake is preferable to no, or shared, control of a larger piece. They are, however, not stupid and there is a limit to this approach for them.
The Germans are equally arrogant but much more pragmatic and sensible. They will be swayed toward better financial performance.
...
What about the haughty Bulldog Brits who fancy themselves inheritors of the Empire? Arrogance and pride are not limited by nationality.
Still no EU update on the last round of talks on their website, what is it they don't want us to know? Maybe they caved on something that is politically difficult for someone right now.
They have not kept their promise of giving an update after every round for the first time and we have seen stage managed exits from the last EU talks with Merkel, Macron and May in a huddle.
They have not kept their promise of giving an update after every round for the first time and we have seen stage managed exits from the last EU talks with Merkel, Macron and May in a huddle.
ORD said:
I think there is a lot of truth to this.
I imagine that the UK position seems pretty extreme and ideological. The irrational fear of CJEU jurisdiction is pretty cringe-worthy, for example.
Bipartisan break! While fear of the jurisdiction itself is indeed irrational and sometimes seems to be based on nothing more than "it's not a UK Court", there is a rational basis for concern about the CJEU. It's a weak Court because it's too big, and also because it does not allow dissenting judgments and all decisions must be unanimous. This makes the Court more political than it should be, and leads to fudged decisions that often fail to resolve questions referred by national courts.I imagine that the UK position seems pretty extreme and ideological. The irrational fear of CJEU jurisdiction is pretty cringe-worthy, for example.
Robertj21a said:
Try as I may, it really is difficult to accept your comments when you hold such extreme views.
I'm not sure anybody - anywhere - has suggested that the UK will be better off over a 5-10 year time period. Why bother raising the point when most people accept that ?
There is no evidence that we will have a very substantial disbenefit in the medium term (assuming you mean after 10 years), the simple fact is that nobody knows one way or the other. Most people expect the benefits to be in the longer term.
To many, the benefits of Brexit can't be just read from a spreadsheet, or calculated in £, p or $. I doubt that the majority of those voting in the Referendum put the economy at the top of their priorities [but I realise that you would have done].
Brexit doesn't almost guarantee us an extreme left wing government etc etc - you're just being extreme, again. As mentioned above, if you honestly believe that the electorate has just the one, financial, viewpoint then you're very much out of touch with normal people around the UK.
What evidence of medium term disbenefits would you need? Consensus between pretty much everyone who earns money from projecting economic conditions isn't enough? The implied projections based on the devaluation of the pound?I'm not sure anybody - anywhere - has suggested that the UK will be better off over a 5-10 year time period. Why bother raising the point when most people accept that ?
There is no evidence that we will have a very substantial disbenefit in the medium term (assuming you mean after 10 years), the simple fact is that nobody knows one way or the other. Most people expect the benefits to be in the longer term.
To many, the benefits of Brexit can't be just read from a spreadsheet, or calculated in £, p or $. I doubt that the majority of those voting in the Referendum put the economy at the top of their priorities [but I realise that you would have done].
Brexit doesn't almost guarantee us an extreme left wing government etc etc - you're just being extreme, again. As mentioned above, if you honestly believe that the electorate has just the one, financial, viewpoint then you're very much out of touch with normal people around the UK.
If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.
I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
ORD said:
What evidence of medium term disbenefits would you need? Consensus between pretty much everyone who earns money from projecting economic conditions isn't enough? The implied projections based on the devaluation of the pound?
If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.
I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
I'll try again.If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.
I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
Have you ever invested in yourself or something else that cost you more than not doing so short term, but which benefitted you longer term?
jsf said:
Still no EU update on the last round of talks on their website, what is it they don't want us to know? Maybe they caved on something that is politically difficult for someone right now.
They have not kept their promise of giving an update after every round for the first time and we have seen stage managed exits from the last EU talks with Merkel, Macron and May in a huddle.
Maybe nothing happened.They have not kept their promise of giving an update after every round for the first time and we have seen stage managed exits from the last EU talks with Merkel, Macron and May in a huddle.
Maybe they dont want a new deep and special partnership with the UK.
Maybe they just want the money.
ORD said:
What evidence of medium term disbenefits would you need? Consensus between pretty much everyone who earns money from projecting economic conditions isn't enough? The implied projections based on the devaluation of the pound?
