BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

morstar said:

Partner with most leverage in a negotiation uses that leverage shocker.
Why is it being moaned about. Not like it wasn’t always going to be the case in every single negotiation we have with a bigger partner.
Basically we’re just setting out on negotiations with two of the 3 largest trade blocks in the world with our new found sovereignty. Expect it to be a bruising encounter.
Especially given that our negotiation team are green around the gills, ideologically, career driven, short termist politicians rather than seasoned negotiators.

Leverage on what? The EU wants to control us and inhibit the competition - it must be concerned about that otherwise why bother? However they are dangling 'market access' as a carrot but it does not seem to be working. So hard to see how simple economic size is having much impact.

That's aside from the large trade surplus they run with us.

Then we have matters such as defence and security where we (together with France) make up a large part of EU defence and security spending which will be hard to replace - and we know that:
https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip
There is also the need of the EU to retain access to the primary capital market in Europe, The City.

This will be an interesting negotiation and one where we are not constrained by political instability (as was previously the case) and are prepared to play the necessary hardball.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

I think it's quite sweet that Stevo still appears to believe Johnson is interested in a deal. Brexit has served its purpose now: he's PM. All he needs to do is manage expectations down low enough with enough messaging about backsliding (which is clearly being lapped up) and then if by chance Frost salvages anything he can claim a victory in the face of the perfidious enemy. Keeping what we want as vague as possible also stops too many supporters from realising that they are to be thrown under the bus until it's too late.

I think Boris is a realist and sees that the EU is so determined to regulate us in a range of areas, that we probably will not get a deal. We are just asking for a deal similar to what others have - which do not include significant EU interference. As previously offered to us by the EU.

Oh come on. A few months ago he was promising his 'oven ready' moon on a stick deal and now he's a 'realist' because he's saying maybe WTO terms isn't so bad? It's only ever been a means to get him in no. 10.

Realism adapts to the facts and conditions. Given the EU's newfound unwillingness to offer a trade deal without unacceptable string attached, Boris' view is realistic.

The EU are the ones being unrealistic in thinking that we will fall for their rather transparent ploy. Or feel we have to accept it.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

do not include significant EU interference.

The definition of 'significant' is the landing zone for a deal.

True. The UK govt has been clear that they view what the EU wants in that respect is significant.

And it's perfectly reasonable to push back on it.

As we push back on their demands. All part of the negotiation process.

Although I cannot see how we would give way on any material points of sovereignty given that was one of the key drivers for leaving in the first place. The sooner the EU realises this the better for both sides.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Surely now is the time to hold our nerve and wait for the German car makers to come to our rescue.

I guess what hurts for the Brexiteers is the realisation that we are going to get what the EU are prepared to offer us.

I think many would disagree as the EU's offer of controlling us in many areas in return for a Canada style deal has already been firmly rejected before the negotiations have even started.

It is this the sort of arrogant view held by many in the EU and they may well will discover it is mistaken at some point this year.

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

do not include significant EU interference.

The definition of 'significant' is the landing zone for a deal.

True. The UK govt has been clear that they view what the EU wants in that respect is significant.

And it's perfectly reasonable to push back on it.

As we push back on their demands.

Might surprise you to know that's what I meant

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

The EU wants to control us

You do sound more and more like you’re swallowing propoganda without even chewing.

You sound quite daily express levels of silly when you write stuff like this.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

The EU wants to control us

You do sound more and more like you’re swallowing propoganda without even chewing.

You sound quite daily express levels of silly when you write stuff like this.

One assumes that every time Stevo signs up to anything that requires him to follow some rules in return for some benefits, that he complains that they want to control him.

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Partner with most leverage in a negotiation uses that leverage shocker.
Why is it being moaned about. Not like it wasn’t always going to be the case in every single negotiation we have with a bigger partner.
Basically we’re just setting out on negotiations with two of the 3 largest trade blocks in the world with our new found sovereignty. Expect it to be a bruising encounter.
Especially given that our negotiation team are green around the gills, ideologically, career driven, short termist politicians rather than seasoned negotiators.

Leverage on what? The EU wants to control us and inhibit the competition - it must be concerned about that otherwise why bother? However they are dangling 'market access' as a carrot but it does not seem to be working. So hard to see how simple economic size is having much impact.

That's aside from the large trade surplus they run with us.

Then we have matters such as defence and security where we (together with France) make up a large part of EU defence and security spending which will be hard to replace - and we know that:
https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip
There is also the need of the EU to retain access to the primary capital market in Europe, The City.

This will be an interesting negotiation and one where we are not constrained by political instability (as was previously the case) and are prepared to play the necessary hardball.

As somebody who espouses the ideal of ‘do everything in your power to maximise profits for your business’...
You should admire the determination of the EU to get the best possible deal for its members.
Your whinging about backsliding is the sort of stuff you’d dismiss were it a business behaving legally but unethically to reduce tax.
We’re entering a negotiation where both sides will use all their available leverage to gain a favourable outcome.
The EU wants us to be aligned as closely as possible to their rules. They can’t force us, we can either trade some rule taking for other benefits whilst leveraging our strengths to suit us so they have to compromise.
As they are the bigger partner, in many regards, they have the upper hand although not all.
I really don’t understand why you don’t understand leverage in negotiations.

I think the fishing rights is such a vocal topic because we see that as a key piece of of our leverage. We will lean on that quite heavily as we have a lot of territorial water.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Partner with most leverage in a negotiation uses that leverage shocker.
Why is it being moaned about. Not like it wasn’t always going to be the case in every single negotiation we have with a bigger partner.
Basically we’re just setting out on negotiations with two of the 3 largest trade blocks in the world with our new found sovereignty. Expect it to be a bruising encounter.
Especially given that our negotiation team are green around the gills, ideologically, career driven, short termist politicians rather than seasoned negotiators.

Leverage on what? The EU wants to control us and inhibit the competition - it must be concerned about that otherwise why bother? However they are dangling 'market access' as a carrot but it does not seem to be working. So hard to see how simple economic size is having much impact.

That's aside from the large trade surplus they run with us.

Then we have matters such as defence and security where we (together with France) make up a large part of EU defence and security spending which will be hard to replace - and we know that:
https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip
There is also the need of the EU to retain access to the primary capital market in Europe, The City.

This will be an interesting negotiation and one where we are not constrained by political instability (as was previously the case) and are prepared to play the necessary hardball.

As somebody who espouses the ideal of ‘do everything in your power to maximise profits for your business’...
You should admire the determination of the EU to get the best possible deal for its members.
Your whinging about backsliding is the sort of stuff you’d dismiss were it a business behaving legally but unethically to reduce tax.
We’re entering a negotiation where both sides will use all their available leverage to gain a favourable outcome.
The EU wants us to be aligned as closely as possible to their rules. They can’t force us, we can either trade some rule taking for other benefits whilst leveraging our strengths to suit us so they have to compromise.
As they are the bigger partner, in many regards, they have the upper hand although not all.
I really don’t understand why you don’t understand leverage in negotiations.

I think the fishing rights is such a vocal topic because we see that as a key piece of of our leverage. We will lean on that quite heavily as we have a lot of territorial water.

Or our politicians are of such a low calibre that they see fish as a cause and not as leverage.

When you consider that Grayling is in the top tier of MPs it never ceases to amaze me that an argument could be made that we should be ruled from Westminster.

rick_chasey

Ah, the industry that’s smaller than an HSBC strategic change.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

The EU wants to control us

You do sound more and more like you’re swallowing propoganda without even chewing.

You sound quite daily express levels of silly when you write stuff like this.

One assumes that every time Stevo signs up to anything that requires him to follow some rules in return for some benefits, that he complains that they want to control him.

Now now, we expect more of you than just wasting oxygen on sniping Brian

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

The EU wants to control us

You do sound more and more like you’re swallowing propoganda without even chewing.

You sound quite daily express levels of silly when you write stuff like this.

Bit rich coming from a slavish Europhile like yourself. I make my own mind up.

The EU has clear reasons for wanting the control in the areas they do, which you have not disagreed with up thread - namely that they want to make it difficult for us to compete with them

Stevo_666

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Partner with most leverage in a negotiation uses that leverage shocker.
Why is it being moaned about. Not like it wasn’t always going to be the case in every single negotiation we have with a bigger partner.
Basically we’re just setting out on negotiations with two of the 3 largest trade blocks in the world with our new found sovereignty. Expect it to be a bruising encounter.
Especially given that our negotiation team are green around the gills, ideologically, career driven, short termist politicians rather than seasoned negotiators.

Leverage on what? The EU wants to control us and inhibit the competition - it must be concerned about that otherwise why bother? However they are dangling 'market access' as a carrot but it does not seem to be working. So hard to see how simple economic size is having much impact.

That's aside from the large trade surplus they run with us.

Then we have matters such as defence and security where we (together with France) make up a large part of EU defence and security spending which will be hard to replace - and we know that:
https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip
There is also the need of the EU to retain access to the primary capital market in Europe, The City.

This will be an interesting negotiation and one where we are not constrained by political instability (as was previously the case) and are prepared to play the necessary hardball.

As somebody who espouses the ideal of ‘do everything in your power to maximise profits for your business’...
You should admire the determination of the EU to get the best possible deal for its members.
Your whinging about backsliding is the sort of stuff you’d dismiss were it a business behaving legally but unethically to reduce tax.
We’re entering a negotiation where both sides will use all their available leverage to gain a favourable outcome.
The EU wants us to be aligned as closely as possible to their rules. They can’t force us, we can either trade some rule taking for other benefits whilst leveraging our strengths to suit us so they have to compromise.
As they are the bigger partner, in many regards, they have the upper hand although not all.
I really don’t understand why you don’t understand leverage in negotiations.

I think the fishing rights is such a vocal topic because we see that as a key piece of of our leverage. We will lean on that quite heavily as we have a lot of territorial water.

You clearly don't understand my point based on what you just said.

We have leverage in several areas and as the government's primary aim is economic and political independence, they are not going to be pressured by EU threats over trade. (Whether you agree with that course of action is another matter).

So in reality, the EU has much less leverage than you are tryiing to claim.

As for whinging about backsliding - accusing the EU of being an untrustworthy backslider isn't whinging - just telling it as I see it. Your reaction (and those of some others on here) indicates that makes you a bit uncomfortable, so I reckon I have a point.

Bloody backslider apologists...

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

do not include significant EU interference.

The definition of 'significant' is the landing zone for a deal.

True. The UK govt has been clear that they view what the EU wants in that respect is significant.

And it's perfectly reasonable to push back on it.

As we push back on their demands.

Might surprise you to know that's what I meant

Given the forum this is in, I assumed wrongly

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Partner with most leverage in a negotiation uses that leverage shocker.
Why is it being moaned about. Not like it wasn’t always going to be the case in every single negotiation we have with a bigger partner.
Basically we’re just setting out on negotiations with two of the 3 largest trade blocks in the world with our new found sovereignty. Expect it to be a bruising encounter.
Especially given that our negotiation team are green around the gills, ideologically, career driven, short termist politicians rather than seasoned negotiators.

Leverage on what? The EU wants to control us and inhibit the competition - it must be concerned about that otherwise why bother? However they are dangling 'market access' as a carrot but it does not seem to be working. So hard to see how simple economic size is having much impact.

That's aside from the large trade surplus they run with us.

Then we have matters such as defence and security where we (together with France) make up a large part of EU defence and security spending which will be hard to replace - and we know that:
https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/uk-turning-security-into-eu-trade-talks-bargaining-chip
There is also the need of the EU to retain access to the primary capital market in Europe, The City.

This will be an interesting negotiation and one where we are not constrained by political instability (as was previously the case) and are prepared to play the necessary hardball.

As somebody who espouses the ideal of ‘do everything in your power to maximise profits for your business’...
You should admire the determination of the EU to get the best possible deal for its members.
Your whinging about backsliding is the sort of stuff you’d dismiss were it a business behaving legally but unethically to reduce tax.
We’re entering a negotiation where both sides will use all their available leverage to gain a favourable outcome.
The EU wants us to be aligned as closely as possible to their rules. They can’t force us, we can either trade some rule taking for other benefits whilst leveraging our strengths to suit us so they have to compromise.
As they are the bigger partner, in many regards, they have the upper hand although not all.
I really don’t understand why you don’t understand leverage in negotiations.

I think the fishing rights is such a vocal topic because we see that as a key piece of of our leverage. We will lean on that quite heavily as we have a lot of territorial water.

You clearly don't understand my point based on what you just said.

We have leverage in several areas and as the government's primary aim is economic and political independence, they are not going to be pressured by EU threats over trade. (Whether you agree with that course of action is another matter).

So in reality, the EU has much less leverage than you are tryiing to claim.

As for whinging about backsliding - accusing the EU of being an untrustworthy backslider isn't whinging - just telling it as I see it. Your reaction (and those of some others on here) indicates that makes you a bit uncomfortable, so I reckon I have a point.

Bloody backslider apologists...

Predictable response with all the usual distraction techniques.
Your last two points contradict themselves.
Your whinging is ‘ telling it like it is’ whilst my highlighting your inconsistencies of thought is being an apologist.

FWIW, I tried to be balanced in my post by highlighting an area where we did have leverage.

You however do seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for the ‘we hold all the cards’ mantra.

I get that the aims of Brexit aren’t aligned to my own preferences. I hadn’t realised that we were in such a totally strong position that we can just stick up our two fingers to the EU in pursuit of political freedom.

That’s not a negotiation, that’s taking your ball home.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

Ah, the industry that’s smaller than an HSBC strategic change.

Personally, I haven’t really understood why we’ve been so focussed on fishing.
However, in recent weeks it does seem to be becoming apparent that the EU see it as very important.
Therefore, I think it is quite possible that the reason we have been so vocal about it is not because we are focussed on it but more we see it as a key bargaining chip.
Although Surrey commuter makes a good counter argument.

I am assuming we will happily trade fishing rights in exchange for retaining political freedoms. Hence why we’re talking about annual deals as we want to keep hold of this card.

It’s also one of those facets of the negotiations where emotive arguments carry disproportionate weight over economic ones. E.g. the EU negotiators will find it hard to keep France on board without fishing access.

rick_chasey

Downing S

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

The EU wants to control us

You do sound more and more like you’re swallowing propoganda without even chewing.

You sound quite daily express levels of silly when you write stuff like this.

Bit rich coming from a slavish Europhile like yourself. I make my own mind up.

The EU has clear reasons for wanting the control in the areas they do, which you have not disagreed with up thread - namely that they want to make it difficult for us to compete with them

It’s not about *control*.

Britain gave up power and influence on rule making in the EU.

The EU wants Britain to be as much in the single market as possible as that is in everyone’s interest; lest I remind you, the harder the Brexit the more costly it is for both sides.

It is plainly stupid the U.K. government doesn’t see it that way, especially when the realities of the checks become apparent.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah, the industry that’s smaller than an HSBC strategic change.

Personally, I haven’t really understood why we’ve been so focussed on fishing.
However, in recent weeks it does seem to be becoming apparent that the EU see it as very important.
Therefore, I think it is quite possible that the reason we have been so vocal about it is not because we are focussed on it but more we see it as a key bargaining chip.
Although Surrey commuter makes a good counter argument.

I am assuming we will happily trade fishing rights in exchange for retaining political freedoms. Hence why we’re talking about annual deals as we want to keep hold of this card.

It’s also one of those facets of the negotiations where emotive arguments carry disproportionate weight over economic ones. E.g. the EU negotiators will find it hard to keep France on board without fishing access.

I think we are being out thought every step of the way, though our hand is so weak I am not sure it would make much difference.

This whole Canada thing is a case in point, why didn’t we demand more and then compromise down to Canada? Asking for more than you want really is page one of the negotiating handbook.

rick_chasey

In an illustration of the ideology over practicality of the current gov't, telegraph reporting that the Dept of Health wanted the UK to remain part of the EU Pandemic Early Warning System but it was vetoed by 'number 10' to preserve their 'red lines'.


That's the kind of decision that leads you to believe they're not really working towards an outcome which is net optimal for both sides.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

Police can't strike. If customs officials strike, the UK could simply wave everything through. Hardly anything is checked anyway.

So on this, it is actually a (binding) part of the withdrawal agreement that the UK implements and maintains the border - this includes customs checks.

tailwindhome

Not wanting to agree stuff with other countries will I fear make it difficult to agree stuff with other countries.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

Police can't strike. If customs officials strike, the UK could simply wave everything through. Hardly anything is checked anyway.

So on this, it is actually a (binding) part of the withdrawal agreement that the UK implements and maintains the border - this includes customs checks.

Between GB and NI to a level yet to be agreed. Not really comparable in numbers to Dover - Calais checks, but yes the customs officials could strike on that border.

I would expect the withdrawal agreement to have some provisions for exceptional circumstances rather than ending all trade between GB and NI.

rjsterry

Farmers and fishermen should stand by to be thrown under the bus.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/110230/leaked-emails-show-top-treasury-official-said-farming-and

rick_chasey

Aside from the specific discussions with the EU, how is the UK not going to be a rule taker on international issues from either the US, China or the EU? It's just not big enough.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Aside from the specific discussions with the EU, how is the UK not going to be a rule taker on international issues from either the US, China or the EU? It's just not big enough.

too thick to have figured it out yet?

not sure there will be too much pressure from China to meet their standards

bompington

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Aside from the specific discussions with the EU, how is the UK not going to be a rule taker on international issues from either the US, China or the EU? It's just not big enough.

too thick to have figured it out yet?

not sure there will be too much pressure from China to meet their standards

Ha ha ha. Not to meet their standards, of course not - but just ask any of their neighbours, or pretty much any third world country about pressure from the Chinese.

rick_chasey

Yeah broadly speaking the Americas are US rule takers, and a lot of Asia will be Chinese rule takers, as well as big chunks of Africa. Europe is pretty much all the EU, right?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Aside from the specific discussions with the EU, how is the UK not going to be a rule taker on international issues from either the US, China or the EU? It's just not big enough.

too thick to have figured it out yet?

not sure there will be too much pressure from China to meet their standards

I could foresee a requirement to accept more of their lower quality steel.

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

I am assuming we will happily trade fishing rights in exchange for retaining political freedoms.

In nearly 4 years just one short sentence highlights that remoaners are still too thick to understand Brexit!

kingstongraham

Isn't it the difference between "you have to produce stuff to our standards in order to sell into our market" and "you have to abide by our internal standards in order to sell into our market".

I don't see how we can agree to the latter having left the EU, but I'm not sure the EU appreciates that.