How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)
Discussion
ben5575 said:
The currently proposed backstop is not acceptable, a fact made clear by last weeks vote. However the moment for saying that on point of principle 'a' backstop either is or is not acceptable has now passed (to the more politically savvy imho). The tone is now one of we need a backstop or some form of agreement between UK and Eire or customs union or *please insert solution of your choice*, and we need to sit down and find it.
Raab was left looking obstinate and out of date/touch, much like Boris and JRM did when they misjudged/misread the political runes.
The winners in all of this will be the ones playing the long game (Gove) who are seen to have made the deal we eventually arrive at happen, not the ones who stood in the way of it. As I said earlier, I believe that we will leave with a deal. Remainers and Leavers alike will grumble but accept the compromise, understanding that the NHS/Police etc etc are actually far more important issues, life will move on.
Hard line brexiteers will never accept it, but as demonstrated by the ERM (who are now also 'falling into line') they are a vociferous but largely impotent minority. They'll be some froth, and maybe a new party will emerge to soak up the 3m UKIP voters and not win a seat, but the electorate will default back to traditional party lines.
This all depends on the nature of the deal arrived at. A customs union is exactly what the main component of the backstop is and so any deal that included it would be assessed mainly on the basis of whether the UK could leave it if it so chose. Because, to be very clear about it, a permanent relationship based solely on the customs union would be entirely unsatisfactory for the UK.Raab was left looking obstinate and out of date/touch, much like Boris and JRM did when they misjudged/misread the political runes.
The winners in all of this will be the ones playing the long game (Gove) who are seen to have made the deal we eventually arrive at happen, not the ones who stood in the way of it. As I said earlier, I believe that we will leave with a deal. Remainers and Leavers alike will grumble but accept the compromise, understanding that the NHS/Police etc etc are actually far more important issues, life will move on.
Hard line brexiteers will never accept it, but as demonstrated by the ERM (who are now also 'falling into line') they are a vociferous but largely impotent minority. They'll be some froth, and maybe a new party will emerge to soak up the 3m UKIP voters and not win a seat, but the electorate will default back to traditional party lines.
This was the labour shadow minister on a customs union (before it became Labour policy)
Gardiner said:
Some have suggested we should retain membership of the customs union, the benefits of which extend to goods rather than services, and establish common import tariffs with respect to the rest of the world. But that is not possible. The only members of this union are the member states of the EU, and they alone have negotiating power.
Other countries such as Turkey have a separate customs union agreement with the EU. If we were to have a similar agreement, several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set. We would be unable to enter into any separate bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the union, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And we would be bound by the case law of the ECJ, even though we would have no power to bring a case to the court.As a transitional phase, a customs union agreement might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU (the US, China, Japan, Australia and the Gulf states).
More important, were, say, the EU to negotiate an agreement with the US that was in the union’s best interests but against our own, our markets would be obliged to accept American produce with no guarantee of reciprocal access for our own goods into the US.
Also, as Rogers pointed out, the logical next step after such an arrangement has been reached will be to concede FOM, Fisheries etc to try and get better access for Services exports. Other countries such as Turkey have a separate customs union agreement with the EU. If we were to have a similar agreement, several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set. We would be unable to enter into any separate bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the union, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And we would be bound by the case law of the ECJ, even though we would have no power to bring a case to the court.As a transitional phase, a customs union agreement might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU (the US, China, Japan, Australia and the Gulf states).
More important, were, say, the EU to negotiate an agreement with the US that was in the union’s best interests but against our own, our markets would be obliged to accept American produce with no guarantee of reciprocal access for our own goods into the US.
The difficulty for all such half-in half out policies is that they are likely to leave the UK demonstrable worse off with little actual change in the issues that produced a Leave vote.
So no, unless Remainers come up with a decent solution, Brexiteers shouldn't sit down with them and "compromise". Let Remainers get together in parliament and cancel Brexit, it is far more honest.
Outside the bubble I imagine most aren't following the day to day manoeuvrings, but many will eventually realise if they have been betrayed and there is plenty of time before the next election is due to happen for that realisation to occur.
Ghibli said:
SeeFive said:
I would still say that it is more prudent to prepare for direct action from French militants than is is to concern ourselves with another y2k or “all will collapse after the vote” project fear probably false prediction.
You don’t know, I don’t know, but the man with the business critical point of failure does know. He is covered. He is wise.
Businesses are preparing for Brexit as Tony has pointed out. Would we be preparing in the same way if there hadn't been a Brexit vote.You don’t know, I don’t know, but the man with the business critical point of failure does know. He is covered. He is wise.
If you and your family’s and employees livelihood was on the line and you were potentially going to be impacted by any uncertainty and conflicting reports between doom and unicorns where you had no control, what would you do?
You seem to be claiming certainty based on what others are saying on the spectrum between doom and unicorns that he shouldn’t prepare for the chance. Even considering your obvious stance in Brexit (you believe project fear) even though project fear have been consistently wrong with most business predictions to date, you suggest that he should take a chance on project unicorn at this stage. Odd.
I am suggesting that wise people take precautions based on their specific potential risk / risk averse position in line with criticality to their business. The additional uncertainty of an event such as Brexit and related potential militant events could tip the balance for some serious business professionals with a certain risk profile.
However, it is probably better to allow Tony to speak for himself. I still believe in this instance for him to be wiser than you, which is currently increasing with every post you make.
amusingduck said:
Ghibli said:
NoNeed said:
Ghibli said:
It was a childish pathetic comment directed at Helicopter123 that adds nothing to the Brexit discussion. E.g. Trolling.
Is budgie the only one allowed to troll then?Ghibli said:
amusingduck said:
Ghibli said:
NoNeed said:
Ghibli said:
It was a childish pathetic comment directed at Helicopter123 that adds nothing to the Brexit discussion. E.g. Trolling.
Is budgie the only one allowed to troll then?Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
SeeFive said:
Always asking questions. My turn.
If you and your family’s and employees livelihood was on the line and you were potentially going to be impacted by any uncertainty and conflicting reports between doom and unicorns where you had no control, what would you do?
You seem to be claiming certainty based on what others are saying on the spectrum between doom and unicorns that he shouldn’t prepare for the chance. Even considering your obvious stance in Brexit (you believe project fear) even though project fear have been consistently wrong with most business predictions to date, you suggest that he should take a chance on project unicorn at this stage. Odd.
I am suggesting that wise people take precautions based on their specific potential risk / risk averse position in line with criticality to their business. The additional uncertainty of an event such as Brexit and related potential militant events could tip the balance for some serious business professionals with a certain risk profile.
However, it is probably better to allow Tony to speak for himself. I still believe in this instance for him to be wiser than you, which is currently increasing with every post you make.
I am not saying people shouldn't prepare. We currently have uncertainty due to the Brexit vote. MPs haven't got a clue what they are doing and we also have people saying it's project fear and lies.If you and your family’s and employees livelihood was on the line and you were potentially going to be impacted by any uncertainty and conflicting reports between doom and unicorns where you had no control, what would you do?
You seem to be claiming certainty based on what others are saying on the spectrum between doom and unicorns that he shouldn’t prepare for the chance. Even considering your obvious stance in Brexit (you believe project fear) even though project fear have been consistently wrong with most business predictions to date, you suggest that he should take a chance on project unicorn at this stage. Odd.
I am suggesting that wise people take precautions based on their specific potential risk / risk averse position in line with criticality to their business. The additional uncertainty of an event such as Brexit and related potential militant events could tip the balance for some serious business professionals with a certain risk profile.
However, it is probably better to allow Tony to speak for himself. I still believe in this instance for him to be wiser than you, which is currently increasing with every post you make.
Why are people preparing if it's lies?
amusingduck said:
That is literally textbook trolling. No content, no substance, no logic, no argument. Simply a post designed to provoke.
Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
davepoth said:
don'tbesilly said:
May has done nothing in regards the backstop or the £39 billion to date, reports suggest she hasn't even asked the EU to do anything about either, what has changed from Mogg & the ERG to suggest you think they've fallen into line?
Mogg this week said that in a toss-up between no Brexit and May's deal, it would be May's deal; that's as far as his concessions have gone, inasmuch as there are a number of Brexiteers who would rather no Brexit than May's deal, because it really is that bad. The reason Mogg is being emollient is that the Backstop is the only part of the deal that couldn't be unpicked at a later date. If it can be altered or removed everything is still on the table, for better or worse.
All problems go back to the backstop, and the EU will do nothing about it until such time as it becomes crystal clear that leaving without a deal is a viable option, which of course they are relying on parliament to stop this coming week, and will give both Parliament & the EU what they are desperate to achieve.
Ghibli said:
amusingduck said:
That is literally textbook trolling. No content, no substance, no logic, no argument. Simply a post designed to provoke.
Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
.
Ghibli said:
amusingduck said:
That is literally textbook trolling. No content, no substance, no logic, no argument. Simply a post designed to provoke.
Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
and your explanation as to how my example of
"persistently posting disingenuous, reductionist nonsense which doesn't bear even the mildest of scrutiny, repeatedly asking the same questions with faux-ignorance to the past answers, and rarely answering questions directed at them whilst expecting others to answer questions"
is not a subset of the bold?
Would you care to explain how your recent post:
Ghibli said:
Businesses are preparing for Brexit as Tony has pointed out. Would we be preparing in the same way if there hadn't been a Brexit vote.
Is not to distract and sow discord by posting a digressive (read: characterized by digression; tending to depart from the subject.) message, which attempts to normalise tangential discussion?Ghibli said:
SeeFive said:
Always asking questions. My turn.
If you and your family’s and employees livelihood was on the line and you were potentially going to be impacted by any uncertainty and conflicting reports between doom and unicorns where you had no control, what would you do?
You seem to be claiming certainty based on what others are saying on the spectrum between doom and unicorns that he shouldn’t prepare for the chance. Even considering your obvious stance in Brexit (you believe project fear) even though project fear have been consistently wrong with most business predictions to date, you suggest that he should take a chance on project unicorn at this stage. Odd.
I am suggesting that wise people take precautions based on their specific potential risk / risk averse position in line with criticality to their business. The additional uncertainty of an event such as Brexit and related potential militant events could tip the balance for some serious business professionals with a certain risk profile.
However, it is probably better to allow Tony to speak for himself. I still believe in this instance for him to be wiser than you, which is currently increasing with every post you make.
I am not saying people shouldn't prepare. We currently have uncertainty due to the Brexit vote. MPs haven't got a clue what they are doing and we also have people saying it's project fear and lies.If you and your family’s and employees livelihood was on the line and you were potentially going to be impacted by any uncertainty and conflicting reports between doom and unicorns where you had no control, what would you do?
You seem to be claiming certainty based on what others are saying on the spectrum between doom and unicorns that he shouldn’t prepare for the chance. Even considering your obvious stance in Brexit (you believe project fear) even though project fear have been consistently wrong with most business predictions to date, you suggest that he should take a chance on project unicorn at this stage. Odd.
I am suggesting that wise people take precautions based on their specific potential risk / risk averse position in line with criticality to their business. The additional uncertainty of an event such as Brexit and related potential militant events could tip the balance for some serious business professionals with a certain risk profile.
However, it is probably better to allow Tony to speak for himself. I still believe in this instance for him to be wiser than you, which is currently increasing with every post you make.
Why are people preparing if it's lies?
Lies? Inaccuracies? Past accuracy? Gut feel? Contradictory messages on both sides of the fence. Fortunately Tony’s business is not subject to being ruled by some massive and largely disconnected entity with a very different motivation, so he can be the man in control of his business and decide on the limits of what he will and won’t accept in terms of risk to that business.
Sound familiar?
SeeFive said:
Tony will do what Tony feels is prudent, knowing his business and with his view of risk. He is not subject to you, me or the Mafia telling him what to do (to my knowledge).
Lies? Inaccuracies? Past accuracy? Gut feel? Contradictory messages on both sides of the fence. Fortunately Tony’s business is not subject to being ruled by some massive and largely disconnected entity with a very different motivation, so he can be the man in control of his business and decide on the limits of what he will and won’t accept in terms of risk to that business.
Sound familiar?
Of course Tony will do what he feels he needs to do and I am not knocking what he has done. Good for him.Lies? Inaccuracies? Past accuracy? Gut feel? Contradictory messages on both sides of the fence. Fortunately Tony’s business is not subject to being ruled by some massive and largely disconnected entity with a very different motivation, so he can be the man in control of his business and decide on the limits of what he will and won’t accept in terms of risk to that business.
Sound familiar?
I'm surprised that he is not being told that it's all project fear and he doesn't need to do anything.
What I originally asked is how it will effect larger companies who need more space and who will foot the bill for extra space.
amusingduck said:
Ghibli said:
amusingduck said:
That is literally textbook trolling. No content, no substance, no logic, no argument. Simply a post designed to provoke.
Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
and your explanation as to how my example of
"persistently posting disingenuous, reductionist nonsense which doesn't bear even the mildest of scrutiny, repeatedly asking the same questions with faux-ignorance to the past answers, and rarely answering questions directed at them whilst expecting others to answer questions"
is not a subset of the bold?
Would you care to explain how your recent post:
Ghibli said:
Businesses are preparing for Brexit as Tony has pointed out. Would we be preparing in the same way if there hadn't been a Brexit vote.
Is not to distract and sow discord by posting a digressive (read: characterized by digression; tending to depart from the subject.) message, which attempts to normalise tangential discussion?Ghibli said:
It was a childish pathetic comment directed at Helicopter123 that adds nothing to the Brexit discussion. E.g. Trolling.
[Edit by moderator]Helicopter123 said:
One mans terrorist is another’s freedom fighter after all.
In the light of the recent comments, besides the fact it was completely hypocritical, that was in very bad taste don't you think? And no, I didn't insult him, I suggested he hadn't actually thought about what he was saying when he flat out contradicted himself almost within the same page on this forum.Edited by dinosaur.mod on Sunday 20th January 20:12
Ghibli said:
amusingduck said:
Ghibli said:
amusingduck said:
That is literally textbook trolling. No content, no substance, no logic, no argument. Simply a post designed to provoke.
Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.Either that or you don't know what trolling is. Why don't you educate us as to the definition?
and your explanation as to how my example of
"persistently posting disingenuous, reductionist nonsense which doesn't bear even the mildest of scrutiny, repeatedly asking the same questions with faux-ignorance to the past answers, and rarely answering questions directed at them whilst expecting others to answer questions"
is not a subset of the bold?
Would you care to explain how your recent post:
Ghibli said:
Businesses are preparing for Brexit as Tony has pointed out. Would we be preparing in the same way if there hadn't been a Brexit vote.
Is not to distract and sow discord by posting a digressive (read: characterized by digression; tending to depart from the subject.) message, which attempts to normalise tangential discussion?
I didn't think so.No idea what your french militants diversion is about.
Ghibli said:
SeeFive said:
Tony will do what Tony feels is prudent, knowing his business and with his view of risk. He is not subject to you, me or the Mafia telling him what to do (to my knowledge).
Lies? Inaccuracies? Past accuracy? Gut feel? Contradictory messages on both sides of the fence. Fortunately Tony’s business is not subject to being ruled by some massive and largely disconnected entity with a very different motivation, so he can be the man in control of his business and decide on the limits of what he will and won’t accept in terms of risk to that business.
Sound familiar?
Of course Tony will do what he feels he needs to do and I am not knocking what he has done. Good for him.Lies? Inaccuracies? Past accuracy? Gut feel? Contradictory messages on both sides of the fence. Fortunately Tony’s business is not subject to being ruled by some massive and largely disconnected entity with a very different motivation, so he can be the man in control of his business and decide on the limits of what he will and won’t accept in terms of risk to that business.
Sound familiar?
I'm surprised that he is not being told that it's all project fear and he doesn't need to do anything.
What I originally asked is how it will effect larger companies who need more space and who will foot the bill for extra space.
The problem is that dedicated both sides of this discussion seem to feel they can take any example of someone doing something positive to be secure given their individual circumstances, and use that to back up some ethereal argument that they are having somewhere else against “the cause”.
Thank goodness for Tony that he is in a position to take control to secure his future when larger organisations take risks against their own rules and make massive fools of themselves as they create a massive mess of their project.
SeeFive said:
... and went of to say other stuff, which is what I chose to respond to.
