Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect negotiations for the Canada/UK agreement will start from the deal already negotiated with the EU, but each side will bring to the table a menu of changes and tweaks that they want. Apart from the couple of points mentioned earlier in my post, and no doubt a few others, there's also the consideration that it ought to embarrass the UK to sign up to the identical deal, esp. if it's their first post-Brexit trade deal. What, all that fuss and bother and recovery of your sovereign independence so you could do exactly what you would have done as a member of the EU, only a few years late? Optically, the UK needs to be able to point to something in the new agreement that is materially more favourable to the UK than anything in the Canada/EU deal would have been.

yes, I agree. There may be some areas that suit both parties a lot better than the already negotiated deal. The Czech Repubic and Romania insisted on visa free travel for their citizens, so logic says the eu conceded something to achieve this (for example).

It won't be a cut and paste, but neither party will want to reinvent the wheel either.

steddyeddy

The UK could have a really great deal if it gives way on the freedom of movement.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

The UK could have a really great deal if it gives way on the freedom of movement.

That would defeat the purpose of Brexit though.

tomwaterford

steddyeddy wrote: »

The UK could have a really great deal if it gives way on the freedom of movement.

**when**

Nate--IRL--

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought it was the other way around. The bigger economy gets to call the shots?

Sorry should have been clearer on the context of my point. The UK has less to offer the Canadians in place of the EU..

Nate

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That would defeat the purpose of Brexit though.

Good. Brexit is idiotic.

A Little Pony

Enzokk wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Arlene hasn't done anything wrong, what has she done that you disagree with? She has to go with the majority which is Brexit.

A Little Pony wrote: »

She wants NI to get a good deal, she still supports Brexit. Even Mcguinness knows Brexit will go ahead.

Is Arlene Foster the First Minister of the UK or Northern Ireland? I seem to remember that NI voted to remain. Surely in a democracy she needs to heed the voice of the majority, or does this only count for when you want them to do what you want?

Seems like she is in the same position as most MPs, they don't want to Brexit but they have to. She wants to Brexit but her voters which she represents don't want to. She needs to work hard to try and oppose the Brexit vote, seeing as she is getting what she wants though this seems unlikely. She will have to go against the majority of voters at her own peril in the next election, same as those MPs in the UK that are thinking about opposing Brexit, apparently.

She is FM in a state which is in the UK. It was a UK wide vote.

A Little Pony

steddyeddy wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That would defeat the purpose of Brexit though.

Good. Brexit is idiotic.

My freedom is not idiotic. I will oppose that institution right until the day we leave.

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

My freedom is not idiotic. I will oppose that institution right until the day we leave.

But Scotlands and the north's is apparently???

volchitsa

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good. Brexit is idiotic.

Yeah but no trade deal however good (unless for some unfathomable reason the EU gave them a better deal than to EU members!) is ever going to make up for all the other advantages, such as research grants, reciprocal healthcare arrangements and any number of other benefits of being in the EU and not just a trading partner.

In particular places like NI are going to lose far more than they can get back through trade deals, and the republic of course will get nothing except a new border to manage.

Junkyard Tom

The EU is to offer British people 'associate citizenship' so they can travel, work, and live, in the EU. Smart move by the EU if it goes ahead. The EU gets access to the British labour force and the type of people who'll want to travel, and work, in the EU are probably graduates and senior citizens with cash to spend.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The EU is to offer British people 'associate citizenship' so they can travel, work, and live, in the EU. Smart move by the EU if it goes ahead. The EU gets access to the British labour force and the type of people who'll want to travel, and work, in the EU are probably graduates and senior citizens with cash to spend.

Which is a sensible thing to do.

I expect the next few months to see more practical solutions to a ****ty situation and less egotistical politicians playing Billy big bollocks.

Enzokk

A Little Pony wrote: »

She is FM in a state which is in the UK. It was a UK wide vote.

So I assume that NI will have same sex marriage now as well? Seeing as that was decided by the UK parliament and they are a state in the UK. Wait, you tell me they are free to decide what the people in Northern Ireland want? But they wanted to remain, so...again is she the First Minister of Northern Ireland that will need to do as the people want or not. Seeing as the argument in England is that the people want out so the politicians must out whatever they think, surely Arlene Foster must fight for remain even if it makes her ill.

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

remembering, of course, that the eu deal may not be profitable for Canada when their second largest export market has left it.

That is spilt milk though. If anything, it might aggravate the Canadians when they sit down to negotiate with the UK.

Canada will still want to access the UK market, so it will be looking for an agreement. The sensible thing to do is to adopt the same terms as there are currently, albeit for a set period of time.

The UK will want to replicate conditions, because they were set with 500 million consumers behind them, not 60 million. So they benefit from maintaining the status quo.

But the Canadians can at any time beat the UK into a negotiation where they will get worse terms because the UK cannot replicate the tariff rate quotas. They were set EU wide, the UK has to unilaterally set new and specific ones and has to rely on the kindness of strangers not to kick up a fuss about it unless and until a trade deal is agreed.

Ultimately, the EU was a tool where the UK pooled (not surrendered) its sovereignty and economic might with the rest of Europe to secure better terms together than they could individually. The UK has (very stupidly) abandoned the advantage the EU offers. It will increasingly have to fight by itself, and in a global environment where it is either outgunned (US, China, India, Russia) or outnumbered (EU and the growing regional economic unions) it will have to take whatever deals it is offered. Already the pro-Brexit British press is surprised and outraged that the EU negotiation team is led by someone who supports the EU's interests, not the UKs. The battle with reality begins.

I believe the EU has insulated the UK to some degree from a post-imperial hangover. The bemused and cordial reception May received in India is a taster for the UK finding out exactly where it stands in the world in the 21st century - a regional power, not a global one. It is all the harder post Brexit because the message sent to places like India was "They want our money, but they don't want our people."

I think/hope that once the older British voters of today who still remember the 1950s fondly die off and the Sun and the Daily Mail with them, the British will rejoin the EU recognising it is more than a conspiracy of 27 other countries doing things to the UK.

volchitsa

Sand wrote: »

I think/hope that once the older British voters of today who still remember the 1950s fondly die off and the Sun and the Daily Mail with them, the British will rejoin the EU recognising it is more than a conspiracy of 27 other countries doing things to the UK.

You're assuming the rest of the EU will want them back. I think that's optimistic. General De Gaulle saw long ago that the British would only join in order to destroy Europe from within - any doubts that the rest of the EU may have had about the truth of that have been washed away by the referendum.

A Little Pony

Enzokk wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

She is FM in a state which is in the UK. It was a UK wide vote.

So I assume that NI will have same sex marriage now as well? Seeing as that was decided by the UK parliament and they are a state in the UK. Wait, you tell me they are free to decide what the people in Northern Ireland want? But they wanted to remain, so...again is she the First Minister of Northern Ireland that will need to do as the people want or not. Seeing as the argument in England is that the people want out so the politicians must out whatever they think, surely Arlene Foster must fight for remain even if it makes her ill.

If the UK had a referendum on THAT issue, then so be it. I have no issue with gay marriage personally, couldn't give a sh*te.

Capt'n Midnight

Just a reminder that without the UK's veto the EU would be able to take a tougher stance on Chinese dumping of steel.

Giving China more incentive to dump in the UK.


A lot depends on how much the EU wants the UK service industry. And some countries like ourselves are already facilitating companies who want to move.

Sand

volchitsa wrote: »

You're assuming the rest of the EU will want them back. I think that's optimistic. General De Gaulle saw long ago that the British would only join in order to destroy Europe from within - any doubts that the rest of the EU may have had about the truth of that have been washed away by the referendum.

I work with a number of younger British people, who would be assets to any country, company or economy. They were frankly stunned by the Brexit outcome. I think there is a lot of positive feeling towards the UK from Europe, even if it isnt always returned. I think the EU needs to play the long game in the negotiations - the UK needs to get a clearly worse deal outside the EU, but the EU needs to avoid being seen as petty or veangeful. Generosity in particular to younger British peoples interests could go a long way to a long term outcome the toxic, xenophobic forces in British politics and media are reduced to a minority and the UK returns as a positive member, not as a negative one compelled by internal political requirements to get one over on the EU. Everyone wins in that outcome.

The EU cant afford to be too arrogant - the same nervous nationalism, economic insecurity and insularity that sat behind the Brexit vote is rampant throughout the EU. Not because of the EU, but in spite of it. If a similar Brexit vote was held in any of the major EU member states outside Germany, it is far from certain the marginalised peoples in each member state wouldn't revel in giving their elites a kick in the face even if it meant they and their children would be poorer and less free for it.

The EU should be confident - confidence is marked by generosity and open mindedness, not pettiness and closed thinking as so closely defines Brexit, Trump and their advocates.

Enzokk

A Little Pony wrote: »

If the UK had a referendum on THAT issue, then so be it. I have no issue with gay marriage personally, couldn't give a sh*te.

Just find it interesting, the MPs will have no choice but enforce Brexit even if it is against their own beliefs because the people said so, but in the North it seems that this isn't so. Just wondering if the First Minister is actively campaigning for as close as possible relationship with the EU as her counterpart in Scotland is, seeing as this is what her voters wanted.

Fratton Fred

volchitsa wrote: »

You're assuming the rest of the EU will want them back. I think that's optimistic. General De Gaulle saw long ago that the British would only join in order to destroy Europe from within - any doubts that the rest of the EU may have had about the truth of that have been washed away by the referendum.

De Gaulle didn't want Britain in the eu because he was still miffed with being treated like a bitch by Churchill, which is odd considering he would be an insignificant retired general without him.

marienbad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

De Gaulle didn't want Britain in the eu because he was still miffed with being treated like a bitch by Churchill, which is odd considering he would be an insignificant retired general without him.

Not so , De Gaulle always knew that GB would never commit to the EEC , He understood why too .

First Up

A Little Pony wrote:

My freedom is not idiotic. I will oppose that institution right until the day we leave.

Your understanding of what constitutes "freedom" in a global economy among sovereign nations is more pathetic than idiotic, but both descriptions fit.

Fratton Fred

marienbad wrote: »

Not so , De Gaulle always knew that GB would never commit to the EEC , He understood why too .

What, you really think De Gaulle was dedicated to the European project?

He didn't want another large economy in there diluting French influence, which is the exact reason why the Germans don't want Britain to leave, because that is precisely what they do.

marienbad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What, you really think De Gaulle was dedicated to the European project?

He didn't want another large economy in there diluting French influence, which is the exact reason why the Germans don't want Britain to leave, because that is precisely what they do.

From the man himself
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-de-Gaulle-oppose-UK-entry-into-the-EEC

GB could have been in from the start but choose not , that has always been the way with the UK and a perfectly valid position to hold .

Don't forget GB was usually always late for everything but having been kind enough to codify everything from human rights to sport before opting out themselves .

Fratton Fred

marienbad wrote: »

From the man himself
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-de-Gaulle-oppose-UK-entry-into-the-EEC

GB could have been in from the start but choose not , that has always been the way with the UK and a perfectly valid position to hold .

Don't forget GB was usually always late for everything but having been kind enough to codify everything from human rights to sport before opting out themselves .

Yes, of course.

He was an arrogant little **** who thought the French empire should rule the world.

marienbad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, of course.

He was an arrogant little **** who thought the French empire should rule the world.

No I don't think so , he just believed the British Empire was always prepared to fight until the last Frenchman , Irishman , Australian .....

Fratton Fred

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't think so , he just believed the British Empire was always prepared to fight until the last Frenchman , Irishman , Australian .....

Have you ever considered a career as a comedian?

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

He was an arrogant little **** who thought the French empire should rule the world.

Not unlike racist little 'The-Ayran-stock-is-bound-to-triumph' Churchill.

marienbad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Have you ever considered a career as a comedian?

non, non, non ,

volchitsa

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, of course.

He was an arrogant little **** who thought the French empire should rule the world.

You're thinking of Napoleon.

De Gaulle was over 6 feet tall and got rid of much of France's colonies most notably Algeria, which was unthinkable to many ordinary French people, not just a few who thought France should rule the world.