How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 5)
Discussion
Coolbanana said:
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/john-...
Spot on assessment by John Major.
Those deceitful snakes will be remembered for how they conned 17 million... .
His stuck record stuff is only marginally less boring than yours Spot on assessment by John Major.
Those deceitful snakes will be remembered for how they conned 17 million... .
The "colossal misjudgement" was his with Maastricht. He should have asked the country then and we wouldn't be in this mess (one way or another). Or at least been significantly more astute in how the benefits would be set out and measured, and how we could exit if they proved a nonsense.
Not hard to see why he's upset. But he should look in the mirror when it comes to judgement.
Ghibli said:
Tuna said:
That's the one thing you aren't doing. You post endlessly about what other posters want or think, but when I asked you directly what the actual 'loss of trade deals' would involve that would stop trade, and not surprisingly, that was the one post you haven't responded to.
You should know that the loss of our current trade deals would mean WTO
Apart from the remainiacs semantics and The EU using anything to get us to remain, it all seems to hinge on the Irish border which will become ridiculous in time, I do think it's beginning to unravel now.
I keep saying it, we will leave with no deal there will be a rush round the table and then real negotiations will start.
And maybe we can all move forward?
I keep saying it, we will leave with no deal there will be a rush round the table and then real negotiations will start.
And maybe we can all move forward?
desolate said:
Vanden Saab said:
You are joking.... the EU cannot put a border in place. It is up to Ireland to do that. Any changes to the CTA like the British people losing their current rights would also mean an end to the GFA..... As both the RoI and the UK have confirmed the CTA will continue in the event of a no deal as confirmed here.... https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/i... What are you suggesting the EU would or could do?
I'm suggesting my solution would be financially advantageous for Northern Ireland and for our country as a whole.I think it could be sold to the EU as a pragmatic solution.
That's what I'm suggesting.
What's not to like?
If, as Coveney suggested, the EU needs to protect its land borders, and the ROI/NI will become just such a border .. then it will be the end of the Govt that accepts that
The Irish Govt is already teetering, and the odds are on for a GE before Xmas
As an aside, if the EU puts up a hard border to protect itself from the U.K.
How can the U.K. continue to provide troops on the other side of the border protecting the EU’s Eastern borders as it does now ?
The implications of this would hit European security to the core and affect NATO
Seems like there are a few possible outcomes for the transition period/backstop:
1. Whole of the UK remains in the Customs Union and Single Market until a trade deal is completed or the backstop revocation criteria is met/triggered. Unfortunately we would be a rule taker for the duration (36/48 months) and the Brexiteers would be less than impressed. But it is the least painful approach for the economy. An important item is that we must be able to start negotiating trade deals with other countries, but we can do so from a position of strength. Obvious downside apart from drawing out the leaving process is that we would need some leverage or get out clause over the EU as they would not have any incentive to complete the trade deal. This is the most pragmatic way to approach it, but would clearly arouse great suspicion over whether we are leaving or not.
2. Whole of the UK remains in the Customs Union, but not the single market. I think this preserves the integrity of the EU as it does not give the UK an unfair advantage through tariffs. UK would control free movement of people, but I suspect the EU would be more flexible on goods/services/capital. Throw in some 'regulatory alignment' and the EU may be happy with it. This last aspect is probably a precursor to the final trade deal. I think the UK staying in the Custom Union is OUR backstop compromise and the EU accepting alignment on good/services/capital will be the EUs. I would imagine the DUP will be happy as there are no borders between the UK or with Ireland. Note that we must again be able to negotiate trade deals. This approach would also be less painful for the economy, albeit with some of the same downsides as point one above.
3. Whole of the UK in the single market, but not the customs union. Clearly a non-starter for both sides.
4. Whole of the UK outside both single market and customs union. Chequers falls into this as does no deal exit. I think Chequers is just an initial negotiating position anyway, so all the fuss about it is somewhat moot.
5. NI becomes a special economic zone with some form of duality. Could actually be a good move economically for NI, but clearly the DUP won't go for it.
6. Scotland or Wales stays in the Customs Union. May won't go for it.
7. Isle of Man based solution - no-one would go for it.
If you look ahead to five/ten years what do both sides actually want. They will want to trade freely, so will generally align themselves from a standards and regulatory standpoint to achieve this. Movement of people will be under the control of the UK as will various other aspects related to 'sovereignty'. Any trade deal and associated tariffs will probably also align quite closely with the EU for the same reasons. Anything coming from a low-tariff country will require Rules of Origin or the UK company exporting it to the EU will have to pay a fee. In 20 years both sides can re-evaluate what they want and either renew the trade deal or revise it heavily. They key thing here is that it honours the result and the spirit of the referendum in that Brexiteers will get much (but not all) of what they want, and the 48% of people who voted to remain get their worries placated aswell.
Of course what I describe is a glide path where mutual trust is built up over time. The EUs wish to protect itself nicely aligns with their hope that the UK will reverse its decision at some point in the future. But I do not think this will happen. I think the Brexiteers probably realise that a staged withdrawal with short-term compromises is actually the best way of ensuring that we do 'gain back control', as a no-deal shock will give plenty of ammunition to the calls for second referendum.
On a final note I would say that there is clearly a difference to having rules imposed upon you verses you voluntarily accepting them. But I would not be surprised if in 20 years our *trading arrangements* with the EU are very similar to what we have now.
All IMHO and appologies for the long post.
1. Whole of the UK remains in the Customs Union and Single Market until a trade deal is completed or the backstop revocation criteria is met/triggered. Unfortunately we would be a rule taker for the duration (36/48 months) and the Brexiteers would be less than impressed. But it is the least painful approach for the economy. An important item is that we must be able to start negotiating trade deals with other countries, but we can do so from a position of strength. Obvious downside apart from drawing out the leaving process is that we would need some leverage or get out clause over the EU as they would not have any incentive to complete the trade deal. This is the most pragmatic way to approach it, but would clearly arouse great suspicion over whether we are leaving or not.
2. Whole of the UK remains in the Customs Union, but not the single market. I think this preserves the integrity of the EU as it does not give the UK an unfair advantage through tariffs. UK would control free movement of people, but I suspect the EU would be more flexible on goods/services/capital. Throw in some 'regulatory alignment' and the EU may be happy with it. This last aspect is probably a precursor to the final trade deal. I think the UK staying in the Custom Union is OUR backstop compromise and the EU accepting alignment on good/services/capital will be the EUs. I would imagine the DUP will be happy as there are no borders between the UK or with Ireland. Note that we must again be able to negotiate trade deals. This approach would also be less painful for the economy, albeit with some of the same downsides as point one above.
3. Whole of the UK in the single market, but not the customs union. Clearly a non-starter for both sides.
4. Whole of the UK outside both single market and customs union. Chequers falls into this as does no deal exit. I think Chequers is just an initial negotiating position anyway, so all the fuss about it is somewhat moot.
5. NI becomes a special economic zone with some form of duality. Could actually be a good move economically for NI, but clearly the DUP won't go for it.
6. Scotland or Wales stays in the Customs Union. May won't go for it.
7. Isle of Man based solution - no-one would go for it.
If you look ahead to five/ten years what do both sides actually want. They will want to trade freely, so will generally align themselves from a standards and regulatory standpoint to achieve this. Movement of people will be under the control of the UK as will various other aspects related to 'sovereignty'. Any trade deal and associated tariffs will probably also align quite closely with the EU for the same reasons. Anything coming from a low-tariff country will require Rules of Origin or the UK company exporting it to the EU will have to pay a fee. In 20 years both sides can re-evaluate what they want and either renew the trade deal or revise it heavily. They key thing here is that it honours the result and the spirit of the referendum in that Brexiteers will get much (but not all) of what they want, and the 48% of people who voted to remain get their worries placated aswell.
Of course what I describe is a glide path where mutual trust is built up over time. The EUs wish to protect itself nicely aligns with their hope that the UK will reverse its decision at some point in the future. But I do not think this will happen. I think the Brexiteers probably realise that a staged withdrawal with short-term compromises is actually the best way of ensuring that we do 'gain back control', as a no-deal shock will give plenty of ammunition to the calls for second referendum.
On a final note I would say that there is clearly a difference to having rules imposed upon you verses you voluntarily accepting them. But I would not be surprised if in 20 years our *trading arrangements* with the EU are very similar to what we have now.
All IMHO and appologies for the long post.
Ghibli said:
Ah you are going to press the report button because I keep telling you that your opinion doesn't fit with the real negotiations.
If I do, it would be because your posts are deliberately antagonistic, clutter the thread and rarely add anything to the discussion.The big shame is that better posters than you have left the thread. I'm more than happy to discuss Brexit with people who have something to contribute, whatever their politics are.
Tuna said:
Ghibli said:
Tuna said:
That's the one thing you aren't doing. You post endlessly about what other posters want or think, but when I asked you directly what the actual 'loss of trade deals' would involve that would stop trade, and not surprisingly, that was the one post you haven't responded to.
You should know that the loss of our current trade deals would mean WTO
we are leaving the EU so that we can have our own FTA yet there will be no negative effect trading under WTO? yet we want to roll over our current trade agreements if we get a deal and other countries agree.Is that meaningful enough for you.
Tuna said:
Ghibli said:
I'm discussing the trade deals we will be losing in a no deal situation.
That's the one thing you aren't doing. You post endlessly about what other posters want or think, but when I asked you directly what the actual 'loss of trade deals' would involve that would stop trade, and not surprisingly, that was the one post you haven't responded to.Tuna said:
If I do, it would be because your posts are deliberately antagonistic, clutter the thread and rarely add anything to the discussion.
The big shame is that better posters than you have left the thread. I'm more than happy to discuss Brexit with people who have something to contribute, whatever their politics are.
I wonder why the better posters no longer want to discuss the negotiations with you.The big shame is that better posters than you have left the thread. I'm more than happy to discuss Brexit with people who have something to contribute, whatever their politics are.
Earthdweller said:
There is no way on earth that any Government of the Free State could survive physically partitioning the 32 Counties
If, as Coveney suggested, the EU needs to protect its land borders, and the ROI/NI will become just such a border .. then it will be the end of the Govt that accepts that
The Irish Govt is already teetering, and the odds are on for a GE before Xmas
As an aside, if the EU puts up a hard border to protect itself from the U.K.
How can the U.K. continue to provide troops on the other side of the border protecting the EU’s Eastern borders as it does now ?
The implications of this would hit European security to the core and affect NATO
Does it work financially?If, as Coveney suggested, the EU needs to protect its land borders, and the ROI/NI will become just such a border .. then it will be the end of the Govt that accepts that
The Irish Govt is already teetering, and the odds are on for a GE before Xmas
As an aside, if the EU puts up a hard border to protect itself from the U.K.
How can the U.K. continue to provide troops on the other side of the border protecting the EU’s Eastern borders as it does now ?
The implications of this would hit European security to the core and affect NATO
desolate said:
Earthdweller said:
There is no way on earth that any Government of the Free State could survive physically partitioning the 32 Counties
If, as Coveney suggested, the EU needs to protect its land borders, and the ROI/NI will become just such a border .. then it will be the end of the Govt that accepts that
The Irish Govt is already teetering, and the odds are on for a GE before Xmas
As an aside, if the EU puts up a hard border to protect itself from the U.K.
How can the U.K. continue to provide troops on the other side of the border protecting the EU’s Eastern borders as it does now ?
The implications of this would hit European security to the core and affect NATO
Does it work financially?If, as Coveney suggested, the EU needs to protect its land borders, and the ROI/NI will become just such a border .. then it will be the end of the Govt that accepts that
The Irish Govt is already teetering, and the odds are on for a GE before Xmas
As an aside, if the EU puts up a hard border to protect itself from the U.K.
How can the U.K. continue to provide troops on the other side of the border protecting the EU’s Eastern borders as it does now ?
