• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Brexit - The negotiations.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foxholer said:
Isn't it time you 'Three Amigos' stopped 'attacking the poster' as opposed to 'attacking the argument'?

Report the post, or put him on Ignore, but please stop me wasting my time reading the personal attack part of your posts!
Click to expand...

It is imposible to not attck the poster as he does not offer views just criticisms of the UKs stance, usually glorifying Barnier. There are no specific critiques of the UK's stance just that it is all wrong - i asked for his views on what is wrong with the UK position and if he belives that the EU stance and wishes are fair but so far nothing
 
PNWokingham said:
it is not propaganda and the source is irrelevant - the issue of laws and subservience is key to the negotiations - and the fact that we are proposing tariffs if need be shows we are ready and serious for a deal. It is a well written piece around the discussions. Text below

here were good and honourable arguments for staying in the EU. There are no arguments – none – for extending the transition period.

Some former Remainers – including, to his credit, Keir Starmer – recognise the difference. Although they fought tooth and nail to overturn the referendum result, they grasp that keeping Britain in a long transition, with all the obligations of membership and none of the rights, is a different proposition.

But, of course, politics is a tribal business. The prolonged culture war that followed the referendum has conditioned many Europhiles to demand an extension, not because it would bring benefits, but they hate everything associated with Brexit. The Lib Dem, Green, SNP, Plaid and SDLP leaders have pleaded with the EU to drag things out.

The EU, naturally, has jumped at that suggestion. Michel Barnier floated it again on Friday. From his point of view, keeping Britain as a non-voting member is the best of all worlds. Brussels officials even proposed – as though making a generous concession – that Britain could be excluded from the EU budget during any extension, paying a lump sum instead.

In truth, Britain will never agree to a prolongation, for five good reasons.

First, every Conservative MP was elected on a manifesto that promised, “we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020”.

Second, that commitment was enshrined in statute

Third, the dynamic has shifted since the general election. Theresa May’s desire to remain close to the EU made her the demandeuse. But now it is the EU that wants closer alignment, while the UK simply wants a standard trade deal. A no-deal outcome is far closer to Britain’s preferred position than to the EU’s.

Fourth, British negotiators know that the EU’s position will not change with time. What Britain is asking for is a basic, off-the-peg free trade agreement, every element of which has some precedent in the EU’s existing accords with third countries. The EU will either agree to that or it won’t. If it doesn’t agree now, it won’t shift its ground later.

Fifth, the coronavirus closures have overtaken what would otherwise have been the chief costs to Britain of a no-deal outcome. We are no longer worried about queues at Dover. The government knows that the economic recovery will require shock therapy. There will be changes to our taxes, our regulations, our supply lines, our consumer habits. That is the moment to make changes to our trade policy, too.

My sense is that Michel Barnier knows all this. Hence is unwontedly testy language and his attempt to put the ball back into Britain’s court by saying, in effect, “If you want a close trade deal with us, you must pay for it”. This is an odd way to look at trade deals – as though they were bestowed from kindness rather than sought from self-interest.

But, rather than wheedling, the British negotiators, who know that the EU has a structural trade surplus with the UK, simply said: “Fine, then, if a close trade deal comes with strings attached, how about a looser trade deal? If you truly believe that we are somehow trying to get privileged access to your markets while enjoying a competitive advantage, go ahead and raise some tariffs.”

That offer seems to have annoyed Brussels negotiators even more. They don’t want Britain to be reasonable; they want it to be subservient. Throughout the process, their objective has been, not to maximise the prosperity of their citizens, but to retain a measure of suzerainty over a breakaway province. Given what we now see of their attitude, perhaps a deal was never on the cards.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the cut/paste...
Nope! I was right - simply 'reinforcement' propaganda Telegraph style - published as 'opinion'!
Points 1 & 2 (which are the same thing) are all that are necessary!
 
It looks a well written piece to me PN. I do really think that Barnier is just the "warm up act" though, hes sent with the "silly" deal to see how much we can be conned, bullied or tricked into believing we should be frightened of not accepting their deal but later when the heads of state get together with Boris there will be a realism that we mean what we say, and a satisfactory deal will be thrashed out.
 
chrisd said:
It looks a well written piece to me PN. I do really think that Barnier is just the "warm up act" though, hes sent with the "silly" deal to see how much we can be conned, bullied or tricked into believing we should be frightened of not accepting their deal but later when the heads of state get together with Boris there will be a realism that we mean what we say, and a satisfactory deal will be thrashed out.
Click to expand...
Seems an excellent definition of 'diplomacy' to me!:mad:
 
chrisd said:
It looks a well written piece to me PN. I do really think that Barnier is just the "warm up act" though, hes sent with the "silly" deal to see how much we can be conned, bullied or tricked into believing we should be frightened of not accepting their deal but later when the heads of state get together with Boris there will be a realism that we mean what we say, and a satisfactory deal will be thrashed out.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope that is the case!
Of course, that would also imply that it's the Heads of States that really are in charge - something rather contra to the 'we are being run by faceless bureaucrats' argument!
 
Foxholer said:
I certainly hope that is the case!
Of course, that would also imply that it's the Heads of States that really are in charge - something rather contra to the 'we are being run by faceless bureaucrats' argument!
Click to expand...

It would imply that only 2 or 3 heads of state are in charge and eventually they will tell Barnier what deal to do
 
chrisd said:
It would imply that only 2 or 3 heads of state are in charge and eventually they will tell Barnier what deal to do
Click to expand...
My point still stands. (Elected) Heads of States are in charge and the (unelected) bureacrats merely run it. Not dissimilar to the way UK is run. That was never an argument that I gave much credence to, though believe it likely swayed many and was certainly a key part of the initial 'rebellion'. To me, the restrictions (elimination!) of UK's trade dealing was a much more important one.
 
chrisd said:
It would imply that only 2 or 3 heads of state are in charge and eventually they will tell Barnier what deal to do
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold my breath. No matter what the few 'Heads of State' might wish the EU has to put any change through Brussels and put recommendations forward for all 27 to vote. EU decision-making is a long way from a democratic process. They can't agree their budget and they still can't agree their 'emergency' Covid19 funding response.
 
Foxholer said:
Thanks for the cut/paste...
Nope! I was right - simply 'reinforcement' propaganda Telegraph style - published as 'opinion'!
Points 1 & 2 (which are the same thing) are all that are necessary!
Click to expand...

no. you are wrong. Of course there is opinion - amonst a series of facts, or obvious conclusions on the stances of both sides - it has an aouthor! But propoganda - no!

The first point - a fact. Second - a fact. Third point - clearly obvious. Fourth, an obvious conclusion of UK's assumptions, followed by a fact about what we are asking for that is similar to existing EU trade deals, and a fact that they the EU can agree or not. Wait a minute, it ends on speculation, strike the artistic licence down!!. Fifth - starts with an obvious fact, followed by an easy assumption, and another one, oh followed by another. Oh and another - and concludes that our trade policy will change - pretty certain that is a fact as well!

So - twadle, no; propoganda, no. A series of facts and logical conclusions short on drama and controversy and rhetoric....yes!
 
PNWokingham said:
no. you are wrong. Of course there is opinion - amonst a series of facts, or obvious conclusions on the stances of both sides - it has an aouthor! But propoganda - no!

The first point - a fact. Second - a fact. Third point - clearly obvious. Fourth, an obvious conclusion of UK's assumptions, followed by a fact about what we are asking for that is similar to existing EU trade deals, and a fact that they the EU can agree or not. Wait a minute, it ends on speculation, strike the artistic licence down!!. Fifth - starts with an obvious fact, followed by an easy assumption, and another one, oh followed by another. Oh and another - and concludes that our trade policy will change - pretty certain that is a fact as well!

So - twadle, no; propoganda, no. A series of facts and logical conclusions short on drama and controversy and rhetoric....yes!
Click to expand...
You may believe me to be wrong, something I have no problem with, but please grant me the similar right to have my own belief/opinion. Like ALL National papers there is more than simply reporting the news involved and the Telegraph (aka Torygraph, that I have otherwise refrained describing it) has it's own bias. Newspapers of all styles are progaganda vehicles imo!

As for that particular article... Only the 1st 2 points are truly facts - at least in relation to Brexit. As you state, the rest are 'logical conclusions' (aka simply opinion) which may/may not be(come) correct. The 3rd point is quite interesting - and a reason why a No Deal conclusion is likely not the great problem some fear. I suspect trade deals WILL follow that result. Unfortunately, the 4th point is at odds with ChrisD's and my hopes (posts 383, 386)! I hope that ends netter than the author's view!

PNWokingham said:
...
That offer seems to have annoyed Brussels negotiators even more. They don’t want Britain to be reasonable; they want it to be subservient. Throughout the process, their objective has been, not to maximise the prosperity of their citizens, but to retain a measure of suzerainty over a breakaway province. Given what we now see of their attitude, perhaps a deal was never on the cards.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this view though!
 
Last edited:
drdel said:
I wouldn't hold my breath. No matter what the few 'Heads of State' might wish the EU has to put any change through Brussels and put recommendations forward for all 27 to vote. EU decision-making is a long way from a democratic process. They can't agree their budget and they still can't agree their 'emergency' Covid19 funding response.
Click to expand...

But would they all want to deny their individual home businesses to risk losing the trade they get from the 5th largest economy, cars from Germany, wine from France and Italy etc etc , especially with the financial implications of coronavirus also impacting on their individual economies?
 
drdel said:
I wouldn't hold my breath. No matter what the few 'Heads of State' might wish the EU has to put any change through Brussels and put recommendations forward for all 27 to vote. EU decision-making is a long way from a democratic process. They can't agree their budget and they still can't agree their 'emergency' Covid19 funding response.
Click to expand...
Er...Doesn't that make it a 'more democratic' process?

I agree though that 'holding my breath' would not be wise!
 
drdel said:
In theory I'd agree but the 27 member states only get to vote on the Brussel selected option.
Click to expand...
That's not the way I understand the heirarchy works! The EU Commission (presumably 'Brussels' in your terminology) tables Laws that implement decisions of EU Parliament and the EU Council (the Heads of State group).
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en & https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/council-eu_en
So if the EU Council decides to override Barnier's 'No Deal' negotiation with a Trade Deal, then that's what the Commission MUST implement!
 
Last edited:
Foxholer said:
That's not the way I understand the heirarchy works! The EU Commission (presumably 'Brussels' in your terminology) tables Laws that implement decisions of EU Parliament and the EU Council (the Heads of State group).
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en & https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/council-eu_en
So if the EU Council decides to override Barnier's 'No Deal' negotiation with a Trade Deal, then that's what the Commission MUST implement!
Click to expand...

You might want to check on the actual working practices rather than the theory.
 
Foxholer said:
Isn't it time you 'Three Amigos' stopped 'attacking the poster' as opposed to 'attacking the argument'?

Report the post, or put him on Ignore, but please stop me wasting my time reading the personal attack part of your posts!
Click to expand...
Using this 'Empty Jacket' when referring to Boris is silly and it's something he has been doing in different forms for a long time. I guess I am allowed to tell him that I dont like it.
 
drdel said:
You might want to check on the actual working practices rather than the theory.
Click to expand...
Yes (Prime) Minister at the European level then!
It's in the EU Council's remit to align theory and practice - if they wish!
 
Last edited:
SocketRocket said:
Using this 'Empty Jacket' when referring to Boris is silly and it's something he has been doing in different forms for a long time. I guess I am allowed to tell him that I dont like it.
Click to expand...
It is a term that has strong historical precedence in it's use in Scotland. It was the nickname used by Scots of the time for King John I (John Balliol) who was pretty useless and ineffective, whose position and finery belied what was underneath - and for many of the time that was not a lot...

Now you know that I didn't simply make it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top