How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)

[mattmurdock]

wc98 said:

JNW1 said:

As a slight aside, I know some have suggested a "Canada Plus" type deal still wouldn't have addressed the Irish border/backstop issue and I'm just curious as to why they think that? Surely the backstop only comes into play if a satisfactory trade deal with associated customs agreements can't be reached; however, if we manage to conclude a suitable FTA (e.g. Canada Plus) isn't that job done with the backstop therefore becoming irrelevant?

that was my take on it as well. i accept i might be wrong and would be interested to hear from someone that understands the issue better than me why that is so.

Canada Plus may result in zero tariffs, but it would still allow deviation on regulations, rules of origin and other elements that are important to the EU. Therefore we would be in a same position on the border, as there would be a need to check these things on stuff moving from the UK to EU and vice versa.

So it doesn't really do anything to remove the need for a 'harder' border.

Of course, the same statements made in earlier tranches of this thread around use of technology, moving the border to France and so forth would still apply, so I'm sure there are some who would still say the border issue can be solved simply right now in some way.

[Mrr T]

wiggy001 said:

B'stard Child said:

I watched that video and my conclusion was I have every sympathy for the EU side - no fking wonder they keep saying they need the UK to make up it's mind what it wants

As a passionate brexiter, I have to agree.

My immediate question is: why was this not picked up by any mainstream media?

I'd heard through this thread that we were offered an FTA early on, but was of the opinion that the other stuff (not being part of security arrangements etc) made it pointless. We now hear that those were up for discussion too.

So May has been deceitful... were the media complicit in this or just unaware?

There seems to be some confusion. While the EU have always said a they would willing sign an FTA with the UK. A FTA still requires a border in Ireland. Unless of cause you are in the ERG where an FTA also involves unicorns. That why the EU demand a backstop. They know there is no simple solution.

When TM said the UK would leave the SM and CU and there would be no border in Ireland. Anyone with any knowledge knew the government had no idea what it was doing.

[TTwiggy]

crankedup said:

TTwiggy said:

crankedup said:

TTwiggy said:

Tuna said:

How many of the main media outlets are pro-Brexit?

The two biggest-selling newspapers for a start.

The D.M. has been anti brexit for six months or more now with the change of editor back then.

Well, it's job done, isn't it? Now their target is to convert the younger people who use the website into readers of the paper.

Not sure about that, the D.M. demographic certainly seems to be the mature reader. Given that those readers may have another twenty years in front of them that’s a huge readership to lose. Newsprint is already strugglingso perhaps the D.M. will join News of the World sooner than expected. Online I would expect to attract a younger readership to the newspaper, perhaps that’s all part of the business model?

Who knows. But my point was to illustrate that the media is far from universally anti-Brexit.

[crankedup]

StevieBee said:

crankedup said:

I am getting very irritated after two + years of this provocative bullst line
‘don’t know what you voted for’. I did and I have no regrets at all.

A genuine and I hope, a non provocative question....

I'm interested to know how you knew what you were voting for when those who were responsible delivering that vote did not know themselves - nor it seems did anyone else in authority. What insight did you have that they didn't?

I ask because it seems to me there's differing opinions and options on the exact the nature of leave that could have determined a different outcome of the vote had these been known / understood at the time. For example; there are many that would prefer to leave; but not at any costs and if it was a choice of that or remain, they'd have ticked remain. The same for those who thought we might get a Norway type arrangement (as promoted at the time), or a Canada Plus deal, or something else.

As I say, I am genuinely interested in this from a purely behavioural perspective so please don't read any agenda into the question.

To add balance perhaps you could ask remainers why they voted to remain in the EU.
Scroll up a few posts to see my basic reasoning regarding my leave vote.

[PurpleMoonlight]

wiggy001 said:

"Better" is obviously subjective. And May's deal is certainly unique, but that's not a compliment. I haven't heard anyone say May's BRINO is better than an FTA, Canada style deal. It's only better if you don't want to leave.

The press write about the mess that is Brexit on a daily basis. Had she followed the Canada style deal we wouldn't be in this mess. Isn't that point newsworthy?

We probably would, the backstop in the WA is the apparent issue. Not what happens afterwards.

[London424]

Mrr T said:

wiggy001 said:

B'stard Child said:

I watched that video and my conclusion was I have every sympathy for the EU side - no fking wonder they keep saying they need the UK to make up it's mind what it wants

As a passionate brexiter, I have to agree.

My immediate question is: why was this not picked up by any mainstream media?

I'd heard through this thread that we were offered an FTA early on, but was of the opinion that the other stuff (not being part of security arrangements etc) made it pointless. We now hear that those were up for discussion too.

So May has been deceitful... were the media complicit in this or just unaware?

There seems to be some confusion. While the EU have always said a they would willing sign an FTA with the UK. A FTA still requires a border in Ireland. Unless of cause you are in the ERG where an FTA also involves unicorns. That why the EU demand a backstop. They know there is no simple solution.

When TM said the UK would leave the SM and CU and there would be no border in Ireland. Anyone with any knowledge knew the government had no idea what it was doing.

Why cannot electronic customs work?

[Digga]

s2art said:

crankedup said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

why is Tusk deliberately trying to ps off 17.4 million people , firstly condemning them to hell and now saying that nice Mr Corbyn has a good idea.

He didn't condemn them to hell. He condemned the leave leaders.

A CU is a method of resolving the NI/Ireland border issue whether you like it or not.

By saying what he did he is basically suggesting that leave voters didn’t know what they were voting for.This tired worn line was trotted out ad nauseam for years by the remain camp. Suppose he thought it smart and clever to re-jig the line, instead showed himself to be a bigger dick than previously revealed.

I think you are wrong. He meant May. Listen/watch that Brexit scrutiny meeting with Baker that was posted up. Tusk has been unfairly criticised.

I have to say, in many regards, we can perhaps now see why Tusk might have very good cause to be frustrated.

Still, part of me does hope he's right: https://youtu.be/NpXJhSOnkhM

[chrispmartha]

crankedup said:

StevieBee said:

crankedup said:

I am getting very irritated after two + years of this provocative bullst line
‘don’t know what you voted for’. I did and I have no regrets at all.

A genuine and I hope, a non provocative question....

I'm interested to know how you knew what you were voting for when those who were responsible delivering that vote did not know themselves - nor it seems did anyone else in authority. What insight did you have that they didn't?

I ask because it seems to me there's differing opinions and options on the exact the nature of leave that could have determined a different outcome of the vote had these been known / understood at the time. For example; there are many that would prefer to leave; but not at any costs and if it was a choice of that or remain, they'd have ticked remain. The same for those who thought we might get a Norway type arrangement (as promoted at the time), or a Canada Plus deal, or something else.

As I say, I am genuinely interested in this from a purely behavioural perspective so please don't read any agenda into the question.

To add balance perhaps you could ask remainers why they voted to remain in the EU.
Scroll up a few posts to see my basic reasoning regarding my leave vote.

The question wasn’t why you voted it was about what you voted for, you said you onew what you were voting for, and I don’t doubt you did, but what was it?

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

wiggy001 said:

B'stard Child said:

I watched that video and my conclusion was I have every sympathy for the EU side - no fking wonder they keep saying they need the UK to make up it's mind what it wants

As a passionate brexiter, I have to agree.

My immediate question is: why was this not picked up by any mainstream media?

I'd heard through this thread that we were offered an FTA early on, but was of the opinion that the other stuff (not being part of security arrangements etc) made it pointless. We now hear that those were up for discussion too.

So May has been deceitful... were the media complicit in this or just unaware?

There seems to be some confusion. While the EU have always said a they would willing sign an FTA with the UK. A FTA still requires a border in Ireland. Unless of cause you are in the ERG where an FTA also involves unicorns. That why the EU demand a backstop. They know there is no simple solution.

When TM said the UK would leave the SM and CU and there would be no border in Ireland. Anyone with any knowledge knew the government had no idea what it was doing.

Quite. AIUI a "solution" [sic] to the Irish border problem that was mooted as part of Canada pluses is to have a border down the Irish Sea, with NI being in the same regulatory regime as Eire. I think one can predict with some confidence how that would have gone down with the "we have far more power right now that we should be entitled to" DUPpers.

Canada pluses has never been a viable solution. Davis is a fking idiot if he thinks otherwise. Actually, Davis is a fking idiot full stop.

[Vanden Saab]

StevieBee said:

crankedup said:

I am getting very irritated after two + years of this provocative bullst line
‘don’t know what you voted for’. I did and I have no regrets at all.

A genuine and I hope, a non provocative question....

I'm interested to know how you knew what you were voting for when those who were responsible delivering that vote did not know themselves - nor it seems did anyone else in authority. What insight did you have that they didn't?

I ask because it seems to me there's differing opinions and options on the exact the nature of leave that could have determined a different outcome of the vote had these been known / understood at the time. For example; there are many that would prefer to leave; but not at any costs and if it was a choice of that or remain, they'd have ticked remain. The same for those who thought we might get a Norway type arrangement (as promoted at the time), or a Canada Plus deal, or something else.

As I say, I am genuinely interested in this from a purely behavioural perspective so please don't read any agenda into the question.

I voted to leave as did another 17.4 million people. How we would leave was unclear as it was to be a negotiation with the other party the EU. It was clear what leave meant when I voted, which was to become free of the four freedoms and be outside both the EU and its courts control ie. regain control of our economics, trade and laws
It is the same as voting for a political party at a general election, many people will vote tory for some, many or even all the policies in their manifesto or even for none as they always vote tory. What I would not expect having voted tory is that they change their name to New Labour and start to enact the Labour manifesto. That Leave voters voted for different reasons in no way reduces thefact that they still voted to leave, no matter how many times remainers suggest that it does.

[Mrr T]

JNW1 said:

If Steve Baker's comments are to be believed David Davis only had a sight of the Chequers proposals a matter of a few days (five?) before the actual meeting in early July 2018.

I appreciate it's potentially a bit dangerous to take all of Baker's comments at face value - it is after all only his side of the story - but assuming they are largely accurate it paints a very poor picture of Theresa May and her team. Sounds like a Brexit that would have been acceptable to many Leave voters was achievable the best part of a year ago but was rejected by the PM and if true that adds yet another level of farce to an already farcical process.

As a slight aside, I know some have suggested a "Canada Plus" type deal still wouldn't have addressed the Irish border/backstop issue and I'm just curious as to why they think that? Surely the backstop only comes into play if a satisfactory trade deal with associated customs agreements can't be reached; however, if we manage to conclude a suitable FTA (e.g. Canada Plus) isn't that job done with the backstop therefore becoming irrelevant?

The Canada plus unicorns FTA proposed by DD and still being pushed by some of the buffoons got round the Irish border by having deemed mutual recognition of all standards.

Since that have never been in any FTA and breaches the EU red line on the integrity of the SM it was never even an idea.

It’s odd the ERG do not want us to stay in the SM so we can take back control but are happy for an FTA where we have to accept all EU standards.

[TTwiggy]

Vanden Saab said:

become free of the four freedoms

Is this an example of a Brexymoron?

[SunsetZed]

Greg66 said:

Mrr T said:

wiggy001 said:

B'stard Child said:

I watched that video and my conclusion was I have every sympathy for the EU side - no fking wonder they keep saying they need the UK to make up it's mind what it wants

As a passionate brexiter, I have to agree.

My immediate question is: why was this not picked up by any mainstream media?

I'd heard through this thread that we were offered an FTA early on, but was of the opinion that the other stuff (not being part of security arrangements etc) made it pointless. We now hear that those were up for discussion too.

So May has been deceitful... were the media complicit in this or just unaware?

There seems to be some confusion. While the EU have always said a they would willing sign an FTA with the UK. A FTA still requires a border in Ireland. Unless of cause you are in the ERG where an FTA also involves unicorns. That why the EU demand a backstop. They know there is no simple solution.

When TM said the UK would leave the SM and CU and there would be no border in Ireland. Anyone with any knowledge knew the government had no idea what it was doing.

Quite. AIUI a "solution" [sic] to the Irish border problem that was mooted as part of Canada pluses is to have a border down the Irish Sea, with NI being in the same regulatory regime as Eire. I think one can predict with some confidence how that would have gone down with the "we have far more power right now that we should be entitled to" DUPpers.

Canada pluses has never been a viable solution. Davis is a fking idiot if he thinks otherwise. Actually, Davis is a fking idiot full stop.

Can't believe it's taken 7 pages for the Davis is an idiot with no integrity brigade to arrive

[FiF]

Digga said:

Tuna said:

Greg66 said:

I've just tried to watch it, and after five minutes was ready to throw something at my screen...

Translation: "lalala, I'm not listening".

Quite. Given what is actually revealed in the first 5 to 10 minutes of the video, that seems a fairly one-eyed retort.

Watching further into it the questions come from MPs from both left and right and reflect the sort of cross-party consensus that's regrettably lacking in the actual parliamentary process.

I'm only half an hour or so in, and also ready to throw something at the screen.

Probably not for the same reasons as Greggy boy though. : hehe:

Staggering stuff. Historians must be rubbing their hands already.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

JNW1 said:

If Steve Baker's comments are to be believed David Davis only had a sight of the Chequers proposals a matter of a few days (five?) before the actual meeting in early July 2018.

I appreciate it's potentially a bit dangerous to take all of Baker's comments at face value - it is after all only his side of the story - but assuming they are largely accurate it paints a very poor picture of Theresa May and her team. Sounds like a Brexit that would have been acceptable to many Leave voters was achievable the best part of a year ago but was rejected by the PM and if true that adds yet another level of farce to an already farcical process.

As a slight aside, I know some have suggested a "Canada Plus" type deal still wouldn't have addressed the Irish border/backstop issue and I'm just curious as to why they think that? Surely the backstop only comes into play if a satisfactory trade deal with associated customs agreements can't be reached; however, if we manage to conclude a suitable FTA (e.g. Canada Plus) isn't that job done with the backstop therefore becoming irrelevant?

The Canada plus unicorns FTA proposed by DD and still being pushed by some of the buffoons got round the Irish border by having deemed mutual recognition of all standards.

Since that have never been in any FTA and breaches the EU red line on the integrity of the SM it was never even an idea.

It’s odd the ERG do not want us to stay in the SM so we can take back control but are happy for an FTA where we have to accept all EU standards.

It really doesn't/didn't assume mutual recognition of standards.

It did assume mutual recognition of testing of standards, but just like Freedom of Movement of Labour, it is generally shortened when reported.

[bitchstewie]

wc98 said:

i don't get this pov. to be a member of the eu there is a set criteria a country must meet. leaving the eu means leaving the political construct and the set of rules membership entails.

even at the base level anyone that thought we would be maintaining any of the four freedoms was being disingenuous at best.

Of course, and as we've spent almost 3 years debating, you can leave the EU i.e. "not be on the membership list" whilst lots of other arrangements can exist.

Some of those arrangements suit some people, some don't.

Knowing what you were getting vs. what you hoped you would get does kind of fall in the "sketch of a plan" category so far as those selling it.

People take what Tusk said personally when it's not personal, it's just how it is.

[wiggy001]

Dons flame-proof suit...

Ignore the source for a second, can anyone explain what is wrong with something like this?

[mattmurdock]

wiggy001 said:

Dons flame-proof suit...

Ignore the source for a second, can anyone explain what is wrong with something like this?

Firstly, the Assembly is currently suspended, so moving more power to it (and expecting Unionists to agree to ANYTHING that increases checks in the Irish Sea) is extremely unlikely at the moment.

Which means all of the other assumptions he has made in the article which depend on Northern Ireland remaining in a tighter regulatory alignment with the EU than the rest of the UK (assumptions which have clearly been tested and failed when presented to the DUP) are also unlikely, which means his entire plan is pretty much moot.

[Mrr T]

Sway said:

Mrr T said:

JNW1 said:

If Steve Baker's comments are to be believed David Davis only had a sight of the Chequers proposals a matter of a few days (five?) before the actual meeting in early July 2018.

I appreciate it's potentially a bit dangerous to take all of Baker's comments at face value - it is after all only his side of the story - but assuming they are largely accurate it paints a very poor picture of Theresa May and her team. Sounds like a Brexit that would have been acceptable to many Leave voters was achievable the best part of a year ago but was rejected by the PM and if true that adds yet another level of farce to an already farcical process.

As a slight aside, I know some have suggested a "Canada Plus" type deal still wouldn't have addressed the Irish border/backstop issue and I'm just curious as to why they think that? Surely the backstop only comes into play if a satisfactory trade deal with associated customs agreements can't be reached; however, if we manage to conclude a suitable FTA (e.g. Canada Plus) isn't that job done with the backstop therefore becoming irrelevant?

The Canada plus unicorns FTA proposed by DD and still being pushed by some of the buffoons got round the Irish border by having deemed mutual recognition of all standards.

Since that have never been in any FTA and breaches the EU red line on the integrity of the SM it was never even an idea.

It’s odd the ERG do not want us to stay in the SM so we can take back control but are happy for an FTA where we have to accept all EU standards.

It really doesn't/didn't assume mutual recognition of standards.

It did assume mutual recognition of testing of standards, but just like Freedom of Movement of Labour, it is generally shortened when reported.

The DD white paper was published in conservativehome.com and it included full deemed recognition of standards. I have provided a link in the past.

[Vanden Saab]

TTwiggy said:

Vanden Saab said:

become free of the four freedoms

Is this an example of a Brexymoron?

That depends on whether you think the four freedoms are actually either freedoms or free...Putting a Ferrari badge on an MX5 does not actually make it a Ferrari.