Brexit: Now What? Part IV

[The Don]

It's been about seven months since last we spoke about trade deals. I expect we've signed loads since then, but the treasonous remain media won't report them, is anyone here able to point to some that Dr Fox has lined up?

Dr Fox no doubt has dozens of them ready to go - and on so much better terms than those that the UK already has through the EU. The trouble is that the EU prevents us from announcing them until the end of the transition period or the heat death of the universe - whichever comes first.

 

[Mr Fied]

Watching Question Time last night and the usual Brexit arguments came up.

One speaker wanted the option of staying in the single market and customs union. The counter argument was "WE" voted to leave the EU and the single market.

This is the problem, we didn't vote to leave the single market or the customs union. We didn't vote to end free movement of people or trade. The question was whether to leave the EU, not what it entailed.

Some people wanted this as an outcome of the vote, but these conditions were not part of the referendum. Some politicians suggested that a leave vote might include some of these as a result, they also suggested we were going to spend £x of millions on the NHS every week.

There was never any plan as to what would happen to EU nationals already living here or for ExPats living in the EU.

So, for anyone to say they voted to leave the single market etc is false. They voted to leave and hoped this meant leaving the single market too.

The whole referendum was an absolute joke, if the details had been thought out first we may have had an idea of what we were actually voting for, and the outcome may have been different. And I don't just mean a reversal of the result, if there had been a more detailed plan it could have led to a greater majority voting to leave.

 

[Henri McPhee]

This Brexit is leading to strenuous business worries.

 

[Craig B]

Enough with the club analogies. No club I've ever been a member of expects anyone to keep paying their club membership fee after they've left the club.

It is taken for granted in these cases that there is a "hard exit" from the club. So the xenophobes could simply walk away from the EU without even paying their bar bills. But if they do that there will definitely be a hard border in Ireland, the GFA will collapse and "club analogies" not to mention "armalite analogies" will become relevant again in NI.

 

[ceptimus]

And I presume you agree that no club would allow you access to their facilities unless you had paid your club membership fee?

Of course not. It's up to clubs to decide if they wish to share any of their facilities. Many clubs have agreements - we'll visit your club for a competition or event, and in return you can also visit ours - but if a club wants to remain in splendid isolation that's fine too.


What clubs don't do is insist that it's impossible to leave them, or, insist that if you do leave you must still continue to pay your club subs and abide by all the club rules.

 

[Craig B]

Of course not. It's up to clubs to decide if they wish to share any of their facilities. Many clubs have agreements - we'll visit your club for a competition or event, and in return you can also visit ours - but if a club wants to remain in splendid isolation that's fine too.


What clubs don't do is insist that it's impossible to leave them, or, insist that if you do leave you must still continue to pay your club subs and abide by all the club rules.

You're talking about sharing agreements between club A and Club B. These can be accessed only by people who pay subscriptions to one or another of the clubs which participate in the agreement. If you leave one, then to enjoy these mutual agreements you have to join the other, don't you?

 

[ceptimus]

You're talking about sharing agreements between club A and Club B. These can be accessed only by people who pay subscriptions to one or another of the clubs which participate in the agreement. If you leave one, then to enjoy these mutual agreements you have to join the other, don't you?

Of course. If you must stick with the stupid club analogy then the UK is already a club consisting of its member nations, and is already a member of several other clubs such as the Commonwealth, NATO, and so on...


The trade negotiations are about "sharing agreements", as you put it, between the UK club and the EU club. The EU, in its arrogant way, wants the UK to continue to abide by all EU club rules if anything is to be shared, and the UK's reaction should be, "Screw that. If you don't want to share that's fine." Unfortunately, May doesn't seem to have the strength necessary to stand up to the EU. Pity she was ever chosen as Prime Minister.

 

[Francesca R]

I think Theresa May is rather weak, although at least some of this is explained by the excessively poor hand of cards she picked up in the first place (and some of it is her making that worse)

However I believe she is the least stupid of the possible Tory PMs the nation could have.

 

[Darat]

I think Theresa May is rather weak, although at least some of this is explained by the excessively poor hand of cards she picked up in the first place (and some of it is her making that worse)

However I believe she is the least stupid of the possible Tory PMs the nation could have.

It's a frightening* thought.

*Both that I agree with you and you are right.

 

[Amazer]

Of course. If you must stick with the stupid club analogy then the UK is already a club consisting of its member nations, and is already a member of several other clubs such as the Commonwealth, NATO, and so on...

Apples and oranges comparison.

The trade negotiations are about "sharing agreements", as you put it, between the UK club and the EU club. The EU, in its arrogant way, wants the UK to continue to abide by all EU club rules if anything is to be shared, and the UK's reaction should be, "Screw that. If you don't want to share that's fine." Unfortunately, May doesn't seem to have the strength necessary to stand up to the EU. Pity she was ever chosen as Prime Minister.

Just goes to show that size (and experience) matter.

 

[Craig B]

Of course. If you must stick with the stupid club analogy then the UK is already a club consisting of its member nations, and is already a member of several other clubs such as the Commonwealth, NATO, and so on...


The trade negotiations are about "sharing agreements", as you put it, between the UK club and the EU club. The EU, in its arrogant way, wants the UK to continue to abide by all EU club rules if anything is to be shared, and the UK's reaction should be, "Screw that. If you don't want to share that's fine." Unfortunately, May doesn't seem to have the strength necessary to stand up to the EU. Pity she was ever chosen as Prime Minister.

The UK is not a club. It will be a non-member state, and in no position to share anything with anybody at club level. If there are joint agreements in the relevant fields between the EU and NATO, so when the EU and NATO exchange visits they can use each other's greens and Bar facilities, I suppose that's different.

But let me recall this yet again to your mind, as you appear to have forgotten it, The U.K. No longer has an Empire. There is nothing belonging to Britain that can be shared by the EU after Brexit. Among the states of the world the UK has no special position. It is no longer world Hegemon. It is no longer the ruler even of the whole of Ireland.

 

[ceptimus]

I never said the UK has an empire. It doesn't need one to negotiate with the EU. The EU has bespoke trading arrangements with Norway, Switzerland, Canada, ... Why can't it negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with the UK? It does much more trade with the UK than with any of those other 'bespoke' countries.


It's arrogance and fear on the part of the EU that makes it reluctant to negotiate. Fear because it (rightly) knows that if it allows the UK a good deal then there will be several other member countries lining up to exit also.

 

[Information Analyst]

Watching Question Time last night and the usual Brexit arguments came up.

One speaker wanted the option of staying in the single market and customs union. The counter argument was "WE" voted to leave the EU and the single market.

This is the problem, we didn't vote to leave the single market or the customs union. We didn't vote to end free movement of people or trade. The question was whether to leave the EU, not what it entailed.

Some people wanted this as an outcome of the vote, but these conditions were not part of the referendum. Some politicians suggested that a leave vote might include some of these as a result, they also suggested we were going to spend £x of millions on the NHS every week.

There was never any plan as to what would happen to EU nationals already living here or for ExPats living in the EU.

So, for anyone to say they voted to leave the single market etc is false. They voted to leave and hoped this meant leaving the single market too.

The whole referendum was an absolute joke, if the details had been thought out first we may have had an idea of what we were actually voting for, and the outcome may have been different. And I don't just mean a reversal of the result, if there had been a more detailed plan it could have led to a greater majority voting to leave.

Only caught a bit of QT, and switched it off because it was too depressing. As has been said before, there now seems to be a depseration on the part of Leave supporters, constantly wailing about the wafer thin majority they got, as if it justifies the most extreme form of Brexit. One person saying, "we should just leave," as if it's as simple as getting your coat and walking out was a prime example. The very fact that much of the Leave campaigning was predicated on staying in the Customs Union and/or Single Market, yet now some are saying that staying in them is not "properly leaving the EU" says it all.

And Richard Madeley came across as even more of a dick than usual.

 

[ceptimus]

Nonsense. How can you claim the Leave campaign was predicated on staying in the Customs Union when doing that prevents us from negotiating independent trade deals with other countries? One of the main benefits of leaving that Leave campaigned for was the ability to do independent trade deals - and that necessitates leaving the CU.


We need a leaver in charge to take us through this Brexit process. Having a remainer in charge is a disaster for the country.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Which leaver would you suggest?

 

[Information Analyst]

But let me recall this yet again to your mind, as you appear to have forgotten it, The U.K. No longer has an Empire. There is nothing belonging to Britain that can be shared by the EU after Brexit.

Well, technically the UK does have various Other Bits around the world, and even within Europe, but most if not all of them are outside the EU (some are in the Customs Union).

 

[Tolls]

Yes, Norway has a deal (via the EEA) with the EU. It pays for that. Essentially the same amount as we currently pay, for less say, and having to follow the rules.

Switzerland also pay, for even less stuff.

Canada doesn't pay, but doesn't get the same access.

The problem is, Leave keep saying we should have the same access we currently have and not pay.

This is clearly bollocks.

 

[Information Analyst]

I never said the UK has an empire. It doesn't need one to negotiate with the EU. The EU has bespoke trading arrangements with Norway, Switzerland, Canada, ... Why can't it negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with the UK? It does much more trade with the UK than with any of those other 'bespoke' countries.

Because hard-line Leavers are opposed to the Norwegian and Swiss models, despite them being championed by Leave campaigners before the referendum. I daresay there are things in the CETA that hard-line Leavers will consider cross their own "red lines," but I'll leave that to someone more conversant with the intricacies of the agreement to clarify. That deal did take more than ten years to negotiate, though.

 

[Craig B]

Nonsense. How can you claim the Leave campaign was predicated on staying in the Customs Union when doing that prevents us from negotiating independent trade deals with other countries? One of the main benefits of leaving that Leave campaigned for was the ability to do independent trade deals - and that necessitates leaving the CU.


We need a leaver in charge to take us through this Brexit process. Having a remainer in charge is a disaster for the country.

Quite so. Remainers don't know how to handle Johnnie Foreigner, do they?

 

[Francesca R]

While the EU are only prepared to dictate rather than negotiate [ . . . ]

So anyway, the EU has not been dictating. During "phase one" of negotiations the EU raised three issues (financial settlement, border arrangement in Ireland, rights of EU citizens post brexit) that had to be resolved before phase two (which is about trade and the "end state") could start; yet it allowed fudges of all three in December 2017 so that the second phase could indeed go ahead. This is probably because the EU does not want to force no-deal any more than most of the UK does. The EU could have taken actions that would have been significantly more likely to force a disorderly exit, probably toppling the UK government of the day in the process, had it wanted to.

As for brexiteers, I think the more noteworthy thing is that for two years they have avoided / backed away from forcing any of their supposed red line issues to a brink. Before negotiations even started they declared that the UK would be paying zip as financial settlement, that was dropped pretty immediately. They rejected the phase one matters as pre-conditions but discovered they couldn't. There was to be no transition period. I don't think anyone was interested in a "max fac".

And Theresa May is still PM. If a leadership change was precipitated internally it is highly likely that her replacement would be a brexiteer due to the make-up of the Tory members with a vote in that contest. It would only take a BoJo resignation or something like that.

They probably know that "a leaver in charge" would be disaster for their own ideas, setting aside whether it would be for the nation.