BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

rick_chasey

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

leaving the EU was absolutely mental
not preparing for Covid 19 was absolutely mental
not extending the deadline is mental
leaving without a deal would be absolutely mental

I really don't get why people are so sure we will negotiate a deal. That thought process is entirely dependent upon our Govt doing what is best for the economy

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

What benefit do you see in doing it for the UK?

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

leaving the EU was absolutely mental
not preparing for Covid 19 was absolutely mental
not extending the deadline is mental
leaving without a deal would be absolutely mental

I really don't get why people are so sure we will negotiate a deal. That thought process is entirely dependent upon our Govt doing what is best for the economy

You are agreeing with someone who is scared to leave his own house which makes his views on reality highly questionable, and through reflection makes your views also highly questionable...

Stevo_666

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.

do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.

Where did I mention SM access?

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

What benefit do you see in doing it for the UK?

The purpose of the transition period was to give business time to prepare.

Setting aside the 'prepare for what exactly' question, initially faffing about over the withdrawal agreement, then coronavirus has eaten into the majority of this time.

I wonder if it's possible to agree a trade agreement by Dec 2020 *and* extend the transition period?

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

What benefit do you see in doing it for the UK?

The purpose of the transition period was to give business time to prepare.

Setting aside the 'prepare for what exactly' question, initially faffing about over the withdrawal agreement, then coronavirus has eaten into the majority of this time.

I wonder if it's possible to agree a trade agreement by Dec 2020 *and* extend the transition period?

I think the purpose of the transition period was that the EU was not able to agree a trade agreement with a current member, and the UK was not able to agree ones with non-EU countries, so a fudge was required. This also allowed more time in general.

I think the only way it could ever have allowed businesses to prepare is if the trade agreement was agreed at the start of the transition period which may have been the goal once upon a time, but it was known to be impossible when the WA was signed.

I think your final paragraph would make a lot of sense, but I don't think is likely.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

What benefit do you see in doing it for the UK?

Actual time to negotiate and arrange things.

Is this not obvious?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

What benefit do you see in doing it for the UK?

Actual time to negotiate and arrange things.

Is this not obvious?

Not obvious at all. Talks are at a standstill. Would extra time change that?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

What benefit do you see in doing it for the UK?

Actual time to negotiate and arrange things.

Is this not obvious?

Not obvious at all. Talks are at a standstill. Would extra time change that?

There is a gigantic amount of detail to go through.

It was already considered to be too short a time to get through it all before corona.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

It is absolutely mental they won’t extend the neg deadline.

What benefit do you see in doing it for the UK?

Actual time to negotiate and arrange things.

Is this not obvious?

Not obvious at all. Talks are at a standstill. Would extra time change that?

There is a gigantic amount of detail to go through.

It was already considered to be too short a time to get through it all before corona.

The UK's desire though is to use previously agreed docs, not have a line by line discussion on items and to agree a lot of things separately. The EU would like to make everything bespoke and in one large agreement. So, let me ask again, what is the benefit to the UK, and not the EU, of delaying the deadline?

morstar

rick_chasey said:

There is a problem here in that the underlying assumption of the author is that Brexit is a bad thing.
I happen to agree it is but that is irrelevant. We are not Brexiting with a collective belief that it is a bad thing that must be mitigated as much as possible.

UK is either playing a bit of brinkmanship or is happy with no deal.

But look at it objectively.

If we leave with no deal, UK fishing waters are off-limits to EU on day one. Yes, we have all manner of barriers to overcome but it is not one way traffic.

Also, UK government has made its peace with the negative consequences. The countries that want access to UK waters are at the hands of EU negotiators balancing all sorts of conflicting demands.

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

But look at it objectively.

Did you really write that to Rick?

It's the best laugh I've had all day thinking of Rick trying to look at something objectively

rick_chasey

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

There is a problem here in that the underlying assumption of the author is that Brexit is a bad thing.
I happen to agree it is but that is irrelevant. We are not Brexiting with a collective belief that it is a bad thing that must be mitigated as much as possible.

UK is either playing a bit of brinkmanship or is happy with no deal.

But look at it objectively.

If we leave with no deal, UK fishing waters are off-limits to EU on day one. Yes, we have all manner of barriers to overcome but it is not one way traffic.

Also, UK government has made its peace with the negative consequences. The countries that want access to UK waters are at the hands of EU negotiators balancing all sorts of conflicting demands.

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

I fear you are too hung up on fishing.

TheBigBean

morstar said:

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

I think this is probably true, and probably the reverse of the previous shambles.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

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.

do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.

Where did I mention SM access?

what do you think they are negotiating?

morstar

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

There is a problem here in that the underlying assumption of the author is that Brexit is a bad thing.
I happen to agree it is but that is irrelevant. We are not Brexiting with a collective belief that it is a bad thing that must be mitigated as much as possible.

UK is either playing a bit of brinkmanship or is happy with no deal.

But look at it objectively.

If we leave with no deal, UK fishing waters are off-limits to EU on day one. Yes, we have all manner of barriers to overcome but it is not one way traffic.

Also, UK government has made its peace with the negative consequences. The countries that want access to UK waters are at the hands of EU negotiators balancing all sorts of conflicting demands.

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

I fear you are too hung up on fishing.

We’ve discussed this before. I don’t give two hoots about fishing.

I also think it would be easy to overplay our hand.

That you think linearly in terms of of EU economy = x times Uk economy and therefore for every 1 thing EU concede = UK conceding x things is revealing.

We will still want to buy things and they will not have suppliers saying we don’t want to sell UK because we didn’t get a deal.

But fishing is important. Cars and stuff will see percentage drops in turnover with tarrifs etc. However a whole load of vessels that make their living fishing in UK waters will have trade restrained at the drop of a hat.

The EU have it near the top of their list and Barnier will be expected to deliver. He has to give something to get it.

rjsterry

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

There is a problem here in that the underlying assumption of the author is that Brexit is a bad thing.
I happen to agree it is but that is irrelevant. We are not Brexiting with a collective belief that it is a bad thing that must be mitigated as much as possible.

UK is either playing a bit of brinkmanship or is happy with no deal.

But look at it objectively.

If we leave with no deal, UK fishing waters are off-limits to EU on day one. Yes, we have all manner of barriers to overcome but it is not one way traffic.

Also, UK government has made its peace with the negative consequences. The countries that want access to UK waters are at the hands of EU negotiators balancing all sorts of conflicting demands.

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

You are assuming we have some sort of strategic vision of where we want to get to as opposed to just looking at what is polling well and doing that.

morstar

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

There is a problem here in that the underlying assumption of the author is that Brexit is a bad thing.
I happen to agree it is but that is irrelevant. We are not Brexiting with a collective belief that it is a bad thing that must be mitigated as much as possible.

UK is either playing a bit of brinkmanship or is happy with no deal.

But look at it objectively.

If we leave with no deal, UK fishing waters are off-limits to EU on day one. Yes, we have all manner of barriers to overcome but it is not one way traffic.

Also, UK government has made its peace with the negative consequences. The countries that want access to UK waters are at the hands of EU negotiators balancing all sorts of conflicting demands.

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

You are assuming we have some sort of strategic vision of where we want to get to as opposed to just looking at what is polling well and doing that.

On any given day we do.

It’s just not the same on each day.

morstar

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

I think this is probably true, and probably the reverse of the previous shambles.

I’m reticent to overstate our strengths as we are the smaller partner. But this is really important.
A simple coherent set of requirements is easier to manage than 27 differing ones.

Heck, they could probably come up with a 3 word mantra.

No alignment or no fish! Is my 5 word effort.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

There is a problem here in that the underlying assumption of the author is that Brexit is a bad thing.
I happen to agree it is but that is irrelevant. We are not Brexiting with a collective belief that it is a bad thing that must be mitigated as much as possible.

UK is either playing a bit of brinkmanship or is happy with no deal.

But look at it objectively.

If we leave with no deal, UK fishing waters are off-limits to EU on day one. Yes, we have all manner of barriers to overcome but it is not one way traffic.

Also, UK government has made its peace with the negative consequences. The countries that want access to UK waters are at the hands of EU negotiators balancing all sorts of conflicting demands.

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

I fear you are too hung up on fishing.

We’ve discussed this before. I don’t give two hoots about fishing.

I also think it would be easy to overplay our hand.

That you think linearly in terms of of EU economy = x times Uk economy and therefore for every 1 thing EU concede = UK conceding x things is revealing.

We will still want to buy things and they will not have suppliers saying we don’t want to sell UK because we didn’t get a deal.

But fishing is important. Cars and stuff will see percentage drops in turnover with tarrifs etc. However a whole load of vessels that make their living fishing in UK waters will have trade restrained at the drop of a hat.

The EU have it near the top of their list and Barnier will be expected to deliver. He has to give something to get it.

Well yes, fishing may not be important to Rick but it is to the EU and fishing rights to UK waters is ours to give - or not. That's a good example of leverage.

Stevo_666

coopster_the_1st said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

But look at it objectively.

Did you really write that to Rick?

It's the best laugh I've had all day thinking of Rick trying to look at something objectively

Morstar is clearly more of an optimist than I have given him credit for

rick_chasey

I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

There is a problem here in that the underlying assumption of the author is that Brexit is a bad thing.
I happen to agree it is but that is irrelevant. We are not Brexiting with a collective belief that it is a bad thing that must be mitigated as much as possible.

UK is either playing a bit of brinkmanship or is happy with no deal.

But look at it objectively.

If we leave with no deal, UK fishing waters are off-limits to EU on day one. Yes, we have all manner of barriers to overcome but it is not one way traffic.

Also, UK government has made its peace with the negative consequences. The countries that want access to UK waters are at the hands of EU negotiators balancing all sorts of conflicting demands.

Our position is far easier to negotiate from a coherence perspective.

I fear you are too hung up on fishing.

We’ve discussed this before. I don’t give two hoots about fishing.

I also think it would be easy to overplay our hand.

That you think linearly in terms of of EU economy = x times Uk economy and therefore for every 1 thing EU concede = UK conceding x things is revealing.

We will still want to buy things and they will not have suppliers saying we don’t want to sell UK because we didn’t get a deal.

But fishing is important. Cars and stuff will see percentage drops in turnover with tarrifs etc. However a whole load of vessels that make their living fishing in UK waters will have trade restrained at the drop of a hat.

The EU have it near the top of their list and Barnier will be expected to deliver. He has to give something to get it.

From memory 80% of our fish is exported to the EU so without a deal our boats are going nowhere.

If we cared about the economy we would do the deal you suggest sacrificing the industry that comprises 1% of GDP to preserve the one that makes up 80%

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.

Where did I mention SM access?

what do you think they are negotiating?

Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.

The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?

TheBigBean

What about not fishing the UK waters? A green Brexit.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

What about not fishing the UK waters? A green Brexit.

We may have already mentioned that when they started being inflexible.

morstar

You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.

That's exactly what I said above:
"Well yes, fishing may not be important to Rick but it is to the EU and fishing rights to UK waters is ours to give - or not."