If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.
I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
One could equally argue the point exact opposite opinion.If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.
I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
jsf said:
ORD said:
What evidence of medium term disbenefits would you need? Consensus between pretty much everyone who earns money from projecting economic conditions isn't enough? The implied projections based on the devaluation of the pound?
If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.
I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
I'll try again.If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.
I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
Have you ever invested in yourself or something else that cost you more than not doing so short term, but which benefitted you longer term?
Breadvan72 said:
ORD said:
I think there is a lot of truth to this.
I imagine that the UK position seems pretty extreme and ideological. The irrational fear of CJEU jurisdiction is pretty cringe-worthy, for example.
Bipartisan break! While fear of the jurisdiction itself is indeed irrational and sometimes seems to be based on nothing more than "it's not a UK Court", there is a rational basis for concern about the CJEU. It's a weak Court because it's too big, and also because it does not allow dissenting judgments and all decisions must be unanimous. This makes the Court more political than it should be, and leads to fudged decisions that often fail to resolve questions referred by national courts.I imagine that the UK position seems pretty extreme and ideological. The irrational fear of CJEU jurisdiction is pretty cringe-worthy, for example.
It's a funny example of the public being partly right but not for the reasons that it gives. A stopped clock and all that.
The CJEU is a terrible court by some of the most important measures (predictability, quality of reasoning, freedom from political influence, quality of judge, etc etc). But only people who have to deal with the Court and/or its judgments know that. Most people don't like it coz it's part of the EU and all that foreign stuff.
My point is more that you cannot sensibly go into a negotiation with someone and make clear that you have contempt for their institutions and won't countenance having disputes determined by a court that is not, in any true sense, foreign but has in fact been both side's highest court for decades. It makes you look like a complete d
head, for a start.The Govt has signed up to the loudest shouts from the most unthinking elements of the Tory party. And it nonethless anticipates that it will be respected when it repeats the drivel that it is fed by its contingent of Brexit loons (Hannan, Bo Jo, Davis, Rees-t
t-Mog, etc). I have every sympathy for pretty much everything I hear coming out of the EU (apart from the rubbish from pisshead Junker). ORD said:
I agree.
It's a funny example of the public being partly right but not for the reasons that it gives. A stopped clock and all that.
The CJEU is a terrible court by some of the most important measures (predictability, quality of reasoning, freedom from political influence, quality of judge, etc etc). But only people who have to deal with the Court and/or its judgments know that. Most people don't like it coz it's part of the EU and all that foreign stuff.
My point is more that you cannot sensibly go into a negotiation with someone and make clear that you have contempt for their institutions and won't countenance having disputes determined by a court that is not, in any true sense, foreign but has in fact been both side's highest court for decades. It makes you look like a complete dhead, for a start.
The Govt has signed up to the loudest shouts from the most unthinking elements of the Tory party. And it nonethless anticipates that it will be respected when it repeats the drivel that it is fed by its contingent of Brexit loons (Hannan, Bo Jo, Davis, Rees-tt-Mog, etc). I have every sympathy for pretty much everything I hear coming out of the EU (apart from the rubbish from pisshead Junker).
Maybe you should be more discerning!It's a funny example of the public being partly right but not for the reasons that it gives. A stopped clock and all that.
The CJEU is a terrible court by some of the most important measures (predictability, quality of reasoning, freedom from political influence, quality of judge, etc etc). But only people who have to deal with the Court and/or its judgments know that. Most people don't like it coz it's part of the EU and all that foreign stuff.
My point is more that you cannot sensibly go into a negotiation with someone and make clear that you have contempt for their institutions and won't countenance having disputes determined by a court that is not, in any true sense, foreign but has in fact been both side's highest court for decades. It makes you look like a complete d
head, for a start.The Govt has signed up to the loudest shouts from the most unthinking elements of the Tory party. And it nonethless anticipates that it will be respected when it repeats the drivel that it is fed by its contingent of Brexit loons (Hannan, Bo Jo, Davis, Rees-t
t-Mog, etc). I have every sympathy for pretty much everything I hear coming out of the EU (apart from the rubbish from pisshead Junker). Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff