Getting brexit done!

[bovril]

42 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What kind of message does it send to any country wishing to join the block, that you will get fúcked on the way out?

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that it offers small and medium sized countries protection from getting ****ed over by larger competitors. 

[Spudulike]

59 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Exactly, what sort of message does it send to other current EU that might have cold feet about the EU if they know the UK will get a better deal than most envisage?

 

Although I'm a remainer I do selfishly want as good a deal as possible.

Surely even Remainers want 'as good a deal as possible'? Why wouldn't they other being able to say 'told you so'? 

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, bovril said:

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that it offers small and medium sized countries protection from getting ****ed over by larger competitors. 

I thought the big idea was free trade not protectionism....

[bovril]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I thought the big idea was free trade not protectionism....

Brexiters were right in some ways about the EU - it is a political project, it's protectionist, it won't want to encourage others to leave the bloc.

 

However, these people also said we would easily get a favourable trade deal. Pointing out we wouldn't was "project fear". So they were either deluded, arrogant, or they never really wanted a deal all along and the whole plan was to crash out on WTO terms.

 

Anyway this conversation is going round in circles as ever and it's slightly surreal having to use Brexiters' own arguments to explain why we probably won't get a trade deal.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

No deal hasn't happened yet., and the "oven ready" phrase was related to the withdrawal agreement, not the post Brexit trade deal.  He delivered on that.

Blatantly it was the withdrawal agreement. That's why everyone was going on about the withdrawal agreement pre-election. You couldn't move for Tories using the phrase "withdrawal agreement" in relation to the oven ready deal they promised, just so the electorate was sure that's what was meant. They were desperate to make clear there would be a further deal to be negotiated, weren't they? So we all knew. Look, the phrase "withdrawal agreement" appears all over this...

 

 

...Or not.

 

Some scary revisionism going on with this subject.

[Jon the Hat]

It literally says getting Brexit done in January.  You know January this year when we left the EU with the withdrawal agreement which was oven ready.

[Voll Blau]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It literally says getting Brexit done in January.  You know January this year when we left the EU with the withdrawal agreement which was oven ready.

No one was using the phrase "oven ready withdrawal agreement" in the run up to the election, were they? No one was trying to make clear that's what it meant and no one who backed or voted for it was claiming to know that's what was meant by it. Suggesting otherwise is a severe distortion of how the election campaign played out.

[Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

No one was using the phrase "oven ready withdrawal agreement" in the run up to the election, were they? No one was trying to make clear that's what it meant and no one who backed or voted for it was claiming to know that's what was meant by it. Suggesting otherwise is a severe distortion of how the election campaign played out.

But it does say getting Brexit done in January which is what happened.

 

I mean I banged on enough throughout the process about how the withdrawal agreement and the deal were something different and he discourse that didn’t recognise that was frustrating. But given ‘deal’ was the dominant phrasing around the withdrawal agreement, and given nobody really made any effort to differentiate them at the time, it seems a ‘severe distortion’ to now try to pretend that it meant anything other than the withdrawal agreement.

[Voll Blau]

7 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

But it does say getting Brexit done in January which is what happened.

 

I mean I banged on enough throughout the process about how the withdrawal agreement and the deal were something different and he discourse that didn’t recognise that was frustrating. But given ‘deal’ was the dominant phrasing around the withdrawal agreement, and given nobody really made any effort to differentiate them at the time, it seems a ‘severe distortion’ to now try to pretend that it meant anything other than the withdrawal agreement.

I'm not trying to pretend that's not how it's understood now. The government have decided to make it clear 12 months on that's what they mean by it.

 

They didn't make it clear at the time.

[bovril]

5 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I'm not trying to pretend that's not how it's understood now. The government have decided to make it clear 12 months on that's what they mean by it.

 

They didn't make it clear at the time.

It was reported a lot in more serious newspapers as the W.A. The information is there for people if they want it.

 

People can't be bothered to read past headlines which is a problem all of its own. And one of the reasons the last four years has been such a mess is that most Remainers don't understand the EU any more than Brexiters. 

 

The whole debate around it has been depressing. 

Edited 7 December 2020 by bovril

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Brexiters were right in some ways about the EU - it is a political project, it's protectionist, it won't want to encourage others to leave the bloc.

 

However, these people also said we would easily get a favourable trade deal. Pointing out we wouldn't was "project fear". So they were either deluded, arrogant, or they never really wanted a deal all along and the whole plan was to crash out on WTO terms.

 

Anyway this conversation is going round in circles as ever and it's slightly surreal having to use Brexiters' own arguments to explain why we probably won't get a trade deal.

It’s nice that you’ve acknowledged it’s not something many accept, and yes leavers got things wrong too.

 

For the record, I’ve always swayed on the side of no deal and WTO terms, however given the current global health emergency and economic difficulties, I’d prefer an extension to the transition or any kind of deal tight now. I think it’s gone on long enough and been so divisive, I’d rather we just move on, in any kind of way that enables the debate to disappear and us all move forwards. 
Economic ruin benefits nobody.

[ealingfox]

50 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It literally says getting Brexit done in January.  You know January this year when we left the EU with the withdrawal agreement which was oven ready.

 

But it wasn't. They went back on it and are now intending to break it.

[Kopfkino]

11 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I'm not trying to pretend that's not how it's understood now. The government have decided to make it clear 12 months on that's what they mean by it.

 

They didn't make it clear at the time.

They used the language of the time.

 

Jon’s point was that ‘oven-ready deal’ referred to the WA, you contend it didn’t at the time because it doesn’t say WA. But, at the time, deal was essentially taken to mean the WA. Take Jeremy Corbyn’s response titled ‘Jeremy Corbyn responds to Brexit deal’ where he refers to an ‘even worse deal than Theresa May’s’. Or the manifesto where it says ‘we will rip up the deeply flawed deal’.

 

We can even be horrifically linguistically pedantic about it, given I feel this highlighting the ‘oven-ready deal’ stuff is pedantic reaching. Brexit, defined as the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, happened in January. The EU was clear, and the UK agreed, that an agreement on the future relationship had to happen after the UK left. So how would it be possible for a ‘Brexit deal’ to refer to anything but the WA?

[davieG]

Was just a negotiating tactic

 

The UK has signalled a possible compromise with the EU over a row about its plans to potentially override parts of the Brexit deal agreed last year.

Ministers say they will remove clauses from the Internal Market Bill on trade and business support in Northern Ireland or "deactivate" them if a solution is found in the coming days.

[Kopfkino]

20 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s nice that you’ve acknowledged it’s not something many accept, and yes leavers got things wrong too.

 

For the record, I’ve always swayed on the side of no deal and WTO terms, however given the current global health emergency and economic difficulties, I’d prefer an extension to the transition or any kind of deal tight now. I think it’s gone on long enough and been so divisive, I’d rather we just move on, in any kind of way that enables the debate to disappear and us all move forwards. 
Economic ruin benefits nobody

A tenuous link but it’s entirely possible that, even with no deal, the UK could see very high/record economic growth next year. I already dread the insufferable way this will inevitably be used to show that ‘project fear’ was wrong.

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

A tenuous link but it’s entirely possible that, even with no deal, the UK could see very high/record economic growth next year. I already dread the insufferable way this will inevitably be used to show that ‘project fear’ was wrong.

Yeah I get you but I acknowledge it’s a low starting point, In real terms we need to get back up and running.

The stockholders aren’t holding stock as it is, if the supply line goes down now we will be Donald ducked.

Edited 7 December 2020 by Strokes

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

A tenuous link but it’s entirely possible that, even with no deal, the UK could see very high/record economic growth next year. I already dread the insufferable way this will inevitably be used to show that ‘project fear’ was wrong.

Project fear was completely wrong in that it said we would see sever consequences the day after the referendum.

[Alf Bentley]

It's interesting that Johnson is now going to Brussels to meet von der Leyen in the next couple of days.

 

Do I sense a bit of pending PR choreography?

 

He'd hardly go over there to come back empty-handed or to announce No Deal, surely? I suppose it might just be PR on both sides with both wanting to be seen to "do everything to get a deal", ready for a No Deal blame game.

 

But I wonder if the EU will use the meeting to make a concession (perhaps on fishing access) that will allow Johnson to back down on other issues (level playing field & a mutually acceptable regime for monitoring/penalising said field?

They'll be well aware (a) that Johnson is an egotist who'll be keen to announce that he's got us "a good deal"; (b) That he'll get massive flak domestically (mainly from Tories & Brexiteers) if he signs up without winning concessions that he can depict as a success. Whether he can bluff that a deal is "a good deal" might be the difference between Deal & No Deal and between Johnson keeping his job as PM or not.

 

Part of the reason why I wonder this is an interview with a French fishing industry spokesman a few weeks ago. He was saying that French fishermen couldn't accept less than 60-70% of current access and remain viable. Yet the EU has reportedly only offered a 15-18% reduction in negotiations......maybe they're saving a further reduction in fishing access as a last-minute concession to allow them to stand firm on the level playing field, which must be much more important to them?

[Spudulike]

The language surrounding the fishing issue is beyond bizarre. The EU are in no position to offer the UK concessions on how much it can fish in its own territorial waters. I'm guessing this is part of the problem that's causing so much difficulty explained by UK negotiators when they often repeat the EU's lack of sovereignty acceptance. 

 

Surely even von lederhosen must understand that? 

[fuchsntf]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

It's interesting that Johnson is now going to Brussels to meet von der Leyen in the next couple of days.

 

Do I sense a bit of pending PR choreography?

 

He'd hardly go over there to come back empty-handed or to announce No Deal, surely? I suppose it might just be PR on both sides with both wanting to be seen to "do everything to get a deal", ready for a No Deal blame game.

 

But I wonder if the EU will use the meeting to make a concession (perhaps on fishing access) that will allow Johnson to back down on other issues (level playing field & a mutually acceptable regime for monitoring/penalising said field?

They'll be well aware (a) that Johnson is an egotist who'll be keen to announce that he's got us "a good deal"; (b) That he'll get massive flak domestically (mainly from Tories & Brexiteers) if he signs up without winning concessions that he can depict as a success. Whether he can bluff that a deal is "a good deal" might be the difference between Deal & No Deal and between Johnson keeping his job as PM or not.

 

Part of the reason why I wonder this is an interview with a French fishing industry spokesman a few weeks ago. He was saying that French fishermen couldn't accept less than 60-70% of current access and remain viable. Yet the EU has reportedly only offered a 15-18% reduction in negotiations......maybe they're saving a further reduction in fishing access as a last-minute concession to allow them to stand firm on the level playing field, which must be much more important to them?

Over 40 years, Not the EU, but greedy British politicians & selfish Business Selling their souls on the back of Good British produce, organisations and thousands

Of experienced,solid Working & Middle Class jobs to then  quietly Retire to their expat- beachlodges..I mean even Now ffs our Passport Contract went to France..

 

It Bloody ruined my visiting traditional Fish n chips nights...

 

[fuchsntf]

22 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

The language surrounding the fishing issue is beyond bizarre. The EU are in no position to offer the UK concessions on how much it can fish in its own territorial waters. I'm guessing this is part of the problem that's causing so much difficulty explained by UK negotiators when they often repeat the EU's lack of sovereignty acceptance. 

 

Surely even von lederhosen must understand that? 

WE sold and actually gave away, with no EU  influence those rights,by Selling our fishermen short,by giving Licence vor Foreign Captain to apply to buy into

British Ship licensing....and Work has British ships...!!!

Edited 7 December 2020 by fuchsntf

[LiberalFox]

Leaving the EU was always going to be worse for the economy.

[Stevosevic]

No deal looming.

 

Worrying. 

[Guest Fktf]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

It’s nice that you’ve acknowledged it’s not something many accept, and yes leavers got things wrong too.

 

For the record, I’ve always swayed on the side of no deal and WTO terms, however given the current global health emergency and economic difficulties, I’d prefer an extension to the transition or any kind of deal tight now. I think it’s gone on long enough and been so divisive, I’d rather we just move on, in any kind of way that enables the debate to disappear and us all move forwards. 
Economic ruin benefits nobody.

Refreshing to see such pragmatism. Staggers me both sides are still pressing ahead with the January date, given the economic turmoil faced by all in the last year.

[Alf Bentley]

24 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Refreshing to see such pragmatism. Staggers me both sides are still pressing ahead with the January date, given the economic turmoil faced by all in the last year.

 

The UK Govt legislated to prevent any possibility of an extension to the transition period. For an extension to even be a legal possibility, it would presumably have to introduce new legislation to reverse that.

That would cause massive controversy in the Tory ranks, as it was part of Johnson's "oven-ready deal" to "get Brexit done" - namely that there'd just be an 11-month transition period and then we'd be fully out, deal or no deal.

 

Earlier in the year, the EU seemed quite keen on an extension. Whether that would still be true  now, I don't know - but I suspect that it would.

I can't see it happening, though, due to Tory party internal politics - and potential loss of votes, as lots of people voted them into office because they were going to "get Brexit done" and end the interminable Brexit squabbling that had lasted 3-4 years.

I wish such pragmatism could be applied, but can't see it happening.