How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 10)

How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 10)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
Everyone needs to cooperate, but we are the ones implementing a change and we need to have a workable solution. We don’t at the moment and this clearly came up in the negotiations because it is the reason for the backstop. None of us know what the solution is, but ignoring the problem isn’t working.
A border has two sides. It is not for one side alone to sort the issue out as if they try all the other side do, if they do not want you to leave, is block. Sound familiar?

All three parties have stated no harder infrastructure will be built there. The UK and EU have noted that they are cool with checks being done away from the border. To date they have disagreed on where, mainly due to political positioning. It's utter bks to think any of the three will do anything to catalyse terrorism. The political fall out of that would be immense. This has ALWAYS been a political bargaining chip for the EU and that is disgraceful. But we allowed it to be played like mugs.

btw, in an earlier post you conflate "would" with "should". Don;t feel bad about it, most remainers on here have done the same when talking about the relative simplicity of deals wink

Oh, and we instigated the change? I guess we were the ones that pulled the plug on a relationship that wasn't really working (both ways really). We'll have to talk to marriage counsellors about who was really at fault though. If the relationship hadn't been dysfunctional we wouldn't have needed to pull the plug wink

Tuna

19,930 posts

283 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
What I am saying is that the official Leave campaign were very clear that we would not leave the EU until we had agreed terms. Those terms could include a WTO trading relationship, which some Conservatives have described as 'Managed No Deal'.
You don't have to agree a WTO trading relationship. As WTO members (founders no less), we and the EU are legally bound to follow a WTO trading relationship if no other agreement has been made. No agreement = WTO.

Managed no Deal adds some agreements on top to ensure continuity in organisations that have arrangements above and beyond WTO. We have those, in the shape of the Airline, Medicine, customs processing, security and various other transition agreements, as well as a suite of bills such as the Nuclear Safeguards Bill designed to maintain legislative consistency. Whilst May explicitly forced these agreements to be made without the public being informed, they were made.

So whilst the government have deliberately made preparations in secret, they have said they are prepared - hence a Managed No Deal. What is hard to assess is whether there are any omissions or outstanding arrangements yet to be made.

What exactly were you expecting to be done in addition to the above?

Elysium said:
We should have considered that during negotiations and I suspect we actually did, but that our Govt decided the practicalities were too complex. This need more than no-deal prep. It requires a proper strategy for our co-existence with the EU as a third state under WTO rules that will work in the longer term.
No it doesn't. Neither we, nor the EU intend to continue purely under WTO indefinitely. The day after we exit (under any conditions, WTO, May's...) we start negotiating the future relationship - and we can do many parts of it piecemeal, rather than this nonsensical brinkmanship over an 'all or nothing' solution.

Elysium said:
In particular, that means solving the Irish border issues. The complexity of that is still being underestimated and, lets face it, that is the reason for the backstop and the ultimate failure of the Govt deal.
And it is precisely because it's so complicated that there is no way we could (or should) have attempted to negotiate a 'quick fix' before entering into the proper negotiations with the EU over a future relationship. You're asking the impossible here - "This is a very difficult issue, so before we start serious negotiations, we must have some other magic negotiations to solve it".

That's precisely why May's deal is such a disaster - the EU politicised the border issue and she tried to sell our government a quick fix. Now you're demanding the same "please fix this thing before we can start negotiations". Either you're working for the EU, or you're as gullible as May was when she did her about turn at Chequers. Read Ivan Roger's critique of the negotiations again - you're falling for exactly the same gotcha that he outlined.

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
Sway said:
Is anyone suggesting WTO would be the end of it? That we wouldn't seek to negotiate a FTA after we've left?
I am not suggesting that. My concern is about withdrawal terms not a future FTA.

Sway said:
The government were very clear it was exceptionally unlikely we'd leave the Single Market, and that agreeing a deal would be very difficult and time consuming.

It was the core of the first couple of pages of the leaflet they sent out.



For the Treasury to then release a report showing their predicted effects of not having SM membership, it's easy to see the link.
That Govt leaflet looks quite accurate in hindsight. Are you suggesting that voters should have believed the predictions of Project Fear over clear statements made by the Leave campaign?

Sway said:
Leave campaigners aren't trying to do the exact opposite of what they said. Every one was clear leaving meant leaving the single market and Customs Union (please, please don't link the Open Britain vid, you're far better than that) as the primary definition of leaving the EU, which was their primary aim. Deals are and were always secondary to that.
According to fullfact.org there were hardly any references to the Customs Union during the campaign. The argument that ‘every one was clear’ that we would be leaving it is simply not supported by facts. In fact Labour are not even remotely suggesting this - their 2017 manifesto stating the following:

Labour 2017 said:
we will scrap the conservatives Brexit white paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the single market and the Customs union.
In any event, leaving the single market and customs union is not the point I am arguing. The Leave campaign said we would agree terms before leaving. It was on their main leaflet. Walking away with nothing at all agreed is the exact opposite of that.


amgmcqueen

3,343 posts

149 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
I can't wait for Thursdays populist spring.biggrin

EU scepticism has never been higher across Europe, hopefully the beginning of the end.

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
Tuna said:
Elysium said:
What I am saying is that the official Leave campaign were very clear that we would not leave the EU until we had agreed terms. Those terms could include a WTO trading relationship, which some Conservatives have described as 'Managed No Deal'.
You don't have to agree a WTO trading relationship. As WTO members (founders no less), we and the EU are legally bound to follow a WTO trading relationship if no other agreement has been made. No agreement = WTO.

Managed no Deal adds some agreements on top to ensure continuity in organisations that have arrangements above and beyond WTO. We have those, in the shape of the Airline, Medicine, customs processing, security and various other transition agreements, as well as a suite of bills such as the Nuclear Safeguards Bill designed to maintain legislative consistency. Whilst May explicitly forced these agreements to be made without the public being informed, they were made.

So whilst the government have deliberately made preparations in secret, they have said they are prepared - hence a Managed No Deal. What is hard to assess is whether there are any omissions or outstanding arrangements yet to be made.

What exactly were you expecting to be done in addition to the above?
Your argument is that managed no-deal is sorted. If that is true and we have agreed terms of withdrawal then that is fine. However, that is not what the Govt or the EU are saying and I will take their view over yours.

Tuna said:
Elysium said:
We should have considered that during negotiations and I suspect we actually did, but that our Govt decided the practicalities were too complex. This need more than no-deal prep. It requires a proper strategy for our co-existence with the EU as a third state under WTO rules that will work in the longer term.
No it doesn't. Neither we, nor the EU intend to continue purely under WTO indefinitely. The day after we exit (under any conditions, WTO, May's...) we start negotiating the future relationship - and we can do many parts of it piecemeal, rather than this nonsensical brinkmanship over an 'all or nothing' solution.
Thats just silly. We can't base our strategy on an assumption that something better will be agreed. It has to be tenable in the longer term. Otherwise we will continue to face cliff edges and continue to be in a position of weakness when it comes to negotiation.

Tuna said:
Elysium said:
In particular, that means solving the Irish border issues. The complexity of that is still being underestimated and, lets face it, that is the reason for the backstop and the ultimate failure of the Govt deal.
And it is precisely because it's so complicated that there is no way we could (or should) have attempted to negotiate a 'quick fix' before entering into the proper negotiations with the EU over a future relationship. You're asking the impossible here - "This is a very difficult issue, so before we start serious negotiations, we must have some other magic negotiations to solve it".

That's precisely why May's deal is such a disaster - the EU politicised the border issue and she tried to sell our government a quick fix. Now you're demanding the same "please fix this thing before we can start negotiations". Either you're working for the EU, or you're as gullible as May was when she did her about turn at Chequers. Read Ivan Roger's critique of the negotiations again - you're falling for exactly the same gotcha that he outlined.
Thats simply untrue. I have not said anything about negotiations. I have said, if we are to leave with no-deal, then we need a solution to the Northern Ireland border issue before we do so.


Le Controleur Horizontal

1,480 posts

59 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
He seems confused

The peer used a Sunday Times article to explain the decision. “I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for my party when it is myopically focused on forcing through the biggest act of economic self-harm ever undertaken by a democratic government,” he wrote.

Must be a typo due to age, Old remainers are rare apparently ?
He should have typed:
“I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for any party that does not try to circumvent the biggest act of democratic choice ever undertaken by Uk voters"
he claimed during an online apology.

Silly Man.

Sway

26,070 posts

193 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
Sway said:
Is anyone suggesting WTO would be the end of it? That we wouldn't seek to negotiate a FTA after we've left?
I am not suggesting that. My concern is about withdrawal terms not a future FTA.

Sway said:
The government were very clear it was exceptionally unlikely we'd leave the Single Market, and that agreeing a deal would be very difficult and time consuming.

It was the core of the first couple of pages of the leaflet they sent out.



For the Treasury to then release a report showing their predicted effects of not having SM membership, it's easy to see the link.
That Govt leaflet looks quite accurate in hindsight. Are you suggesting that voters should have believed the predictions of Project Fear over clear statements made by the Leave campaign?

Sway said:
Leave campaigners aren't trying to do the exact opposite of what they said. Every one was clear leaving meant leaving the single market and Customs Union (please, please don't link the Open Britain vid, you're far better than that) as the primary definition of leaving the EU, which was their primary aim. Deals are and were always secondary to that.
According to fullfact.org there were hardly any references to the Customs Union during the campaign. The argument that ‘every one was clear’ that we would be leaving it is simply not supported by facts. In fact Labour are not even remotely suggesting this - their 2017 manifesto stating the following:

Labour 2017 said:
we will scrap the conservatives Brexit white paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the single market and the Customs union.
In any event, leaving the single market and customs union is not the point I am arguing. The Leave campaign said we would agree terms before leaving. It was on their main leaflet. Walking away with nothing at all agreed is the exact opposite of that.
I've never used the term Project Fear. Am I surprised the negotiations have been tough? No. That was apparent the day after the vote. I didn't vote assuming it would be an easy ride to a future relationship. Indeed, the EU itself isn't much of a factor in my decision making.

Labour's manifesto would say "remain in the Single Market and Customs Union" if that was what they meant. They were very clear (old Barry Gardiner's "A customs union isn't the same as THE customs union", after the GE). They were very clear they took leaving to be leaving those, but wanted to retain the "exact same benefits" - which was always a nonsense outcome. They were clear on not being members of those bodies however.

I'm entirely sympathetic to the thought that currently the best way of achieving what I'd like as the future relationship with the EU is to leave without the WA.

I'm not worried about the Irish Border - too much experience with international logistics and customs processes for that.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
amgmcqueen said:
I can't wait for Thursdays populist spring.biggrin

EU scepticism has never been higher across Europe, hopefully the beginning of the end.
I'm not entirely sure it'll go that way tbh. And I'm very sure that even if it does, the results will be dismissed.

I suspect there are more and more energised to stop "populism" with their own populist movements.

What I suspect we will see is a much more polarised make up of the EU parliament. Where that goes will depend on who is in the driving seat next. Their approach will need to be much more mellow than the current muppets.

Posted it a few times, but interesting times ahead.

DeepEnd

4,240 posts

65 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
Sway said:
I've never used the term Project Fear. Am I surprised the negotiations have been tough? No. That was apparent the day after the vote. I didn't vote assuming it would be an easy ride to a future relationship. Indeed, the EU itself isn't much of a factor in my decision making.

Labour's manifesto would say "remain in the Single Market and Customs Union" if that was what they meant. They were very clear (old Barry Gardiner's "A customs union isn't the same as THE customs union", after the GE). They were very clear they took leaving to be leaving those, but wanted to retain the "exact same benefits" - which was always a nonsense outcome. They were clear on not being members of those bodies however.

I'm entirely sympathetic to the thought that currently the best way of achieving what I'd like as the future relationship with the EU is to leave without the WA.

I'm not worried about the Irish Border - too much experience with international logistics and customs processes for that.
Labour were “very clear about leaving the customs union”, but when they said “the exact same benefits” that bit was nonsense?

It is not really a legitimate argument to cherry picking & dismiss bits from the same paragraph to suit your narrative. It rather shapes the “new CU” they had in mind (I,e. basically a very similar one rebadged).

It is very clear they were trying to appeal to those who would not like to lose the benefits of the SM and CU in what they were saying. They were looking to attract people who do prioritise protecting trade etc. Leave promised this would be the case - now it looks unlikely under a no deal - “30 years” of harder times that is a price worth paying according to one Brexit Party official this week.

It is obvious that there will be people - the moderates - whose vote will be moved by such changes in outcome.


djc206

12,245 posts

124 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
amgmcqueen said:
I can't wait for Thursdays populist spring.biggrin

EU scepticism has never been higher across Europe, hopefully the beginning of the end.
I’m not sure where you got that idea. According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U., the highest number since 1983.

djc206

12,245 posts

124 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
He seems confused

The peer used a Sunday Times article to explain the decision. “I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for my party when it is myopically focused on forcing through the biggest act of economic self-harm ever undertaken by a democratic government,” he wrote.

Must be a typo due to age, Old remainers are rare apparently ?
He should have typed:
“I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for any party that does not try to circumvent the biggest act of democratic choice ever undertaken by Uk voters"
he claimed during an online apology.

Silly Man.
You can’t circumvent democracy with democracy.

gooner1

10,223 posts

178 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
djc206 said:
I’m not sure where you got that idea. According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U., the highest number since 1983.
Strange as the EU didn't exist until a decade later.

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Monday 20th May 2019
quotequote all
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
He seems confused

The peer used a Sunday Times article to explain the decision. “I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for my party when it is myopically focused on forcing through the biggest act of economic self-harm ever undertaken by a democratic government,” he wrote.

Must be a typo due to age, Old remainers are rare apparently ?
He should have typed:
“I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for any party that does not try to circumvent the biggest act of democratic choice ever undertaken by Uk voters"
he claimed during an online apology.

Silly Man.
It may be a democratic decision, but that does not mean he is wrong to view it as self harm. It’s also up to him to decide how he votes. Nothing silly about it. His opinion and his choice.

oyster

12,577 posts

247 months

Tuesday 21st May 2019
quotequote all
SeeFive said:
It should be clear to anyone with reasonable thinking power that May’s deal is just another treaty which is BRINO and far worse than the treaty that we voted to leave. That does not respect the vote to leave the E.U. in principle or detail whilst aspects of it remove our ability to self determine the eventual outcome and timeframe.
May’s deal is far from BRINO. Norway would be.

SeeFive

8,280 posts

232 months

Tuesday 21st May 2019
quotequote all
oyster said:
SeeFive said:
It should be clear to anyone with reasonable thinking power that May’s deal is just another treaty which is BRINO and far worse than the treaty that we voted to leave. That does not respect the vote to leave the E.U. in principle or detail whilst aspects of it remove our ability to self determine the eventual outcome and timeframe.
May’s deal is far from BRINO. Norway would be.
Brino is defined generally as a soft version of leaving the European Union that would mean staying in the EU customs union and/or single market, with a very long or indefinite transition period. We also are not allowed to secure our own trade deals during that transition period, forced to conform to the E.U. arrangements.

Not only do we have that, but we still have no way to trigger any equivalent of A50 without the permission of the E.U., and arbitration in the case of disagreement... unfortunately for those that say this is not BRINO, that final judgement will not be passed by our sovereign law, or by an independent arbitrator, but by the ECJ, who if I remember correctly are the E.U. folks.

So basically, with May’s deal just looking at those things, we have no seat at the table, no A50, no ability to act as an autonomous country in many critical areas with the E.U. having the overriding rule all the time.

How is that not BRINO?

wisbech

2,939 posts

120 months

Tuesday 21st May 2019
quotequote all
As far as I know - leaving on WTO terms would still need a deal. It is just a different deal to the current WA


Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Tuesday 21st May 2019
quotequote all
So Farage is still selling a version of no-deal / WTO rules that fullfact suggest is 'very unlikely' to be achievable:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47216870

https://fullfact.org/europe/article-24/

More bait and switch?

Meanwhile Hammond is one of the few Tories honest enough to call out those who are trying to force a no-deal departure based on the 2016 result:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-par...

Hammond said:
On the populist Right, there are those who claim the only outcome that counts as a truly legitimate Brexit is to leave with no deal.

Let me remind them – the 2016 Leave campaign was clear that we would leave with a deal.

So to advocate for no deal is to hijack the result of the referendum, and in doing so, knowingly to inflict damage on our economy and living standards, because all the preparation in the world will not avoid the consequences of no deal.

Garvin

5,157 posts

176 months

Tuesday 21st May 2019
quotequote all
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
He seems confused

The peer used a Sunday Times article to explain the decision. “I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for my party when it is myopically focused on forcing through the biggest act of economic self-harm ever undertaken by a democratic government,” he wrote.

Must be a typo due to age, Old remainers are rare apparently ?
He should have typed:
“I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for any party that does not try to circumvent the biggest act of democratic choice ever undertaken by Uk voters"
he claimed during an online apology.

Silly Man.
Has he quantified what the “biggest act of economic self harm ever undertaken” means? All the projections I have seen give varying degrees of lower economic growth (but still growth) none of which seem to qualify for his statement. Unlike, say, the fight to stay in the ERM of some years ago, the selling off of gold reserves at the bottom of the market and the running out of money with debt already at a monstrous level. These all seem to qualify more for his statement!

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Tuesday 21st May 2019
quotequote all
SeeFive said:
oyster said:
SeeFive said:
It should be clear to anyone with reasonable thinking power that May’s deal is just another treaty which is BRINO and far worse than the treaty that we voted to leave. That does not respect the vote to leave the E.U. in principle or detail whilst aspects of it remove our ability to self determine the eventual outcome and timeframe.
May’s deal is far from BRINO. Norway would be.
Brino is defined generally as a soft version of leaving the European Union that would mean staying in the EU customs union and/or single market, with a very long or indefinite transition period. We also are not allowed to secure our own trade deals during that transition period, forced to conform to the E.U. arrangements.

Not only do we have that, but we still have no way to trigger any equivalent of A50 without the permission of the E.U., and arbitration in the case of disagreement... unfortunately for those that say this is not BRINO, that final judgement will not be passed by our sovereign law, or by an independent arbitrator, but by the ECJ, who if I remember correctly are the E.U. folks.

So basically, with May’s deal just looking at those things, we have no seat at the table, no A50, no ability to act as an autonomous country in many critical areas with the E.U. having the overriding rule all the time.

How is that not BRINO?
I would categorise Mays deal as a form of BRINO. It at least attempts to create some separation between the UK and EU in the longer term. But. that's why it needs a backstop, because the border issues between two separated states have not been sorted in advance.

If the backstop is activated, which it probably will be based on our useless negotiations to date, then we end up with a purer form of BRINO, very similar to the one being proposed by Labour.

I accept the argument that neither are the sort of Brexit offered by the Leave campaign, but I think that is because they offered the impossible. A Brexit where we have all of the benefits of EU membership and none of the costs.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED