Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

First Up

cryptocurrency wrote: »

No, thats that FG spokesman, Neale. He is full on comical Ali.

You do bruise easy.

cryptocurrency

First Up wrote: »

You do bruise easy.

Not at all. I was the first here to coin the term in this brexit saga for that chap, this was months back.

I was the credit for the accurate nickname.

Donald Trump

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Not at all. I was the first here to coin the term in this brexit saga for that chap, this was months back.

I was the credit for the accurate nickname.

Well done. It must be those qualifications from UCL or LSE or whatever place you were going on about a few weeks back. That and your tours of duty to "the colonies".

cryptocurrency

cryptocurrency wrote: »

and in the EU, which will have an even poorer performing ecnomy, what is the deal there

So the EU is lucky to have coronavirus to blame for its economy performing even more poorly than the UK's? Meaning you think the UK's will perform badly, but not as badly as the EU's.

It's been a long time but we've finally heard you say something negative about the UK.

cryptocurrency

Douglas Carswell

The prominent Brexiteer argued that there is no way Britain will make any concessions to the bloc.

He explained: "What is extraordinary is that the European side genuinely seems to think that what they are negotiating here is the degree of UK regulatory alignment or degree of access the EU will have to UK waters.

"It is not.

"There is zero chance whatsoever that there will be an agreement that allows the EU concessions on those things.

"None whatsoever.

"What is really at stake here, even though the European side is too stupid to understand this, is the question of whether or not in five years time the UK will be a geopolitical ally of the European Union.”

Mr Carswell noted that right now, the way Michel Barnier is behaving is just pushing Britain towards a fundamental realignment away from the bloc.

He added: "The EU seems to think these negotiations will determine determine whether or not the UK will comply with GDPR or regulations on the economy. No.

"They are deciding whether or not they will defend the Baltic States, whether or not British troops and satellites and soldiers will guarantee the security of EU member states in relation to Russia.

"The sheer stupidity of EU decision makers is that they can’t see it."

CelticRambler

Did he tell you all that himself? Or did you just copy-and-paste some stuff you found on the internet without crediting the source?

And who's Douglas Carswell anyway? Should we care what he thinks about the EU any more than what you think of it?

Junkyard Tom

cryptocurrency wrote: »

...

You've been taking Brain Force again, haven't you?

davedanon

Carswell is a former Tory-turned-kipper MP. His opinions carry all the weight and gravitas of a fire in a wheely-bin.

davedanon

You know the famous 'Mercator Projection' scene in The West Wing, where Bradley wossname and CJ are astounded to discover that the atlas as we know it is wrong, and that the size of all the major continents has been exaggerated or diminished for political reasons? Well, I think the 'brexiteers' are suffering from a similar delusion. They see the mighty UK as DWARFING a tiny EU.

Larbre34

davedanon wrote: »

Carswell is a former Tory-turned-kipper MP. His opinions carry all the weight and gravitas of a fire in a wheely-bin.

Quite apart from the fact that what he's saying is utter bull****.

Like many hard Brexiteers, he's trying to regain a glorious past that never actually existed.

I've no desire to break down every part of his nonsense, but in all aspects, economic, social, political, civic, legal, military it comes down to this. The EUs capacity to reorder and absorb change, take a hit if you like, is far greater than the UKs on its own. And by extension, the EU can afford a level of brinkmanship the UK simply cannot.

This is what happens when your primary source of knowledge is the Express.

Douglas Carswell reveals what EU and UK are REALLY negotiating
ie.
GIVE me your crayons or I WON'T be your friend ANYMORE!

Peregrinus

As Carswell is famous for having publicly argued with a science professor over his - Carswell's - belief that the tides are caused by the gravitational attraction of the sun, I'm not inclined to place much faith in his powers of perception or analysis.

cryptocurrency

CelticRambler wrote: »

Did he tell you all that himself? Or did you just copy-and-paste some stuff you found on the internet without crediting the source?

And who's Douglas Carswell anyway? Should we care what he thinks about the EU any more than what you think of it?

You know well it was a c&p, you would have to be an absolute idiot to even think it was anything else or trying to be anything else.

davedanon

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You know well it was a c&p, you would have to be an absolute idiot to even think it was anything else or trying to be anything else.

Ah, so you finally agree that you are spouting nonsense.


We're making progress!

cryptocurrency

Deleted User wrote: »

This is what happens when your primary source of knowledge is the Express.

Douglas Carswell reveals what EU and UK are REALLY negotiating
ie.
GIVE me your crayons or I WON'T be your friend ANYMORE!

It's just quotes from Carswell...get over it. There is elements of truth there. You have to be some eejit to think this negotiation is going like the previous hundred odd pages said it would by many ofthe posters here.

The UK has been farily public on it's plans for the EU and US trade talks and we have special posters here who seem convinced that the EU holds some magic cards which will see the UK go back on all it says to the EU while sticking two fingers up to all it has said to the rest of the world on trade.....and posters make jokes at me about brain force etc..

completely brain washed with team EU...we must be blessed to be part of such an almighty powerful club. Whos on the brain force again????????????

Peregrinus

Carswell is essentially saying that whether the UK will involve itself in common European defence depends on whether the EU gives the UK the trade deal it would like.

You may agree with Carswell that the UK government is that stupid; I do not. And, if you do agree with him, I cannot for the life of me imagine why. As you point out yourself, "the UK has been fairly public on its plans for the EU and US trade talks", even if the various statements made have not always been entirely consistent with one another. But none of their statements have suggested that the UK will treat its defence and security stance primarily as a vehicle for expressing pique if they don't get the deal that they want on trade. That's pure invention on Carswell's part, and I think people who recycle it uncritically (a) can expect to have fun poked at them, and (b) probably should think twice before suggesting that others are brainwashed.

cryptocurrency

Peregrinus wrote: »

Carswell is essentially saying that whether the UK will involve itself in common European defence depends on whether the EU gives the UK the trade deal it would like.

You may agree with Carswell that the UK government is that stupid; I do not. And, if you do agree with him, I cannot for the life of me imagine why. As you point out yourself, "he UK has been fairly public on its plans for the EU and US trade talks", even if the various statements made have not always been entirely consistent with one another. But none of their statements have suggested that the UK will treat its defence and security stance mainly as a vehicle for expressing pique if they don't get the deal that they want. That's pure invention on Carswell's part, and I think people who recycle it uncritically (a) can expect to have fun poked at them, and (b) probably should think twice before suggesting that others are brainwashed.

Unlike the folk who see the EU as some utopia I have been farily clear on the view the EU needing to wind it's neck in as they are farily dependent on the UK in terms of secuirty. The EU is a collection of tin pot nations who claim strength in standing as one giant tin pot but in terms of security, it is totally dependent on the UK and US through NATO and the 5 eyes secuirty network. The UK would be foolish to not use this as part of the negotiation with the EU after all the threats and toy throwing coming from brussels.

If we have learned anything in the last few months is the fact that the EU is not the UKs or the US friend and should be treated as such in any coming deals.
The UK is placing itself in a position that the EU is now a completely different partner now, one that will not call any shots on anything. This is of course the correct course for the UK.

Peregrinus

A few earlier mutterings to this effect from the loonier fringes of Brexitland were firmly squashed by Downing Street, and it is now many months since anyone but a certified loon has suggested that the UK's defence and security policy will be driven by whether it gets its way over trade. It has never been the policy of the mainstream of the Brexit movement to turn they UK into a standing joke; they wish to establish their country not only a sovereign and independent country, but also one that is taken seriously, both as a trade partner and as an ally. This attempt to sabotage both reputations simultaneously is not going to find much traction.

cryptocurrency

Peregrinus wrote: »

A few earlier mutterings to this effect from the loonier fringes of Brexitland were firmly squashed by Downing Street, and it is now many months since anyone but a certified loon has suggested that the UK's defence and security policy will be driven by whether it gets its way over trade. It has never been the policy of the mainstream of the Brexit movement to turn they UK into a standing joke; they wish to establish their country not only a sovereign and independent country, but also one that is taken seriously, both as a trade partner and as an ally. This attempt to sabotage both reputations simultaneously is not going to find much traction.

Why can't the EU establish themselves as the same?

Peregrinus

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why can't the EU establish themselves as the same?

You mean, as a sovereign, independent country? Because it's not a country, silly.

As a serious trade partner? It certainly is that; it has the largest and deepest network of trade deals and free trade arrangements, encompassing the greatest number of countries, that the world has ever seen, which suggests that most countries are very keen to make trade deals with it. It is the primary trading partner of more countries than anyone else, by a long measure. (Total number of countries whose primary trade partner is the UK: zero.) And it's involved in more global trade than China or the US (or, naturally, anyone else).

cryptocurrency

Peregrinus wrote: »

You mean, as a sovereign, independent country? Because it's not a country, silly.

As a serious trade partner? It certainly is that; it has the largest and deepest network of trade deals and free trade arrangements, encompassing the greatest number of countries, that the world has ever seen, which suggests that most countries are very keen to make trade deals with it. It is the primary trading partner of more countries than anyone else, by a long measure. (Total number of countries whose primary trade partner is the UK: zero.) And it's involved in more global trade than China or the US (or, naturally, anyone else).

"one that is taken seriously, both as a trade partner and as an ally."

theological

It's worth pointing out at the stage that the UK doesn't actually need to be the primary trading partner. Just a significant one in a lot of countries will do. Sector by sector that also might be distinguished.

Making points like this to somehow claim the UK doesn't have a lot to offer in trade is silly. You are not one of the world's largest economies without having something to offer in trade.

Peregrinus

cryptocurrency wrote: »

"one that is taken seriously, both as a trade partner and as an ally."

The EU is not a military alliance, silly. It has never sought to supplant NATO.

You are saying that the UK's commitment to its NATO partners will or should weaken if the UK does not get the trade deal it wants from the EU. I am saying that the UK government will never, ever adopt that stance, because it wants the UK to be seen as a dependable ally, not a failing state. It's only the extreme Brexiters who want to degrade the UK in this way, and even the present administration in Downing Street draws the line of national humiliation somewhere. This is that place.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

It's worth pointing out at the stage that the UK doesn't actually need to be the primary trading partner. Just a significant one in a lot of countries will do. Sector by sector that also might be distinguished.

Making points like this to somehow claim the UK doesn't have a lot to offer in trade is silly. You are not one of the world's largest economies without having something to offer in trade.

The UK does have quite a bit to offer in trade, but in every case the EU has more to offer. There is no country in the world for whom the UK is a more significant trade partner than the EU. Nor is there ever likely to be.

Which doesn't greatly matter, as you point out, so long as potential trade counterparties never have to choose between their trading interests with the UK, and their trading interests with the EU; if they do have to make that choice they'll always choose their trading interests with the EU, but a UK government would have to be extraordinarily stupid to put them in a position where they felt a need to choose.

The only relevance of the fact is this; it's absurd for someone who thinks that the UK is a serious trade partner to other countries to suggest that the EU is not. For every country in the world, even the UK's dearest friends, the EU is a more serious trade partner than the UK. That's not to say that the UK is not a serious trade partner.

(But it would cease to be a serious trade partner if it adopted the petulant and self-destructive attitude to trade agreements that crypto is suggesting. Other countries would be very slow to invest much in trade deals with a country whose trade policy was so evidently lunatic.)

theological

I'm not claiming that the UK is as large as the EU. I don't see why this is relevant. The UK will never be as large as the EU. I'm ok with this. I simply am hoping that the UK will be economically successful at the size it is.

Perhaps I'm an oddity but I hope the EU countries do economically well. Besides strong customers are good for business.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I'm not claiming that the UK is as large as the EU. I don't see why this is relevant. The UK will never be as large as the EU. I'm ok with this. I simply am hoping that the UK will be economically successful at the size it is.

Perhaps I'm an oddity but I hope the EU countries do economically well. Besides strong customers are good for business.

We're getting sidetracked, theo. I wouldn't disagree with anything here. Crypto is suggesting that (as Douglas Carswell says) if the UK doesn't get a trade deal with the EU on the terms that it demands it will or should respond by reducing its defence and security commitments to European allies. My point is that (a) the UK won't do that, because (b) if it did, it would diminish its standing both as a trade partner and as an ally. Crypto's response to that, rather than to take issue with it, was to question the EU's standing in this regard, to which I responded pointing out that, if you think the UK is a serious trade partner for other countries, then the EU certainly is as well. And the EU isn't threatening the kind of reputation-shredding self-harm that Crypto forsees for the UK.

So, I think you and I are largely in agreement here. The UK is a serious trade partner for other countries. The EU is an even more serious trade partner for other countries; this does not diminish the UK's standing as a serious trade partner, and is not in tension with it. Nothing about this situation is likely to change, unless the Carswell/Crypto view proves to be correct, in which case I think the the UK's actions would diminish its standing.

Leroy42

Douglas Carswell seems to have been placed in the media to take away form the staggering news that even if the UK gets what it wants from the fabled US trade deal, which has been the cornerstone of why Brexit needs to happen to allow the UK make its own trade deals, that it would result in 15bn increase in trade, after 15 years!

15bn is not to be sniffed at, but the UK economy is 2trillion, so 15bn is immaterial even in one year, never mind over the next 15bn.

And for this prise, they have cost themselves 200bn in lost trade and investments already, will have to spend bns each year on new customs processes and officers and of course potentially put a huge amount of EU at risk.

That before we even mention that 60m people have just lost FoM within 27 countries, businesses face additional costs and of course the increased tensions within the Uk itself in terms of Scotland and NI.

And for what, 15bn? And that is if they get what they want? Which is of course unlikely.

At this point surely even the hardest Brexiteers can see that this is nothing short of a scam. There is no upside to this, only varying degrees of negative. Sovereignty is the only thing left, since of course that is a concept and cannot be measured.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

You are not one of the world's largest economies without having something to offer in trade.

While the UK is ranked 5th in terms of the world's largest economies (but has slipped to 7th, I think I read), by a fairly crude measure of GDP, I make it that the UK's economy accounts for no more than 3.5% of the total world economy.

So, if the EU is 'a collection of tinpot countries', and at least 3 of its constituent economies are as large or larger than Britain's (Germany, France, Italy).....doesn't that make the UK a tinpot country by crypto's measure?

davedanon

This has been a pretty consistent topic flogged by the Brexit fanbois on here, too. Britain is bigger, more important, more politically & economically significant and has a bigger military presence, than it in reality actually represents.

Kind of sums up the whole Brexiter worldview, really.

RobMc59

davedanon wrote: »

This has been a pretty consistent topic flogged by the Brexit fanbois on here, too. Britain is bigger, more important, more politically & economically significant and has a bigger military presence, than it in reality actually represents.

Kind of sums up the whole Brexiter worldview, really.

Can you provide a link regarding your claim Britain is exaggerating its military presence and importance? The only details I can find clearly shows that after the US,Britain spends the most as part of NATO which clearly contradicts your assertion.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/584035/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/