Well done to our negotiating team for making things as difficult as possible
# easiest deal ever. # oven ready deal.
It is oven ready but the EU refuse to turn the oven on.
Thing is, what Boris forgets, is it's not his oven and the EU can tell that the deal, oven ready as it might be, is a week with the shakes, going at both ends, in the making and they don't fancy it. Boris doing the "it'll smell fine when it's done, that's just the giblets, they often whiff a bit when you open the bag, just put plenty of salt and pepper on it, here, we'll give it an extra half hour at 220C if you're worried" flannel isn't very convincing.
The problem is that the EU are desperate to discourage any other member state from seeking independence
Say rather they're uninclined to give the benefits of membership to non-members.
The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
The UK wants a free trade deal with the EU. The EU has a set of internal regulations and standards that it's not going to back down on (why should they?) and laws that regulate and protect the freedoms of EU citizens that they're not going to break (why should they?). The EU has negotiated trade deals with other nations that ensure imports into the EU comply with all relevant regulations and protect the freedoms of EU citizens, deals that typically take at least 5 years to negotiate. The UK government wants CAKE and appears to be seeking a deal that gives the UK all the advantages of those other nations but without the various safeguards protecting EU regulations and freedoms. The impression is that the UK government are seeking to not only destroy the UK by leaving the EU, but seeking to destroy the EU itself by insisting on a deal that fundamentally demolishes the basis of the EU. The EU don't seem to be interested in suicide.
And, in the meantime I see reports of thousands of people joining rallies in Moldova in mid-pandemic in support of recently elected pro-EU president after the parliament still largely loyal to the anti-EU outgoing president stripped the presidency of key authorities. Which follows similar mass pro-EU protests in the Ukraine a few years ago. Europe is seeing one little nation off the north west coast with a minority anti-EU faction leading us away from the rest of Europe, and several other countries moving closer to the EU against small anti-EU factions. It makes it even more obvious (though it always has been obvious) just how idiotic Brexit is. Come January when truck loads of Pfizer vaccine wait days to get to the front of the queues at Channel ports while their cargo goes off it'll be quite literally the death of a lot of UK citizens.
The UK wants a free trade deal with the EU. The EU has a set of internal regulations and standards that it's not going to back down on (why should they?) and laws that regulate and protect the freedoms of EU citizens that they're not going to break (why should they?). The EU has negotiated trade deals with other nations that ensure imports into the EU comply with all relevant regulations and protect the freedoms of EU citizens, deals that typically take at least 5 years to negotiate. The UK government wants CAKE and appears to be seeking a deal that gives the UK all the advantages of those other nations but without the various safeguards protecting EU regulations and freedoms. The impression is that the UK government are seeking to not only destroy the UK by leaving the EU, but seeking to destroy the EU itself by insisting on a deal that fundamentally demolishes the basis of the EU. The EU don't seem to be interested in suicide.
And, in the meantime I see reports of thousands of people joining rallies in Moldova in mid-pandemic in support of recently elected pro-EU president after the parliament still largely loyal to the anti-EU outgoing president stripped the presidency of key authorities. Which follows similar mass pro-EU protests in the Ukraine a few years ago. Europe is seeing one little nation off the north west coast with a minority anti-EU faction leading us away from the rest of Europe, and several other countries moving closer to the EU against small anti-EU factions. It makes it even more obvious (though it always has been obvious) just how idiotic Brexit is. Come January when truck loads of Pfizer vaccine wait days to get to the front of the queues at Channel ports while their cargo goes off it'll be quite literally the death of a lot of UK citizens.
I totally agree with you. There is however a humour typo where you say Europe but mean the UK.
Another possibility - if we get a deal, the French fisherman don't like it and blockade the Dover crossing and or motorway access to Calais in traditional style. Another potential Brexshit mess.
Once again, I advocate sensible prepping.
