How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
B'stard Child said:
gizlaroc said:
Elysium said:
I was thinking about the last few months of Brexit fun and games today.
I know that Brexiteers disliked the Benn Act and supported Johnson when he characterised it as an act of 'surrender'.
He said that it would 'fatally undermine' his ability to reach a deal with the EU:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-09...
Isn't it obvious that this was simply manufactured outrage?
Johnson surely proved that beyond all doubt by going on to agree a 'great' deal with the EU.
So the 'surrender act' did not frustrate our negotiations. Not even remotely.
It did undermine our ability to get a better deal, what we have is probably as good as we would have got with anyone in charge after the Benn Act was passed. I know that Brexiteers disliked the Benn Act and supported Johnson when he characterised it as an act of 'surrender'.
He said that it would 'fatally undermine' his ability to reach a deal with the EU:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-09...
Isn't it obvious that this was simply manufactured outrage?
Johnson surely proved that beyond all doubt by going on to agree a 'great' deal with the EU.
So the 'surrender act' did not frustrate our negotiations. Not even remotely.
I don't really get what you are getting at?
t deal cos BJ says it’s a good deal.I really don’t care TBH there are a million variations of leaving and two for remaining “May’s dead deal” and “revoke”
Hopefully as long as it’s not either of those I’ll hold my nose and accordingly
At the time I argued that the Benn Act surrendered nothing. It just extended the no-deal deadline by 3 months. Like giving someone more time to play a game of chess, with the essential strategic position and the available moves entirely unchanged.
The one thing the Benn Act allowed was time for this election. Which funnily enough might give well Johnson the majority he needs to pass his Brexit deal.
With hindsight it is now crystal clear that the 'surrender act' rhetoric was early general election campaigning. I wanted to see if any Brexit supporters would still try to rationalise it as something meaningful. And Gizlaroc stepped up.
Garvin said:
Digga said:
The WA is merely the starting point, from which the UK begins to negotiate future trade deals and arrangements.
Sort of agree with most of the above posts.
I see potentially years of further Brexit uncertainty ahead, even if we get a majority government.
If Boris gets his majority then the WA will be passed and UK will start its exit from the EU, possibly before end January - no need to wait if the WA is passed earlier.Sort of agree with most of the above posts.
I see potentially years of further Brexit uncertainty ahead, even if we get a majority government.
Then begins the real fun. The negotiation of the PD to a ‘proper’ agreement on the relationship is on a better level playing field and, with a sizeable majority, no deal sits firmly on the table staring defiantly at everyone. This will really test the resolve of the EU!
However, without a workable majority then, yes, years of further Brexit uncertainty beckons!
If, by some miracle of unfathomable origin (or postal voting fraud), JC gets elected with a majority then there will be no Brexit uncertainty. He will agree a new WA which will be indistinguishable from Remain and the public will be given Hobson’s choice in a second referendum and the previous four years will have been for nought.
The real frightening spectre is Labour in power propped up by the SNP!
No Brexit uncertainty if we are transported through a wormhole to a doppelgänger somewhere and lovely Jo gets elected. A50 could well be revoked by Christmas. In such a doppelgänger situation the greens coukd come into play and we could all be back living in caves by the New Year
That is particularly unappealing if we also get a rubbish brexit deal thrown in.
Hobsons choice. Which is why the final decision on Brexit should not be based on a general election.
Elysium said:
The personal cost to me of a Labour Govt will run to a six figure sum, based on Corybyns tax changes vs the Conservatice 'no change' position.
That is particularly unappealing if we also get a rubbish brexit deal thrown in.
Hobsons choice. Which is why the final decision on Brexit should not be based on a general election.
No, no, you misunderstand. Corbyn’s new tax regime just means the top 5% of earners will just “pay a little bit more”. I know this is true because he has said so!That is particularly unappealing if we also get a rubbish brexit deal thrown in.
Hobsons choice. Which is why the final decision on Brexit should not be based on a general election.
Regarding a “rubbish” Brexit deal this is a very emotive and subjective topic. One man’s rubbish deal is another man’s nirvana! So where on the spectrum of ‘no deal’ to the most watered down ‘BRINO’ (SM and CU maintained etc) does your version of “rubbish” sit?
Elysium said:
The personal cost to me of a Labour Govt will run to a six figure sum, based on Corybyns tax changes vs the Conservatice 'no change' position.
That is particularly unappealing if we also get a rubbish brexit deal thrown in.
Hobsons choice. Which is why the final decision on Brexit should not be based on a general election.
I’m in a not dissimilar situation, while I would think many leave voters would profit from a Corbyn government. A sad state of affairs all round.That is particularly unappealing if we also get a rubbish brexit deal thrown in.
Hobsons choice. Which is why the final decision on Brexit should not be based on a general election.
Edited by Helicopter123 on Tuesday 26th November 12:24
Garvin said:
Then begins the real fun. The negotiation of the PD to a ‘proper’ agreement on the relationship is on a better level playing field and, with a sizeable majority, no deal sits firmly on the table staring defiantly at everyone. This will really test the resolve of the EU!
Brexiters really really do not understand what is happening. The EU has been planning for no deal for some time. They knew it would hurt (the UK more than the rEU) but also knew there was significant upside as investment originally planned for the UK went to the rEU. The one thing the EU could not resolve was the border in Ireland. The BJ WA solves the problem its now up to the UK to sort out the issue. As the UK and rEU start talks on the future relationship the EU holds all the high cards. This will really test the resolve of the UK.
Mrr T said:
Garvin said:
Then begins the real fun. The negotiation of the PD to a ‘proper’ agreement on the relationship is on a better level playing field and, with a sizeable majority, no deal sits firmly on the table staring defiantly at everyone. This will really test the resolve of the EU!
Brexiters really really do not understand what is happening. The EU has been planning for no deal for some time. They knew it would hurt (the UK more than the rEU) but also knew there was significant upside as investment originally planned for the UK went to the rEU. The one thing the EU could not resolve was the border in Ireland. The BJ WA solves the problem its now up to the UK to sort out the issue. As the UK and rEU start talks on the future relationship the EU holds all the high cards. This will really test the resolve of the UK.
As for “all the high cards”, please list them and the effect they will/may have.
Mrr T said:
turbobloke said:
Mrr T said:
Brexiters really really do not understand what is happening.
Every single one of them? How do you know?Hint: you don't.
And can you quantify it?
Or it is just “some”
turbobloke said:
Mrr T said:
Brexiters really really do not understand what is happening.
Every single one of them? How do you know?Hint: you don't.
Here's a good (doesn't mean i agree with all of it!) article on what's facing the EU/UK trade talks:
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/colm-mc...
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/colm-mc...
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87438
North looks at noises coming from EU re next stage.
1) looks like the EU is going to be proposing the ‘bare bones’ treaty approach, with a load of side deals around rolling over things like environmental standards, level playing field etc in return for access (much as Ivan Rogers forecast a couple of days ago).
2) this will be based on a similar approach the EU took to Norway declining membership in 1972, forming the basis for a rolling programme of negotiations over the next decade or so. This could provide the basis for a new EEA model v2.0.
3) in the meantime the EU is getting busy prepping for a new treaty. The project rolls forward. I’m willing to bet it will be based on the Spinelli group:five presidents report.
As North notes, for all the broohaaa over the referendum result, the new treaty would have required a referendum to pass, which in all likelihood would have placed us back at square one as there is little appetite for even further fiscal and political integration. As he notes, There is never a status quo as, no sooner is one treaty laid down, there is another in the planning stage – and then another one after that, in a never-ending process of integration.
Well at least we won’t need to worry about that going forward
North looks at noises coming from EU re next stage.
1) looks like the EU is going to be proposing the ‘bare bones’ treaty approach, with a load of side deals around rolling over things like environmental standards, level playing field etc in return for access (much as Ivan Rogers forecast a couple of days ago).
2) this will be based on a similar approach the EU took to Norway declining membership in 1972, forming the basis for a rolling programme of negotiations over the next decade or so. This could provide the basis for a new EEA model v2.0.
3) in the meantime the EU is getting busy prepping for a new treaty. The project rolls forward. I’m willing to bet it will be based on the Spinelli group:five presidents report.
As North notes, for all the broohaaa over the referendum result, the new treaty would have required a referendum to pass, which in all likelihood would have placed us back at square one as there is little appetite for even further fiscal and political integration. As he notes, There is never a status quo as, no sooner is one treaty laid down, there is another in the planning stage – and then another one after that, in a never-ending process of integration.
Well at least we won’t need to worry about that going forward
Stay in Bed Instead said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: That's impossible.
Boris said there won't be checks.
Indeed he did. Boris said there won't be checks.
Was he mistaken or deliberately misleading everyone?
bhstewie said:
Ms J Swinson will lap it up. hstewie said:Meanwhile 41% want Parliament to pass Boris's new old deal, while only 24% don't (YouGov Oct)
Support for passing the deal rises to 67% among Leavers and 71% for Conservative voters.
When Ms Swinson is PM, Starmer can try defecting on a punt to join her Cabinet, if she'd have him.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff