How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 4)

[Kenny Powers]

Yeah I especially like “champion of universal values”. Universal values across 27 different cultures. Who do they think they are, the Borg?

[anonymous-user]

Ridgemont said:

Yes, I think back to Ken Clarke’s off the record on camera gossip, during the ‘16 leadership election where he slagged off Johnson and stated a preference for May, but described her as a ‘bloody difficult woman’. At the time we all thought it was because she was tough etc. I wander whether that wasn’t what Clarke was referring to: obstinate, monomaniacal, inflexible, non collegiate.. be interesting to read Cameron’s memoirs when he eventually gets around to having them ghost written..

His last comment has proven to be correct. https://youtu.be/ogqAK1x_NLQ

[Ridgemont]

Roboraver said:

Interesting breaking story from Reuters also :

EU negotiators are ready to offer Theresa May a free-trade area after Brexit but say that, contrary to her “Chequers” plan, there must be a customs border that will make trade less than “frictionless”, according to an internal EU document seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

The document — three pages of “defensive points” for EU officials to make against the UK prime minister’s July proposal on future ties with the bloc — may offer May some comfort in showing a readiness to seal a free trade agreement (FTA) like those giving access to Japan or Canada’s goods and services.

But as she prepares for her Conservative Party conference this weekend, it also rams home, in some detail, the rejection of the Chequers proposal for a special customs deal that would avoid border checks on goods and keep supply chains fluid.

Brussels argues it would give Britain an unfair advantage in the single market, applying some EU rules but not others.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-chequ...

This is surely just the detail that was leaked prior to Salzburg?

In all the hoopla that came out of Tusk’s smack down and May feeling treated with a lack of respect, the EU had been saying that there could be a deal.

The issue, as always, is that there will have to be a frictionful border, and the EU has insisted it can’t be on the border of NI. It will therefore be in the Irish Sea.

So no change.

[Vanden Saab]

Ridgemont said:

This is surely just the detail that was leaked prior to Salzburg?

In all the hoopla that came out of Tusk’s smack down and May feeling treated with a lack of respect, the EU had been saying that there could be a deal.

The issue, as always, is that there will have to be a frictionful border, and the EU has insisted it can’t be on the border of NI. It will therefore be in the Irish Sea.

So no change.

May we should insist it is in the North sea

[b2hbm]

jsf said:

Any of the remainers fancy a look at this https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-politic...

How do you feel about Junkers comments that even if you don't like it, the veto is gone and more powers are being taken from nation states.

An interesting post, thanks for that. I can't say I'm very surprised at the content, anyone with an ounce of thought could see the way that the EU will be going in terms of QMV. Although to be fair, with 27 states and potentially even more, there's not much else they can do.

After reading that document, anyone who believes that stopping Brexit now is going to place us (and the EU) back in the rose tinted days of June 2016 needs more coffee.

[Helicopter123]

With Labour moving towards a second vote, it’s good to see this option now firmly on the political agenda in a way many never considered possible just a few weeks ago.

Incidentally Ireland had a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty and got a different result. Anyone know if that is still a source of anger or did everyone just move on?

Can the head in the sand brigade accept that we need extra democracy to break the current political impasse?

[Kenny Powers]

b2hbm said:

An interesting post, thanks for that. I can't say I'm very surprised at the content, anyone with an ounce of thought could see the way that the EU will be going in terms of QMV. Although to be fair, with 27 states and potentially even more, there's not much else they can do.

After reading that document, anyone who believes that stopping Brexit now is going to place us (and the EU) back in the rose tinted days of June 2016 needs more coffee.

This is why many of us supported Brexit from the beginning - a desire not to be assimilated into the United States of Bullst. I seem to remember the allies fighting for freedom in Europe, not to be ruled by it. The current situation is like the Man in the High Castle for goodness sake

[Smiler.]

Helicopter123 said:

With Labour moving towards a second vote, it’s good to see this option now firmly on the political agenda in a way many never considered possible just a few weeks ago.

Incidentally Ireland had a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty and got a different result. Anyone know if that is still a source of anger or did everyone just move on?

Can the head in the sand brigade accept that we need extra democracy to break the current political impasse?

What, like after the Brexit vote?


Oh, and "extra democracy"

[Digga]

SpeckledJim said:

cb31 said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Not that many of you Remainers ever voted in Euro elections or know who represents you, but just in case you were thinking of digging deeper.....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/25/mep-...

Snouts in the trough. Just further emphasises that they see themselves as above the normal people, how dare we question what they are spending public money on? No wonder politicians love the EU, the trough is much much larger with a lot less oversight.

So transparently Not The Good Guys.

Has no MEP with a sense of decency piped-up to denounce this?

Absolutely. It really does display the absolute worst and most blatant gravy-train mentality.

[Dr Jekyll]

Roboraver said:

Brussels argues it would give Britain an unfair advantage in the single market, applying some EU rules but not others.

Then surely the obvious solution is to scrap the rules that cause disadvantage, not just for the UK but for everybody.

[Helicopter123]

Dr Jekyll said:

Roboraver said:

Brussels argues it would give Britain an unfair advantage in the single market, applying some EU rules but not others.

Then surely the obvious solution is to scrap the rules that cause disadvantage, not just for the UK but for everybody.

Scrapping workers rights would benefit the few, not the many. Why would the EU wish to see its citizens engaged in a race to the bottom?

[Tuna]

Helicopter123 said:

Scrapping workers rights would benefit the few, not the many. Why would the EU wish to see its citizens engaged in a race to the bottom?

I'll bite.

I've got a pile of cash ready for a job right now. It would keep someone busy for nine months or so, and should lead to a long term product with a chance to grow. All I need is someone to do the work.

Except, with all of the employment protection, described euphemistically as "workers rights", there is no way in hell I'm going to employ someone to do the work. It's just not worth it. It amplifies the risk from very minor to a significant sum, as well as exposing me to the risk of court cases and employee tribunals if the project doesn't work out.

So - that's one person not getting employed, and potentially a whole business not getting started.

I'm sure many will argue the details, but the broad point here is that "workers rights" are not a magic one way street where more and more are automatically best for the worker. You can point to the unions of the 70s to see that if you have enough "workers rights" you can actually destroy a whole industry, and with it the livelihood of tens of thousands of workers.

Equally, the knee jerk response that not having workers rights (OMG! Zero hours contracts!) is automatically a bad thing is nonsense. As ever, being able to take a nuanced view, reacting to local conditions is going to be the best option.

[Coolbanana]

jsf said:

Any of the remainers fancy a look at this https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-politic...

How do you feel about Junkers comments that even if you don't like it, the veto is gone and more powers are being taken from nation states.

I’m 100% for QMV over Unanimity – veto voting.

I want further integration and a Democratic EU (to suggest otherwise is pig-ignorant of the processes involved and not worthy of debate, like declaring the Earth is flat!)) should have the ability to work in a manner that reflects best the wishes of a majority of Member States. As things are at the moment, the EU Council uses a Simple Majority for basic issues – as the name implies, a majority vote on any procedural matter wins the day.

QMV, however, requires a ‘double majority’ and is far more complex, used on larger issues and accounts for most legislation that is voted upon.

How it works is this: 2 Conditions have to be met; 55% of all States have to be in favour and those 55% must represent 65% of the EU population.
To prevent less populous states from ganging up on larger ones, the blocking minority must be composed of at least four countries representing 35% of the overall population in order to block a decision. Abstentions – due to Opt-Outs for example are automatically counted as being Against.
The exception for the threshold is if the proposal did not originate within the EU Commission; then it is increased to 72%.

Unanimity is reserved for especially sensitive voting topics; EU Army (the French are really promoting this, good idea too), who to let in and the like. It is, to me, ultimately anti-Democratic and allows a single State to refuse the wishes of the Majority of States. To behave like a spoiled-brat bully. Any country that wants to be a Member of the EU must respect the Democratic wishes of the Majority - if not, sod off. Bye bye UK you will not be missed kinda thing!

Let's look at it this way: how would you like it if London could veto any major decision that affects the whole of the UK? Think about that, Northerners. You wouldn’t like it, would you? Indeed, you already think London wields too much power and that there is an immense imbalance of preference for National funding and importance. QMV vs Unanimity is essentially the same, QMV allows for a better Democratic system and makes the Will of the Majority easier to achieve – to go in the direction they want to go in.

Now, obviously, if you are severely brainwashed and believe the Boris, JRM, Farage-esque mistruths and redirection a’la Trump, then you will be incapable of understanding that the EU is a true, Democratically-elected representation of the desires of its Member States.

If you cannot free your mind from the fog of lies you have been force-fed to take advantage of your inner prejudices, then you will never appreciate the value of the EU and so you will continue with your Lemming-like Mantra’s and Dogma’s while your Master’s wring their hands gleefully, laughing at you as you help further their nefarious agendas.

[Sway]

Roboraver said:

Interesting breaking story from Reuters also :

EU negotiators are ready to offer Theresa May a free-trade area after Brexit but say that, contrary to her “Chequers” plan, there must be a customs border that will make trade less than “frictionless”, according to an internal EU document seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

The document — three pages of “defensive points” for EU officials to make against the UK prime minister’s July proposal on future ties with the bloc — may offer May some comfort in showing a readiness to seal a free trade agreement (FTA) like those giving access to Japan or Canada’s goods and services.

But as she prepares for her Conservative Party conference this weekend, it also rams home, in some detail, the rejection of the Chequers proposal for a special customs deal that would avoid border checks on goods and keep supply chains fluid.

