How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 5)
Discussion
andymadmak said:
Ghibli said:
So you will blame the EU for letting us leave without a deal but not the people who voted to leave.
Not quite.. But your choice of language is interesting. 'letting us leave'? Since when did the EU become Hotel California? The people who voted to leave were entirely within their rights to do so.
Who says so? Why the EU itself says so, does it not?
The legal structure of the EU contains a method/process for leaving. Surely when the architects of the various EU treaties wrote these clauses into them they did so in the full and certain knowledge that at some point in the future one or more states may seek to exercise those clauses?
Otherwise why include them? Is it a crime for a country to exercise a clause in a legal treaty? Is it a crime for a majority decision, freely voted on by almost 34 million people, to be implemented?
Now, what I would blame the EU for would be for making a process that is enshrined in their own treaties more difficult than it needs to be, even though in doing so they are damaging their own people.
A favourite analogy for Brexit on PH is the Gym Membership question..... So I ask you, is it normal for a gym to punish its remaining members when another member wants to leave?
Ghibli said:
Brexit is the will of the UK people.
At last! You're getting the message! Isn't democracy a wonderful thing? 
Any punishment we get is what we chose through leaving.
Sway said:
That's not true - the implications of each Treaty were well understood by those signing them.
It's simply disgraceful that none of those signatories weren't forced to say "this is it, the point of no return, what say you?" to the electorate.
and the Maastricht rebels were roundly criticised at the time and yet if we were seeking a semi-detached status that was the moment to put it in place. An exemption from EMU was not enough to avoid becoming entangled in the EU to such an extent that we are told that severe disruption will accompany trying to leave. It's simply disgraceful that none of those signatories weren't forced to say "this is it, the point of no return, what say you?" to the electorate.
The logic of negotiating such an opt out was that the UK was not going to follow down the path to a federal union, but Major's government lacked the courage to then put in place an alternative structure for the UK/EU relationship that the UK population would be happy with in the long term.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Yes, by making applicable regulations specificity for the needs of the Uk population, in this case Fat ones who constantly stuff their faces.
Except it doesn’t meet the needs of the vast majority of the population who can exercise self control at greggs and take regular exercise.Sway said:
That's not true - the implications of each Treaty were well understood by those signing them.
It's simply disgraceful that none of those signatories weren't forced to say "this is it, the point of no return, what say you?" to the electorate.
yeah but no one knew for sure at the time how successful it'd be and how reliant dependent member states would become on it (if turns out to be reality for us) It's simply disgraceful that none of those signatories weren't forced to say "this is it, the point of no return, what say you?" to the electorate.
Tuna said:
Mrr T said:
TM made various promises and set red lines on brexit. The EU listened to TM and has negotiated on the basis of those commitments. They have suggested a proposal for Ireland which meets TM red lines, and allowed the UK to present alternative proposals. The UK has been un able to come up with more than fudge, a technology border which might take years to deliver, and Chequers which does not work. TM then added a new red line on any border in the sea. This red line was never been in any manifesto, it’s never been tested with the people of NI, and it seems might not have been a TM red line till the DUP told her it was.
It's almost like the EU didn't actually think what Brexit meant. Can you seriously suggest that when the United Kingdom stated that they were to leave, the EU thought "of course, parts of it will remain on our side of a completely new customs border"? Is that what leaving means to you?Your comments about TM not listing this in her red lines don't stand a moment's scrutiny. She also didn't list annexing North Wales, or imposing punishment beatings on ginger people, but clearly those aren't options the EU should be considering.
JNW1 said:
I'm no doubt missing a trick here - and apologies if it's been covered before - but what I don't really understand is how this Irish border issue would work in the event of a no-deal.
We're saying we don't want a hard border and the Irish government is saying the same; therefore, in the event of a no-deal how would a hard border actually get created? We'll presumably refuse to put checkpoints or any physical infrastructure in place and if the Irish government adopts the same attitude how does this hard border physically come to pass? Do Barnier, Tusk Juncker, et al have to turn-up in hard hats with plant and equipment to create it because as far as I can see nobody in either the UK or the Irish governments has the slightest inclination to put one in place!
You might just have landed on J-CJ's motivation for having an EU army...We're saying we don't want a hard border and the Irish government is saying the same; therefore, in the event of a no-deal how would a hard border actually get created? We'll presumably refuse to put checkpoints or any physical infrastructure in place and if the Irish government adopts the same attitude how does this hard border physically come to pass? Do Barnier, Tusk Juncker, et al have to turn-up in hard hats with plant and equipment to create it because as far as I can see nobody in either the UK or the Irish governments has the slightest inclination to put one in place!
alfie2244 said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
alfie2244 said:
Sway said:
If leaving causes such a massive catastrophe, then how the bloody hell did we manage to be signed up to it (note, not the EEC) without a vote by the populace?
A very salient point IMO.78k a year for the transitional period (3 yrs) after leaving his job as Trade Commisioner in 2008, tax paid at EU 'preferential' rate.
£30-35K per year when he gets to 65, conditional on being loyal to the EU, and not uttering a published word of criticism.
