BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

If its a position already agreed between all the parties then why is the EU still negotiating?

Regardless, they are still being inflexible. They probably figured we would cave in if they were inflexible and are now finding out that it isn't working. So not too unequal I would say.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

Who is arbitrating in this instance?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

Who is arbitrating in this instance?

An arbitration panel at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague - as agreed in the withdrawal agreement. Although the long list panel doubtlessly hasn't been selected yet as that is supposed to be done during the transition phase.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

surrey_commuter

it is remarkable how unbothered the media are by the exchange of letters. This means they will have to try harder to blame the EU or figure they can do what they like as everybody is all consumed by C19

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

Has that not simply been the case for the past 4 years? Nothing new that I can see.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

Is the EU behaving any differently?

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

The relative disadvantage of no deal has reduced, and there are some who believe that the recovery will be helped by being out of the EU. Those two factors make a no deal Brexit more likely.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

Is the EU behaving any differently?

Yes they have always been very consistent, it would seem that we thought they were game playing.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

The relative disadvantage of no deal has reduced, and there are some who believe that the recovery will be helped by being out of the EU. Those two factors make a no deal Brexit more likely.

I agree that our lack of ambition narrows the gap between deal and no deal. I don’t believe that anybody believes we will be better off economically by leaving as I have never heard them argue the point, they just throw away lines to move the debate on. They just think that any price is worth paying for sovereignity.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

Is the EU behaving any differently?

Yes they have always been very consistent, it would seem that we thought they were game playing.

You think they are acting as if they really care whether they get a deal? If so, why the total inflexibility?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

The relative disadvantage of no deal has reduced, and there are some who believe that the recovery will be helped by being out of the EU. Those two factors make a no deal Brexit more likely.

I agree that our lack of ambition narrows the gap between deal and no deal. I don’t believe that anybody believes we will be better off economically by leaving as I have never heard them argue the point, they just throw away lines to move the debate on. They just think that any price is worth paying for sovereignity.

And the EU think that any price is worth paying to preserve the European dream. Not a lot different really.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

The relative disadvantage of no deal has reduced, and there are some who believe that the recovery will be helped by being out of the EU. Those two factors make a no deal Brexit more likely.

I agree that our lack of ambition narrows the gap between deal and no deal. I don’t believe that anybody believes we will be better off economically by leaving as I have never heard them argue the point, they just throw away lines to move the debate on. They just think that any price is worth paying for sovereignity.

And the EU think that any price is worth paying to preserve the European dream. Not a lot different really.

It is all about proportions- if we accounted for half of their exports then we would be trying to make them dance to our tune.

Our price is and will be a magnitude higher than theirs

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

The relative disadvantage of no deal has reduced, and there are some who believe that the recovery will be helped by being out of the EU. Those two factors make a no deal Brexit more likely.

I agree that our lack of ambition narrows the gap between deal and no deal. I don’t believe that anybody believes we will be better off economically by leaving as I have never heard them argue the point, they just throw away lines to move the debate on. They just think that any price is worth paying for sovereignity.

And the EU think that any price is worth paying to preserve the European dream. Not a lot different really.

It is all about proportions- if we accounted for half of their exports then we would be trying to make them dance to our tune.

Our price is and will be a magnitude higher than theirs

I don’t understand why some m find this logic so difficult to understand.

It is so basic.

morstar

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

I hope that you are right about fishing but why are you so sure?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Barnier responds. Not sure who is his intended audience.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/reply-michel-barnier-chief-negotiator-david-frost-uk-chief-negotiator-20-may-2020

Wow!!!

Same old stuff.

Does not appear to be any hint of real flexibility here. Also quite an ill-tempered response - he does not appear to like the EUs position being set out in the public domain like this, maybe a recognition that their position is inflexible and contradictory to other trade deals done by the EU.

EU has always been very clear about their position and is inflexible because it is a position agreed by all parties.

Frost’s letter on the surface makes sense but when you consider his audience makes no attempt to sell his position to them by explaining why it would benefit them.

Frost’s argument that we are only asking for things previously agreed in other deals makes sense until you consider Barnier’s rebuttal that we are cherry picking from several deals.

If nothing else it proves that it is not a negotiation between equals. Unless those pesky German carmakers turn up soon then British exceptionalism will have got us into a bit of a pickle.

It could be that Frost's letter is the opening shot in an arbitration battle. I think the EU will find itself in a difficult position defending the dynamic alignment and the fishing.

we are either doing a very good impression of a crazy man who does not care if he gets a deal or we really don't care. My money is on no deal.

The relative disadvantage of no deal has reduced, and there are some who believe that the recovery will be helped by being out of the EU. Those two factors make a no deal Brexit more likely.

I agree that our lack of ambition narrows the gap between deal and no deal. I don’t believe that anybody believes we will be better off economically by leaving as I have never heard them argue the point, they just throw away lines to move the debate on. They just think that any price is worth paying for sovereignity.

And the EU think that any price is worth paying to preserve the European dream. Not a lot different really.

It is all about proportions- if we accounted for half of their exports then we would be trying to make them dance to our tune.

Our price is and will be a magnitude higher than theirs

I don’t understand why some m find this logic so difficult to understand.

It is so basic.

If nothing else how do they dismiss the fact that Frost’s letter is asking for something off the EU rather than telling what we are prepared to give them?

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

I hope that you are right about fishing but why are you so sure?

The EU consistently insist on fishing access as part of any deal. It clearly matters to them.
The UK position is f@ck business and gain sovereignty.
We are simply leveraging what we have that the other party wants. There is nothing to indicate that we are determined to own all fishing access to UK waters. It will be traded for things we really want.
The question comes down to how much it is worth to the EU. The advantage we do have is that the fishing lobby in EU nations is almost certainly rowdy and problematic. At least I suspect that is an assumption within the UK position and it does make sense. (Again leverage their people power against them).

How much leverage it gives us, I don’t pretend to know but the assumption that leverage is directly linked to absolute scale is incorrect.

Take gulf states and oil as a working example. They have one thing and one thing only that we want / need. This gives them disproportionate leverage in trade.

And just for clarity, I’m not suggesting fishing access as strong a bargaining chip as oil.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

I hope that you are right about fishing but why are you so sure?

The EU consistently insist on fishing access as part of any deal. It clearly matters to them.
The UK position is f@ck business and gain sovereignty.
We are simply leveraging what we have that the other party wants. There is nothing to indicate that we are determined to own all fishing access to UK waters. It will be traded for things we really want.
The question comes down to how much it is worth to the EU. The advantage we do have is that the fishing lobby in EU nations is almost certainly rowdy and problematic. At least I suspect that is an assumption within the UK position and it does make sense. (Again leverage their people power against them).

How much leverage it gives us, I don’t pretend to know but the assumption that leverage is directly linked to absolute scale is incorrect.

Take gulf states and oil as a working example. They have one thing and one thing only that we want / need. This gives them disproportionate leverage in trade.

And just for clarity, I’m not suggesting fishing access as strong a bargaining chip as oil.

I totally agree that your suggestion is the obvious route to the best possible trade deal for the UK, my point is why are you so sure that the current Govt will follow that course of action?

If they wanted to leave the EU, take back control and maintain the trading benefits they would have pursued an option as close to EEA as possible.

I honestly think, that for whatever reason, they see little value in a comprehensive FTA with the EU. By that I mean they do not see enough value to do necessary compromises

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

I hope that you are right about fishing but why are you so sure?

The EU consistently insist on fishing access as part of any deal. It clearly matters to them.
The UK position is f@ck business and gain sovereignty.
We are simply leveraging what we have that the other party wants. There is nothing to indicate that we are determined to own all fishing access to UK waters. It will be traded for things we really want.
The question comes down to how much it is worth to the EU. The advantage we do have is that the fishing lobby in EU nations is almost certainly rowdy and problematic. At least I suspect that is an assumption within the UK position and it does make sense. (Again leverage their people power against them).

How much leverage it gives us, I don’t pretend to know but the assumption that leverage is directly linked to absolute scale is incorrect.

Take gulf states and oil as a working example. They have one thing and one thing only that we want / need. This gives them disproportionate leverage in trade.

And just for clarity, I’m not suggesting fishing access as strong a bargaining chip as oil.

I totally agree that your suggestion is the obvious route to the best possible trade deal for the UK, my point is why are you so sure that the current Govt will follow that course of action?

If they wanted to leave the EU, take back control and maintain the trading benefits they would have pursued an option as close to EEA as possible.

I honestly think, that for whatever reason, they see little value in a comprehensive FTA with the EU. By that I mean they do not see enough value to do necessary compromises

Fair point. I guess my assumption is that they want some sort of deal (not comprehensive).
But I could well be wrong.
I agree the portrayal is of ‘don’t care’. The question is whether that is the actual position or a tactic.
I tend to believe a basic deal is sought, but not on any terms.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.

Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.

Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to

in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.

Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to

in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.

Ha. That's one way of putting it.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.

Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to

in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.

Ha. That's one way of putting it.

True.

In the meantime hopefully some people who live in the UK will realise that it will be in their interests if the EU shows a bit of flexibility which has been sorely lacking lately

rjsterry

It'd be great but it's not within their control and they'd be silly to rely on it.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.

Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to

in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.

Why do you think I am being patronising?

do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
I don't remember the exact numbers but the impact on the UK will be tenfold.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.

Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to

in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.

Why do you think I am being patronising?

do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
I don't remember the exact numbers but the impact on the UK will be tenfold.

It’s leverage.....for the EU