I’m just completing my stash (ten of everything we use plus winter greens planted outside. Skin care products, washing powder, the lot). When we use up an item the new one goes in the stash and the oldest comes down to be used, so we perpetually have ten spares. It’s the opposite of panic buying - when there are queues in the shops I will be one less person in the queues.
If none of it happens, no problem. My stash is just a rolling programme. 🙂
The impression is that the UK government are seeking to not only destroy the UK by leaving the EU, but seeking to destroy the EU itself by insisting on a deal that fundamentally demolishes the basis of the EU. The EU don't seem to be interested in suicide.
The EU not wanting to join out national suicide death cult? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked. Don't they know it's WORLD BEATING?
They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU.
By independence you mean cheating on the trade deal.
What trade deal could they have they cheated on ?????
We couldn't cheat on a trade deal while we were in the EU. That is why the Brexiteers want out, so they can cheat on tariff-free trade deals, by offloading substandard goods cheap to undercut goods that meet EU standards.
Well done to our negotiating team for making things as difficult as possible
# easiest deal ever. # oven ready deal.
It is oven ready but the EU refuse to turn the oven on.
Thing is, what Boris forgets, is it's not his oven and the EU can tell that the deal, oven ready as it might be, is a week with the shakes, going at both ends, in the making and they don't fancy it. Boris doing the "it'll smell fine when it's done, that's just the giblets, they often whiff a bit when you open the bag, just put plenty of salt and pepper on it, here, we'll give it an extra half hour at 220C if you're worried" flannel isn't very convincing.
The problem is that the EU are desperate to discourage any other member state from seeking independence
Say rather they're uninclined to give the benefits of membership to non-members.
The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
I have to say that since the beginning of the Leave campaign circa 2016 to the present I have seen nothing on the pro-Brexit side that indicates they want in any way to do anything that even accidentally benefits the EU. The whole flavour of the various Leave campaigns was predicated on the idea that in order for the UK to reap its own benefits - that being the sole aim of said campaigns - the EU would have to live with the probability of no longer having the joy and rewards of the British membership of their organisation. Leaving the EU at least a little more impoverished, a little less creditable, less united, less powerful, less economically influential etc had to be well up on the typical Brexiteer's tick-list as 'reasons why we're doing this in the first place'! How could it be otherwise? Why dis-ally yourself from a powerful, influential coalition unless you believe that its power and influence isn't helping you personally, and needs to be neutralised?
I have no doubt that Johnson is doing his best to spin the negotiations, from the British PR side, as some kind of mutual exercise in seeking something positive for both parties. But the clearest and most important discussion points, right from the very start, and that would be primarily crucial to outcomes, was that as Telford says, the EU would want to discourage others following the UK, and as Hugal says, the EU consequently are not going to give EU membership benefits to a non-EU member. And that would mean tough terms, even disadvantageous terms for the UK.
The genius of the Leave campaigns and subsequent government leaders is somehow separating these natural connections in the minds of their voters, so that what has been the most obvious of outcomes should somehow come as a huge unfair surprise.
Interesting noises coming from the meeja today about the possibility of France vetoing the *Deal* (should such a Unicorn ever appear).
It appears that France is, despite being in the EU, an independent, sovereign nation, like all the other member states. Who knew that such things could be?
'Merely' is all the benefits with none of the responsibilities, and the EU have rightly turned that down.
It's either independence or it's tarrif free. Or some point in between which trades some of one for the other.
I know this, Barnier knows this, Johnson knows this. Apparently you don't.
The terms and conditions of a trade deal do not mean a loss of independence. If we were not independent we would have the choice of entering the agreement
'Merely' is all the benefits with none of the responsibilities, and the EU have rightly turned that down.
It's either independence or it's tarrif free. Or some point in between which trades some of one for the other.
I know this, Barnier knows this, Johnson knows this. Apparently you don't.
The terms and conditions of a trade deal do not mean a loss of independence. If we were not independent we would have the choice of entering the agreement
We were not officially independent when entered the deal. We were in a transition period. Left but not fully independent. So no you do not need to be independent to make the deal.
There are two (probably related) concepts bandied around - sovereignty and independence. Usually as though they're binary, you're independent or not, sovereign or not. Of course, they're actually a continuous distribution.
In 2015 the UK was sovereign and independent, but had entered into various treaties creating a European Union and in the process surrendered a small part of our sovereignty and independence to the rules and regulations of those treaties and the various democratic institutions it created. There's nothing unusual about that, any treaty or agreement between nations results in a sharing of sovereignty and restrictions on what can be done. The current negotiations are no different, the question is how much independence and sovereignty are the UK going to share with the EU to allow the trade the UK economy needs? By being outside it'll be a lot more than was shared to be in the EU if the UK is to maintain a similar level of freedom to trade with the EU because we won't be part of the institutions that set many of the rules.
The terms and conditions of a trade deal do not mean a loss of independence. If we were not independent we would have the choice of entering the agreement
As others have noted, the terms of a trade deal often constrain what you can do. For example, you might want to sell me your widgets, produced in your government-subsidized widget factory. It's quite reasonable for me not to want to expose my un-subsidized widget makers to unfair competition from your government-funded ones, so I might make any trade deal on widgets conditional on you stopping your widget subsidies. If you don't want to do that, you can keep subsidizing widget manufacture, and I can keep charging import tariffs on them.
The thing about "choice of entering the agreement" is that it is possessed by both sides. For an agreement to come in to force, the terms have to be acceptable to both parties.
There are two (probably related) concepts bandied around - sovereignty and independence. Usually as though they're binary, you're independent or not, sovereign or not. Of course, they're actually a continuous distribution.
In 2015 the UK was sovereign and independent, but had entered into various treaties creating a European Union and in the process surrendered a small part of our sovereignty and independence to the rules and regulations of those treaties and the various democratic institutions it created. There's nothing unusual about that, any treaty or agreement between nations results in a sharing of sovereignty and restrictions on what can be done. The current negotiations are no different, the question is how much independence and sovereignty are the UK going to share with the EU to allow the trade the UK economy needs? By being outside it'll be a lot more than was shared to be in the EU if the UK is to maintain a similar level of freedom to trade with the EU because we won't be part of the institutions that set many of the rules.
The terms and conditions of a trade deal do not mean a loss of independence. If we were not independent we would have the choice of entering the agreement
As others have noted, the terms of a trade deal often constrain what you can do. For example, you might want to sell me your widgets, produced in your government-subsidized widget factory. It's quite reasonable for me not to want to expose my un-subsidized widget makers to unfair competition from your government-funded ones, so I might make any trade deal on widgets conditional on you stopping your widget subsidies. If you don't want to do that, you can keep subsidizing widget manufacture, and I can keep charging import tariffs on them.
The thing about "choice of entering the agreement" is that it is possessed by both sides. For an agreement to come in to force, the terms have to be acceptable to both parties.
But do you accept the conclusions (namely that the UKs negotiating position is arrogant and untenable; and that membership of the EU gave us more independence than any trade deal will)? And if you don't accept the conclusions but you do accept the statements then why don't you accept the conclusions?
It actually had to happen, probably should have happened a long time ago. The negotiating teams who have just taken a pause are both working within a set of guidelines from the politicians they represent (who, in turn are democratically accountable to the people of the UK and EU). They've reached an impasse, which can be bypassed by a political agreement (whether it will be is another question). The negotiators aren't empowered to negate a political position, political leaders are and it's reached the point where there needs to be a political compromise. It's the chance for Mr Johnson to accept a compromise offered by the EU and claim it as his own, for us to find out that his "oven ready deal" is the same as the EU has been offering for the last few years.
Ah, but he wants to achieve something extremely damaging to just about everyone (exceptions being a few venture capitalists who are going to make a killing). And, he has a government who even with Chris Grayling keeping out of the limelight can't get anything done right. Therefore, failure to achieve his intent is almost guaranteed, and whatever happens will be better than his intent.
