EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

No idea. :D Do you?
What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

---

I haven't read the agreement, but you have, so I'm asking you.

The current trade between the UK and the rEU is carried by approximately 30,000 truck journeys. The drivers don't need passes because the UK is within the EU. In the event of no deal, the UK will be treated as a third party, and eligible for 1,500 passes. So the 30k volume will be reduced by 95% to 1.5k. Hence the government's no deal preparations to take full control of what comes into the UK, as food, medical and other critical supplies will have to fit into that bottleneck. The issue was raised by Mr Trucker during that phone in. The numbers are in the Commons report. You've heard Raab's comments about the Dover-Calais trade route. The government's preps are in the news. None of it is theoretical. It's reported by experts in their field, unlike your report.

Does your proposed solution mention any numbers as to the number of passes UK drivers will be allotted?

No idea. :D
Sounds like the kind of thing a government ought to factor in, given it will "destroy 95percent of our EU trade", especially since Mr Trucker went and told Parliament about it.
I'm sure HMG have it covered, and I stand by my statement that I'd be quite happy to live within the backstop until the EU want to turf us out like an oversized teenager.

I am catching up on the last few months of the Economist and I am frankly just tired of Brexit taking up the entire "Britain" section every damn issue.

WHen am I supposed to hear about all the other policies that the UK is fucking up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I am catching up on the last few months of the Economist and I am frankly just tired of Brexit taking up the entire "Britain" section every damn issue.

WHen am I supposed to hear about all the other policies that the UK is fucking up?

---

That's all the politics that's happening in the UK at the moment, and ever since the referendum. Everything else is related to it. Given that no deal deprives the Treasury of revenue roughly equivalent to the entire Defence budget, and no deal is popular among the dimmer parts of the population, who are disturbingly numerous, what else do you expect to be discussed. "No deal is better than a bad deal", said our PM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

That's all the politics that's happening in the UK at the moment, and ever since the referendum. Everything else is related to it. Given that no deal deprives the Treasury of revenue roughly equivalent to the entire Defence budget, and no deal is popular among the dimmer parts of the population, who are disturbingly numerous, what else do you expect to be discussed. "No deal is better than a bad deal", said our PM.

---

So what the hell were all the PMs doing while May was negotiating the deal? At no point has anyone mentioned,"btw, let's get cracking on next years budget"?!?!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So what the hell were all the PMs doing while May was negotiating the deal? At no point has anyone mentioned,"btw, let's get cracking on next years budget"?!?!?

---

May tried to get away with seeming to keep the bus promise, "We send 350m to the EU every year; let's give it to the NHS instead". Except that firstly, it's that amount split over a number of years; secondly, it's not accounted for by savings from EU contributions, but by increasing taxes. That was her headline policy, but it was an tiny amount compared with the expected drops in tax revenue from any no deal. That's the point. All policies make a tiny impact when set against the effect on the economy that Brexit has. See the Common report where it spells out that our trade with the EU, by far our biggest trading partner, will drop in volume by 95% in the event of no deal. And not in ways that Furunculus and his beloved theorists reckons can be accounted for by clever measures, but a concrete bottleneck that cannot be avoided. Or the NI-Eire border, where the UK is obliged by treaty to keep a practically open border, but the biggest party in NI, which the UK government is obligated to, wants a hard border. Where economies and even communities ignore a border that has been practically non-existent since the GFA.

Let me point you to one of the headline Brexit issues: fishing rights. Fishing communities voted to leave the EU in order to have exclusive access to their fishing grounds, rather than share access as sold by the UK government. A clearcut case of voting to protect their own interests, wouldn't you say? Except that the market for their catch is within the EU27. What is caught in British fishing grounds is prized in France and Spain, but rarely eaten in the UK. Most of the fish that British people eat is caught outside British waters. Hence the spectacle of Grimsby overwhelmingly voting for Brexit, but asking to be excused from the effects of Brexit as their economy is dependent on access to the EU.

