How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)
Discussion
toppstuff said:
Yep. Japan were so annoyed with Fox they got very close to calling off their meetings and effectively telling the UK to go spin on it.
Fox is awesome. I’m sure he’d perform much better if only his mate Adam Werrity was with him. You should google that too. Fills you with pride and optimism.
He is a medical doctor and not a career politician, therefore he must be perfect.Fox is awesome. I’m sure he’d perform much better if only his mate Adam Werrity was with him. You should google that too. Fills you with pride and optimism.
crankedup said:
Does he qualify as a gammon as well?
Definitely a gammon but from the information available it seems very surprising he's been charged considering what others have got away with. £700 of expenses, £450 which was repaid and quite possibly a genuine misunderstanding of how the system worked.SpeckledJim said:
Mrr T said:
It seems Grove said quite a lot more in the speech.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/b...
Seems he also thinks no deal will cause major problems at the channel crossing and for UK farmers. Obviously he is now part of project fear.
What he does not say is how he plans to collect these tariffs, paid by the British tax payer, on Irish beef.
Given we'll have to be keeping track of where every piece of beef comes from, anyone in the UK buying beef from elsewhere will have to be keeping records of what/where/how much/which/and who from.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/b...
Seems he also thinks no deal will cause major problems at the channel crossing and for UK farmers. Obviously he is now part of project fear.
What he does not say is how he plans to collect these tariffs, paid by the British tax payer, on Irish beef.
Almost anyone who buys anything in any kind of volume usually has too much to lose to get involved in smuggling. All a bit embarrassing.
The fact is the only check is on meat entering the food chain, once slaughtered there are no checks. Remember horse meat in pies?
There are also no checks on dairy products.
There is also currently no systems for any potential importer to report and pay the tariffs.
Grove is just playing tough.
No comments about the fact he is clear UK farmers will not, immediately, be able to export to the EU and even when they can they will be subject to full BIP, and the channel links will be clogged?
toppstuff said:
Jimboka said:
Well that’s a shock. ‘easiest deal in history’ Fox has failed to deliver :-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47319533
Other media reporting that Japanese are seriously not impressed with Fox and the UK team. They have rejected our idea of the same deal as the rest of E.U and are playing hardball. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47319533
Again.
Hang on you boys. Didn't you get the memo. This is a Leave echo chamber where only Leave voters are allowed to post in support of each others' posts, make fun of the opposition and stuff.
You lot need to find your own room for Remain echo chambering. I'm told Anna Soubry is welcoming all comers to hers
You lot need to find your own room for Remain echo chambering. I'm told Anna Soubry is welcoming all comers to hers
Greg66 said:
Several posters here will have choked on their late lunch at the suggestion that I am an adult, and that I am debating like one! But yes, it is nice to punctuate the noise with some signal from time to time.
(also apols to others for the nesting and length, but it helps here to have the earlier points to refer back to).
1. Perhaps this requires more explanation on my part. In 1973 Heath put to the UK a proposal that we join what was at that time a trading bloc. The members of the trading bloc had a long term objective to form something very different to a trading bloc. But at that point in time it was a trading bloc, albeit one with a plan. Plans don't always eventuate into reality though. Things intervene.
I don't know whether or if so what assessment was made of the likelihood of the EEC morphing into something else, and if so what assessment was made of the need (or otherwise to inform the British people of that possibility (or probability, depending on your POV). But we can see from recent events that if you want to engage the population in a referendum you need to keep things simple. And simple means: "here's the deal, now, today". I suppose what I am trying to say is that I am trying not to impose too much hindsight on what was at the time a "Goldilocks" judgment of what is the amount of information to disclose, based on the situation then, which was "just right".
The diminished potentialities by the time of Maastricht were that 25 years had passed, and things that might have seemed possibilities in 1973 had become probabilities, and things that were probabilities had become certainties. It had become clear that the lofty ambition of the EEC in the late 1960s and early 1970 was being realised, and the Union we were taken into by Maastricht was a huge step change from what we had joined to something else. It's the magnitude of the step change, and increased likelihood of the end goal which I don't think were adequately explained at the time of Maastricht..
2. Yes, but as I say, we now have the benefit of hindsight to apply to what were distant future objectives in 1973. In 1973 who could really have said that the project *would* proceed as it did, as opposed to *might have* or *was hoped to* etc.
3. Obviously federation is different to an economic union. I can only repeat what I have said already, and underscore that with the point that we've had an exit door. We remain a sovereign state right up to the point at which we cease to be one and become a member of a federation of states. When that happens, we assume the role of a state within a federation. As long as we can use the exit door though, we are not compelled to join the federation, and (one would expect, though I am sure some will disagree) would have had the opportunity to use the exit door right up tot he last minute.
4. This is from CJ Chase's judgment in White v Texas, p 727: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.".
So yes, no express exit mechanism under the Constitution, but - and this should not be surprising - if a state wanted to leave, and the other 49 agreed it could, it would be an odd thing indeed if then someone piped up and said "Ah well, too bad, it just can't happen. As you were". IIRC the constitution can be amended by a 3/4 majority of states, so on this hypothesis if a constitutional amendment were needed, it would be available.
IME the crossover between law and politics in the US is considerable. Very often US constitutional lawyers and scholars slant their views politically (eg see Alan Dershowitz, who is currently fulfilling the role of pet pro-Trump constitutional scholar for Fox News). So if your view is that Calif shouldn't exit the Union, it is not too difficult to construct a legal argument for USA Today that justifies that position.
5. I don't think the departing train is the right analogy (though the seats one mightbe better). We have always had within European nations one of the biggest economies. We could have stepped up our muscle and said to (eg) Belgium or Luxembourg "Oi, you, tiddler, p
s off out of that seat at the big table, We want it". We've never chosen to do so; our approach to Europe has mirrored our geography: off to the side, looking at it. It's a shame in some ways because I think had we chosen to pile in and exercise control commensurate with our voice globally, we could (at least) have been co-head with the Germans. Which, of course, has the added benefit of raining on the French, which is always nice.
6. People argue against can-kicking but sometimes can-kicking is the solution. If you're a lender to a company in financial trouble, you can pull the plug, or you can help it keep going. If you pull the plug you can be sure you won't get all your money back, jobs will be lost and so on. For small companies and small debts the decision may be easy. For big companies and big debt, less so. For countries and massive debts, perhaps the last thing you want to do is write off your debt, crush a population, and so on. If you choose to help it keep going, sometimes that bet will pay off and in the long term you'll get your money back and the company will return to health: my point is that can-kicking does not axiomatically lead to an almighty meltdown eventually.
Italy well be the next bump in the road, but if so kicking that can down the road has to be the best solution Put it another way: if Italy looks like it will default on international repayments, what action should the EU take that *isn't* kicking the can down the road (in the shape of refinancing)?
7. This one is I think the paradigm of the opposite ends of the spectrum point.
I agree that May has the weaker hand in the negotiations and has had since day 1. I don't think our position has been that different to what Scotland's would have been had it voted for independence. The EU has to set a precedent here, first to discourage other countries from leaving, but also (less cynically) to establish a clear framework that it can apply to *any* country that choose to leave in the future. I remember seeing a piece on the Beeb a while ago now to the effect that between the referendum and A50, the EU had scores of people working on its position in negotiations. We, on the other hand, apparently did not.
I think I need to get back to real work now...
I have chopped the earlier bits to make it a tad less like War & Peace. (also apols to others for the nesting and length, but it helps here to have the earlier points to refer back to).
1. Perhaps this requires more explanation on my part. In 1973 Heath put to the UK a proposal that we join what was at that time a trading bloc. The members of the trading bloc had a long term objective to form something very different to a trading bloc. But at that point in time it was a trading bloc, albeit one with a plan. Plans don't always eventuate into reality though. Things intervene.
I don't know whether or if so what assessment was made of the likelihood of the EEC morphing into something else, and if so what assessment was made of the need (or otherwise to inform the British people of that possibility (or probability, depending on your POV). But we can see from recent events that if you want to engage the population in a referendum you need to keep things simple. And simple means: "here's the deal, now, today". I suppose what I am trying to say is that I am trying not to impose too much hindsight on what was at the time a "Goldilocks" judgment of what is the amount of information to disclose, based on the situation then, which was "just right".
The diminished potentialities by the time of Maastricht were that 25 years had passed, and things that might have seemed possibilities in 1973 had become probabilities, and things that were probabilities had become certainties. It had become clear that the lofty ambition of the EEC in the late 1960s and early 1970 was being realised, and the Union we were taken into by Maastricht was a huge step change from what we had joined to something else. It's the magnitude of the step change, and increased likelihood of the end goal which I don't think were adequately explained at the time of Maastricht..
2. Yes, but as I say, we now have the benefit of hindsight to apply to what were distant future objectives in 1973. In 1973 who could really have said that the project *would* proceed as it did, as opposed to *might have* or *was hoped to* etc.
3. Obviously federation is different to an economic union. I can only repeat what I have said already, and underscore that with the point that we've had an exit door. We remain a sovereign state right up to the point at which we cease to be one and become a member of a federation of states. When that happens, we assume the role of a state within a federation. As long as we can use the exit door though, we are not compelled to join the federation, and (one would expect, though I am sure some will disagree) would have had the opportunity to use the exit door right up tot he last minute.
4. This is from CJ Chase's judgment in White v Texas, p 727: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.".
So yes, no express exit mechanism under the Constitution, but - and this should not be surprising - if a state wanted to leave, and the other 49 agreed it could, it would be an odd thing indeed if then someone piped up and said "Ah well, too bad, it just can't happen. As you were". IIRC the constitution can be amended by a 3/4 majority of states, so on this hypothesis if a constitutional amendment were needed, it would be available.
IME the crossover between law and politics in the US is considerable. Very often US constitutional lawyers and scholars slant their views politically (eg see Alan Dershowitz, who is currently fulfilling the role of pet pro-Trump constitutional scholar for Fox News). So if your view is that Calif shouldn't exit the Union, it is not too difficult to construct a legal argument for USA Today that justifies that position.
5. I don't think the departing train is the right analogy (though the seats one mightbe better). We have always had within European nations one of the biggest economies. We could have stepped up our muscle and said to (eg) Belgium or Luxembourg "Oi, you, tiddler, p
s off out of that seat at the big table, We want it". We've never chosen to do so; our approach to Europe has mirrored our geography: off to the side, looking at it. It's a shame in some ways because I think had we chosen to pile in and exercise control commensurate with our voice globally, we could (at least) have been co-head with the Germans. Which, of course, has the added benefit of raining on the French, which is always nice. 6. People argue against can-kicking but sometimes can-kicking is the solution. If you're a lender to a company in financial trouble, you can pull the plug, or you can help it keep going. If you pull the plug you can be sure you won't get all your money back, jobs will be lost and so on. For small companies and small debts the decision may be easy. For big companies and big debt, less so. For countries and massive debts, perhaps the last thing you want to do is write off your debt, crush a population, and so on. If you choose to help it keep going, sometimes that bet will pay off and in the long term you'll get your money back and the company will return to health: my point is that can-kicking does not axiomatically lead to an almighty meltdown eventually.
Italy well be the next bump in the road, but if so kicking that can down the road has to be the best solution Put it another way: if Italy looks like it will default on international repayments, what action should the EU take that *isn't* kicking the can down the road (in the shape of refinancing)?
7. This one is I think the paradigm of the opposite ends of the spectrum point.
I agree that May has the weaker hand in the negotiations and has had since day 1. I don't think our position has been that different to what Scotland's would have been had it voted for independence. The EU has to set a precedent here, first to discourage other countries from leaving, but also (less cynically) to establish a clear framework that it can apply to *any* country that choose to leave in the future. I remember seeing a piece on the Beeb a while ago now to the effect that between the referendum and A50, the EU had scores of people working on its position in negotiations. We, on the other hand, apparently did not.
I think I need to get back to real work now...
Hopefully there is still enough meat on the bones to make sense.1. Depends on your definition of 'put to'. I don't know how old you were at the time, but I (along with the rest of the country of voting age), were never given a chance to have our say. No referendum, no GE called to establish a mandate for constitutional change (because that is what it actually was: see below), nada, zilch. The government simply put a Bill before the House. The Tory majority meant it was duly enacted. Job jobbed.
You appear to be forgetting that Heath was Macmillan's chief negotiator when we tried to join over a decade earlier and de Gaulle famously said "Non!"
Heath was a dedicated Europhile who had fully bought in to the Monnet/Schuman ideology. He cynically took a deliberate decision to conceal the 'future objectives' element of the deal from the people of the UK. Why would he do that unless he knew that he wouldn't have the backing of the electorate if he had told them 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'?
As for assessment, are you not aware of the 1971 FCO briefing document which was promptly deemed classified and kept secret under the 30 year rule? It didn't see the light of day until 8 years after Maastricht. Its Title is: Legal and Constitutional Implications of Entry of UK into EEC. It is crystal clear from that paper, which was prepared by officials (i.e. Civil Servants), that they were completely cognisant of what joining meant. The very long term true nature of 'Project Europe' was fully understood. Successive UK governments have undertaken deliberate lying/concealment/obfuscation when communicating with the electorate. It may be a hard pill to swallow but the realities of power within Europe now lies with institutions and officials not parliamentarians. Indeed the latter have colluded in allowing the tail to wag the dog.
2. It's not hindsight. Nobody can predict the future with 100% certainty but the founders' long term vision/goals were very clear from the beginning to those who were aware and could read. In that context one has to remember that the internet didn't exist back then and the ability of 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' to research and obtain information was incredibly limited compared to today.
3. Indeed, There is an exit door through which we are going. A petition for divorce was always going to be difficult and it was to be expected that the respondent was going to resent it and try to punish us accordingly. And not just in terms of the 39 billion 'exit fee'.
4. Fair enough. Do you really believe though that a revolution is a likely scenario? It didn't go too well when the Southern States seceded from the Union. I can't see the 49 consenting if one of their number were to now apply to leave. The Calexit movement's main plank is carving up California into 3 separate States. AFAIK there is no majority popular support for it to break away altogether.
5. Britain/the UK has always been ambivalent towards Europe and a less than enthusiastic full participant. Sir Humphrey explains our approach rather well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvYuoWyk8iU - beneath the comedic exterior YM is a remarkably accurate window into the way Westminster and Whitehall work. Given the sources Jay & Lynn had access to that's no surprise. Indeed I have heard it said that some things went on that if portrayed on screen would be thought too OTT. Raining on the French made me chuckle.
Apart from a brief flirtation during the Interregnum and a period of 15 years during the reigns of George I and II, France has been our traditional enemy for centuries. Only since the signing of the Triple Entente in 1907 have the two countries been, and remain, on the same side6. It all depends on how you keep it going. You speak of crushing a population. Most of the bailout goes to fund interest payments on the loans. The only winners are the banks and other financial institutions. The existing creditors come out smelling of roses, while the inhabitants of the debtor country gain little or no benefit at all. It doesn't help either if you're locked into a common currency as you have no room for adjustment (as would be the case with the pound). The obvious way to tackle the situation would be to cancel a percentage of the debt. That's a far better longer term solution than an escalating proportion of GDP required to service the repayments. The 'one-size-fits-all' EU isn't sustainable Time to ditch the dogma and make substantial reforms. I'm not holding my breath given the sort of people whose hands are on the levers of power in Brussels and Luxembourg.
7. I picked up the same intel about the government's lack of urgency. It was from another source though not the BBC. I don't watch TV as it's mostly vacuous sound bytes. The report exemplified the government's complete disconnect with reality If the vote had been in favour of Remain, little or no work would be needed. However the possibility of Leave should have been properly prepared for. Accordingly that's where the government should have been ahead of the game. You have to hit the ground running if you are not going to be left high and dry. It was as if CMD and his coterie all thought it was a bad dream and they only needed to wake up to find it had gone away as if by magic. It hadn't and the upshot was denial and a collective paralysis in Westminster.
If you fail to plan, you're planning to fail. The first rule you learn in business.
TL:DR
It would be a whole lot easier to come to reasoned decisions if politicians stopped constantly telling lies to the people they are supposed to represent.
They are supposed to be serving us not their narrow self-interest. We were taken in under false pretences and we are being lied to again going out.
The UK is now a complete basket case. I should have emigrated permanently when I had the opportunity to do so.
I should have left while I still had the opportunity. I'll just have to circle the wagons and make the best of it before my time is up.
kurt535 said:
brexit is one hell of an arterial bleed that just cant be stemmed.
I typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
Is this any help first link that popped upI typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-watch...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:citizensm1th said:
Just google fox,letter japan trade deal. he really is useless
I'm waiting to see people spinning this as a positive development rather than another shambles.Just imagine how bad things would be looking if that wasn't the case!
steve_k said:
kurt535 said:
brexit is one hell of an arterial bleed that just cant be stemmed.
I typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
Is this any help first link that popped upI typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-watch...
and buying lumps of property to be a slumlord isn't really job creating is it?
sorry you have to do better than that but appreciate the link.
kurt535 said:
brexit is one hell of an arterial bleed that just cant be stemmed.
I typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
They're still reeling from the loss of their poster boy Dyson.I typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
steve_k said:
kurt535 said:
brexit is one hell of an arterial bleed that just cant be stemmed.
I typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
Is this any help first link that popped upI typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-watch...
Dynex was acquired by Chinese group CCR Corp in 2008. That's quite some Brexit dividend you've unearthed there, well done...!!!!
https://www.dynexsemi.com/about/investors
kurt535 said:
steve_k said:
kurt535 said:
brexit is one hell of an arterial bleed that just cant be stemmed.
I typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
Is this any help first link that popped upI typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-watch...
and buying lumps of property to be a slumlord isn't really job creating is it?
sorry you have to do better than that but appreciate the link.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:mx5nut said:
Fitch puts UK credit rating on negative watch - Growing likelihood of a no-deal Brexit prompts unscheduled update
Brextremists continue to make us look strong on the world stage and demonstrate all those cards we hold ready for trade negotiations with the EU and ROW.
What do Fitch know? They'll be sorry too.Brextremists continue to make us look strong on the world stage and demonstrate all those cards we hold ready for trade negotiations with the EU and ROW.
mx5nut said:
Piha said:
2008. That's quite some Brexit dividend you've unearthed there, well done...!!!!
I suppose by this point, any company not pulling it's planned investments counts as a win - it's all they've got.Piha said:
steve_k said:
kurt535 said:
brexit is one hell of an arterial bleed that just cant be stemmed.
I typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
Is this any help first link that popped upI typed into google looking for companies that are relocating to uk as a result of brexit and um, none came up - unless our learned (?) leave voters know different.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-watch...
Dynex was acquired by Chinese group CCR Corp in 2008. That's quite some Brexit dividend you've unearthed there, well done...!!!!
https://www.dynexsemi.com/about/investors
Sorry for tying to help.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff