EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

Just after Mexico pays for the USA's new border fence.

[Beskar]

Just after Mexico pays for the USA's new border fence.

Sounds about right.

Unfortunately, I know people where the 350million moved to the NHS was a big selling point for them.

I dont think he would have a job for long if he lied to his clients.

You do hit a point on the head... he will still have his job as MP after lying to the electorate.

[Furunculus]

That, as always, is for his electorate to decide.

[Pannonian]

That, as always, is for his electorate to decide.

No questioning the ethics of an MP who recognises that Brexit is damaging the economy and advises his clients to avoid the UK, yet who is pushing for the most damaging form of Brexit? Is there a tipping point for you?

[Husar]

Sounds legit. Maybe he got elected to promote Brexit no matter what and he's honest to his clients, too, when he tells them he's going to ruin the country.

[Furunculus]

No questioning the ethics of an MP who recognises that Brexit is damaging the economy and advises his clients to avoid the UK, yet who is pushing for the most damaging form of Brexit? Is there a tipping point for you?

yes. blair signing up to the social chapter. then, belgium demanding that even if britain got an exemption from ever closer union it must apply to no-one else.

[Pannonian]

yes. blair signing up to the social chapter. then, belgium demanding that even if britain got an exemption from ever closer union it must apply to no-one else.

So Belgium grandstanding on something that doesn't affect the UK was a tipping point for you, but economic disaster, corrupt Brexiters and Russian influence in UK politics aren't a tipping point? Are there any tipping points that might convince you that Brexit is a bad idea?

[Furunculus]

So Belgium grandstanding on something that doesn't affect the UK was a tipping point for you, but economic disaster, corrupt Brexiters and Russian influence in UK politics aren't a tipping point? Are there any tipping points that might convince you that Brexit is a bad idea?

You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention.

Belgium's act DOES affect the uk.

You have been labouring under the misapprehension that this whole brexit thing was an accident; the consequence of poor dialogue and badly calibrated decision making. In short, that a yes/no decision was a balance-of-probablities tactical decision seeking optimal economic outcomes. That this is a matter trade balances, calibration of welfare policies, complexity of customs arrangements, and that if the debate had better focused on these matters we’d have arrived at a more optimal decision.

It wasn’t. Rather, it is a moral strategic question of who you want to be, and whether your current path will achieve this.
And the renegotiation failed on those same terms; in finding tactical compromises that had no relevance to the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

Juncker’s warning in Sept on the necessity of eurozone accession, just as with Belgium in January 2016, was a stark warning to that blocking minority on who paid their wages. That’s a shame for them, because they quietly enjoyed us taking the flak for contentious positions they benefit from later (such as the 48hr working week exemption). It was an instructive lesson for Britain, that whatever the words say the project will march on and your friends won’t be able to help. That’s a shame for us, because it sufficiently preserved the fundamental sovereignty necessary to allow our continued membership.

"Economic disaster", pah! Nothing I have seen about this institution says that it is fit for anything but the good times and short term. It has nothing of the flexibility and adaptability that is the sine quo non of long term success in dealing with change.

How can you call it mere "grand-standing", it was the rigid enforcement of integrationist discipline on nations too small to argue for their own liberty. Can you not see how this attitude is crashingly disappointing in someone who likes to brand themself as a 'progressive'?

[Pannonian]

You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention.

Belgium's act DOES affect the uk.

You have been labouring under the misapprehension that this whole brexit thing was an accident; the consequence of poor dialogue and badly calibrated decision making. In short, that a yes/no decision was a balance-of-probablities tactical decision seeking optimal economic outcomes. That this is a matter trade balances, calibration of welfare policies, complexity of customs arrangements, and that if the debate had better focused on these matters we’d have arrived at a more optimal decision.

It wasn’t. Rather, it is a moral strategic question of who you want to be, and whether your current path will achieve this.
And the renegotiation failed on those same terms; in finding tactical compromises that had no relevance to the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

Juncker’s warning in Sept on the necessity of eurozone accession, just as with Belgium in January 2016, was a stark warning to that blocking minority on who paid their wages. That’s a shame for them, because they quietly enjoyed us taking the flak for contentious positions they benefit from later (such as the 48hr working week exemption). It was an instructive lesson for Britain, that whatever the words say the project will march on and your friends won’t be able to help. That’s a shame for us, because it sufficiently preserved the fundamental sovereignty necessary to allow our continued membership.

"Economic disaster", pah! Nothing I have seen about this institution says that it is fit for anything but the good times and short term. It has nothing of the flexibility and adaptability that is the sine quo non of long term success in dealing with change.

How can you call it mere "grand-standing", it was the rigid enforcement of integrationist discipline on nations too small to argue for their own liberty. Can you not see how this attitude is crashingly disappointing in someone who likes to brand themself as a 'progressive'?

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

Furunculus, yes. Others not so much.

[Furunculus]

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

I have changed my mind on all sorts of strongly held opinions. This would be no different.

[Pannonian]

I have changed my mind on all sorts of strongly held opinions. This would be no different.

If the UK is nobly standing against the oppression of smaller countries implicit in Belgium's statement, then surely there would be other countries who will be following us, or at least inclined to. Or at least who will sympathise with us. Are there any other EU members of that bent? Let me point you to Greece, surely the poster boy for a Eurozone member who had done badly from being in the Eurozone, and were treated shabbily by EU institutions. Are they currently pro or anti the EU over there? Let me point you to another EU member, Malta, as small as it gets, and with historical British links. What do they think of the EU and Brexit? Are there any other EU members that fit your hypothesis?

[Furunculus]

I make no claim that they want to leave, only that many of the nordic and accession periphery fight to preserve their independence from ever closer union, in foreign policy, in monetary and economic union, in justice and home affairs, and in border controls.

The major difference between them and ourselves being:
They are small nations used to being receivers of geopolitics, not makers.
more interested in their identity as Europeans.
more dependent on their European neighbours for trade (yes, even the mighty German export machine).
Often using a legal system more sympathetic to EU legal norms (napoleonic)
often using a political system more sympathetic to EU political norms (consensual)

Not just a noble ambition, also a simple matter of power and politics, using our common interest to shape geopolitics in favour of Britain s opinion.

[Pannonian]

I make no claim that they want to leave, only that many of the nordic and accession periphery fight to preserve their independence from ever closer union, in foreign policy, in monetary and economic union, in justice and home affairs, and in border controls.

The major difference between them and ourselves being:
They are small nations used to being receivers of geopolitics, not makers.
more interested in their identity as Europeans.
more dependent on their European neighbours for trade (yes, even the mighty German export machine).
Often using a legal system more sympathetic to EU legal norms (napoleonic)
often using a political system more sympathetic to EU political norms (consensual)

Not just a noble ambition, also a simple matter of power and politics, using our common interest to shape geopolitics in favour of Britain s opinion.

Britain hasn't looked to Scandinavia for geopolitics since the battle of Stamford Bridge. The last time Scandinavia shaped geopolitics was when Charles XII invaded Russia. How on earth is a closer relationship with Scandinavia going to replace the benefits we got from being in the EU? A large part of foreign interest is because we were an English speaking member of the EU. With that status gone, are they going to be interested because we're an English speaking member of a pan North Sea group? Hell, most of the Scandinavian countries already qualify, and they have existing infrastructure to deal with these international relationships, which we don't.

[Furunculus]

Britain hasn't looked to Scandinavia for geopolitics since the battle of Stamford Bridge. The last time Scandinavia shaped geopolitics was when Charles XII invaded Russia. How on earth is a closer relationship with Scandinavia going to replace the benefits we got from being in the EU? A large part of foreign interest is because we were an English speaking member of the EU. With that status gone, are they going to be interested because we're an English speaking member of a pan North Sea group? Hell, most of the Scandinavian countries already qualify, and they have existing infrastructure to deal with these international relationships, which we don't.

Possibly I was unclear, perils of tapping a quick message on a phone.

The Nordic countries are often a vehicle for [our] ambitions in european policy, due to shared interests. not that they are a significant geopolitical actor we wish to influence in their own right.

[Pannonian]

Possibly I was unclear, perils of tapping a quick message on a phone.

The Nordic countries are often a vehicle for [our] ambitions in european policy, due to shared interests. not that they are a significant geopolitical actor we wish to influence in their own right.

And in case you've missed the history, we share far more common interests with mainland Europe over the last 1000 years, since Stamford Bridge put an end to Nordic interests in England.

And in other news, Grimsby wants to declare itself a free port, technically leaving the UK, so that barriers between the UK and EU post-Brexit will not apply to it. Any tariffs and such barriers will only come into effect once goods leave Grimsby and enter the rUK. Quoth one fish market worker, "We want things to stay as they are." Meanwhile, London and Scotland, 60% Remain in the referendum and contributing a far more than average share of the UK's tax money, won't get this privilege and will have to take whatever the Leavers give them.

[rory_20_uk]

We can have common interests without being in the same political bloc.

Grimsby want to be a Free Port? They don't mind the import fees they'll get on services from the rest of the UK such as water and electricity.

Or they would like to be a Tax Haven that gets the best of both? Can I declare my house a free Zone since that would suit me?

[Pannonian]

A Tory MP speaking against Brexit has received death threats after a newspaper lists her and 14 other MPs as mutineers. NB. A Labour MP was killed over this issue last year.

[Furunculus]

And in case you've missed the history, we share far more common interests with mainland Europe over the last 1000 years, since Stamford Bridge put an end to Nordic interests in England.

And in other news, Grimsby wants to declare itself a free port, technically leaving the UK, so that barriers between the UK and EU post-Brexit will not apply to it. Any tariffs and such barriers will only come into effect once goods leave Grimsby and enter the rUK. Quoth one fish market worker, "We want things to stay as they are." Meanwhile, London and Scotland, 60% Remain in the referendum and contributing a far more than average share of the UK's tax money, won't get this privilege and will have to take whatever the Leavers give them.

that is a non sequitur.

good for grimsby. are they a labour seat?

[Pannonian]

The US imposes prohibitive tariffs on goods from the UK. The EU supports the UK in the trade dispute, with the backing of an even larger market than the US. I can't wait for March 2019 when Brussels stops interfering in British affairs.

[rory_20_uk]

The US imposes prohibitive tariffs on goods from the UK. The EU supports the UK in the trade dispute, with the backing of an even larger market than the US. I can't wait for March 2019 when Brussels stops interfering in British affairs.

The USA declares war on the EU. The UK remains out of it. Too far fetched? The UK is dragged into a tariff dispute between the EU and the USA.

Why is the USA breaking WTO rules?

[Pannonian]

The USA declares war on the EU. The UK remains out of it. Too far fetched? The UK is dragged into a tariff dispute between the EU and the USA.

Why is the USA breaking WTO rules?

Because they can, and the UK cannot retaliate as the UK is much, much weaker than the US.

[rory_20_uk]

Because they can, and the UK cannot retaliate as the UK is much, much weaker than the US.

When have they done this? To any country?

[Pannonian]

When have they done this? To any country?

Bombardier? 300% tariffs to clear the market for Boeing and other US companies?

[rory_20_uk]

That wasn't breaking WTO rules since the issue is illegal government support. I hardly see the EU jumping in to help if a member illegally supports their company.

[Pannonian]

That wasn't breaking WTO rules since the issue is illegal government support. I hardly see the EU jumping in to help if a member illegally supports their company.

"Brussels sides with UK in Bombardier tariff row"

[Husar]

What illegal government support? If government subsidies were illegal, every country that gives any corporation an effective tax rate below 10% should be boycotted. We'd basically end international trade entirely I guess.

I can see how it's terrible when it does actually ruin the economy of other countries, such as subsidized cheap EU food ruining African economies. But in this case even Delta said that Boeing wasn't even competing with Bombardier since Boing has absolutely not competing airplane in that class. So the argument that Bombardier was hurting an American company makes no sense. It sounds more like the subsidies benefit Delta since they get the planes cheaper.

[Pannonian]

What illegal government support? If government subsidies were illegal, every country that gives any corporation an effective tax rate below 10% should be boycotted. We'd basically end international trade entirely I guess.

I can see how it's terrible when it does actually ruin the economy of other countries, such as subsidized cheap EU food ruining African economies. But in this case even Delta said that Boeing wasn't even competing with Bombardier since Boing has absolutely not competing airplane in that class. So the argument that Bombardier was hurting an American company makes no sense. It sounds more like the subsidies benefit Delta since they get the planes cheaper.

More to the point, there is the mentality that the UK is the absolute polar opposite of the EU, and thus anything that hurts the EU must be good for the UK, and thus leading to the Brexiteers' strategy of aiming to hurt the EU as much as possible, even if hurts the UK much more. Corollary to this is the disbelief that anything good coming out of the EU can be good for the UK. And thus the EU backing the UK, who is after all still a full member at this point, is alien to Brexiteers.

A continuing refrain of the Brexiteers is that Britain has always lost out to
the rest of Europe in negotiations. This derives partly from the way successive
governments have portrayed the EU as a battleground in which there is room only
for victory or defeat. It is also explained by the tendency of politicians to
blame “Europe” for everything – often to divert attention from their own
shortcomings.

In fact, the UK has led Europe in a remarkable way, and has rarely failed to
gain its major objectives. However the process is one of debate and argument,
proof and counter-argument, rather than demanding that the rest of EU should
immediately see the sense in our position and give way without question. It is
this assumption of always being right that has bedevilled our relationships with
our neighbours.

[Fragony]

Talking about shortcommings, 48 billion euro is missing. The eurocrats don't know where it is. Somewhere in Greece

[Husar]

Talking about shortcommings, 48 billion euro is missing. The eurocrats don't know where it is. Somewhere in Greece

Do you have a source? I can't seem to find one.