You couldn't get a more discredited MP, yet the Remainers worship the ground he walks on when he bleats about a 2nd Referendum.
WCZ said:
Sway said:
That's not true - the implications of each Treaty were well understood by those signing them.
It's simply disgraceful that none of those signatories weren't forced to say "this is it, the point of no return, what say you?" to the electorate.
yeah but no one knew for sure at the time how successful it'd be and how reliant dependent member states would become on it (if turns out to be reality for us) It's simply disgraceful that none of those signatories weren't forced to say "this is it, the point of no return, what say you?" to the electorate.
That's an aside - I'm sorry but it's simply inconceivable that, for example, Brown wasn't fully aware he was signing something that would be virtually impossible to unwind within the contractual withdrawal period.
As a leave voter, I'm over it - it'll take a while, but this situation will not be repeatable by our future representatives.
It's that remain voters (who bang on that we always had sovereignty, etc.) that surprise me. Quite simply, the "Doom" being predicted by them due to our leaving wouldn't be possible if we'd knowingly signed up to the situation.
don'tbesilly said:
As has the mendacious snake Mandelson.
78k a year for the transitional period (3 yrs) after leaving his job as Trade Commisioner in 2008, tax paid at EU 'preferential' rate.
£30-35K per year when he gets to 65, conditional on being loyal to the EU, and not uttering a published word of criticism.
You couldn't get a more discredited MP, yet the Remainers worship the ground he walks on when he bleats about a 2nd Referendum.
That's because he speaks a lot of sense.78k a year for the transitional period (3 yrs) after leaving his job as Trade Commisioner in 2008, tax paid at EU 'preferential' rate.
£30-35K per year when he gets to 65, conditional on being loyal to the EU, and not uttering a published word of criticism.
You couldn't get a more discredited MP, yet the Remainers worship the ground he walks on when he bleats about a 2nd Referendum.
Mrr T said:
Tuna said:
Mrr T said:
TM made various promises and set red lines on brexit. The EU listened to TM and has negotiated on the basis of those commitments. They have suggested a proposal for Ireland which meets TM red lines, and allowed the UK to present alternative proposals. The UK has been un able to come up with more than fudge, a technology border which might take years to deliver, and Chequers which does not work. TM then added a new red line on any border in the sea. This red line was never been in any manifesto, it’s never been tested with the people of NI, and it seems might not have been a TM red line till the DUP told her it was.
It's almost like the EU didn't actually think what Brexit meant. Can you seriously suggest that when the United Kingdom stated that they were to leave, the EU thought "of course, parts of it will remain on our side of a completely new customs border"? Is that what leaving means to you?Your comments about TM not listing this in her red lines don't stand a moment's scrutiny. She also didn't list annexing North Wales, or imposing punishment beatings on ginger people, but clearly those aren't options the EU should be considering.
You know this, as we've been round this loop before, until you spout "but how long, how much?" - which competely refutes using your own words the post I've just quoted.
Ghibli said:
How can the EU punish its own members when it it us choosing to leave. Surely you mean the UK is choosing to punish EU members by leaving.
It would be punishing its own members by not negotiating the best possible deal on their behalf - and that best possible deal may very well include the EU having to be creative about stuff it's hitherto wanted to claim as sacred. How can the UK leaving via a legitimate process that is included in the treaties be construed as punishing the EU? I say again, if there was never any intention for a member to be able to leave in an orderly way, why include the provision of a method for leaving in the treaties?
Ghibli said:
Any punishment we get is what we chose through leaving.
Just think about what you have written here. On what planet is it ever appropriate for a political construct to punish a country over a democratic decision made by its people? Shouldn't such a concept make you shudder? Why on earth would you ever join a gym if you knew that a consequence of your leaving would be the gym telling all the other remaining member that they had to treat you badly (even if that meant damaging themselves in the process)?
andymadmak said:
Just think about what you have written here. On what planet is it ever appropriate for a political construct to punish a country over a democratic decision made by its people?
Shouldn't such a concept make you shudder? Why on earth would you ever join a gym if you knew that a consequence of your leaving would be the gym telling all the other remaining member that they had to treat you badly (even if that meant damaging themselves in the process)?
Fair point. Bully boy tactics. Shouldn't such a concept make you shudder? Why on earth would you ever join a gym if you knew that a consequence of your leaving would be the gym telling all the other remaining member that they had to treat you badly (even if that meant damaging themselves in the process)?
andymadmak said:
Ghibli said:
How can the EU punish its own members when it it us choosing to leave. Surely you mean the UK is choosing to punish EU members by leaving.
It would be punishing its own members by not negotiating the best possible deal on their behalf - and that best possible deal may very well include the EU having to be creative about stuff it's hitherto wanted to claim as sacred. How can the UK leaving via a legitimate process that is included in the treaties be construed as punishing the EU? I say again, if there was never any intention for a member to be able to leave in an orderly way, why include the provision of a method for leaving in the treaties?
Ghibli said:
Any punishment we get is what we chose through leaving.
Just think about what you have written here. On what planet is it ever appropriate for a political construct to punish a country over a democratic decision made by its people? Shouldn't such a concept make you shudder? Why on earth would you ever join a gym if you knew that a consequence of your leaving would be the gym telling all the other remaining member that they had to treat you badly (even if that meant damaging themselves in the process)?
It will be our choice to leave without a deal.
As for the UK wanting the best deal for the people, that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
Trolleys Thank You said:
don'tbesilly said:
As has the mendacious snake Mandelson.
78k a year for the transitional period (3 yrs) after leaving his job as Trade Commisioner in 2008, tax paid at EU 'preferential' rate.
£30-35K per year when he gets to 65, conditional on being loyal to the EU, and not uttering a published word of criticism.
You couldn't get a more discredited MP, yet the Remainers worship the ground he walks on when he bleats about a 2nd Referendum.
That's because he speaks a lot of sense.78k a year for the transitional period (3 yrs) after leaving his job as Trade Commisioner in 2008, tax paid at EU 'preferential' rate.
£30-35K per year when he gets to 65, conditional on being loyal to the EU, and not uttering a published word of criticism.
You couldn't get a more discredited MP, yet the Remainers worship the ground he walks on when he bleats about a 2nd Referendum.
'Jawknee' would have undoubtedly agreed with everything you have written, and could have composed it personally.
Ghibli said:
I think you need to read what you have been writing. You appear to think the EU will be punishing its own people if it let's us leave without a deal.
It will be our choice to leave without a deal.
As for the UK wanting the best deal for the people, that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
Leaving with no deal is worse for both UK and the EU, everyone wants to avoid this, so yes, the EU would be punishing it's own people. It will be our choice to leave without a deal.
As for the UK wanting the best deal for the people, that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
If you were in T Mays position, what would your solution be?
soupdragon1 said:
Leaving with no deal is worse for both UK and the EU, everyone wants to avoid this, so yes, the EU would be punishing it's own people.
If you were in T Mays position, what would your solution be?
We are the only ones leaving the EU. If it hurts the EU people it does not make it the EUs fault.If you were in T Mays position, what would your solution be?
If we accepted the backstop until a solution is found it would solve the problem of the negotiations. Obviously the Goverment don't think that there is a solution and can't see one materialising.
A no deal Brexit is the worst option which some Brexit supporters appear to want.
PurpleMoonlight said:
You have to feel sorry for business.
Less than six months to go and they still don't know whether or not tariffs will or will not apply to a huge range of imported goods.
Business has been able to plan and prepare for a "no deal" situation since the 24th June 2016.Less than six months to go and they still don't know whether or not tariffs will or will not apply to a huge range of imported goods.
Any business that hasn't will only have itself to blame.
Most businesses quite likely don't care as Brexit has no direct impact to them.
Mrr T said:
...
This leaves a limited range of options:
1. The EU drops the demand for a backstop for NI in the withdrawal agreement. This is a possibility because they know the UK cannot accept a border in NI either. It kicks the cliff 18 months down the road.
2. TM agrees we have not reached an agreement and asks for an extension to Art 50. Since there is no deal no Parliamentary vote is needed. The ERG will explode, but while they may get the votes to trigger a leadership contest they do not have the votes to win. So they risk ending up with a tougher leader who will call their bluff. I expect the EU will agree, it has to be unanimous, but it keeps the UK contributions, the UK still follows all the rules but has no say, and it avoids any adverse effects of no deal.
May wouldn't last 5mins.This leaves a limited range of options:
1. The EU drops the demand for a backstop for NI in the withdrawal agreement. This is a possibility because they know the UK cannot accept a border in NI either. It kicks the cliff 18 months down the road.
2. TM agrees we have not reached an agreement and asks for an extension to Art 50. Since there is no deal no Parliamentary vote is needed. The ERG will explode, but while they may get the votes to trigger a leadership contest they do not have the votes to win. So they risk ending up with a tougher leader who will call their bluff. I expect the EU will agree, it has to be unanimous, but it keeps the UK contributions, the UK still follows all the rules but has no say, and it avoids any adverse effects of no deal.
And the problem with a "tougher" leader (presumably you mean one who will knuckle down on something "softer" - more BRINO?) is that the transition period will then see the Tories right back in the GE zone. BRINO or any other fudge also sees them dead in the GE IMO.
The one thing that we can guarantee is that whatever direction May chooses is the last thing we should be doing.
I see (1) being more likely. The EU not only has previous on can kicking, but it's its default MO - they are exceptionally good at it. I could even see that leading to an extended transition when the time comes (though wouldn't bet on it).
If May holds her resolve, and the EU are paying attention properly, they should know that the public here won't break. There's no mandate for a 2nd vote, and even if there was there's no mandate for re-running the same question again (if that is tried I think it will backfire very badly on the EU and the ultra pro-Remain proponents).
Meanwhile the thorny questions that the EU must address with the remaining 27 get ever closer to needing to be sorted out. Which I'm not convinced is any easier than the pickle May has managed to get herself into.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff