EU Trade Talks Thread

[Blah Blah]

To be fair, until those negotiations start in earnest, we don't know what direction they will take. No.10 want to keeps talks confidential, I suspect they will be anything but though.

[TheCat]

pk Wrote:

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

> Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > We won't get everything negotiated by the end of

> the year.

> > Pretty much everyone who understands trade

> deals

> > knows that. So we probably will end up with a

> > loose framework where some things are agreed,

> > while negotiations continue. The question is,

> does

> > that mean an extension of the transition,

> because

> > until everything is agreed, we technically are

> in

> > transition.

>

> I think that extending transition should happen

> and if it doesn't we'll be doing a rushed job at

> best and doing a no deal at worst

Yes, I think it will need to be extended also for similar reasons. But I think Boris is making the right noises for now about not extending it. Keep the pressure on for most of the year, and then as Blah Blah says...see where we are at come end of 3Q of the year....

[pk]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> I think Boris is making the right noises for now about not extending it. Keep

> the pressure on for most of the year, and then as

> Blah Blah says...see where we are at come end of

> 3Q of the year....

i don't think it applies much pressure - we're the ones losing free trade with 27 other countries, the EU have each got it covered with 26 of them so will lose it with one

i also think that Boris is saying things that he knows to be untrue (like that Australia has a deal done) and that isn't a great tactic

i also think that if he wants to put the UK in a uniquely strong position, he should try to do something unique rather than re-heat Canada (or tell lies about Australia or 'Withdrawal Agreement' actually being deals) and that'll involve seeking some middleground rather than denying the need for some alignment

[TheCat]

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------The EU

> published draft negotiation guidelines this week

> but there hasn't yet been any similar detail from

> the UK government, details here:

> https://davidallengreen.com/2020/02/a-tale-of-two-

> texts-what-the-united-kingdom-should-have-publishe

> d-yesterday-but-did-not/

A very fair article. If being optimistic, one could hope that Boris is 'voguing it out' while behind the scenes the civil service is playing catch-up.

The parliamentary shenanigans -including 3 different prime ministers- of the past 3-4 years have surely played a large part in not allowing the civil service to have a cogent and detailed plan or approach to these negotiations. This isn't meant as a dig at remainers, but surely if remain supporting politicians had just acquiesed (under protest) we'd be in a much better position now to approach trade negotiations.

As it stands....we don't appear very well prepared at all. On the bright side we have a PM well versed in 'faking it until he Makes it'....

[pk]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> but surely if remain supporting politicians had just acquiesed (under

> protest) we'd be in a much better position now to

> approach trade negotiations.

>

>

I'm not sure that i can see any logic in that

[TheCat]

pk Wrote:

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

> TheCat Wrote:

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

> -----

> > but surely if remain supporting politicians had

> just acquiesed (under

> > protest) we'd be in a much better position now

> to

> > approach trade negotiations.

> >

> >

> I'm not sure that i can see any logic in that

Surely, any preparations for negotiations were either torn up when new leadership took over (which was obviously forced by the splits in parliament on the issue and the pressure the government was under) or were continually put off while the uncertainty over the manner in which parliament would exit (or possibly not exit) was ongoing?

For better or worse this is the first time since the 2017 election when the government has clear road to direct the civil service in accordance with its desires (whether we agree with those desires is another matter of course)...

[pk]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> pk Wrote:

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

> -----

> > TheCat Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > but surely if remain supporting politicians

> had

> > just acquiesed (under

> > > protest) we'd be in a much better position

> now

> > to

> > > approach trade negotiations.

> > >

> > >

> > I'm not sure that i can see any logic in that

>

>

> Surely, any preparations for negotiations were

> either torn up when new leadership took over

> (which was obviously forced by the splits in

> parliament on the issue and the pressure the

> government was under) or were continually put off

> while the uncertainty over the manner in which

> parliament would exit (or possibly not exit) was

> ongoing?

>

> For better or worse this is the first time since

> the 2017 election when the government has clear

> road to direct the civil service in accordance

> with its desires (whether we agree with those

> desires is another matter of course)...

I don?t think that makes it remainers fault that the leavers don?t know what they want, in practice

[stepdown]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> This isn't

> meant as a dig at remainers, but surely if remain

> supporting politicians had just acquiesed (under

> protest) we'd be in a much better position now to

> approach trade negotiations.

It's tiring to constantly be dragged back into the annals of Brexit, but blaming remain politicians for not giving the Prime Minister carte blanche is a really bad take. The consistently weak and changing leadership can hardly be laid at their door either. I mean, look at the timeline of Brexit Secretaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union#List_of_Secretaries_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union_(Brexit_Secretaries)

There was plenty of scope to compromise and build consensus, it's hard to argue that the brinkmanship and "like it or leave it" attitude from Number 10 should have been rewarded.

TheCat Wrote:

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

> For better or worse this is the first time since

> the 2017 election when the government has clear

> road to direct the civil service in accordance

> with its desires (whether we agree with those

> desires is another matter of course)...

There is still no sign that there is a clear understanding of what those desires are, let alone whether they are grounded in reality. Boris Johnson only managed to "re-open" negotiations because he was willing to retreat on the Irish border issue, yet it's pointed to as an example of how he proved the "the doubters, the doomsters, the gloomsters" wrong.

[TheCat]

Allow me to clarify. I'm not trying to blame remainers or remainer MP's. They did exactly what they should have done at the time based on their convictions. They were trying for an altogether different outcome, which did not come off.

But there is clearly an opportunity cost to those efforts unfort, so I'm just observing that with the benefit of hindsight, if we all knew we'd end up in this position anyway, then both sides could have focussed on preparing for the next phase, rather than squabling, and the civil service would have perhaps had a better handle on negotiations.

In anycase, its a moot point/what if/hypothetical that doesn't matter....

The main point I was making was about the seeming lack of preparedness we currently observe....

[pk]

TheCat Wrote:

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

>

>

> The main point I was making was about the seeming

> lack of preparedness we currently observe....

I guess that?s what happens when issues are over simplified - brexit in principle never meant anything specific about Brexit in practice, although the leave campaigners wanted people to believe otherwise (and seem not to have thought thru the practice themselves anyway!)

As an aside, you?re much more pleasant to deal with today. That?s good (and hopefully doesn?t sound too patronising)

[TheCat]

pk Wrote:

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

> TheCat Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> >

> > The main point I was making was about the

> seeming

> > lack of preparedness we currently observe....

>

>

>

> As an aside, you?re much more pleasant to deal

> with today. That?s good (and hopefully doesn?t

> sound too patronising)

Haha. Let's just say I've hit the reset button,

I would agree with your first statement about the lack of specificity over brexit. I've partially admitted as much in my long (cathartic?) diatribe yesterday. I've also always said that I expected and was prepared to wear short term pain (let's call short term the next 3-5 years). For the longer term benefits as I saw them. Others weren't. That's fine.

But in anycase, now we get down to brass tax, and we do need to nut out the specifics. And if may return the compliment, I have actually enjoyed today's discussion, and may have even learnt something!

[keano77]

Just to play devil?s advocate to re-energise this thread.

The EU needs us more than we (as an independent country) need them.

Many of you are over-complicating things.

The only thing the EU understands is money (see EU bill on Brexit Day)

Access to our fishing fields, no problem - charge them ?1 Billion a year (Except Spain unless they drop all claims to Gibraltar).

Access to GCHQ (superior) intelligence ?2 Billion a year

And so on and so on

If Boris plays his cards right the EU will be paying us ?10 Billion a year (net, index linked) so we sign up to their rules and have a level playing field.

The EU is crapping it?s pants.

Remainers will be happy because we stay as we are (but quids in)

Discuss

[Jules-and-Boo]

oh lord - you're seeing some positivity to it?

That's red rag to a bull on here.

[TheCat]

You see how boring this has become without me being an asshole?:)

You want me on that wall...you need me on that wall....

[pk]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> You see how boring this has become without me

> being an asshole?:)

>

> You want me on that wall...you need me on that

> wall....

I think it was keano that killed it by trying to be weirdly provocative

[JohnL]

Pence is off - talking nonsense. But I'm ok with getting out of Brexit

"Pence told the US broadcaster CNBC: ?The United States is very disappointed that the United Kingdom has decided to go forward with Huawei.

?We are profoundly disappointed ? When I went at the president?s direction in September I met with Prime Minister Johnson and I told him the moment the UK was out of Brexit we were willing to begin to negotiate a free trade arrangement with the UK.?

[stepdown]

keano77 Wrote:

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

> The EU needs us more than we (as an independent

> country) need them.

The rest of your post relies on this assumption, so it's worth refuting. The UK is far more reliant on the EU.

The EU accounts for 44% of UK exports and 53% of UK imports. The UK accounts for 18% of the EU?s goods and services exports to non-EU countries:

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

keano77 Wrote:

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

> Access to GCHQ (superior) intelligence ?2 Billion

> a year

GCHQ's close relationship with the NSA is the reason for its "superior" intelligence, obviously it's symbiotic but "the partnership is asymmetrical, with the US providing far more intelligence to the UK than vice versa". It's why the US thought limiting intelligence sharing would be a credible deterrent against the UK's Huawei plans, although a former US intelligence chief described them as "hamfisted threats from people who don?t really understand how the relationship works?: https://www.ft.com/content/8cdc7aee-83aa-11e9-b592-5fe435b57a3b

Intelligence sharing is done because it's mutually beneficial for both parties, a bit like trade. Five Eyes already integrates to a certain degree with other EU countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

But, maybe I'm over-complicating things, given the combined budget of all British intelligence is ?3.2bn it's obvious you're just making up numbers that look impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_intelligence_agencies#Single_Intelligence_Account

[Blah Blah]

Reports today that No.10 are looking into the logistics of building an actual physical bridge between Scotland and NI. What is it with Johnson and bridges?

[Seabag]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Reports today that No.10 are looking into the

> logistics of building an actual physical bridge

> between Scotland and NI. What is it with Johnson

> and bridges?

Remember his plans for a garden bridge.

And whatever happened to ?Boris Island? airport off of the Isle of Sheppey?

Johnson is consistent, I give him that.

[carlafindle]

Seabag Wrote:

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

> Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Reports today that No.10 are looking into the

> > logistics of building an actual physical bridge

> > between Scotland and NI. What is it with

> Johnson

> > and bridges?

>

> Remember his plans for a garden bridge.

>

> And whatever happened to ?Boris Island? airport

> off of the Isle of Sheppey?

>

> Johnson is consistent, I give him that.

A consistent w**ker.

[Blah Blah]

He clearly has never sailed across the Irish Sea in winter. But the logic is interesting. Still figuring out the border issue I think. Also, the results in the NI elections might have a bearing on something too.

[JohnL]

A Bridge over Troubled Water it'll be.

[Sephiroth]

Imagine by the time it?s finished it would be a bridge between two eu countries that will no longer be part of the uk

[Blah Blah]

And escaping the hard border customs checks now being announced. Hard Brexit anyone?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/10/checks-on-eu-bound-goods-inevitable-gove-tells-business-leaders?CMP=share_btn_tw

[KidKruger]

Of ALL the things to spend money on when key services are struggling, even being cut-back !

Perhaps hoping for logic is too fantastic.

There'll be a reason it's being proposed though (win favour with NI, would a bridge even help ?!).