Brussels argues it would give Britain an unfair advantage in the single market, applying some EU rules but not others.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-chequ...

Excellent.

Davis/ERG/etc. proposal it is then.

[Tuna]

Sway said:

Excellent.

Davis/ERG/etc. proposal it is then.

It seems to be only May herself that doesn't want that to happen. The Tory conference is going to be interesting.

Edited to add: there would be some irony if the son-of-Davis' proposal turns out to be the final deal. Some commentators would really have to eat their words.

[Dr Jekyll]

Coolbanana said:

If you cannot free your mind from the fog of lies you have been force-fed to take advantage of your inner prejudices, then you will never appreciate the value of the EU and so you will continue with your Lemming-like Mantra’s and Dogma’s while your Master’s wring their hands gleefully, laughing at you as you help further their nefarious agendas.

Peak Coolbanana has now been reached.

How can we be fed a fog?
Since when did Lemmings have mantras and dogmas? Let alone Mantra's and Dogma's. Or are the Mantra's and Dogma's similar to Lemmings?
Who is the Master anyway, and what's his 'wring'?
And what the bloody hell are you talking about?

Incidentally the veto is only anti democratic if you're idea of democracy is 27 wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Better go, I'm taking my Mantra's dogma for a walk, it might look like a lemming, but only because it's foggy.



.

[crankedup]

don'tbesilly said:

jsf said:

Any of the remainers fancy a look at this https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-politic...

How do you feel about Junkers comments that even if you don't like it, the veto is gone and more powers are being taken from nation states.

That's quite a frightening document, if some of the proposals were they to come about quite a few of the proposals would undoubtedly cause conflict between neighbouring countries.

It's hardly surprising that the EU is going down the route of an army, it's arguably the only way they could stop/stifle escalating problems between member countries.

I'd be amazed if any Remainers comment on the link, they don't comment on Juncker, and have ignored the article on MEP's expenses.

It all goes against their beliefs/agenda

All developed out of the Common Market!! Stinks.

[Helicopter123]

Tuna said:

Helicopter123 said:

Scrapping workers rights would benefit the few, not the many. Why would the EU wish to see its citizens engaged in a race to the bottom?

I'll bite.

I've got a pile of cash ready for a job right now. It would keep someone busy for nine months or so, and should lead to a long term product with a chance to grow. All I need is someone to do the work.

Except, with all of the employment protection, described euphemistically as "workers rights", there is no way in hell I'm going to employ someone to do the work. It's just not worth it. It amplifies the risk from very minor to a significant sum, as well as exposing me to the risk of court cases and employee tribunals if the project doesn't work out.

So - that's one person not getting employed, and potentially a whole business not getting started.

I'm sure many will argue the details, but the broad point here is that "workers rights" are not a magic one way street where more and more are automatically best for the worker. You can point to the unions of the 70s to see that if you have enough "workers rights" you can actually destroy a whole industry, and with it the livelihood of tens of thousands of workers.

Equally, the knee jerk response that not having workers rights (OMG! Zero hours contracts!) is automatically a bad thing is nonsense. As ever, being able to take a nuanced view, reacting to local conditions is going to be the best option.

What "workers rights" are preventing you from employing someone for 9 months?

[SpeckledJim]

Dr Jekyll said:

Coolbanana said:

If you cannot free your mind from the fog of lies you have been force-fed to take advantage of your inner prejudices, then you will never appreciate the value of the EU and so you will continue with your Lemming-like Mantra’s and Dogma’s while your Master’s wring their hands gleefully, laughing at you as you help further their nefarious agendas.

Peak Coolbanana has now been reached.

How can we be fed a fog?
Since when did Lemmings have mantras and dogmas? Let alone Mantra's and Dogma's. Or are the Mantra's and Dogma's similar to Lemmings?
Who is the Master anyway, and what's his 'wring'?
And what the bloody hell are you talking about?

Incidentally the veto is only anti democratic if you're idea of democracy is 27 wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Better go, I'm taking my Mantra's dogma for a walk, it might look like a lemming, but only because it's foggy.



.

I think there's a magic point between one bottle and two bottles that he becomes this charming mixture of verbose, maudlin, aggressive and frustrated. This fizzes and churns and culminates in a triumphal post on Pistonheads, before settling back down again as we head quietly into bottle number three.

[don'tbesilly]

Tuna said:

Sway said:

Excellent.

Davis/ERG/etc. proposal it is then.

It seems to be only May herself that doesn't want that to happen. The Tory conference is going to be interesting.

Edited to add: there would be some irony if the son-of-Davis' proposal turns out to be the final deal. Some commentators would really have to eat their words.

Which is increasingly difficult to understand, and square in one's head.

It can only lead to speculation as to what her grand plan is, and the speculation can offer some strange motivations/reasons as to what & where May wants to end up with/at.