EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

actually, i think it reveals more about the ignorance of those who think they're being clever by scoring a 'point' in calling him out on this, than it does about raab.

i have seen quite sympatheteic responses to raab's point from trade experts like Dmitry Grozoubinski and i think its a rather more nunanced point than twitter screamers understand.

I've been talking about the bottleneck for months, as I've been reading up on what experts say on the subject. I expect government ministers to be cleverer and better informed than me. If I, an amateur, am better informed on a non-specialist subject than the relevant minister, why the are they in government being paid a 6 figure salary with accompanying pension?

BTW, have you listened to Mr. Trucker yet, or read the parliamentary report I've linked to?

[rory_20_uk]

It's full on nostalgia for the glory years of WW2. We're isolating ourselves from Europe, now we're organising shipping space at government level for food and medicines. Now we just need ration books and conscription and we're good to go.

Government advice is to stockpile necessary medical supplies for 6 weeks. Given that doctors are unwilling to prescribe some medicines for more than 2 weeks a pop, I'm wondering how this works.

Completely! The same in every way.

Apart from looking to have trade deals with countries such as China and possibly even entering the TPP. But yeah, the parallels are startling - I'm going to send my pots and pans so we can build more shells to fire at Calais.

But I completely agree that if doing anything causes any disruption to trade, it should be stopped. Frankly, having a UK parliament only creates problems - we should just have a commissioner appointed by Brussels.

[Pannonian]

Completely! The same in every way.

Apart from looking to have trade deals with countries such as China and possibly even entering the TPP. But yeah, the parallels are startling - I'm going to send my pots and pans so we can build more shells to fire at Calais.

But I completely agree that if doing anything causes any disruption to trade, it should be stopped. Frankly, having a UK parliament only creates problems - we should just have a commissioner appointed by Brussels.

Does exiting the political institutions of the EU require exiting the single market?

[rory_20_uk]

Does exiting the political institutions of the EU require exiting the single market?

For me it is not the single market directly, it is that this would prevent other trade agreements with third parties and electing different standards if/when wanted. I would wish for trade to be as free as possible with the EU and also elsewhere.

[Pannonian]

For me it is not the single market directly, it is that this would prevent other trade agreements with third parties and electing different standards if/when wanted. I would wish for trade to be as free as possible with the EU and also elsewhere.

How are our prospective post-EU trade agreements going, BTW? The last I heard, the US, Russia, Australia and New Zealand (that I've heard of) were objecting to the terms of our prospective membership of the WTO. In the US case, they will veto unless we align with them on agriculture, food standards and open up the health industry. In Aus and NZ's case, it's because we'll no longer be part of the single market and thus will be less of a market for them, thus they want more advantageous terms. I can't remember what it was for Russia, but it was probably for shits and giggles. Remember, Aus and NZ were supposed to be what we'll be looking to for friends as they're part of the Commonwealth, while the US were supposed to be our new main partners. Or so the Brexiteers promised, anyway.

Which of the positives promised by Brexiteers have come true so far, or looked like coming true? I've only seen the Brave New World being dialled back, replaced by "We''ll survive".

[rory_20_uk]

How are our prospective post-EU trade agreements going, BTW? The last I heard, the US, Russia, Australia and New Zealand (that I've heard of) were objecting to the terms of our prospective membership of the WTO. In the US case, they will veto unless we align with them on agriculture, food standards and open up the health industry. In Aus and NZ's case, it's because we'll no longer be part of the single market and thus will be less of a market for them, thus they want more advantageous terms. I can't remember what it was for Russia, but it was probably for shits and giggles. Remember, Aus and NZ were supposed to be what we'll be looking to for friends as they're part of the Commonwealth, while the US were supposed to be our new main partners. Or so the Brexiteers promised, anyway.

Which of the positives promised by Brexiteers have come true so far, or looked like coming true? I've only seen the Brave New World being dialled back, replaced by "We''ll survive".

Given the EU doesn't allow any negotiations after leaving how well can they be going? Even if they were all agreed and just needed to be signed neither side would be able to talk about them.

Could you link to where the USA has stated they'd veto us? I only ask since you are so against histrionics by Brexiteers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does exiting the political institutions of the EU require exiting the single market?

Has EU leadership offered the opportunity to opt out of the EU but keep a place in the single market? I suspect not. The British negotiator who, trying to get Brexit to work, refused such an offer would be lynched.

[rory_20_uk]

Has EU leadership offered the opportunity to opt out of the EU but keep a place in the single market? I suspect not. The British negotiator who, trying to get Brexit to work, refused such an offer would be lynched.

Await Husar's "there's no a la carte deal" - if countries could have the useful bits and ditch the crap the EU would quickly unravel to a trade and standards body requiring vastly less politicians and bureaucrats on high salaries - the horror!

[Pannonian]

Has EU leadership offered the opportunity to opt out of the EU but keep a place in the single market? I suspect not. The British negotiator who, trying to get Brexit to work, refused such an offer would be lynched.

They've said that the single market requires retaining the four freedoms. None of these requirements include membership of the political institutions. One of the absolute requirements of Brexiteers is to block one of these freedoms, but they all want the other three. Hence rory's reference to no deal a la carte. But despite rory and others' references to being ruled from Brussels, none of these requirements include membership of the political institutions. We don't need to interact with Brussels other than as a foreign country, and we can still have membership of the single market. IIRC this is the Norway option, promised by Farage before the referendum, but which is now dismissed by all Brexiteers.

[Husar]

Await Husar's "there's no a la carte deal"

Oh please, I'm just skimming the back and forth here, I want nothing to do with this dirty talk.

But yeah, imagine you worked for a company selling drugs and someone offered you a deal where they would buy lots of drugs from you at a very cheap price but they'd be unwilling to pay above the unit cost so that you'd make absolutely no profit from that deal. Surely you'd give them that deal and let all your other customers know, right?

But no, you say, I run this company to make a profit and if I stop, nobody gets these drugs anymore!

And then some dude comes along and just says: Oh, but you just want some free money for sitting in your office chair all day and noone needs your stupid company and drugs anyway, stop crying and give people the drugs at prooduction prices! Save yourself the cost of an expensive, unnecessary sales department! They cost the drug consumer too much anyway! It's immoral to ask a profit for something so vital!

But then you go "But we have to finance future developments, invest in R&D to further improve our drugs!"

And the other guy goes: "But we don't want any new drugs, we already liked our opiates in 1980 when it would just make the pain go away and nothing else! Revert to the 1980s drugs and sell us these at production prices, development and growth are for capitalists and capitalists stink!"

You see how you're the communist here?

[Pannonian]

Will the Corbyn supporters still solidly back Corbyn now that he's come out in favour of Brexit? As was obvious to anyone who's paid attention to what he's said.

[Fragony]

Corbyn sure is interesting, I think he is a dangerous man, very radical. I can't judge if he is an antisemite or that accusations of it are beneath him, not sure. Extreme left and antisemitism go hand in hand, he certainly glorifies in passive agression

[Furunculus]

Has EU leadership offered the opportunity to opt out of the EU but keep a place in the single market? I suspect not. The British negotiator who, trying to get Brexit to work, refused such an offer would be lynched.

Yes, EEA/EFTA + the Customs Union is what was offered.
So fully regulatory alignment on all Single Market rules - and Flanking Policies!
Plus no freedom to seek trade outside of the EU's own agreements.
Essential loss of regulatory control of financial services.
Plus further bleed-thru of fiscal and monetary norms as an activist ECJ concurs that these are Single Market related activities.

This is why I support Chequers in aiming for single market for goods, and not services. Not disimilar to what has been acheieved by the Swiss and Ukraine, but magical unicorn thinking no doubt. ;)

[Beskar]

This is why I support Chequers in aiming for single market for goods, and not services. Not disimilar to what has been acheieved by the Swiss and Ukraine, but magical unicorn thinking no doubt. ;)

You mean the Swiss in the Schengen Area? Freedom of movement accepted, which the UK does not want.

[Furunculus]

i don't care very much about freedom of movement.
at least no more than the point that it discrimates against the rest of the world, including nations which i feel we have close social and cultural ties.

but schengen has no bearing on this point.

[Pannonian]

i don't care very much about freedom of movement.
at least no more than the point that it discrimates against the rest of the world, including nations which i feel we have close social and cultural ties.

but schengen has no bearing on this point.

What do you think of Australia and New Zealand objecting to our rolling over existing terms for proposed WTO membership, arguing that they only agreed to them because we were part of the EU, and since we're leaving the EU, they want more advantageous terms?

[Furunculus]

What do you think of Australia and New Zealand objecting to our rolling over existing terms for proposed WTO membership, arguing that they only agreed to them because we were part of the EU, and since we're leaving the EU, they want more advantageous terms?

that does not alter my judgement as outlined above in any way.

[Pannonian]

that does not alter my judgement as outlined above in any way.

They clearly value their trade ties with the EU over doing us the favour that we'd presumed. Or were you thinking of some other countries who are socially and culturally closer to us than Australia and New Zealand?

BTW, we discriminate in favour of Australian and New Zealanders who are here, who have more rights than EU citizens (barring Irish). Do you think we should remove these discriminatory rights?

Also, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? You dismissed him as an insignificant source, yet the UK government is forming policy based on his testimony and reports citing him. Do you still think that no deal is better than SM/CU (BRINO) as you'd previously said?

[Furunculus]

They clearly value their trade ties with the EU over doing us the favour that we'd presumed. Or were you thinking of some other countries who are socially and culturally closer to us than Australia and New Zealand?

BTW, we discriminate in favour of Australian and New Zealanders who are here, who have more rights than EU citizens (barring Irish). Do you think we should remove these discriminatory rights?

Also, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? You dismissed him as an insignificant source, yet the UK government is forming policy based on his testimony and reports citing him. Do you still think that no deal is better than SM/CU (BRINO) as you'd previously said?

no, those people.

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

excellent, I expect my government (whoever is running it) to respond to changing circumstances.

[Pannonian]

no, those people.

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

excellent, I expect my government (whoever is running it) to respond to changing circumstances.

They could vote to deprive EU citizens of those rights. EU citizens couldn't vote to preserve those rights. You and rory are big on political rights, aren't you?

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? His testimony, and reports citing his testimony, is making the government reconsider their insouciance towards no deal. Are you still for no deal after listening to him? Have you even listened to him? FWIW, the BBC took one Brexiteer through the process that Mr Trucker referred to. After going through a relatively trouble-free instance of that, said Brexiteer said he'd been lied to, and hadn't understood until then what trade involved. And that was just the standard process that Mr Trucker goes through on a good day, with virtually no unusual friction encountered (the Brexiteer noted that in his experience, 50% of documents contain errors, with the customs official telling him how long each error would delay matters; there weren't any on this occasion, but the very checking of the documents demonstrated to the Brexiteer the processes involved).

[Furunculus]

They could vote to deprive EU citizens of those rights. EU citizens couldn't vote to preserve those rights. You and rory are big on political rights, aren't you?

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? His testimony, and reports citing his testimony, is making the government reconsider their insouciance towards no deal. Are you still for no deal after listening to him? Have you even listened to him? FWIW, the BBC took one Brexiteer through the process that Mr Trucker referred to. After going through a relatively trouble-free instance of that, said Brexiteer said he'd been lied to, and hadn't understood until then what trade involved. And that was just the standard process that Mr Trucker goes through on a good day, with virtually no unusual friction encountered (the Brexiteer noted that in his experience, 50% of documents contain errors, with the customs official telling him how long each error would delay matters; there weren't any on this occasion, but the very checking of the documents demonstrated to the Brexiteer the processes involved).

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

[Pannonian]

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

SMCU would have been outside political union. But like you said, you prefer no deal to that. So the stuff about only not consenting to political union is guff.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, or read reports extrapolating from that to the economy as a whole? You may dismiss him as insignificant, but the UK government disagrees with you.

[Furunculus]

SMCU would have been outside political union. But like you said, you prefer no deal to that. So the stuff about only not consenting to political union is guff.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, or read reports extrapolating from that to the economy as a whole? You may dismiss him as insignificant, but the UK government disagrees with you.

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053780824

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
p.s. Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

[Husar]

i don't care very much about freedom of movement.
at least no more than the point that it discrimates against the rest of the world, including nations which i feel we have close social and cultural ties.

but schengen has no bearing on this point.

If giving someone more freedom of movement discriminates against someone else's freedom of movement, then someone earning more money than I do discriminates against my ability to consume. Have you finally turned socialist?

[Pannonian]

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053780824

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

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.

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

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

[Pannonian]

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053780824

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

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.

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

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

[Furunculus]

If giving someone more freedom of movement discriminates against someone else's freedom of movement, then someone earning more money than I do discriminates against my ability to consume. Have you finally turned socialist?

i'm afraid your analogy doesn't really capture the situation.

there has NEVER been any public consensus on accepting open borders and unlimited immigration.
which is why RoR immigration has been steadily clamped down upon as EU regulation has opened up.
which is how we have a situation here where 7% of the worlds population occupies over 50% of immigration into the uk.

[Furunculus]

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."

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.

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

Husar offered a false choice in taking the EU's opening position as the end game.

They offered not the soft-brexit choice of EFTA/EEA, but rather EEA+CU (that latter of which would not even be compatible with EFTA membership).
I support a halfway house which brings a full regulatory model for goods but leaves services out. Not dissimilar to that already achieved by the Swiss and Ukraine.
That is not a 'hard' brexit deal, it is in fact very moderate, Husar's option by contrast would leave britain so closely aligned in regulatory / social / employment / trade policy, that it would be difficult to argue that we had left.

And I have pointed out geopolitical realities to you, where the threat of unilateral guillotine on the agreement is unacceptable, and no one should ever attempt to negotiate without the ability to walk away.

[Husar]

i'm afraid your analogy doesn't really capture the situation.

I'm shocked that you say that, I fully expected you to agree.

there has NEVER been any public consensus on accepting open borders and unlimited immigration.
which is why RoR immigration has been steadily clamped down upon as EU regulation has opened up.
which is how we have a situation here where 7% of the worlds population occupies over 50% of immigration into the uk.

Well, maybe you should have opened the border to those refugees in the huge camp in Calais to diversify your immigration.
I also doubt that it is shocking that most migration does not happen across half the planet. Your argument thus does not prove anything.

[Furunculus]

I also doubt that it is shocking that most migration does not happen across half the planet. Your argument thus does not prove anything.

if i were germany, no, in being a regionally insular nation whith little historic cultural or linguistic reach.
it would perhaps be of little surprise that the enormous majority of immigration was from immediate neighbours.
that is not the position that britain finds itself in, and it is beyond dispute that the regime that operates against non-EU nationals is punitive in a way that EU nationals would shudder to experience.