foxinexile Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 19 minutes ago, Webbo said: Not necessarily the 27 states, I doubt there is unanimity on this. If they are going to reject a deal that's in their favour as well, what else can you describe it as but spite? Who has expressly stated that they are going to reject any deal the UK puts forward? The EU's negotiating team are going to look after what they perceive to be the remaining Member State's best interests - for example being out of the Single Market cannot be the same as or more beneficial than being a member of it. The UK are going to attempt to make a deal that is in their best interests too. So each "side" is attempting to look after its own interest as a priority. You could turn it on its head and say the UK, by leaving the Customs Union and Single Market is spiting the remaining Member States. It works both ways. And when the likes of Nigel Farage say we're being "punished", which is then picked up and echoed by a lot of Leave supporters, it's so incorrect. David Davies was on Radio 4 and for once I agreed with him: he said negotiations would, at times, become turbulent because both "sides" were naturally going to push their own agenda and interests as a priority. There's nothing spiteful about that.
Webbo Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 9 minutes ago, Strokes said: Guy demanding the ramsom money again I see, I really hope we do go out on WTO terms, I hope we stop negotiating with this racket. Damn right.
Webbo Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 7 minutes ago, foxinexile said: Who has expressly stated that they are going to reject any deal the UK puts forward? The EU's negotiating team are going to look after what they perceive to be the remaining Member State's best interests - for example being out of the Single Market cannot be the same as or more beneficial than being a member of it. The UK are going to attempt to make a deal that is in their best interests too. So each "side" is attempting to look after its own interest as a priority. You could turn it on its head and say the UK, by leaving the Customs Union and Single Market is spiting the remaining Member States. It works both ways. And when the likes of Nigel Farage say we're being "punished", which is then picked up and echoed by a lot of Leave supporters, it's so incorrect. David Davies was on Radio 4 and for once I agreed with him: he said negotiations would, at times, become turbulent because both "sides" were naturally going to push their own agenda and interests as a priority. There's nothing spiteful about that. It's in the EU's interest to have as smooth trade as possible, we're quite happy to have tariff free, frictionless trade, they are the ones being awkward. I agree this is negotiation and we shouldn't take everything said seriously but if Verhorseshit is going to start calling our reasonable proposals fantasy and not even acknowledge them as a starting point, what's the point of carrying on? 1
Strokes Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 17 minutes ago, Webbo said: It's in the EU's interest to have as smooth trade as possible, we're quite happy to have tariff free, frictionless trade, they are the ones being awkward. I agree this is negotiation and we shouldn't take everything said seriously but if Verhorseshit is going to start calling our reasonable proposals fantasy and not even acknowledge them as a starting point, what's the point of carrying on? They won't start negotiations until we have paid the ransom, that's who we are dealing with. I'd rather we withdraw from any talks unless it's trade related, see who blinks first. WTO terms isn't really going to effect our sales into the EU (from a price point of view) as the £ drop has covered that but it will effect our purchases. Which will hit some EU states quite hard.
Captain... Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: Lots of people supported giving £350m to the NHS each week too, it's easy to make these declarations when you know it's a fantasy which is entirely out of your hands. No way will they agree to that, or rather no way will they consider it until we pull our fingers out on the rights of EU citizens and our legacy payments. Don't take my word for it, take the word of someone who actually does have a considerable say in this: The state of this debate over the last page is why we are so polarised. The tweet makes a very good point The in & out of the customs union proposal is utter fantasy, we can't just propose invisible borders we are either in the customs union or not, making grand statements about having no customs checks without consultation with the EU is just nonsense. They aren't being difficult they have to protect their standards and we can't have no custom checks if we allow products, such as chlorine washed chicken or GMO products, into our markets that are banned by the EU. You can't just make these proclamations without due process we look clueless, again. 2
Strokes Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 6 minutes ago, Captain... said: The state of this debate over the last page is why we are so polarised. The tweet makes a very good point The in & out of the customs union proposal is utter fantasy, we can't just propose invisible borders we are either in the customs union or not, making grand statements about having no customs checks without consultation with the EU is just nonsense. They aren't being difficult they have to protect their standards and we can't have no custom checks if we allow products, such as chlorine washed chicken or GMO products, into our markets that are banned by the EU. You can't just make these proclamations without due process we look clueless, again. What are you talking about? As I understand it, we won't be signing new trade deals in whilst in transition (i.e. Still in the customs union) it's just to give time to agree trade with them. Am I missing some information here?
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 1 minute ago, Strokes said: What are you talking about? As I understand it, we won't be signing new trade deals in whilst in transition (i.e. Still in the customs union) it's just to give time to agree trade with them. Am I missing some information here? What if, as Davis has suggested today, we pay to be able to make free trade agreements during a period of transition? Why shouldn't we pay a bill for the liabilities we have signed up to? For the sake of diplomacy at least, even if you care little for any goodwill on their side or an actual deal.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 14 minutes ago, Captain... said: The state of this debate over the last page is why we are so polarised. The tweet makes a very good point The in & out of the customs union proposal is utter fantasy, we can't just propose invisible borders we are either in the customs union or not, making grand statements about having no customs checks without consultation with the EU is just nonsense. They aren't being difficult they have to protect their standards and we can't have no custom checks if we allow products, such as chlorine washed chicken or GMO products, into our markets that are banned by the EU. You can't just make these proclamations without due process we look clueless, again. Two proposals were put forward, its bizarre that nobody has paid any attention to the other, most sensible option. The media for whatever reason has decided our position is now the left-field proposal because they think they can use it to beat the government with. Might be more effective for people to throw their weight behind the other, reasonable, proposal that Open Europe suggested a couple of months back, rather than criticising all the time.
Strokes Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, KingGTF said: What if, as Davis has suggested today, we pay to be able to make free trade agreements during a period of transition? Why shouldn't we pay a bill for the liabilities we have signed up to? For the sake of diplomacy at least, even if you care little for any goodwill on their side or an actual deal. Its a lot of money for goodwill, Christ. I'm yet to see or hear of any breakdown for the bill, so wonder what our commitments are compared to our share in assets exactly but the EUs interest in having this established before trade, tells me it's largely just to cover their budget commitments. Edited 15 August 2017 by Strokes
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: Its a lot of money for goodwill, Christ. I'm yet to see or hear of any breakdown for the bill, so wonder what our commitments are compared to our share in assets is exactly but the EUs interest in having this established before trade, tells me it's largely just to cover their budget commitments. The Commission has published its methodology https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/financial-settlement-essential-principles-draft-position-paper_en.pdf Granted that's not an exact breakdown but that is to be negotiated so you're not gonna get an exact breakdown at this stage. It's said that the initial higher figures were without our share of assets included, the lower figures are with them included. I think, at around £40bn its a price worth paying to actually get something reasonable done. Nobody should want to piss of the rest of europe.
Guest Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 Total numbers in and out of work are meaningless comparisons as it is impossible to take anything from it without knowing fully the total number of people available for work at any one time. The number of people in the country goes up almost constantly. Much better is the %. Figures from the 70s to date shown below (from the ONS). Read into this what you want:
foxinexile Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 18 minutes ago, Strokes said: What are you talking about? As I understand it, we won't be signing new trade deals in whilst in transition (i.e. Still in the customs union) it's just to give time to agree trade with them. Am I missing some information here? The policy document which the government has released says: "The Government would need to explore to explore the terms of such an interim arrangement with the EU across a number of dimensions. The UK would intend to pursue new trade negotiations with others once we leave the EU, though it would not bring into effect any new arrangements with third countries which were not consistent with the terms of the interim agreement."
Captain... Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Strokes said: What are you talking about? As I understand it, we won't be signing new trade deals in whilst in transition (i.e. Still in the customs union) it's just to give time to agree trade with them. Am I missing some information here? The point is they aren't being difficult or spiteful, they have to protect their interests. We can't just say we will keep open customs borders whilst negotiating other trade deals. Until we have guaranteed that EU standards will be kept. The debate isn't about the merits of these proposals it descended into they are just being difficult, no we started being difficult, it is all just everyone being spiteful. They also talk of the partnership option which just seems like being in the customs union, which makes sense, keeping our standards aligned with the EU, but then surely we just stay in the customs union. Edited 15 August 2017 by Captain... 2
Guest Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 The proposals put forward today mean absolutely nothing. The EU aren't negotiating over our customs union status at this stage and we are yet to get anywhere near agreeing on the initial items. The proposal put forward is fantasy for a number of reasons, not just those linked to the chance of the EU agreeing to them. There is absolutely no flesh on the bones beyond pure conjecture. Whether I like Brexit or not, it needs to work. I'm seriously concerned about the track the government are taking because they are just playing at this. Every day that TM has been on holiday we've had the cabinet arguing publicly and now, suddenly, they've become publicly chummy and have put out a complete load of bilge in the form of these proposals. By all means, Brexiteers, feel free to bang on about how wonderful Brexit will be but at least understand that it needs to be take seriously for us to get the good outcome you believe is coming. These proposals are just bull****. They've been released for the party faithful, not because they actually bear any relation to reality.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 1 minute ago, toddybad said: The proposals put forward today mean absolutely nothing. The EU aren't negotiating over our customs union status at this stage and we are yet to get anywhere near agreeing on the initial items. The proposal put forward is fantasy for a number of reasons, not just those linked to the chance of the EU agreeing to them. There is absolutely no flesh on the bones beyond pure conjecture. Whether I like Brexit or not, it needs to work. I'm seriously concerned about the track the government are taking because they are just playing at this. Every day that TM has been on holiday we've had the cabinet arguing publicly and now, suddenly, they've become publicly chummy and have put out a complete load of bilge in the form of these proposals. By all means, Brexiteers, feel free to bang on about how wonderful Brexit will be but at least understand that it needs to be take seriously for us to get the good outcome you believe is coming. These proposals are just bull****. They've been released for the party faithful, not because they actually bear any relation to reality. Policy position is fantasy for a number of reasons. States 0 reasons.
Guest Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, KingGTF said: Policy position is fantasy for a number of reasons. States 0 reasons. I can't be bothered King. It makes no difference if I give you the greatest reasons known to man as nobody on the Brexit side will take a blind bit of notice. I decided to save my (typed) breath and just give you my opinion instead. Edited 15 August 2017 by Guest
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: I can't be bothered King. It makes no difference if I give you the greatest reasons known to man as nobody on the Brexit side will take a blind bit of notice. I decided to save my (typed) breath and just give you my opinion instead. That's actually fair enough, I feel similar about both sides of any political debate I have right now (this place in one of the better places actually) and perseverance will probably kill me. I must take a break from it all, I have a ton of stuff to do. However, as far as I see it, people have moaned that we don't know the government's position on things (why we should know I am unsure, probably the social media age of instant information). The government has obliged by agreeing to publish a series of papers,put forward a perfectly reasonable, if slightly ambitious, position. A 'to-be-decided' transitional agreement, which is the closest thing to consensus this country has seen in god knows how long and one that has previously been supported by MEPs across Europe, and then two models for how it might see a more permanent customs agreement. Nothing overly outlandish, and now up for public debate. Except the remain side doesn't want public debate, it wants steamroller over anything the government says because 'Brexit is a disaster'. I don't think they should publish this stuff because it shows weakness and maybe reveals too much, though thankfully this one is a bit vague. At least it enables businesses and individuals to involve themselves with ideas to aid the government.
Strokes Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 48 minutes ago, toddybad said: I can't be bothered King. It makes no difference if I give you the greatest reasons known to man as nobody on the Brexit side will take a blind bit of notice. I decided to save my (typed) breath and just give you my opinion instead. Don't worry I have the greatest counter if you are ever bothered, not that the remainers will take a blind bit of notice
Strokes Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 1 hour ago, foxinexile said: The policy document which the government has released says: "The Government would need to explore to explore the terms of such an interim arrangement with the EU across a number of dimensions. The UK would intend to pursue new trade negotiations with others once we leave the EU, though it would not bring into effect any new arrangements with third countries which were not consistent with the terms of the interim agreement." So no, I wasn't missing anything. Thanks
Strokes Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 1 hour ago, Captain... said: The point is they aren't being difficult or spiteful, they have to protect their interests. We can't just say we will keep open customs borders whilst negotiating other trade deals. Until we have guaranteed that EU standards will be kept. The debate isn't about the merits of these proposals it descended into they are just being difficult, no we started being difficult, it is all just everyone being spiteful. They also talk of the partnership option which just seems like being in the customs union, which makes sense, keeping our standards aligned with the EU, but then surely we just stay in the customs union. Why should have aligned standards mean we are better off in the customs union? I'm not sure I understand that point at all? It makes sense to have our standards aligned to our biggest trade partner and negotiate to this level for other trade deals. The only reason we would seek to change this, would be if we were completely left out in the cold.
Captain... Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 35 minutes ago, KingGTF said: That's actually fair enough, I feel similar about both sides of any political debate I have right now (this place in one of the better places actually) and perseverance will probably kill me. I must take a break from it all, I have a ton of stuff to do. However, as far as I see it, people have moaned that we don't know the government's position on things (why we should know I am unsure, probably the social media age of instant information). The government has obliged by agreeing to publish a series of papers,put forward a perfectly reasonable, if slightly ambitious, position. A 'to-be-decided' transitional agreement, which is the closest thing to consensus this country has seen in god knows how long and one that has previously been supported by MEPs across Europe, and then two models for how it might see a more permanent customs agreement. Nothing overly outlandish, and now up for public debate. Except the remain side doesn't want public debate, it wants steamroller over anything the government says because 'Brexit is a disaster'. I don't think they should publish this stuff because it shows weakness and maybe reveals too much, though thankfully this one is a bit vague. At least it enables businesses and individuals to involve themselves with ideas to aid the government. But they have put it forward, or at least it is being reported, in a really arrogant way. The headline Iine statement should be "our aim is to minimise impact on business as much as possible" and to do so we are open to a transitional customs union to ensure smooth trade with our European trading partners until we find a permanent solution. The way it was presented was "this is what we will do and we don't even need to consult the EU they will do what we tell them. " They EU have set their stall out, and rightly or wrongly won't discuss trade terms until the bill is settled so releasing papers and putting proposals forward is redundant and provides no certainties or guarantees to anyone.
Popular Post ajthefox Posted 15 August 2017 Popular Post Posted 15 August 2017 47 minutes ago, toddybad said: The proposals put forward today mean absolutely nothing. The EU aren't negotiating over our customs union status at this stage and we are yet to get anywhere near agreeing on the initial items. The proposal put forward is fantasy for a number of reasons, not just those linked to the chance of the EU agreeing to them. There is absolutely no flesh on the bones beyond pure conjecture. Whether I like Brexit or not, it needs to work. I'm seriously concerned about the track the government are taking because they are just playing at this. Every day that TM has been on holiday we've had the cabinet arguing publicly and now, suddenly, they've become publicly chummy and have put out a complete load of bilge in the form of these proposals. By all means, Brexiteers, feel free to bang on about how wonderful Brexit will be but at least understand that it needs to be take seriously for us to get the good outcome you believe is coming. These proposals are just bull****. They've been released for the party faithful, not because they actually bear any relation to reality. 38 minutes ago, toddybad said: I can't be bothered King. It makes no difference if I give you the greatest reasons known to man as nobody on the Brexit side will take a blind bit of notice. I decided to save my (typed) breath and just give you my opinion instead. For all the times you decry many brexiteers politicians and posters on this forum alike, I think you are one of the worst remainers I have come across in terms of the stuff you come out with sometimes. I'm not meaning to make this personal and I don't want this to come across like a personal attack; I don't know you at all and I'm sure we could have a pint and discuss some of these issues and we would probably find some common ground, but I find there to be a lot of content which is, for lack of a better way of putting it, empty rhetoric. In just the highlighted section above, you've portrayed yourself as arrogant, condescending, patronising & self righteous. In two sentences, you have implied brexiteers don't appreciate how serious the situation is, inferred they are wrong and that you are right (as if this is such a clear cut, right vs wrong debate) and made a sweeping generalisation about how brexiteers are so blinded by their own biases that they would argue with a stack of facts as tall as a mountain. Again, as if this is such a clear cut issue? You are clearly passionate about it and like to stay informed and I like that, but I've seen a fair bit of the above rubbish interspersed within the legitimate policy based comment/questions you have posted and it just baffles me. 5
Captain... Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 3 minutes ago, Strokes said: Why should have aligned standards mean we are better off in the customs union? I'm not sure I understand that point at all? It makes sense to have our standards aligned to our biggest trade partner and negotiate to this level for other trade deals. The only reason we would seek to change this, would be if we were completely left out in the cold. I'm not saying we are better off in the customs union but we will be in a customs union with the EU in all but name. Although I didn't realise that it was the customs union that blocks us from negotiating free trade deals with non eu countries. So we can leave the customs union and still negotiate access to the single market. Like Canada, but that could take several years. We could set up a customs partnership where we keep our standards in line with the EU and have no customs checks with the EU, but a condition would almost definitely be that the EU has some influence over our trading standards and any future trade deals. That is the part glossed over in the customs union proposals. 1
Strokes Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 1 minute ago, Captain... said: I'm not saying we are better off in the customs union but we will be in a customs union with the EU in all but name. Although I didn't realise that it was the customs union that blocks us from negotiating free trade deals with non eu countries. So we can leave the customs union and still negotiate access to the single market. Like Canada, but that could take several years. We could set up a customs partnership where we keep our standards in line with the EU and have no customs checks with the EU, but a condition would almost definitely be that the EU has some influence over our trading standards and any future trade deals. That is the part glossed over in the customs union proposals. That's pretty much as good a deal as could be possibly be imagined, I think that would really be around middle ground.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 August 2017 Posted 15 August 2017 15 minutes ago, Captain... said: But they have put it forward, or at least it is being reported, in a really arrogant way. The headline Iine statement should be "our aim is to minimise impact on business as much as possible" and to do so we are open to a transitional customs union to ensure smooth trade with our European trading partners until we find a permanent solution. The way it was presented was "this is what we will do and we don't even need to consult the EU they will do what we tell them. " They EU have set their stall out, and rightly or wrongly won't discuss trade terms until the bill is settled so releasing papers and putting proposals forward is redundant and provides no certainties or guarantees to anyone. It's a policy position paper, the idea of it is to set out what the government's position on it's future customer agreement with the EU might look like according to the government looking after the interests of the UK (much like you said the EU has to protect its interests. The headline and description say that, noting the word "aspirations". Headline: Future customs arrangements: a future partnership paper Description: As we leave the European Union and therefore the EU Customs Union, the Government seeks a new customs arrangement that facilitates the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods between the UK and the EU, and allows the UK to forge new trade relationships with its partners in Europe and around the world. This paper details the Government’s aspirations for the UK’s future customs arrangements. The document is quite in keeping with what you have expressed the government should have done. For example: "Our ultimate customs arrangement will depend on our negotiations with the EU" "time to fully implement the new customs arrangements, in order to avoid a cliff-edge for businesses and individuals on both sides. The Government believes a model of close association with the EU Customs Union for a time-limited interim period could achieve this. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption and provide certainty for businesses and individuals" "The Government intends to continue to engage with a variety of firms, large and small, alongside other potential users of the customs system across the length and breadth of the UK, as well as with important trade partners in key EU Member States" "The approaches we are setting out today will benefit both the EU and UK and avoid a cliff-edge for businesses and individuals on both sides." People have criticised the lack of transparency and clarity from the government over its negotiating position. The government (imo wrongly) react to this and agree to publish some stuff and then its criticised for having "aspirations". It notes early on in the document that it all depends on negotiations with the EU but this sets out its aspirations. It is not the case that the government has been arrogant and is telling us all this will definitely happen and the EU will have to deal with it. Again, it's not even a firm policy position, it clearly states the government wants feedback from stakeholders. It is a proposal, nothing more. Problem is some media outlets can't wait to jump on the government for every tip toe forward it tries to make but if Barnier said 'we are cutting the UK out, we wish top push them into the atlantic', they'd tell us it was wholly reasonable.
Recommended Posts