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

[s2art]

PurpleMoonlight said:

s2art said:

Tusk made an FTA offer to DD based upon Canada with pluses such as security co-operation. DD spoke about it at time. They were well on the way to an agreement then May imposed Chequers and killed all the work done up to that point. Leading to several resignations. There is really no doubt that Tusk was referring to May. Remember all the pleading from Tusk and Barnier to get May to tell them what the UK wants?

Davis' boss, May, publicly made it very clear that a Canada style FTA was not sufficient for the UK. We should aim for better. We don't know what was said to him in private.

What did Davis do? Exactly what his boss said she didn't want.

Is it really any surprise she had to step in and take charge?

He then resigns in protest. Well, if he didn't like what he was being instructed to achieve he should have resigned on outset.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 8th February 15:14

Except is wasnt just a Canada style deal, they were working on a Canada+++ deal. And it was better than Chequers. Its not just the backstop that is wrong with Mays deal. I think DD didnt know anything about Chequers until a few days before it,

[crankedup]

s2art said:

crankedup said:

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.

He may have had some particular people in mind but he implicated leave voters, perhaps unwittingly, but that is what he has managed to do. I’m not sure how many of the 17.4 million leave voters follow the brexit negotians closely enough to watch and decipher the ‘Baker’ scrutiny, however you can be fairly sure that plenty would have seen Tusk making his remarks on the major media outlets. Perception is almost everything, he would have been wise to have kept his personal thoughts to himself, imo.

Tusk made an FTA offer to DD based upon Canada with pluses such as security co-operation. DD spoke about it at time. They were well on the way to an agreement then May imposed Chequers and killed all the work done up to that point. Leading to several resignations. There is really no doubt that Tusk was referring to May. Remember all the pleading from Tusk and Barnier to get May to tell them what the UK wants?

I appreciate your post and agree with what you state. Maybe I was wrong after all, still find it all very undiplomatic for a EU president to use such language though.

[Piha]

SpeckledJim said:

Yes. They are middle class, have arts degrees, live and work in London and earn good but not stratospheric money. Nailed-on Remainerville.

There is nothing like trying to pass a wild generalisation as fact.

[Troubleatmill]

s2art said:

I think DD didnt know anything about Chequers until a few days before it,

^ This. Just this.

May pulled the rug from under him.
He had no option but to resign.

[Tuna]

Piha said:

There is nothing like trying to pass a wild generalisation as fact.

How many of the main media outlets are pro-Brexit? And how many have the majority of their production staff outside of the M25?

[HarryW]

Tuna said:

Greg66 said:

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

First question: two minutes to deliver, actually two questions, one of which asked for how Baker "felt" at the time.

Answer: whatever it was, it didn't answer the question.

Second question: triple barrelled, focussing on whether Baker felt public confidence had been undermined. IOW: "what's your opinion on something about which I am not going to bother asking whether you have a factual basis to form an opinion".

In all seriousness, Select Committee Q&As more often than not consist of a competition between the questioner and the witness to get their respective opinions across.

ETA: unless the questioner is at least neutral (and Bill Cash is not a neutral questioner of Steve Baker) and there is material - whether it be documents written at the time, or evidence given by other people directly involved at the time - that can be put to the person questioned to test their answers, a Q&A session amounts to not much more than an exercise in letting the person who is being questioned say whatever they want to say with impunity. Some of it may be true, some might be half true, some of it may be false. How does one tell absent some properly critical and testing questions by reference to material other than what the questionee says?

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

You are of course right that it's not exactly a court of law. However, the allegations are pretty serious, and the course of events Baker describes are very much in line with what was witnessed. If this had been available before the no confidence votes, it might have made for a very different result. So yes, you can ignore the personal opinions if you want, but the raw bones of the allegations should not be so lightly dismissed.

To the question that occasionally pops up on here "How are Remainers trying to derail Brexit?" the answer seems to be that they threw away 18 months worth of negotiations, misled the public about the state of the agreements available and changed tack with the EU to pursue BRINO. This makes a mockery of the "Davis ran away" nonsense, and also points a finger very clearly at May for leaving this country tragically unprepared right now.

It also explains Tusk's intransigence at the moment - we whipped the rug from under him, presented him with a weaker deal and now are acting like a yappy puppy expecting him not to notice we've pooped on the carpet.

For reference, short version here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iaUVR8t7g

After watching the short version the long version becomes a must.

Bottom line; Team TM and their ploy for a BRINO have put us where we find ourselves today. They have a lot to answer for and had that select committee meeting been fully know prior to the no confidence vote I'm not so sure she would have survived.

Question why not go back to the FTA area agreement with all the bolt ones offered by Tusk now, it is infinitely better than the chequers deal or crashing out.

[Piha]

Tuna said:

How many of the main media outlets are pro-Brexit? And how many have the majority of their production staff outside of the M25?

Please refer to speckledjim's wondrous comment up there ^^^^

[PurpleMoonlight]

s2art said:

Except is wasnt just a Canada style deal, they were working on a Canada+++ deal. And it was better than Chequers. Its not just the backstop that is wrong with Mays deal. I think DD didnt know anything about Chequers until a few days before it,

She rubbished a Canada +++ deal too.

The WA is a different issue and not what Davis resigned over.

[TTwiggy]

Tuna said:

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

The two biggest-selling newspapers for a start.

[s2art]

PurpleMoonlight said:

s2art said:

Except is wasnt just a Canada style deal, they were working on a Canada+++ deal. And it was better than Chequers. Its not just the backstop that is wrong with Mays deal. I think DD didnt know anything about Chequers until a few days before it,

She rubbished a Canada +++ deal too.

The WA is a different issue and not what Davis resigned over.

Why did she rubbish a work in progress? Davis resigned over Chequers.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Troubleatmill said:

^ This. Just this.

May pulled the rug from under him.
He had no option but to resign.

He resigned before he was officially sacked.

[Murph7355]

toppstuff said:

Delightful irony that for many people voting Leave was about taking control of our borders.

Except Ireland. Where we don’t a border. Go figure.

You don't appear to understand the concept of "taking control".

You seem to think this only means having border posts, watchtowers and people in peaked caps. Maybe even with guns.

[PurpleMoonlight]

s2art said:

Why did she rubbish a work in progress? Davis resigned over Chequers.

She rubbished a Canada Style deal from day one. Why did Davis work on it?

Chequers was about the post leaving relationship with the EU not the WA.

[bitchstewie]

crankedup said:

bhstewie said:

crankedup said:

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.

He really wasn't.

Ask ten leave voters for "their plan" when they voted.

You won't have ten identical plans and the chances are none of them resembled May's plan (as it stands today as it will probably change).

Ergo, you didn't know what you were voting for, chiefly because the people selling the dream didn't tell you, and couldn't deliver it anyway because they aren't the Government.

People are taking great offence at being told facts which is odd.

Yes foolishly I have cast my vote at virtually all political elections over the past 45 years believing that somehow something that squares with my political beliefs and wishes would be
represented at the higher political level.
As has been stated b various posters previously, of course leave voters have differing thoughts and conclusions as to what outcome will be presented post referendum. I did know that the U.K. would leave the CU and SM which would mean the U.K. would be a stand alone Country making our own rules and regulations.
I expect, or rather demand that my vote being one of the 17.4 million cast to leave the EU is now delivered.

That's lovely, but it also kind of confirms his point, which is that you voted based on what you wanted to happen but you didn't know what would happen, which you couldn't because, nobody selling it knew.

It's two different things and people seem to get very irritated by the factual point behind it.

[s2art]

PurpleMoonlight said:

s2art said:

Why did she rubbish a work in progress? Davis resigned over Chequers.

She rubbished a Canada Style deal from day one. Why did Davis work on it?

Chequers was about the post leaving relationship with the EU not the WA.

a) Why didnt she sack him rather than let him carry on for so long on the Canada+ approach? b) You really need a future relationship framework as Article 50 required that the WA must take the future relationship framework into account.

[JNW1]

s2art said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

s2art said:

Tusk made an FTA offer to DD based upon Canada with pluses such as security co-operation. DD spoke about it at time. They were well on the way to an agreement then May imposed Chequers and killed all the work done up to that point. Leading to several resignations. There is really no doubt that Tusk was referring to May. Remember all the pleading from Tusk and Barnier to get May to tell them what the UK wants?

Davis' boss, May, publicly made it very clear that a Canada style FTA was not sufficient for the UK. We should aim for better. We don't know what was said to him in private.

What did Davis do? Exactly what his boss said she didn't want.

Is it really any surprise she had to step in and take charge?

He then resigns in protest. Well, if he didn't like what he was being instructed to achieve he should have resigned on outset.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 8th February 15:14

Except is wasnt just a Canada style deal, they were working on a Canada+++ deal. And it was better than Chequers. Its not just the backstop that is wrong with Mays deal. I think DD didnt know anything about Chequers until a few days before it,

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?

[PurpleMoonlight]

s2art said:

a) Why didnt she sack him rather than let him carry on for so long on the Canada+ approach? b) You really need a future relationship framework as Article 50 required that the WA must take the future relationship framework into account.

a) That's a fair point and I don't know the answer.

b) The UK and EU will try to be friends and facilitate trade with one another. That do ya?

[wc98]

from the last iteration.
toppstuff said:
As for the idea that people want "freedom" from the EU, I have yet to find one single person who can point to something they want to do, that the EU prevents them from doing.

i don't know if you do any bass fishing, but last year they banned you from taking one for your tea for 6 months of the year,while commercials dumped tonnes overboard in discards. the common fisheries policy on its own was enough for me to vote leave.hundreds of thousands of tonnes of perfectly edible fish discarded every year in uk waters due to a combination of politics and incompetence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTBObPhFBhs

[Robertj21a]

bhstewie said:

crankedup said:

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.

He really wasn't.

Ask ten leave voters for "their plan" when they voted.

You won't have ten identical plans and the chances are none of them resembled May's plan (as it stands today as it will probably change).

Ergo, you didn't know what you were voting for, chiefly because the people selling the dream didn't tell you, and couldn't deliver it anyway because they aren't the Government.

People are taking great offence at being told facts which is odd.

Loads of generalisations don't change the facts. It's not '.......Ergo, you didn't know what you were voting for'.

Over 17m voted to LEAVE.

It's irrelevant that you now want to try to split them all up to into different categories, just to suit a Remainer's agenda, the simple fact is that the majority wanted to leave the EU.

Edited by Robertj21a on Friday 8th February 16:08

[s2art]

PurpleMoonlight said:

s2art said:

a) Why didnt she sack him rather than let him carry on for so long on the Canada+ approach? b) You really need a future relationship framework as Article 50 required that the WA must take the future relationship framework into account.

a) That's a fair point and I don't know the answer.

b) The UK and EU will try to be friends and facilitate trade with one another. That do ya?

b) Nothing like enough. Just membership of the WTO provides that. What about stuff like security cooperation?