But do you accept the conclusions (namely that the UKs negotiating position is arrogant and untenable;
No
and that membership of the EU gave us more independence than any trade deal will)?
Certainly not. Trade deals are about trade, not independence
And if you don't accept the conclusions but you do accept the statements then why don't you accept the conclusions?
It's a bit like a Golf Club. Non members can use the facilities for a modest fee as long as they accept the rules of the club
But the government want to either Payless than the current fee or not pay it at all. They want benefits that only go to full members without having the tedious AGMs etc
But do you accept the conclusions (namely that the UKs negotiating position is arrogant and untenable;
No
and that membership of the EU gave us more independence than any trade deal will)?
Certainly not. Trade deals are about trade, not independence
And if you don't accept the conclusions but you do accept the statements then why don't you accept the conclusions?
It's a bit like a Golf Club. Non members can use the facilities for a modest fee as long as they accept the rules of the club
But the government want to either Payless than the current fee or not pay it at all. They want benefits that only go to full members without having the tedious AGMs etc
I am impressed that you know so much about the current negotiations with the EU. Let's wait and see what happens. Not long to wait now.
I only know what is reported on the news. If they have it wrong so do I.
Let’s wait and see is not perhaps the best thing as we are on a discussion board.
And, in the meantime I see reports of thousands of people joining rallies in Moldova in mid-pandemic in support of recently elected pro-EU president after the parliament still largely loyal to the anti-EU outgoing president stripped the presidency of key authorities. Which follows similar mass pro-EU protests in the Ukraine a few years ago. Europe is seeing one little nation off the north west coast with a minority anti-EU faction leading us away from the rest of Europe, and several other countries moving closer to the EU against small anti-EU factions.
If I was offered the choice of being ruled from Brussels or ruled from Moscow then I’d choose Brussels too. With the best will in the world Moldova and Ukraine are vassal countries that only really get to choose which master to serve.
The UK is not in that position. We are one of the biggest economies in the world, a global leader in many areas, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and with modern, well equipped and well trained armed forces. We don’t need to serve anyone.
In 2015 the UK was sovereign and independent, but had entered into various treaties creating a European Union and in the process surrendered a small part of our sovereignty and independence to the rules and regulations of those treaties and the various democratic institutions it created.
At least part of the problem was the continuing process of more and more sovereignty being surrendered to the EU, with the end goal of the EU being full political union. It’s a bit more than just a collection of treaties, it’s a political entity that can come up with new rules and regulations all by itself and then impose them on its member countries.
It’s entirely fair for a sovereign, independent country to decide that enough is enough and it doesn’t want to go any further down that road.
In 2015 the UK was sovereign and independent, but had entered into various treaties creating a European Union and in the process surrendered a small part of our sovereignty and independence to the rules and regulations of those treaties and the various democratic institutions it created.
At least part of the problem was the continuing process of more and more sovereignty being surrendered to the EU, with the end goal of the EU being full political union. It’s a bit more than just a collection of treaties, it’s a political entity that can come up with new rules and regulations all by itself and then impose them on its member countries.
It’s entirely fair for a sovereign, independent country to decide that enough is enough and it doesn’t want to go any further down that road.
The way to avoid further integration was to... not agree to new treaties involving further integration. Leaving is the equivalent of setting fire to the restaurant table because the waiter offered you dessert.
The EU was said to have started pushing for further and harder assurances over the role of a UK regulator of subsidies, or state aid, a claim dismissed outright by Brussels. But sources concede that the issue remains difficult. The EU wants all its funding from Brussels to be exempt from state aid rules, unlike Treasury funding.
(My bold)
I read this as referring to the EU development grants - i.e. any money that is received through an EU development grant doesn't count as state aid.
For all that it goes deeply against the grain to defend Mr Johnson, that does seem to me unreasonable, almost cakeist. If state aid is a problem, it's a problem if it comes from a development grant too. I admit that the vast majority of EU grants aren't state aid under the meaning of the term, but I don't think it follows that grants can never be state aid, or that grants don't need scrutinising to check they aren't state aid.
It's all going down to the wire, appaently: mini-Churchill versus pseudo-de Gaulle. Oh for a statesman, or at least some - anyone - capable of seeing past the end of their political noses! Merkel, anyone? End of rant.
The UK is not in that position. We are one of the biggest economies in the world, a global leader in many areas, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and with modern, well equipped and well trained armed forces. We don’t need to serve anyone.
We're a badly-led second tier country, out of the largest trading bloc on the planet, and our military recently got chased out of two countries with its tail between its legs.
We should probably lower our expectations a little, because seeing ourselves as world-striding behemoths is delusional and damaging.
In 2015 the UK was sovereign and independent, but had entered into various treaties creating a European Union and in the process surrendered a small part of our sovereignty and independence to the rules and regulations of those treaties and the various democratic institutions it created.
At least part of the problem was the continuing process of more and more sovereignty being surrendered to the EU, with the end goal of the EU being full political union. It’s a bit more than just a collection of treaties, it’s a political entity that can come up with new rules and regulations all by itself and then impose them on its member countries.
It’s entirely fair for a sovereign, independent country to decide that enough is enough and it doesn’t want to go any further down that road.
Yes, the EU has a "life of it's own" in some ways, it's a clear example of the sum being greater than it's parts. And, yes there is a trajectory towards greater political unity between the independent nations of Europe ... though the trajectory wouldn't see that in my lifetime (nor, indeed, within the lifetimes of the vast majority of those who seem to be saying that's a problem - which doesn't include me, a greater political unity within Europe, with the UK within that, would seem a very good idea to me). But, for that trend towards political unity to progress there would need to be overwhelming support from each individual nation with the EU - we have several examples of treaties that take a step forward being rejected by some nations, resulting in a return to the negotiating table and a new watered down version coming along a few years later. At present the trajectory to political unity has only developed a Single Market and Customs Union, covering internal trade within the EU and negotiation of access to that market with nations outside the EU, and some nations joining a single currency zone. All internal ... there's been musings about common defence and foreign policy for decades, but they've never got further than that (a few limited examples of several EU nations joining together in coordinated peacekeeping operations ... but that's always been possible without any form of political union). Though there's a Parliament, there's been no substantial moves towards development of a European Government and I don't see that happening in the next few decades.
And, of course, the EU doesn't come up with new rules and regulations "all by itself". The vast majority of the EU rules and regulations were introduced by member nations, sometimes as a single nation with a particular regulation not shared by others, very often a group of nations who had similar regulations and the EU simply allowed harmonisation of those across the nations of Europe. Ultimately "the EU" in this sense consists of the Commission (with members appointed by member states), Council of members of individual nation governments and the Parliament of directly elected representatives; that is elected representatives of nation states or appointments made by elected governments introduce new regulations and rules. And, before they come into effect they also need to enter into the law of each nation state. There is no rule or regulation in force in the UK that was not voted through a UK Parliament - whether they originate from UK governments, EU institutions or other international organisations (UN, NATO, ECHR etc). It would have been possible for UK Parliaments to reject regulations originating from the EU, though given the substantial input the UK government had in developing those regulations it would be unusual for the result to be objectionable to the UK government or Parliament.
The UK may not need to serve anyone, but it does need to sell stuff to someone. Pissing off all the people you sell your stuff to doesn't strike me as the smartest policy in the world.
I am impressed that you know so much about the current negotiations with the EU. Let's wait and see what happens. Not long to wait now.
Do you know more than he does? Or do you just know what you think you heard someone (you can't remember who) say on the telly (you can't remember when)?
The UK is not in that position. We are one of the biggest economies in the world, a global leader in many areas, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and with modern, well equipped and well trained armed forces. We don’t need to serve anyone.
What does having modern armed forces have to do with trade deals? Are we going to invade Belgium if they don't give us a good price on chocolate?
Also we are a global leader in many areas due to international co-operation (including because we are in the EU). It's not as a result of our unique abilities.
The UK is not in that position. We are one of the biggest economies in the world, a global leader in many areas, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and with modern, well equipped and well trained armed forces. We don’t need to serve anyone.
What does having modern armed forces have to do with trade deals? Are we going to invade Belgium if they don't give us a good price on chocolate?
Also we are a global leader in many areas due to international co-operation (including because we are in the EU). It's not as a result of our unique abilities.
I wouldn't put it (invading Belgium) past the clowns in charge, given that hoo-hah about some random backbencher threatening war with Spain a while back.
@Marvin the Martian : we may not be ruled from Brussels (although if we want to continue trading with the EU we'll have to comply with their regulations) but I think you'll find we *are* ruled from Washington, if the Wrecking Crew attempt to break the GFA... And if we want to be fêted as upholders of international law, perhaps we should consider not breaking it ourselves? Even in a "specific and limited" way.
and that membership of the EU gave us more independence than any trade deal will)?
Certainly not. Trade deals are about trade, not independence
Well that's not true. Alan Cresswell explained that it wasn't true and you accepted the explanation.
LeorningCniht explained that it wasn't true and you accepted that explanation too.
And if you don't accept the conclusions but you do accept the statements then why don't you accept the conclusions?
It's a bit like a Golf Club. Non members can use the facilities for a modest fee as long as they accept the rules of the club
It's nothing like a gold club: except in so far as non-members will never get as good a deal as members, and non-members won't get a say in the rules they are expected to follow. The fees for non-members to use the facilities will not be modest, at least not compared to membership.
The main difference is that a non-member might only want to use the facilities once or twice a year, in which case the fees might come out less than the membership. But we want to trade with the EU all the time, and we're trying to get the members' discount on club food and drink, but we don't want to obey the rules and we want to pay less than the members would for the privilege.
And for the people who have family in other countries, or who have moved to other EU countries and put down roots there but still think of themselves as British, it's a disaster. Leaving a club? More like ripping apart a piece of fabric.
I didn't realise that Telford came from the sort of society that knows about, or belongs to, golf clubs, but, if so, we must defer to his superior knowledge and understanding of the whole Brexshit question.
BTW, who was it who described golf as 'a good walk spoiled'?
I am impressed that you know so much about the current negotiations with the EU. Let's wait and see what happens. Not long to wait now.
Do you know more than he does? Or do you just know what you think you heard someone (you can't remember who) say on the telly (you can't remember when)?
No I do not know more than he does and neither do you
I didn't realise that Telford came from the sort of society that knows about, or belongs to, golf clubs, but, if so, we must defer to his superior knowledge and understanding of the whole Brexshit question.
BTW, who was it who described golf as 'a good walk spoiled'?
Once again you prefer to discuss me rather than the subject of the thread.
I'm never sure whether the assertion that the PM knows more than we do is a belief or a hope but it inevitably an admittance that, on the publicly available evidence, the PM has fucked up good and proper.
Comments
The UK doesn't want benefits. They merely want independence and a tarrif free trade deal which benefits the UK and the EU
If the UK doesn't want benefits, why does (or how can) it want a tariff-free trade deal which benefits it?
Like I said, they want both sides to mutually benefit.
What trade deal could they have they cheated on ?????
It's either independence or it's tarrif free. Or some point in between which trades some of one for the other.
I know this, Barnier knows this, Johnson knows this. Apparently you don't.
What are we negotiating if not benefits? Why bother
And, in the meantime I see reports of thousands of people joining rallies in Moldova in mid-pandemic in support of recently elected pro-EU president after the parliament still largely loyal to the anti-EU outgoing president stripped the presidency of key authorities. Which follows similar mass pro-EU protests in the Ukraine a few years ago. Europe is seeing one little nation off the north west coast with a minority anti-EU faction leading us away from the rest of Europe, and several other countries moving closer to the EU against small anti-EU factions. It makes it even more obvious (though it always has been obvious) just how idiotic Brexit is. Come January when truck loads of Pfizer vaccine wait days to get to the front of the queues at Channel ports while their cargo goes off it'll be quite literally the death of a lot of UK citizens.
Once again, I advocate sensible prepping.
I’m just completing my stash (ten of everything we use plus winter greens planted outside. Skin care products, washing powder, the lot). When we use up an item the new one goes in the stash and the oldest comes down to be used, so we perpetually have ten spares. It’s the opposite of panic buying - when there are queues in the shops I will be one less person in the queues.
If none of it happens, no problem. My stash is just a rolling programme. 🙂
You had a tarriff free trade deal. You voted to leave it.
Because apparently having obligations in return for tarriff free trade is just too annoying.
The EU not wanting to join out national suicide death cult? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked. Don't they know it's WORLD BEATING?
I have to say that since the beginning of the Leave campaign circa 2016 to the present I have seen nothing on the pro-Brexit side that indicates they want in any way to do anything that even accidentally benefits the EU. The whole flavour of the various Leave campaigns was predicated on the idea that in order for the UK to reap its own benefits - that being the sole aim of said campaigns - the EU would have to live with the probability of no longer having the joy and rewards of the British membership of their organisation. Leaving the EU at least a little more impoverished, a little less creditable, less united, less powerful, less economically influential etc had to be well up on the typical Brexiteer's tick-list as 'reasons why we're doing this in the first place'! How could it be otherwise? Why dis-ally yourself from a powerful, influential coalition unless you believe that its power and influence isn't helping you personally, and needs to be neutralised?
I have no doubt that Johnson is doing his best to spin the negotiations, from the British PR side, as some kind of mutual exercise in seeking something positive for both parties. But the clearest and most important discussion points, right from the very start, and that would be primarily crucial to outcomes, was that as Telford says, the EU would want to discourage others following the UK, and as Hugal says, the EU consequently are not going to give EU membership benefits to a non-EU member. And that would mean tough terms, even disadvantageous terms for the UK.
The genius of the Leave campaigns and subsequent government leaders is somehow separating these natural connections in the minds of their voters, so that what has been the most obvious of outcomes should somehow come as a huge unfair surprise.
It appears that France is, despite being in the EU, an independent, sovereign nation, like all the other member states. Who knew that such things could be?
Sorry dyslexia strikes. I read it as Europe seen as a little island. My apologies.
The terms and conditions of a trade deal do not mean a loss of independence. If we were not independent we would have the choice of entering the agreement
We were not officially independent when entered the deal. We were in a transition period. Left but not fully independent. So no you do not need to be independent to make the deal.
In 2015 the UK was sovereign and independent, but had entered into various treaties creating a European Union and in the process surrendered a small part of our sovereignty and independence to the rules and regulations of those treaties and the various democratic institutions it created. There's nothing unusual about that, any treaty or agreement between nations results in a sharing of sovereignty and restrictions on what can be done. The current negotiations are no different, the question is how much independence and sovereignty are the UK going to share with the EU to allow the trade the UK economy needs? By being outside it'll be a lot more than was shared to be in the EU if the UK is to maintain a similar level of freedom to trade with the EU because we won't be part of the institutions that set many of the rules.
As others have noted, the terms of a trade deal often constrain what you can do. For example, you might want to sell me your widgets, produced in your government-subsidized widget factory. It's quite reasonable for me not to want to expose my un-subsidized widget makers to unfair competition from your government-funded ones, so I might make any trade deal on widgets conditional on you stopping your widget subsidies. If you don't want to do that, you can keep subsidizing widget manufacture, and I can keep charging import tariffs on them.
The thing about "choice of entering the agreement" is that it is possessed by both sides. For an agreement to come in to force, the terms have to be acceptable to both parties.
I accept both statements
https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/04/france-could-veto-bad-brexit-deal-macron-ally-warns
O well. That's us well and truly f**ked...
But the government want to either Payless than the current fee or not pay it at all. They want benefits that only go to full members without having the tedious AGMs etc
I am impressed that you know so much about the current negotiations with the EU. Let's wait and see what happens. Not long to wait now.
Let’s wait and see is not perhaps the best thing as we are on a discussion board.
If I was offered the choice of being ruled from Brussels or ruled from Moscow then I’d choose Brussels too. With the best will in the world Moldova and Ukraine are vassal countries that only really get to choose which master to serve.
The UK is not in that position. We are one of the biggest economies in the world, a global leader in many areas, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and with modern, well equipped and well trained armed forces. We don’t need to serve anyone.
At least part of the problem was the continuing process of more and more sovereignty being surrendered to the EU, with the end goal of the EU being full political union. It’s a bit more than just a collection of treaties, it’s a political entity that can come up with new rules and regulations all by itself and then impose them on its member countries.
It’s entirely fair for a sovereign, independent country to decide that enough is enough and it doesn’t want to go any further down that road.
The way to avoid further integration was to... not agree to new treaties involving further integration. Leaving is the equivalent of setting fire to the restaurant table because the waiter offered you dessert.
(My bold)
I read this as referring to the EU development grants - i.e. any money that is received through an EU development grant doesn't count as state aid.
For all that it goes deeply against the grain to defend Mr Johnson, that does seem to me unreasonable, almost cakeist. If state aid is a problem, it's a problem if it comes from a development grant too. I admit that the vast majority of EU grants aren't state aid under the meaning of the term, but I don't think it follows that grants can never be state aid, or that grants don't need scrutinising to check they aren't state aid.
We're a badly-led second tier country, out of the largest trading bloc on the planet, and our military recently got chased out of two countries with its tail between its legs.
We should probably lower our expectations a little, because seeing ourselves as world-striding behemoths is delusional and damaging.
And, of course, the EU doesn't come up with new rules and regulations "all by itself". The vast majority of the EU rules and regulations were introduced by member nations, sometimes as a single nation with a particular regulation not shared by others, very often a group of nations who had similar regulations and the EU simply allowed harmonisation of those across the nations of Europe. Ultimately "the EU" in this sense consists of the Commission (with members appointed by member states), Council of members of individual nation governments and the Parliament of directly elected representatives; that is elected representatives of nation states or appointments made by elected governments introduce new regulations and rules. And, before they come into effect they also need to enter into the law of each nation state. There is no rule or regulation in force in the UK that was not voted through a UK Parliament - whether they originate from UK governments, EU institutions or other international organisations (UN, NATO, ECHR etc). It would have been possible for UK Parliaments to reject regulations originating from the EU, though given the substantial input the UK government had in developing those regulations it would be unusual for the result to be objectionable to the UK government or Parliament.
What does having modern armed forces have to do with trade deals? Are we going to invade Belgium if they don't give us a good price on chocolate?
Also we are a global leader in many areas due to international co-operation (including because we are in the EU). It's not as a result of our unique abilities.
I wouldn't put it (invading Belgium) past the clowns in charge, given that hoo-hah about some random backbencher threatening war with Spain a while back.
@Marvin the Martian : we may not be ruled from Brussels (although if we want to continue trading with the EU we'll have to comply with their regulations) but I think you'll find we *are* ruled from Washington, if the Wrecking Crew attempt to break the GFA... And if we want to be fêted as upholders of international law, perhaps we should consider not breaking it ourselves? Even in a "specific and limited" way.
LeorningCniht explained that it wasn't true and you accepted that explanation too.
It's nothing like a gold club: except in so far as non-members will never get as good a deal as members, and non-members won't get a say in the rules they are expected to follow. The fees for non-members to use the facilities will not be modest, at least not compared to membership.
The main difference is that a non-member might only want to use the facilities once or twice a year, in which case the fees might come out less than the membership. But we want to trade with the EU all the time, and we're trying to get the members' discount on club food and drink, but we don't want to obey the rules and we want to pay less than the members would for the privilege.
BTW, who was it who described golf as 'a good walk spoiled'?