So much for Brexit

[T00ts]

Toots, this is the UK's apparent position — not the EU's! The EU aren't offering the UK the lowest offer, the government itself is seemingly gearing itself towards aiming low. My guess is that, if true, it's a tactical strategy by Boris to make the negotiations less complex. I'll explain why I think that below,



[ I know you say that I don't have clue, so perhaps I can defer to your informed superiority and you can educate me along the way in me specifically where you think I am wrong]



There are reports that Johnson is willing to exclude Services from the coming negotiations entirely.  My own thoughts on that, if that is the plan, are that he wants to be seen to conclude a deal quickly and removing Services from the equation (this being a critically important industry for the UK and one which it is going to seek to act offensively on) then a deal can be probably reached more easily.  If Services isn't on the negotiations agenda, there is naturally no chance of the deal being sunk for not meeting UK expectations on Services.  It's potential political expediency by Johnson so that he can remove and therefore ignore the most complicated element from the negotiations to give the impression that he is being decisive. He comes back with a deal, Cummings & Co spin it as the greatest political achievement in history, and all the pressure to get a deal disappears — even though it's an incomplete one.  



One might be tempted to ask, well won't the EU have to try to force the UK to include Services in the initial deal because of the importance of UK capital and professional services to Europe?  The importance is undeniable, but the EU doesn't need a trade deal to allow UK access — it can simply allow some services to continue flowing in and gradually start to tighten access over time.  The more of a hindrance that becomes to business, the greater the temptation to circumvent the complications by simply shifting sectors to cities within the EU.



Boris may be aware that if he simply ignores Services from the negotiations, he might get a deal quicker even if it's unambitious. He knows that he can spin it as victory on the basis of 'a deal is a deal' and the Brexiteer faithful will cheer him while the pro-Brexit press spins it as the greatest political achievement in history. Boris gets to safeguard his legacy and leave the hard part to his successors.

Wait until we see what is on the table not your EU feed for the masses. Then perhaps there will be something to discuss. It feels to me that most of what you and others disgorge as discussion is only more of the same scare talk that has bored us all. I'm out!

[Borchester]

 

But if you don't want to answer that's fine, just say that.

We have.



Repeatedly.



According to you, the UK will starve to death because the Irish government will close down the hamburger mines that supply British supermarkets. We have said that we don't know or much care.



We can't keep telling you Gerry. Sooner or later you will have to start paying attention to other folk

[Conchúr]

You really don't have a clue! It's called negotiation. What the EU thinks it might get away with, in other words the lowest offer, is their away with the fairies idea to confuse people like you and make them look tough and strong. Believe it if you wish but the EU is weak and always has been.

Toots, this is the UK's apparent position — not the EU's! The EU aren't offering the UK the lowest offer, the government itself is seemingly gearing itself towards aiming low. My guess is that, if true, it's a tactical strategy by Boris to make the negotiations less complex. I'll explain why I think that below,



[ I know you say that I don't have clue, so perhaps I can defer to your informed superiority and you can educate me along the way in me specifically where you think I am wrong]



There are reports that Johnson is willing to exclude Services from the coming negotiations entirely.  My own thoughts on that, if that is the plan, are that he wants to be seen to conclude a deal quickly and removing Services from the equation (this being a critically important industry for the UK and one which it is going to seek to act offensively on) then a deal can be probably reached more easily.  If Services isn't on the negotiations agenda, there is naturally no chance of the deal being sunk for not meeting UK expectations on Services.  It's potential political expediency by Johnson so that he can remove and therefore ignore the most complicated element from the negotiations to give the impression that he is being decisive. He comes back with a deal, Cummings & Co spin it as the greatest political achievement in history, and all the pressure to get a deal disappears — even though it's an incomplete one.  



One might be tempted to ask, well won't the EU have to try to force the UK to include Services in the initial deal because of the importance of UK capital and professional services to Europe?  The importance is undeniable, but the EU doesn't need a trade deal to allow UK access — it can simply allow some services to continue flowing in and gradually start to tighten access over time.  The more of a hindrance that becomes to business, the greater the temptation to circumvent the complications by simply shifting sectors to cities within the EU.



Boris may be aware that if he simply ignores Services from the negotiations, he might get a deal quicker even if it's unambitious. He knows that he can spin it as victory on the basis of 'a deal is a deal' and the Brexiteer faithful will cheer him while the pro-Brexit press spins it as the greatest political achievement in history. Boris gets to safeguard his legacy and leave the hard part to his successors.

[T00ts]

Lads can't you just answer the simple question being asked.

What do you think will be the "shape" of the future deal. Nobody knows what will actually happen but where do you see it ending up. Your not being asked "should the uk leave"

But if you don't want to answer that's fine, just say that.

That's easy. It will be exactly what our PM, with his very hefty majority, decides together with his Cabinet Ministers. He has already started to make it clear to your EU friends that we won't be messed around by making the 'brow-beating' last for years thus keeping us at the beck and call of Brussels ad infinitem. When the time comes we will walk away if common ground has not been reached. He knows full well that he can say 'bye-bye' to No 10 if there is any attempt to tie us in knots. The last election showed only too well how fed up we are with all of it. The EU have muddled along for long enough. Time to cut it.

[cromwell]

Who is Doggy?

Conchur is Irish/Gaelic I guess for dog lover,hence Thomas calls him doggy.

[cromwell]

Lads can't you just answer the simple question being asked.

What do you think will be the "shape" of the future deal. Nobody knows what will actually happen but where do you see it ending up. Your not being asked "should the uk leave"

But if you don't want to answer that's fine, just say that.

Well you Gerry seem as blind to the answer as Conor,you quite rightly state no one knows where it will end up,most I guess would prefer a deal that isn't Brino,failing that we'll go without one,now does that answer you both?

[GerryT]

Lads can't you just answer the simple question being asked.

What do you think will be the "shape" of the future deal. Nobody knows what will actually happen but where do you see it ending up. Your not being asked "should the uk leave"

But if you don't want to answer that's fine, just say that.

[T00ts]

I am trying to make sense of you. So far you have told us that you are a top flight lawyer who opposes Irish reunification. Other than that we know nothing about you.

No chance Cromwell. He's as illusive as the EU propaganda he so loves.

[cromwell]

One thing I notice about your posts above, Cromwell and Thomas, is that both make points which aren't relevant to what I said and — more interestingly — neither attempt to refute the substantive point being made.  



Unless I have missed something, the whole point of Brexit is that it will apparently provide a net benefit to the UK as an economy and society, yes? That by freeing itself from the EU legal and regulatory sphere, the UK would be able to renegotiate new trading relationships which would be more beneficial than those it enjoyed beforehand right?  So with that in mind, do we not think that it's of somewhat significant importance that the quality of the deals that the government plans to forge are debated and criticised reasonably?  Don't you think that it's important for people to think critically about what the government does, regardless of the majority power it enjoys in Parliament?



 Criticising the motives, intentions or strategies of Boris and his government doesn't suddenly make one any less of a Brexiteer.  If the government is expressing an ambition about a deal that seems to correspond generally to the quality of the deal offered under the EU's Everything But Arms scheme to Least Developed Nations, then there is an argument to be made about whether that really achieves the economic purpose of Brexit — I.e. that "independence" will provide the UK ability to forge better trading alliances than it had previously.  



So do either of you have any specific relevant observation to make regarding my point, or should we all just be cultists now who accept the flowery language of the government as divine Gospel because might is right and they have a sound majority ?

Conor you aren't listening,people of this country have looked long and hard at the eu for years,they've seen how it's mutated from that which we joined,how people of other countries have voted and their votes ignored or they be made to vote again till they come to the right conclusion.



We have enough politicians of our own and don't really want or see yet another layer added and the gravy train grow,we've been lectured and hectored,most aren't interested in any cult and have seen enough flowery language to last a lifetime and for all your labels most wouldn't ever say oh I'm a brexiteer and all that comes with it is my divine gospel.



If a deal is reached it is,if not we'll go without one,and you make the mistake of pulling another poster as to his presence on a brexit forum,it isn't it's a political forum and despite what you believe there is a world outside the eu and a political one too.



No we looked on year after year treaty after treaty,were promised a vote that never materialised until Cameron the coward decided on one certain of a remain vote.



And still you don't listen and scratch your head in bewilderment decided that we are to become just like Sudan you fail to grasp that we are prepared if we have to to take a hit but were the eu a golf club we decided we didn't like the rules,the committee the greens or the membership fees and thought sod that we'll just go down the pub where everyone else goes.



I doubt you'll understand the analogy and will complain I haven't answered your question because you cannot grasp that someone wishes to leave the club you hold so dear,well we have and the more we're told it all end in tears for us the more we say really? well sod it bye bye.



I suspect I'm wasting my breath  :brd:

[Borchester]

Good stuff. So what are you doing on here then?

I am trying to make sense of you. So far you have told us that you are a top flight lawyer who opposes Irish reunification. Other than that we know nothing about you.

[T00ts]

So what you are telling me right now is that it doesn't matter what kind of future relationship the UK has with the EU.  If so, why the hell are you on a Brexit forum which (well, apparently at least) is about debating matters related to Brexit?



I think three or four of you have responded with these wildly general statements about Brexit going ahead ... when in actual fact my post made no references to that at all  — simply the nature of the deal the government wants with the EU post-Brexit.  I commented that on face value the government would appear to be pushing for a relationship which is akin to the unilateral offering the EU makes towards Least Developed Countries.  In other words, the government's ambition is to 'improve' the apparently bad deal the UK has been getting out being in the EU, by replacing it with a deal which provides a similar level of economic access enjoyed by the world's Least Developed economies.  Nobody is saying that the future deal would be same as that enjoyed by say Botswana, but I am saying that if the measure of the government's ambition on improving the UK's trading position in Europe is by getting a worse trading deal than it had before, then there is a question to be asked on the wisdom of that and whether the government should alter its approach to the negotiations.



I am not talking about whether Brexit will or should happen - I'm talking specifically about the post-Brexit (for the love of God, I must stress the term "post" there) relationship with the EU. So do you, or anyone else here, have any specific rebuttal to this very specific point? Or am I going to get treated to yet another irrelevant "Brexit is happening whether you like it or not post" which has precisely zero to do with the point I'm making?

You really don't have a clue! It's called negotiation. What the EU thinks it might get away with, in other words the lowest offer, is their away with the fairies idea to confuse people like you and make them look tough and strong. Believe it if you wish but the EU is weak and always has been.

[Conchúr]

Well stevlin perhaps you can give me an honest answer.



I have been asking now for days about the pending BRINO we are to receive at the end of the month.



What do you think of the fact the uk government is paying £8.9 billion pounds over the next 12 months or so , accepting all the rules and ecj as well as continuing with FOM , during this new "extension " period the tories have us in?



Yep i know they are calling it a transitional period , but we were told and im sure you agree once article 50 ended , which should have ended last march as we know , but officially ends 31/1/2020 , all eu treaties ceased to apply. Yet that is emphatically not the case.



I cant believe one single person so far on this forum hasnt made a single fuss about what is happening at the end of this month.



We are going to be a rule taker bill payer without a say.



# edit to add, further , ahh i hear you say , but its only till the end of the year.



Various brexit blogs , even the torygraph were reporting yesterday that the uk government is dropping any resistance to further extensions as they are saying we wont conclude a trade deal in 12 months with the eu , so we could potentially move from never ending extension to never ending transitions.



All the while taking rules and paying fees to what is essentially a trade block everyone told me they wanted to leave as the price it charged was too high in fees and rules?

As for Thomas, you're yapping at me for discussing the potential deficiencies of the post Brexit relationship with the EU and yet in the above post a few pages back you were doing the same bloody thing.



Seriously, a few of you need to sit back and take a breath before posting. You're all responding with counterpoints to things I am not saying.

[Conchúr]

Nope.



Like most Brexiters I could not give a crap. The main thing is that we are going to leave the EU at the end of January.

Good stuff. So what are you doing on here then? Brexit is likely going to happen and you apparently don't care what happens after that.  Seems a bit weird that you're still floating around on here then — for a guy who claims not to care.

[Conchúr]

Most people would stop banging their head against a wall when it starts to hurt. It really doesn't matter any longer what you might or might not judge to be the issue with Brexit. It really doesn't matter what we might guess BJ's plan/strategy or intentions are. The point is that with such an elected majority that he currently enjoys in Parliament he has a massive mandate and ability to finally do what the majority in this country asked for. How he achieves it is yet to be seen but already the EU are throwing their weight about with a lecture by that awful EU woman Ursula von de Leven to the LSE almost encouraging anarchy.



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-ursula-von-der-leyen-young-people-isolation-boris-johnson-a9275021.html">//https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-ursula-von-der-leyen-young-people-isolation-boris-johnson-a9275021.html



You and others will never understand and really don't want to. I understand along with the majority in this country who have had the guts to look across the water to Brussels and say enough is enough. It is no longer worth talking about. We will move on with or without the EU. BJ is making it very clear that it will their choice. My hope regardless of immediate outcomes is that it will be without.

So what you are telling me right now is that it doesn't matter what kind of future relationship the UK has with the EU.  If so, why the hell are you on a Brexit forum which (well, apparently at least) is about debating matters related to Brexit?



I think three or four of you have responded with these wildly general statements about Brexit going ahead ... when in actual fact my post made no references to that at all  — simply the nature of the deal the government wants with the EU post-Brexit.  I commented that on face value the government would appear to be pushing for a relationship which is akin to the unilateral offering the EU makes towards Least Developed Countries.  In other words, the government's ambition is to 'improve' the apparently bad deal the UK has been getting out being in the EU, by replacing it with a deal which provides a similar level of economic access enjoyed by the world's Least Developed economies.  Nobody is saying that the future deal would be same as that enjoyed by say Botswana, but I am saying that if the measure of the government's ambition on improving the UK's trading position in Europe is by getting a worse trading deal than it had before, then there is a question to be asked on the wisdom of that and whether the government should alter its approach to the negotiations.



I am not talking about whether Brexit will or should happen - I'm talking specifically about the post-Brexit (for the love of God, I must stress the term "post" there) relationship with the EU. So do you, or anyone else here, have any specific rebuttal to this very specific point? Or am I going to get treated to yet another irrelevant "Brexit is happening whether you like it or not post" which has precisely zero to do with the point I'm making?

[Borchester]

You and others will never understand and really don't want to. I understand along with the majority in this country who have had the guts to look across the water to Brussels and say enough is enough. It is no longer worth talking about. We will move on with or without the EU. BJ is making it very clear that it will their choice. My hope regardless of immediate outcomes is that it will be without.

 :hattip  :hattip