Brexit is the biggest issue in UK politics since WW2. The decision to leave the EU is probably the stupidest policy decided by the British people ever. Completely against all evidence and logic.

So logistically you are telling me that there was been no time for the PMs to take a break from Brexit and vote on let's say a prison reform bill? Do they have to be talking about Brexit every single second?

Let me ask you this, if I asked you for a list of acts passed by parliament in the past two years, are you telling me that that number is zero?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So logistically you are telling me that there was been no time for the PMs to take a break from Brexit and vote on let's say a prison reform bill? Do they have to be talking about Brexit every single second?

Let me ask you this, if I asked you for a list of acts passed by parliament in the past two years, are you telling me that that number is zero?

---

I haven't heard of any significant actions by the government in the past couple years outside firefighting (literal in the case of Grenfell) and budgets, where small changes are dwarfed by the impact of Brexit. Everything is dependent on the kind of Brexit we have. Like I said, if we have no deal, which a disturbingly large proportion of the population would vote for, so utterly thick they are, the Treasury's revenues drops by an amount roughly the size of our Defence budget. And that's just the money part. There's also managing the continued flow of food and other critical supplies; hence the government's plans to take control of imports should there be no deal, as how shipping space is used becomes a survival issue for the first time since WW2. Should we allow a free market of goods as advocated by FM theorists? Or should we first ensure that this country gets enough food to eat, enough safe water to drink, enough medical supplies to ensure no one dies needlessly, and enough power to tide things over until we decide enough is enough and go crawling back to the EU to beg for readmission? The shipping space is limited. Extremely limited should there be no deal. And yet,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar-posted article

That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

---

The above is a pretty popular view in the UK. "No deal is better than a bad deal".

at least you're quoting me accurately this time. much obliged. ;)
still a false choice being presented in Husar's article tho...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

May tried to get away with seeming to keep the bus promise, "We send 350m to the EU every year; let's give it to the NHS instead". Except that firstly, it's that amount split over a number of years; secondly, it's not accounted for by savings from EU contributions, but by increasing taxes. That was her headline policy, but it was an tiny amount compared with the expected drops in tax revenue from any no deal. That's the point. All policies make a tiny impact when set against the effect on the economy that Brexit has. See the Common report where it spells out that our trade with the EU, by far our biggest trading partner, will drop in volume by 95% in the event of no deal. And not in ways that Furunculus and his beloved theorists reckons can be accounted for by clever measures, but a concrete bottleneck that cannot be avoided. Or the NI-Eire border, where the UK is obliged by treaty to keep a practically open border, but the biggest party in NI, which the UK government is obligated to, wants a hard border. Where economies and even communities ignore a border that has been practically non-existent since the GFA.

Let me point you to one of the headline Brexit issues: fishing rights. Fishing communities voted to leave the EU in order to have exclusive access to their fishing grounds, rather than share access as sold by the UK government. A clearcut case of voting to protect their own interests, wouldn't you say? Except that the market for their catch is within the EU27. What is caught in British fishing grounds is prized in France and Spain, but rarely eaten in the UK. Most of the fish that British people eat is caught outside British waters. Hence the spectacle of Grimsby overwhelmingly voting for Brexit, but asking to be excused from the effects of Brexit as their economy is dependent on access to the EU.

Brexit is the biggest issue in UK politics since WW2. The decision to leave the EU is probably the stupidest policy decided by the British people ever. Completely against all evidence and logic.

---

It's the smartest thing ever, 40% of your trade will get more expensive, 60% will become cheaper. On tops, you won't have to listen to the ultra-undemocratic Brussel anymore. As it is now you loose more than you gain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's the smartest thing ever, 40% of your trade will get more expensive, 60% will become cheaper. On tops, you won't have to listen to the ultra-undemocratic Brussel anymore. As it is now you loose more than you gain

---

Where's the evidence backing your assertions? Show proof. Or stop BSing. Or alternatively, come over here post-Brexit and join us in the post-Brexit utopia you are so keen on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

at least you're quoting me accurately this time. much obliged. ;)
still a false choice being presented in Husar's article tho...

---

May's deal is conforming to the EU's regulations without a say in making them, and requiring the EU's permission to alter the situation. Is any of the above incorrect?

FT article, reported on The Guardian:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Financial Times

Chris Grayling, transport secretary, has warned the cabinet that trade on the key Dover-Calais route could be cut by up to 87 per cent in the event of a disorderly exit, as checks and customs controls are introduced in France.

The pro-Brexit Mr Grayling has written to colleagues seeking approval for the chartering of ships, or space on ships, to operate on alternative routes, bypassing likely blockages in the Strait of Dover.

He has also requested cabinet approval to increase the capacity at three ports with trade links with the EU but with considerably longer journey times: Ramsgate, Sheerness and Immingham.

---

Quote:

---

One official has apparently warned that Britain would face Soviet-style empty shelves in the supermarkets, as perishable fruit and veg would rot before it made it through customs....

If this happened, the government would also find itself having to choose what to prioritise -- medicines, equipment or food.

One official has apparently joked that “It’s gearboxes versus pâté,”

---

Are you taking responsibility for this yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Where's the evidence backing your assertions? Show proof. Or stop BSing. Or alternatively, come over here post-Brexit and join us in the post-Brexit utopia you are so keen on.

---

Always the same thing, 'why don't you come live here', not going to I do not like England I do not want to live there it is a depressing place. But that has nothing to do with Brexit, I can't stand the overall sadness there it creeps up on you. You can easily find where your trade goes yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Always the same thing, 'why don't you come live here', not going to I do not like England I do not want to live there it is a depressing place. But that has nothing to do with Brexit, I can't stand the overall sadness there it creeps up on you. You can easily find where your trade goes yourself

---

Have you read the above article about preparations for "disorderly Brexit"? What do you think about the choice between machine parts and food? Do you think that we should stop importing fresh foodstuffs? What priority would you put medical supplies at? Should perishable medical supplies also be put on the backburner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

May's deal is conforming to the EU's regulations without a say in making them, and requiring the EU's permission to alter the situation. Is any of the above incorrect?

FT article, reported on The Guardian:




Are you taking responsibility for this yet?

---

On goods, yes. The open europe explainer details all this very adequately. Have you read it yet?

Ft article details consequence of disorderly no deal exit, not the backstop which you got your knickers in a twist about when I said I'd be quite happy to sit within it.

Go. Boil. Your. Head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Have you read the above article about preparations for "disorderly Brexit"? What do you think about the choice between machine parts and food? Do you think that we should stop importing fresh foodstuffs? What priority would you put medical supplies at? Should perishable medical supplies also be put on the backburner?

---

It's alarmist, the Netherlands is probably your most important trade import and that is not going to change, most you guys can grow yourself. If the EU did not stop our tech because France doesn't like it we could do much much more. Trade won't stop that is a needless worry. Medicine is something your scientists excel in, you are truly innovative we kinda rely on what you guys already figured out, you shouldn't worry that much about these things so much, it are scare tactics. You don't realise that that it is the EU that is scared because it is their comfortable bliss that is falling apart when the brits leave, some eastern countries will leave as well, hopefully we as well, not realistic now because of current of the political landscape and the exclusion of populist parties but it's just a matter of time. No populist referendum has ever been in favour of the EU, so europhiles banned referendums, wrong answer. It are a scary lot, 1984 is so eighties

I'm having regrets about posting that article. Some people could think I were somehow involved in or knowledgeable about Brexit when I just like to watch a ship sink, eh, fly, I mean fly.

You also tried to answer something for me a page or two ago, Furunculus, and I'm not sure I understand it. British politics and finance are probably so different and so much more sophisticated than on the mainland, that Britain is better off without us.

And just because it's good for our friendship, I want to mention this again: Open Europe is sort of neoliberal and wants to advance corporate rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'm having regrets about posting that article. Some people could think I were somehow involved in or knowledgeable about Brexit when I just like to watch a ship sink, eh, fly, I mean fly.

You also tried to answer something for me a page or two ago, Furunculus, and I'm not sure I understand it. British politics and finance are probably so different and so much more sophisticated than on the mainland, that Britain is better off without us.

And just because it's good for our friendship, I want to mention this again: Open Europe is sort of neoliberal and wants to advance corporate rule.

---

Have you heard about Plan A+? It's the ERG's latest effort, or perhaps it may be more accurate to describe it as the ERG's latest repackaging of their fundamental plan: to break the UK away from Europe and turn it towards the US. Funnily, a large part of the turn against foreigners that Brexit taps into is the blame for the competition for domestic resources in the post-financial crash age. Yet Plan A+ devotes a lot of its energy to deregulating the UK financial markets and normalising with the US. The US, of course, being where the financial crash originated due to its deregulation. Both US demands and ERG plans also coincide in taking the NHS apart. And there will also be normalising agricultural and consumer standards with the US, which is hugely unpopular in the UK.

Oh well, never mind all that. Never mind the British government preparing to take control of shipping space as I'd said they were planning to. Furunculus says it's for a different reason, and is only for "disorderly Brexit", so that's fine then. I'm surprised he didn't catch me on the differing numbers as well: I'd said 95% reduction, the government says only 87%. I'd got something else wrong as well: I'd said that the imports would prioritise food and other critical supplies, but the government prioritises machine parts instead. Never mind all that, as Furunculus has me bang to rights. I'll now go and boil my head as he suggests.

Straw man.

I think it should be quite clear by now that broadly support the wa/pd and not the erg.

At what point in this mess would you agree that revoking Article 50 might be a good idea, Furunculus?

Just curious if the Brexit deal ever got so bad that you might consider just remaining. Or is No Deal Brexit still preferable?

I believe monty already asked this question.

My answer was: alien invasion.

Because I will not assent to political union via endless economic integration and institutional QMV.

But, right now, I'm quite content with the deal proposed.

Based on the votes I am seeing today, I honestly don't think the MPs have the balls to go through with it. My understanding is that after today, Parliament now has authority over the direction the government takes if May's deal falls flat. Meanwhile they have declared the whole government to be illegally stonewalling Parliament by not disclosing the Brexit legal advice used to generate this deal.

Farage has left the UKIP, Tory's are inching closer to a vote of no contest, and the Northern Ireland parties have turned against May.
I'm afraid that the British people have simply lost their institutional knowledge of government from the elites down to the public.

But I guess Furunculus would prefer the incompetence of a familiar face, than endure the benefits of a French-German management.

no.
i DEMAND a system of governance that leaves people free choice, and total understanding that they will bear the consequences of their choices.
i also have ENORMOUS confidence in the process of parliament, even where it produces results i don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Based on the votes I am seeing today, I honestly don't think the MPs have the balls to go through with it. My understanding is that after today, Parliament now has authority over the direction the government takes if May's deal falls flat. Meanwhile they have declared the whole government to be illegally stonewalling Parliament by not disclosing the Brexit legal advice used to generate this deal.

Farage has left the UKIP, Tory's are inching closer to a vote of no contest, and the Northern Ireland parties have turned against May.
I'm afraid that the British people have simply lost their institutional knowledge of government from the elites down to the public.

But I guess Furunculus would prefer the incompetence of a familiar face, than endure the benefits of a French-German management.

---

Or seize the EU and re-establish it as the beginnings of the Human Union.

Can we just say the Moon is enormous ancient battleship and an alien invasion is coming to reclaim it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

no.
i DEMAND a system of governance that leaves people free choice, and total understanding that they will bear the consequences of their choices.
i also have ENORMOUS confidence in the process of parliament, even where it produces results i don't like.

---

I have brought this up before, directed more towards Fragony though. The choice was never solely In or Out, but there is always the hard path of Reform. Why give up what Parliament worked hard for (the British Euro exception, the special treatment in the EU, etc.) and commit to this self destructive path when you could achieve the same thing, without the mess and the needless political pain and suffering of your people through EU Reform?

Backing away from commitments is lazy, there is nothing to be proud about it, "free choice" and other flowery language is just that. The most substantial things in life are the ones we continually put effort into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Or seize the EU and re-establish it as the beginnings of the Human Union.

Can we just say the Moon is enormous ancient battleship and an alien invasion is coming to reclaim it?

---

Time for the Terran Federation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I have brought this up before, directed more towards Fragony though. The choice was never solely In or Out, but there is always the hard path of Reform. Why give up what Parliament worked hard for (the British Euro exception, the special treatment in the EU, etc.) and commit to this self destructive path when you could achieve the same thing, without the mess and the needless political pain and suffering of your people through EU Reform?

Backing away from commitments is lazy, there is nothing to be proud about it, "free choice" and other flowery language is just that. The most substantial things in life are the ones we continually put effort into.

---

i too I have brought this up before:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053786505

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Time for the Terran Federation?

---

Do not want "service guarantees citizenship".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I have brought this up before, directed more towards Fragony though. The choice was never solely In or Out, but there is always the hard path of Reform. Why give up what Parliament worked hard for (the British Euro exception, the special treatment in the EU, etc.) and commit to this self destructive path when you could achieve the same thing, without the mess and the needless political pain and suffering of your people through EU Reform?

Backing away from commitments is lazy, there is nothing to be proud about it, "free choice" and other flowery language is just that. The most substantial things in life are the ones we continually put effort into.

---

You make it sound as though the UK has a specific duty to reform the EU or attempt to before leaving. Too close for comfort to the rhetoric wielded against refugees and immigrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i too I have brought this up before:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053786505

---

I see how you can come to Brexit then. But that is if you take the politicians at their word. My concern is that prior to the vote, many politicians seem eager to dump their failures as statesmen on the EU and paint it as a boogeyman never expecting you would actually vote to leave!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You make it sound as though the UK has a specific duty to reform the EU or attempt to before leaving. Too close for comfort to the rhetoric wielded against refugees and immigrants.

---

Duty, responsibility, obligation, expectation...not sure the right word for it. I have an idealistic view of political unions, as I view political unions highlight a willingness of people to move beyond local tribalist mentalities. Europe has been a very violent place historically. What a shame to throw away a project because you couldn't be bothered by it. Did the North have a duty to keep the South in the US by force? Or did we justify it by appealing to some higher ideology about "the Union" that we wished to see fulfilled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I see how you can come to Brexit then. But that is if you take the politicians at their word. My concern is that prior to the vote, many politicians seem eager to dump their failures as statesmen on the EU and paint it as a boogeyman never expecting you would actually vote to leave!



Duty, responsibility, obligation, expectation...not sure the right word for it. I have an idealistic view of political unions, as I view political unions highlight a willingness of people to move beyond local tribalist mentalities. Europe has been a very violent place historically. What a shame to throw away a project because you couldn't be bothered by it. Did the North have a duty to keep the South in the US by force? Or did we justify it by appealing to some higher ideology about "the Union" that we wished to see fulfilled?

---

You could argue that states have a duty to encourage human flourishing. But even that doesn't directly translate to [any of those words] toward reform or 'sticking it out'. As you know, I'm all for political union. But don't rely on wrong or shaky premises in rhetoric.

With the Civil War, again, there were many political and geopolitical reasons justifying the use of force by the North. AFAIK idealistic or ideological motivations (those that existed contemporarily in 1860) were at least as much pinned around the necessity of abolition as "liberty and union" for its own sake. Beyond that I contribute that all free peoples (used semi-ironically) have a duty to destroy slaver states like the CSA or Nazi Germany/Japan (or, Pol Pot's Cambodia), because their very existence is nigh-apocalyptic. They might as well be cultists chanting "Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne." Destroying them is almost invariably a utilitarian victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitler

Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter -- with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It's a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.

I have issued the command -- and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad -- that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness -- for the present only in the East -- with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language.

---

Always gives me goosebumps.