The problem is that dedicated both sides of this discussion seem to feel they can take any example of someone doing something positive to be secure given their individual circumstances, and use that to back up some ethereal argument that they are having somewhere else against “the cause”.
Thank goodness for Tony that he is in a position to take control to secure his future when larger organisations take risks against their own rules and make massive fools of themselves as they create a massive mess of their project.
Ok. I will ask a straight question. The problem is that dedicated both sides of this discussion seem to feel they can take any example of someone doing something positive to be secure given their individual circumstances, and use that to back up some ethereal argument that they are having somewhere else against “the cause”.
Thank goodness for Tony that he is in a position to take control to secure his future when larger organisations take risks against their own rules and make massive fools of themselves as they create a massive mess of their project.
Why are businesses making provisions for Brexit if it is project fear?
For the hard of thinking, I will try to put the thought processes of every sensible importer / business man into simple terms.
Think of it like insurance. Thanks to the Remainer types , as has been demonstrated amply on these pages, many people are panicing re Brexit. I am not one. However as a businessman I realise that I must respond to these concerns, which may well be fantasy but which are pressing on the thought processes of my customers.
By putting arrangements to ameliorate any concerns my customers may have, well in advance, I do two things.
One, I insure against the very worst even though I have no doubt that it will not happen as it costs veritable peanuts to do so. ( I have a Cobra parked in my garage that I insure even though its not on the road and the only real way its going to get written off in my garage is if a plane trying to land at Birmingham Airport pancakes onto my house. Same thought process)
Secondly when my customers, who are being wound up by Remainer piffle in the media, ask me if I am prepared I can say
" Why yes", and detail all the arangements I have in place.
Result is that I can sleep at night and my customers think I am totally in control. Which breeds confidence. Which hopefully will lead to more business in the future.
Hopefully, although I doubt it 'cos they are not daft, my competitors asked the same question will either say " Oh my god we havent' got a clue what do you think ? " or " it'll be alright on the day, nowt will happen" . Neither are what a customer wants to hear, although I think the latter will be closer to the truth.
As regards Y2K an IT mate of mine spent new Years Eve 2000 sitting in a portacabin on an airfield in the USA surounded by planes being paid nigh on £10k for the privilege.
Suddenly nothing happened.
He still laughs like a drain when I mention it.
Cheers,
Tony.
Think of it like insurance. Thanks to the Remainer types , as has been demonstrated amply on these pages, many people are panicing re Brexit. I am not one. However as a businessman I realise that I must respond to these concerns, which may well be fantasy but which are pressing on the thought processes of my customers.
By putting arrangements to ameliorate any concerns my customers may have, well in advance, I do two things.
One, I insure against the very worst even though I have no doubt that it will not happen as it costs veritable peanuts to do so. ( I have a Cobra parked in my garage that I insure even though its not on the road and the only real way its going to get written off in my garage is if a plane trying to land at Birmingham Airport pancakes onto my house. Same thought process)
Secondly when my customers, who are being wound up by Remainer piffle in the media, ask me if I am prepared I can say
" Why yes", and detail all the arangements I have in place.
Result is that I can sleep at night and my customers think I am totally in control. Which breeds confidence. Which hopefully will lead to more business in the future.
Hopefully, although I doubt it 'cos they are not daft, my competitors asked the same question will either say " Oh my god we havent' got a clue what do you think ? " or " it'll be alright on the day, nowt will happen" . Neither are what a customer wants to hear, although I think the latter will be closer to the truth.
As regards Y2K an IT mate of mine spent new Years Eve 2000 sitting in a portacabin on an airfield in the USA surounded by planes being paid nigh on £10k for the privilege.
Suddenly nothing happened.
He still laughs like a drain when I mention it.
Cheers,
Tony.
Ghibli said:
amusingduck said:
No answer then? I didn't think so.
No idea what your french militants diversion is about.
Perhaps you should read Seefive's post. I didn't think so.No idea what your french militants diversion is about.
They threaten to blockade Calais if we don’t pay 39bn, which could be a consequence of a no deal exit.
Basically f
k all to do with your argument about trolls (on a brexit thread by the way).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff