Brexit View

[diable rouge]

This is very interesting, this article is saying that the EU can unilaterally offer the UK an extension to A50. It would then be up to the UK whether to accept it or not. Might be a way for May to save face by not being seen to go back to the EU with cap in hand for an extension, and continue trying to sell her deal...https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1085937231540436993

[JohnL]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is very interesting, this article is saying

> that the EU can unilaterally offer the UK an

> extension to A50. It would then be up to the UK

> whether to accept it or not. Might be a way for

> May to save face by not being seen to go back to

> the EU with cap in hand for an extension, and

> continue trying to sell her

> deal...https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/10

> 85937231540436993

It's sensible to extend but .. how many times has she said "We are leaving the EU on March 29th"

Her strident claims will come back and bite her as once that promise goes ...

[diable rouge]

''There won't be a snap General Election''...:)

[Trinnydad]

Brexit looks as though it will go down in history as the most horrific example of ineptitude in political negotiations and the betrayal of ordinary people by the political elite in Westminster.

Two years ago there was talk of engaging highly experienced trade negotiators from Canada who had spent the previous 5 years negotiating with the EU on a trade agreement. Instead we sent in a bunch of raw recruits who were totally out manoeuvred by Barnier. We already have a Canadian BoE chief, so why not a trade negotiator.

To have signed away ?39bn and conceded subservience to the EU in perpetuity without even getting started on the future trade relationship is beyond comprehension.

As one who has conducted large and complicated commercial contracts over several decades, I have looked on in horror at how matters have been handled. It truly beggars belief.

[Blah Blah]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah said

>

> ?...compounded by the referendum not delivering a

> definitive result either way...?

>

> ????

4% is not definitive Keano. In fact, Farage held the same view before the referendum ;)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

[Blah Blah]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James Goddard and his slightly right of centre

> mates are out for a p*ss up by the way on Saturday

> - Everyone invited, Lords, Ladies, MPs, Leavers

> and Remainers, all except the corrupt global

> establishment (Anna Soubry)

>

> https://twitter.com/JGoddard230616/status/10859014

> 80144580609

They will be running into the Women's March - minus James of course, because he is banned from London for 28 days - conditions of his bail after being arrested for his behaviour the other week.

[diable rouge]

Trinnydad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Two years ago there was talk of engaging highly

> experienced trade negotiators from Canada who had

> spent the previous 5 years negotiating with the EU

> on a trade agreement. Instead we sent in a bunch

> of raw recruits who were totally out manoeuvred by

> Barnier. We already have a Canadian BoE chief, so

> why not a trade negotiator.

I'm not convinced having expert negotiators would've helped as there was no plan from the Brexiters.

I don't think the EU outmanoeuvred the UK either, the EU have been transparent and consistent about their standpoint from day 1. It's what tends to happen when you negotiate with a rules based organisation, everything is there to see. The EU were never going to compromise their 4 freedoms. The problem has been May's red lines compromised those freedoms and subsequently boxed her in during the negotiations...

[diable rouge]

At least someone in No. 10 can see the funny side...

[Trinnydad]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Trinnydad Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Two years ago there was talk of engaging highly

> > experienced trade negotiators from Canada who

> had

> > spent the previous 5 years negotiating with the

> EU

> > on a trade agreement. Instead we sent in a

> bunch

> > of raw recruits who were totally out manoeuvred

> by

> > Barnier. We already have a Canadian BoE chief,

> so

> > why not a trade negotiator.

>

>

> I'm not convinced having expert negotiators

> would've helped as there was no plan from the

> Brexiters.

> I don't think the EU outmanoeuvred the UK either,

> the EU have been transparent and consistent about

> their standpoint from day 1. It's what tends to

> happen when you negotiate with a rules based

> organisation, everything is there to see. The EU

> were never going to compromise their 4 freedoms.

> The problem has been May's red lines compromised

> those freedoms and subsequently boxed her in

> during the negotiations...

They boxed themselves in because they were not experienced negotiators. It wasn't May who did that. Where she erred was to send boys off to do a man's job.

A few senior Canadians who had battled with Barnier for 5 years would have got a better outcome. They certainly wouldn't have agreed to the negotiating items to the sequence stipulated by the EU at the outset. This resulted in ?49bn was conceded before anything else was agreed.

And they certainly wouldn?t have signed a withdrawal agreement until the so-called future trading relationship was agreed. It goes against the basic principle of ?it's not agreed until it's ALL agreed?.

The first side to make even a small concession is on a slippery slope which then leads to other concessions. That is why politician are useless at negotiating as they always try and get a win-win which in other parlance is a fudge. Sadly there is more fudge to come and it will all be produced in Westminster.

[keano77]

Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek Finance Minister who appeared on Newsnight before Christmas, made the amusing point that no-one negotiates with the EU. They are tick box bureaucrats who colour paragraphs from red to amber to green. Algorithms on legs he called them.

[alex_b]

Trinnydad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They boxed themselves in because they were not

> experienced negotiators. It wasn't May who did

> that. Where she erred was to send boys off to do a

> man's job.

They boxed themselves in because of May's red lines and because they didn't have an internally agreed position before they triggered Article 50. From that moment the stage was set and this was the obvious end point. Whomever tried to negotiate with those constraints would have achieved the same outcome.

> A few senior Canadians who had battled with

> Barnier for 5 years would have got a better

> outcome.

Not with the red lines and no plan they wouldn't.

> And they certainly wouldn?t have signed a

> withdrawal agreement until the so-called future

> trading relationship was agreed. It goes against

> the basic principle of ?it's not agreed until it's

> ALL agreed?.

This approach is prescribed in Article 50, how do you propose the government should have got around that? Certainly triggering Article 50 and then complaining you're bound by the obligations of this seems pretty silly.

> The first side to make even a small concession is

> on a slippery slope which then leads to other

> concessions. That is why politician are useless at

> negotiating as they always try and get a win-win

> which in other parlance is a fudge.

Win-win deals are the basis of all sustainable business transactions. People who view transactions as a zero sum game tend to be very transactional and do not build strong, long term profitable relationships. The fact that we're trying to negotiate a lose-lose agreement where each party minimises their loses may make this harder, but the difficulty also comes from us fundamentally not having an agreed end position that accounts for our counterparty's constraints.

[Trinnydad]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Trinnydad Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > And they certainly wouldn?t have signed a

> > withdrawal agreement until the so-called future

> > trading relationship was agreed. It goes

> against

> > the basic principle of ?it's not agreed until

> it's

> > ALL agreed?.

>

> This approach is prescribed in Article 50, how do

> you propose the government should have got around

> that? Certainly triggering Article 50 and then

> complaining you're bound by the obligations of

> this seems pretty silly.

>

What was silly was settling a withdrawal agreement whereby our "negotiators" gave up on the redlines and conceded ?45bn plus subordination to the ECJ and backstop etc, etc, etc. They should have said at the beginning we are going WTO and nothing's agreed until its all agreed.

Also, knowing that France and Germany would be out to start sh@fting the UK from day one (which they did), our lot should have been setting up preliminary trade negotiations in advance with other countries. OK, in principle it's against the so called rules for an EU member to do this, but it's what should have been done to show we were serious.

The UK HAD a strong bargaining position - given that the EU (Germany, France & Spain in particular) have a huge trade surplus with us. Another bargaining chip that was given away for nothing is the fact that there are almost half a million Poles here who could have been made to apply for work permits. Add to that the thousands of Irish, Portuguese, Spaniards etc etc who are working here. Their aggregate numbers must exceed by a factor of 7 or 8 the number of Brits working in the EU.

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > James Goddard and his slightly right of centre

> > mates are out for a p*ss up by the way on

> Saturday

> > - Everyone invited, Lords, Ladies, MPs, Leavers

> > and Remainers, all except the corrupt global

> > establishment (Anna Soubry)

> >

> >

> https://twitter.com/JGoddard230616/status/10859014

>

> > 80144580609

>

> They will be running into the Women's March -

> minus James of course, because he is banned from

> London for 28 days - conditions of his bail after

> being arrested for his behaviour the other week.

Nobody will snitch on him surely :)

Sometimes I feel his group are getting absorbed into the mainstream Westminster bubble - then they chant something and I realise they're still crazy right wingers

[Jules-and-Boo]

Peta Credin actually completely nails it.

[JohnL]

Trinnydad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> alex_b Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Trinnydad Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > And they certainly wouldn?t have signed a

> > > withdrawal agreement until the so-called

> future

> > > trading relationship was agreed. It goes

> > against

> > > the basic principle of ?it's not agreed until

> > it's

> > > ALL agreed?.

> >

> > This approach is prescribed in Article 50, how

> do

> > you propose the government should have got

> around

> > that? Certainly triggering Article 50 and then

> > complaining you're bound by the obligations of

> > this seems pretty silly.

> >

> What was silly was settling a withdrawal agreement

> whereby our "negotiators" gave up on the redlines

> and conceded ?45bn plus subordination to the ECJ

> and backstop etc, etc, etc. They should have said

> at the beginning we are going WTO and nothing's

> agreed until its all agreed.

>

> Also, knowing that France and Germany would be out

> to start sh@fting the UK from day one (which they

> did), our lot should have been setting up

> preliminary trade negotiations in advance with

> other countries. OK, in principle it's against the

> so called rules for an EU member to do this, but

> it's what should have been done to show we were

> serious.

>

>

> The UK HAD a strong bargaining position - given

> that the EU (Germany, France & Spain in

> particular) have a huge trade surplus with us.

> Another bargaining chip that was given away for

> nothing is the fact that there are almost half a

> million Poles here who could have been made to

> apply for work permits. Add to that the thousands

> of Irish, Portuguese, Spaniards etc etc who are

> working here. Their aggregate numbers must exceed

> by a factor of 7 or 8 the number of Brits working

> in the EU.

I think everyone (remain and leave) agree now that a lot should and could have been done before triggering A50 - we should have decided where we were going and what sort of Brexit we wanted before triggering it..

[Jules-and-Boo]

It wouldn't have made a difference - we have been thwarted by lack of ability to negotiate a position for UK and not surrender leverage. We were in a strong position to leave and get a decent deal.

May's deal puts Britain in a worse position and of course, this is preferable to the EU.

[diable rouge]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Peta Credin actually completely nails it.

>

>

> 40364289?lang=en

What utter, utter tosh, more unicorns shitting rainbows, except with an Aussie accent...:)

[diable rouge]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It wouldn't have made a difference - we have been

> thwarted by lack of ability to negotiate a

> position for UK and not surrender leverage. We

> were in a strong position to leave and get a

> decent deal.

That ship sailed with May's red lines...rinse and repeat

[Jules-and-Boo]

Hindsight is a wonderful things - however, we should not have negotiators who are as grossly incompetent as ours.

[Trinnydad]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

->

> May's deal puts Britain in a worse position and of

> course, this is preferable to the EU.

Agreed. But thankfully it is still not too late to just walk away. Reject the Agreement, which is what parliament actually voted for last week. And leave it at that. Walk away. Stop the humiliation, keep our ?49bn, get our dignity back, grasp the opportunities that arise and do trade deals elsewhere.

It is what the country voted for in the referendum. But no, the Westminster elite want to duck and dive and arrive at fudge.

Walk away now because the EU will slowly fall apart in time anyway. The future for Euro is already looking very shakey with Italy and France's fiscal delinquency.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I totally agree.

[JoeLeg]

Trinnydad wrote

>

> It is what the country voted for in the

> referendum.

I like the way you know that every single Leave voter wanted a Hard Brexit.

Personally I doubt it. Personally I don?t think you all wanted a Hard Brexit, but I think now you?d prefer it to anything else on offer because it?ll get you what you want and you?re prepared to risk everything - and everyone - to get it.

I hope you?re right, because you?re taking all of us with you.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I like it when people criticize but are not able to come up with an alternative.

[diable rouge]

Trinnydad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...keep our ?49bn, get our dignity back, grasp the

> opportunities that arise and do trade deals

> elsewhere.

Great idea Trinny, I can see you've really thought this through. Let's default on our financial commitments with the EU and strike up new financial commitments with other countries. What could possibly go wrong? Try getting a mortgage when you've previously defaulted on a mortgage. Good luck with that.

> It is what the country voted for in the

> referendum. But no, the Westminster elite want to

> duck and dive and arrive at fudge.

Except No Deal wasn't mentioned pre-referendum, quite the opposite in fact, the official Leave campaign said there would be a deal. What you write is a perfect example of what I wrote earlier in the week about Brexiters constantly moving the goalposts...

[StraferJack]

@ trinnydad and J&B

Walking away with No Deal is, put simply, an ignorant position to take.

You can only support No Deal if you lack the wit or the will to understand the consequences

The ?49b (which is a number bandied around but it isn't that much) isn't on the table as part of any discussion - that is money owed. You may as well cancel your bank loan half way through and say you are not paying the rest. If you don't pay that money, you are signalling to all future trading partners that you are unreliable and untrustworthy

The humiliation is entirely down to pigheaded attitudes like this. You ARE humiliated but not because of the EU - it's because you believe nonsense like this. The whole world is laughing at you - because you are this dumb. This arrogant. If you want to avoid that feeling of humiliation, then grow up and understand your place in the world. We are a small island, heavily reliant on services with the best deal of any trading partner in the EU, with several optouts

You have no dignity - you only have a misplaced sense of pride. And pride comes before a fall

If you walk away with no deal you are throwing peoples lives on the pyre of your vanity. A border in Ireland with all of the consequences that is likely to bring - you do remember what was achieved when we stopped with patrols on the border last time right?

Government planning for stockpiles and military on the streets in event of No Deal - and you say "just walk away with No deal"?

You don't get back sovereignty if you are destitute and reliant on Trump and China for deals. You will be over a barrel

Staying in the EU prevents NOTHING that you want to do - the country has voted for austerity in 3 consecutive elections. That's your problem right there

Not you, nor noone else, gets to say what "the brexit people voted for" is. Because the people who voted for Leave have very conflicting reasons for doing so - some voted for less integration but FOR single market. Some voted for left wing reasons. Some voted for right-wing reasons. And yes, be honest, many voted for xenophobic reasons. Nobody is ALL of those things

"But calling people stupid won't change any minds" - you've had 2 and a half years to educate yourself on this issue - if you are still doubling down on walk away no, there is simply no chance of persuading you to do anything. The only game left is to see how few of you there are

"But you are just as arrogant!"

Maybe I am but remaining in the EU risks nothing - nobody is going to suffer because of it and we remain in a union which allows us the stability rebalance our own economy as we see fit. Whereas you are risking everything (not even risk at this point - chaos, civil unrest and poverty will happen if we crash out with no deal) for nebulous, meaningless concepts like pride, sovereignty. Just emotional words