The implications of this would hit European security to the core and affect NATO
Ghibli said:
we are leaving the EU so that we can have our own FTA yet there will be no negative effect trading under WTO? yet we want to roll over our current trade agreements if we get a deal and other countries agree.Is that meaningful enough for you.
Earthdweller said:
You clearly have absolutely no idea about Ireland and the politics/people on the island
Well the people of NI voted to remain, I think it would economically advantageous for the Northern Irish people and we devolve other important matters to them.What's not to like?
Tuna said:
Ghibli said:
we are leaving the EU so that we can have our own FTA yet there will be no negative effect trading under WTO? yet we want to roll over our current trade agreements if we get a deal and other countries agree.Is that meaningful enough for you.
its not that hard to work out Tuna. Do you really not get it.
Fake news, distractions, half- truths, distortions, repetition, replayed repetition, constant regurgitation of past (and put to bed) ‘discoveries’.
Negativity.
Posture any reason why something can’t be accomplished.
Repeatedly.
Ad nauseam .
And regurgitate.
Rinse and repeat.
(oh, and did I mention, achieves f
k all?!)
Another vote anyone?
Shill (paid or otherwise) but still a shill.
In today’s language, a Troll.
I’ll start by nominating our own Mr Ghibli.
Feel free……
Negativity.
Posture any reason why something can’t be accomplished.
Repeatedly.
Ad nauseam .
And regurgitate.
Rinse and repeat.
(oh, and did I mention, achieves f
k all?!)Another vote anyone?
Shill (paid or otherwise) but still a shill.
In today’s language, a Troll.
I’ll start by nominating our own Mr Ghibli.
Feel free……
Earthdweller said:
desolate said:
Earthdweller said:
There is no way on earth that any Government of the Free State could survive physically partitioning the 32 Counties
If, as Coveney suggested, the EU needs to protect its land borders, and the ROI/NI will become just such a border .. then it will be the end of the Govt that accepts that
The Irish Govt is already teetering, and the odds are on for a GE before Xmas
As an aside, if the EU puts up a hard border to protect itself from the U.K.
How can the U.K. continue to provide troops on the other side of the border protecting the EU’s Eastern borders as it does now ?
The implications of this would hit European security to the core and affect NATO
Does it work financially?If, as Coveney suggested, the EU needs to protect its land borders, and the ROI/NI will become just such a border .. then it will be the end of the Govt that accepts that
The Irish Govt is already teetering, and the odds are on for a GE before Xmas
As an aside, if the EU puts up a hard border to protect itself from the U.K.
How can the U.K. continue to provide troops on the other side of the border protecting the EU’s Eastern borders as it does now ?
The implications of this would hit European security to the core and affect NATO
tumble dryer said:
Fake news, distractions, half- truths, distortions, repetition, replayed repetition, constant regurgitation of past (and put to bed) ‘discoveries’.
Negativity.
Posture any reason why something can’t be accomplished.
Repeatedly.
Ad nauseam .
And regurgitate.
Rinse and repeat.
(oh, and did I mention, achieves fk all?!)
Another vote anyone?
Shill (paid or otherwise) but still a shill.
In today’s language, a Troll.
I’ll start by nominating our own Mr Ghibli.
Feel free……
2nd'dNegativity.
Posture any reason why something can’t be accomplished.
Repeatedly.
Ad nauseam .
And regurgitate.
Rinse and repeat.
(oh, and did I mention, achieves f
k all?!)Another vote anyone?
Shill (paid or otherwise) but still a shill.
In today’s language, a Troll.
I’ll start by nominating our own Mr Ghibli.
Feel free……
Ghibli said:
Tuna said:
Ghibli said:
we are leaving the EU so that we can have our own FTA yet there will be no negative effect trading under WTO? yet we want to roll over our current trade agreements if we get a deal and other countries agree.Is that meaningful enough for you.
its not that hard to work out Tuna. Do you really not get it.
Just give us one example of an exported good, and how it will change under WTO for an importing nation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff