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

ambro25 · 13-07-2020 8:06pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well you see, you said this.

I did indeed, that was my first post. I didn't say it was the only possible angle, either.

But you disagreed all the same, because I didn't add or preface my initial opinion about Ratcliffe's economic move with "he's a rank hypocrite". And you're still trying to force your reductive opinion on that premise:

The Brexit angle is simple. This man backed Brexit to take the UK out of the EU. Now he is choosing to create jobs, previously expected to be in Wales, in France instead. So they have a story about him and the move and describe him as a "Brexit backer".

You see, the reason they mention that he backed Brexit is because he actually did back Brexit.

I invited you to point me, to where had I "failed to understand" Ratcliffe's hypocrisy, i.e. disagreed with this above. I'm still waiting.

I don't know what you are finding difficult about that to be honest.

Nothing difficult at all, tbh.

Either you can't tolerate any opinion about a Brexiter that should deviate from "he/she is a rank hypocrite", even when that was never disputed at all.

Or you can't not have the last word, even after your strawman is busted.

<shrugs>

Donald Trump · 14-07-2020 12:23am

Not sure why you are flogging a dead horse. Did you even read the article? Nowhere in the article did it make any argument that the move was as a result of any particular political decision. You should have actually read it before getting your knickers in a twist.

You talk about "schaudenfraude" and then Cassandrafreude" for some reason. The Bloomberg article is nothing to do with either of those as nobody is saying "we told you this would happen" in that article. And nobody mentioned it anywhere on thread.

ambro25 wrote: »

I did indeed, that was my first post. I didn't say it was the only possible angle, either.

Here is your post again where I have added emphasis on the important word.

ambro25 wrote: »

The Brexit angle to this story, is really just still more Schadenfreude (Cassandrafreude, I saw recently - like it!) about jobs not being created in the UK.

You can see the use of the definite article in your original statement.

ambro25 wrote: »

But you disagreed all the same, because I didn't add or preface my initial opinion about Ratcliffe's economic move with "he's a rank hypocrite". And you're still trying to force your reductive opinion on that premise:

Not sure what you are trying to achieve by putting a phrase into quotes, as if to quote me, when I did not write those words.

ambro25 wrote: »

I invited you to point me, to where had I "failed to understand" Ratcliffe's hypocrisy, i.e. disagreed with this above. I'm still waiting.

There is only so much that I can work with here in terms of getting you to understand pretty simple things. I honestly don't know why you seem to be put out because the article described him as a "Brexit Backer".

ambro25 wrote: »

Nothing difficult at all, tbh.

Either you can't tolerate any opinion about a Brexiter that should deviate from "he/she is a rank hypocrite", even when that was never disputed at all.

You never proffered any opinion about the man. You just complained that the article mentioned he was a Brexit Backer and said that the mention of any such angle was schaduenfreude

ambro25 wrote: »

Or you can't not have the last word, even after your strawman is busted.

<shrugs>

Ironically, it is yourself who is proffering a strawman here. I simply posted a link to a story about a Brexit Backer who made a decision to move/create production to the EU for his own financial benefit. You are the one trying to argue about it being "a modern plant, well equipped, with highly-skilled staff, and superbly located" etc. etc.

The modernity of the factory is irrelevant to the point. The availability of "highly-skilled staff" is also irrelevant and is also ignorant of the point that the original location earmarked for production was in Bridgend in Wales which will have 1700 newly redundant staff at its Ford engine plant by September of this year!

The irony is that the man pushed for the common UK citizen to make a decision that would negatively affect them financially. He wanted them to make sacrifices for some patriotic idealistic reason. But when a decision can affect himself financially, he decides to maximise his return. Patriotism seems to have been forgotten about fairly quickly, which most people would agree seems pretty hypocritical! The man is a multi-multi-billionaire. He could have given the plant in Wales a shot, and even if it had failed and cost him 100m, he wasn't going to be penniless!

Here is another article for you on the topic:

Peter Hughes, the union secretary of Unite Wales, said a decision to abandon the Bridgend plant would be a “massive kick in the teeth” for the Welsh government which has “worked very hard to try and secure this investment into Bridgend”.

It would also mean that Ratcliffe’s British successor for the Land Rover Defender will use an engine designed in Germany by BMW and built in France. The Brexit supporter, and one of Britain’s richest men, left the UK to live in Monaco in 2018, just months after receiving his knighthood.

“Jim Radcliffe very publicly backed Brexit and said the country would thrive outside of the EU. How does pulling the plug on the Bridgend investment fit into that narrative?” Hughes said.

“If Ineos want to market this vehicle with the stamp of the UK on it, then Bridgend has to be its assembly site,” he said. “Anything else will be seen as a betrayal”.

You are free to believe that that is schaudenfreude if you wish.

davedanon · 14-07-2020 10:47am

Here we go. Britain preparing the way for an about-turn, and reneging on a legally-binding international agreement. David Davis weighs in in agreement, and then David Allen Green illustrates why the whole thing is a nonsense. The language in this piece is ridiculously inflammatory. How dare the German demand money, when WE bailed them out after the 2nd World War! This agreement is SO TOXIC that we have the LEGAL RIGHT to repudiate it.

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-uk-britain-boris-johnson-must-ditch-the-brexit-withdrawal-agreement-deal/?fbclid=IwAR0RsJm881CRltt9vkOGIzlLmhmayHH_aY6lW_6YBJUK2q3WDFaGbMJkU1c

David Davis, intellectual giant, speaks...

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1282632952032133123

And DAG rubbishes it all

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1282744782557782016?s=20

ancapailldorcha · 14-07-2020 10:51am

Perfidious Albion indeed.

Reminds me of a character in one of the fantasy novels I've read who thinks out loud. He despises other people and voices his opinions of them in their presence oblivious of the fact that they can see and hear him.

ExMachina1000 · 14-07-2020 9:50pm

EU blinks first recently with Barnier saying EU may accept UK fishing proposal

Leroy42 · 14-07-2020 9:59pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

EU blinks first recently with Barnier saying EU may accept UK fishing proposal

What proposal would that be? Remember that the UK have been saying that will not accept any EU boats in their waters.

I mean come on, at least put up a hint of a link!

declanflynn · 14-07-2020 10:17pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

EU blinks first recently with Barnier saying EU may accept UK fishing proposal

UK caves in and does a u turn on Huawei when trump clicks his fingers

Peregrinus · 15-07-2020 2:55am

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

EU blinks first recently with Barnier saying EU may accept UK fishing proposal

I wouldn't call that a "blink". The EU may accept the UK fishing proposal [if the UK can reciprocate by accepting the EU proposal on some other question, to be discussed]. That's negotiation; "blinking" would be the EU accepting the UK fishing proposal in return for nothing at all, or in return only for the UK not walking away.

Exeternal observers have reckoned for some time that the EU were always likely to move towards the UK's position on fishing. The UK government has fetishised fishing to an absurd extent, far more than its economic signficance to the UK can warrant. But, having done that, it is all but impossible for them to make any deal that doesn't include something approaching the UK position on fishing. Their domestic constituency expects it.

That creates an opportunity for the EU. The UK (a) badly wants and needs a deal, and (b) has positioned itself so that it can only make a deal that includes a "win" on fishing. The EU can thefore charge a very high price for that "win"; what the UK has to bargain away in order to get terms it can accept on fishing will likely cost the UK rather more than the fishing terms will gain it.

RobMc59 · 15-07-2020 9:46am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't call that a "blink". The EU may accept the UK fishing proposal [if the UK can reciprocate by accepting the EU proposal on some other question, to be discussed]. That's negotiation; "blinking" would be the EU accepting the UK fishing proposal in return for nothing at all, or in return only for the UK not walking away.

Exeternal observers have reckoned for some time that the EU were always likely to move towards the UK's position on fishing. The UK government has fetishised fishing to an absurd extent, far more than its economic signficance to the UK can warrant. But, having done that, it is all but impossible for them to make any deal that doesn't include something approaching the UK position on fishing. Their domestic constituency expects it.

That creates an opportunity for the EU. The UK (a) badly wants and needs a deal, and (b) has positioned itself so that it can only make a deal that includes a "win" on fishing. The EU can thefore charge a very high price for that "win"; what the UK has to bargain away in order to get terms it can accept on fishing will likely cost the UK rather more than the fishing terms will gain it.

It wasn't too long ago Monsieur Barnier was stamping his foot saying the EU demands unfettered access to UK fishing grounds.
The UK don't want to exclude EU fishermen from their grounds there's more than enough for everyone if managed responsibly,it's a bargaining tool.
It illustrates that despite a popular assertion by many posters here that the EU won't bend it is actually negotiating in good faith which is good for all parties imo.

fash · 15-07-2020 9:52am

RobMc59 wrote: »

It wasn't too long ago Monsieur Barnier was stamping his foot saying the EU demands unfettered access to UK fishing grounds.
The UK don't want to exclude EU fishermen from their grounds there's more than enough for everyone if managed responsibly,it's a bargaining tool.
It illustrates that despite a popular assertion by many posters here that the EU won't bend it is actually negotiating in good faith which is good for all parties imo.

I love this latest brexiter trope about "good faith negotiations".
If I offer to sell my house for €500k, and someone says "I'll give you €200k for it", I'm supposed to say "I'll revise my request to €350k because otherwise I won't have been negotiating in good faith".

declanflynn · 15-07-2020 9:57am

RobMc59 wrote: »

It wasn't too long ago Monsieur Barnier was stamping his foot saying the EU demands unfettered access to UK fishing grounds.
The UK don't want to exclude EU fishermen from their grounds there's more than enough for everyone if managed responsibly,it's a bargaining tool.
It illustrates that despite a popular assertion by many posters here that the EU won't bend it is actually negotiating in good faith which is good for all parties imo.

The smaller party will always do as the larger party demands just like the uk on Huawie

Seth Brundle · 15-07-2020 9:57am

RobMc59 wrote: »

It wasn't too long ago Monsieur Barnier was stamping his foot saying the EU demands unfettered access to UK fishing grounds.
The UK don't want to exclude EU fishermen from their grounds there's more than enough for everyone if managed responsibly,it's a bargaining tool.

What did the UK cede in exchange?

RobMc59 wrote: »

It illustrates that despite a popular assertion by many posters here that the EU won't bend it is actually negotiating in good faith which is good for all parties imo.

You had been posting a lot about the EU not negotiating "in good faith". What exactly does this mean?
Are those that wanted Brexit that childish that they expect negotiations to include some hand holding?

Peregrinus · 15-07-2020 10:13am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What did the UK cede in exchange?

Nothing, yet. All that has happened is that the EU has signalled that it may move somewhat to meet UK asks on fishing. Whether it will actually do that will depend on what movement the UK offers in return.

It's a given, in any negotiation, that one or both parties will move from their opening positions; if they don't, there won't be a deal, and the negotiation process is a pointless waste of time for both of them.

The EU got burned earlier on in this process by moving quite early to accept UK positions on various matters - in particular, Mays' red lines - expecting the UK to reciprocate with moves of its own. But this didn't happen; the UK would simply trouser the EU concessions, treat that as the new starting point, and complain about the EU not making any concessions.

The EU's reading of this is that it happened because May's domestic political situation was so insecure; she couldn't, or felt she couldn't, engage in any serious negotiation without losing the support of her party. And, in the event, when she did negotiate a deal, she couldn't get it through her own parliament, and didn't seriously try to. And lost the support of her party anyway, and had to resign.

They don't see Johson as being constrained in the same way. He has an 80-seat majority, and a party that, so far, is positively poodle-like in its acceptance of whatever he may say or do on the matter of Brexit. So he can negotiate, and by now he is feeling the pressure to - time is running out, and UK business is increasingly alarmed at what may happen on 31 December.

So, evidently, they judge now to be the appropriate time at which to signal that serious negotiations can begin. They do this by signalling a willingness to concede something that the UK wants. If Johnson wants to take advantage of the moment, he will in return signal a willingness to make some different concession. But he may do this privately rather than publicly, so we won't necessarily know about it.

Donald Trump · 15-07-2020 10:19am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You had been posting a lot about the EU not negotiating "in good faith". What exactly does this mean?
Are those that wanted Brexit that childish that they expect negotiations to include some hand holding?

"in good faith" means being genuine about what they are saying and be seriously intending to implement what they might propose, or agree to.

Examples of "not good faith" might be agreeing to, say, pay a divorce settlement (39bn) in order to get some concession, when you don't really necessarily intend to hold up your side of the agreement. It could also be negotiating something in return for saying that you are agreeing a protocol on Northern Ireland when you know that as soon as you get out of the meeting, you will change your position on what you "gave" in terms of negotiation while simultaneously insisting you keep at a minimum what you "received" in that that negotiation.

It is also a common tactic to blame the other side for what you yourself are doing. And then come up with some slogan or phrase that you can repeat ad nauseam. Your followers will blindly lap it up...............

Leroy42 · 15-07-2020 10:41am

RobMc59 wrote: »

It wasn't too long ago Monsieur Barnier was stamping his foot saying the EU demands unfettered access to UK fishing grounds.
The UK don't want to exclude EU fishermen from their grounds there's more than enough for everyone if managed responsibly,it's a bargaining tool.
It illustrates that despite a popular assertion by many posters here that the EU won't bend it is actually negotiating in good faith which is good for all parties imo.

The main person trying to insinuate that the EU are not acting in good faith is yourself.

Few ever throught the EU would never bend, it is part of the negotiations. From the start, though, the EU has said that certain aspects are not open for negotiation, one of them being the border in NI. This proved to be exactly the case and Johnson agreed the WA.

The reason the EU insisted on getting that, and some other items, in the WA, was they were well aware that any trade negotiations would involve compromise and didn't want to allow the UK to use the EU insistance on their red lines to be a sticking point so they got them out of the way prior to the trade negotiations. It was actually very clever.

It terms of fishing, the EU really doesn't have any power in that single issue. The UK own the waters, and any fish within them. So get get access they need to give up something. But I would think they are surprised at just how big of a deal the UK has made out of this relatively minor item, to the extent that they can now compromise on this and get lots of concessions in return as Johnson must be seen to have 'won' on this issue. The UK managed to turn a situation where they had all the law and international treaties on their side and give the EU massive power due to it!

We will see lots of bending from the EU in the next weeks/months. Truck licences, professional qualification recognition etc but in all cases the EU will be getting the same, or probably more, in return. But you won't hear that from the likes of the Telegraph, Express or LauraK. It will all be about victory and 'Baam, Johnson forces the EU to concede', and 'Freedom starts as UK travelers will not need visas for holidays'.

RobMc59 · 15-07-2020 10:55am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What did the UK cede in exchange?

You had been posting a lot about the EU not negotiating "in good faith". What exactly does this mean?
Are those that wanted Brexit that childish that they expect negotiations to include some hand holding?

Allowing access to UK fishing grounds in return for EU concessions is negotiating in good faith by the UK imo.I sincerely hope a mutually acceptable deal can be done-don't you?

ancapailldorcha · 15-07-2020 11:17am

RobMc59 wrote: »

I sincerely hope a mutually acceptable deal can be done-don't you?

What is this sort of language intended to achieve here?

theological · 15-07-2020 11:24am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What is this sort of language intended to achieve here?

Reason in an irrational echo chamber perhaps?

Leroy42 · 15-07-2020 11:43am

Reason? Jesus, bringing reason into a discussion about the positives to Brexit is a risky strategy!

Put up some reasons why the EU should give concessions so we can have a debate. No echo chamber, people are wiling to debate, but simply saying 'good faith,, 'fairness' or whatever is no a discussion point.

theological · 15-07-2020 11:51am

Leroy42 wrote: »

Reason? Jesus, bringing reason into a discussion about the positives to Brexit is a risky strategy!

Put up some reasons why the EU should give concessions so we can have a debate. No echo chamber, people are wiling to debate, but simply saying 'good faith,, 'fairness' or whatever is no a discussion point.

It's rather simple, and rather logical.

If you want a good arrangement, both parties need to be willing to work in good faith and be willing to compromise. If both parties aren't willing to do this then you're right, a deal probably won't be agreed.

The UK have already shown a great willingness to compromise in negotiating the withdrawal agreement. It isn't just going to roll over to anything and everything that the EU says.

Moving from a position where the EU has effective and vast control over a lot of policies (If you are curious to what they are I recommend reading Article 3 of TFEU) to a position where the EU has much fewer is understandably going to be difficult from the EU's perspective, but that is how it has to be if the UK is a third country outside.

Again, all pretty logical stuff that I've said before on this thread.

Donald Trump · 15-07-2020 12:47pm

theological wrote: »

It's rather simple, and rather logical.

If you want a good arrangement, both parties need to be willing to work in good faith and be willing to compromise. If both parties aren't willing to do this then you're right, a deal probably won't be agreed.

The UK have already shown a great willingness to compromise in negotiating the withdrawal agreement. It isn't just going to roll over to anything and everything that the EU says.

Moving from a position where the EU has effective and vast control over a lot of policies (If you are curious to what they are I recommend reading Article 3 of TFEU) to a position where the EU has much fewer is understandably going to be difficult from the EU's perspective, but that is how it has to be if the UK is a third country outside.

Again, all pretty logical stuff that I've said before on this thread.

You talk as if the parties are somehow equal.

The UK should, as per the title, piss off and get on with Brexit and become a proper third country. They wanted to leave, so they should go and not be still moaning after multiple deadlines and extensions.

As I used the analogy before, the UK is like a petulant teenager who decides to run away from home and after spending a night on their friends couch, comes back aggressively demanding a "fair" deal that they be allowed to return to live in the family home under their own rules and without making any contribution

theological · 15-07-2020 12:53pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

You talk as if the parties are somehow equal.

The UK should, as per the title, piss off and get on with Brexit and become a proper third country. They wanted to leave, so they should go and not be still moaning after multiple deadlines and extensions.

As I used the analogy before, the UK is like a petulant teenager who decides to run away from home and after spending a night on their friends couch, comes back aggressively demanding a "fair" deal that they be allowed to return to live in the family home under their own rules and without making any contribution

If they do, will you and others on this thread finally stop whinging about it?

RobMc59 · 15-07-2020 1:00pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

You talk as if the parties are somehow equal.

The UK should, as per the title, piss off and get on with Brexit and become a proper third country. They wanted to leave, so they should go and not be still moaning after multiple deadlines and extensions.

As I used the analogy before, the UK is like a petulant teenager who decides to run away from home and after spending a night on their friends couch, comes back aggressively demanding a "fair" deal that they be allowed to return to live in the family home under their own rules and without making any contribution

Stop whinging Donald,its big boys pants time now and hopefully a mutually acceptable deal can be agreed by both parties.

Donald Trump · 15-07-2020 1:08pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Stop whinging Donald,its big boys pants time now and hopefully a mutually acceptable deal can be agreed by both parties.

"pants" is right :pac:

Donald Trump · 15-07-2020 1:11pm

theological wrote: »

If they do, will you and others on this thread finally stop whinging about it?

Read title of thread.

They can unilaterally end the transition period today and have their "sovereignty" back..........although word from DC is that they were told to kick Huawei out and they bent over and did as told.

Better get used to it lads and ladies over there

Leroy42 · 15-07-2020 1:20pm

theological wrote: »

It's rather simple, and rather logical.

If you want a good arrangement, both parties need to be willing to work in good faith and be willing to compromise. If both parties aren't willing to do this then you're right, a deal probably won't be agreed.

The UK have already shown a great willingness to compromise in negotiating the withdrawal agreement. It isn't just going to roll over to anything and everything that the EU says.

Moving from a position where the EU has effective and vast control over a lot of policies (If you are curious to what they are I recommend reading Article 3 of TFEU) to a position where the EU has much fewer is understandably going to be difficult from the EU's perspective, but that is how it has to be if the UK is a third country outside.

Again, all pretty logical stuff that I've said before on this thread.

What have the UK compromised on?

They have shown nothing but contempt and a open hostility to anything, demanding again and again that its their red lines or nothing, that the EU will give in, and now they are openly looking to reopen an international agreement on the basis that they didn't read it properly.

And you avoided answering my question. The EU need a reason to compromise. So far the UK have given little to no reason. Johnson thinks a No deal is perfectly fine, onthat basis he has no reason to compromise.

Of course a change as big as this brings difficulties, and present many challenges. But unlike the UK, which seems to only ever ant to mention the possibility of opportunities (without actually giving any details) the EU has tried to work on the difficulties.

How much time was wasted by the UK faffing about over NI, when anyone with even a hint of knowledge could have told them (and did) that it was inevitable?

So, just taking access to UK fishing waters as an example. Do you think the UK should be open to allowing the EU to use the waters and if so, what concession should the UK be seeking from the EU in return?

davedanon · 15-07-2020 1:22pm

theological wrote: »

The UK have already shown a great willingness to compromise in negotiating the withdrawal agreement. It isn't just going to roll over to anything and everything that the EU says.

This would be the LEGALLY-BINDING Withdrawal Agreement that Boris signed and now wants to re-negotiate? Is that what you mean by 'not roll over to anything and everything'?

Padre_Pio · 15-07-2020 2:59pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Stop whinging Donald,its big boys pants time now and hopefully a mutually acceptable deal can be agreed by both parties.

The UK is the weaker party in this negociation. All the empty "they need us more than we need them" talk is false. All lies, disproven time and again.

The UK has overplayed it's hand in threatening to walk, and now it's crunch time and they need to make a deal.

Why should the EU compromise on it's position? They don't need to. They dont need to give in to any fair play, level playing field, implied understanding b*llocks the UK is coming out with.

You can see it in the language used by Barnier. Everything is laid out clearly and matter of fact. Boris, Cummings and Frost are vague and deflective, peddling the same slogans and rhetoric.

Time is ticking down for the UK, they have 6 months to agree a deal and we're no farther forward than last year.

EDIT: I have asked about 10 times so far, has anyone got any link showing the UK doing well out of Brexit? Like anything at all?

RobMc59 · 15-07-2020 3:32pm

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The UK is the weaker party in this negociation. All the empty "they need us more than we need them" talk is false. All lies, disproven time and again.

The UK has overplayed it's hand in threatening to walk, and now it's crunch time and they need to make a deal.

Why should the EU compromise on it's position? They don't need to. They dont need to give in to any fair play, level playing field, implied understanding b*llocks the UK is coming out with.

You can see it in the language used by Barnier. Everything is laid out clearly and matter of fact. Boris, Cummings and Frost are vague and deflective, peddling the same slogans and rhetoric.

Time is ticking down for the UK, they have 6 months to agree a deal and we're no farther forward than last year.

EDIT: I have asked about 10 times so far, has anyone got any link showing the UK doing well out of Brexit? Like anything at all?

Obviously the EU as a group of 27 is the bigger party-no one disputes that.
That doesn't mean a mutually acceptable deal can't be reached.Why any prospect of the EU negotiating in good faith invokes such anger is a mystery.

Donald Trump · 15-07-2020 3:40pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Obviously the EU as a group of 27 is the bigger party-no one disputes that.
That doesn't mean a mutually acceptable deal can't be reached.Why any prospect of the EU negotiating in good faith invokes such anger is a mystery.

Rob, can you give us your understanding of what it means to be "negotiating in good faith"?

I think that you take it to mean acquiescing to the other sides demands? Am I wrong?

My understanding of the phrase is that a party who is negotiating in good faith is one who is honest and open about what they will agree to, and the other party trusts that if they agree to something, that they intend to hold themselves to that.

If your interpretation is instead similar to mine, can you give us an example where the EU agreed to something and then a short time later changed their position?

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

Comments