Technology2 mins ago
The E U S S R Just Don't Get It Do They?
34 Answers
https:/
The party's over we are prepared to walk away, stop trying to intimidate us, it never has nor never will work.
The party's over we are prepared to walk away, stop trying to intimidate us, it never has nor never will work.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Even if you take that position, setting a deadline of barely four months to decide if everything can be settled or not is overhasty at best, and rash and reckless at worst.
Just because we're out now doesn't mean that the legitimate concerns about the damage that a WTO-style deal would cause are any less real.
Just because we're out now doesn't mean that the legitimate concerns about the damage that a WTO-style deal would cause are any less real.
"Even if you take that position, setting a deadline of barely four months to decide if everything can be settled or not is overhasty at best, and rash and reckless at worst."
we are asking for a "broad outline" - the EUSSR are playing silly burgers like before, we are just letting them know we ain't wearing it.
"Just because we're out now doesn't mean that the legitimate concerns about the damage that a WTO-style deal would cause are any less real" - indeed but that's true for them too.
In order to avoid using the nuclear option you must first make it clear that you are prepared to.
we are asking for a "broad outline" - the EUSSR are playing silly burgers like before, we are just letting them know we ain't wearing it.
"Just because we're out now doesn't mean that the legitimate concerns about the damage that a WTO-style deal would cause are any less real" - indeed but that's true for them too.
In order to avoid using the nuclear option you must first make it clear that you are prepared to.
I don't think I'd ever pretended otherwise but that No Deal is a lose-lose. But it's not a symmetric impact: simply comparing the relative sizes tells you that we would be proportionally worse hit than the EU should trade be disrupted.
Old ground, though. I'm resigned to a 2020 end to this transition -- it would be personally humiliating to Johnson to call for another delay -- but I'm hopeful that we're still in a posturing phase by both sides.
Old ground, though. I'm resigned to a 2020 end to this transition -- it would be personally humiliating to Johnson to call for another delay -- but I'm hopeful that we're still in a posturing phase by both sides.
I would expect the consideration of walking away to be in the face of a clear indication that no reasonable attempt to make progress is evident. If progress is occurring then we would presumably continue and see what's been agreed at the end of the period, get that officially in place, if acceptable, and then consider what more might be done/agreed afterwards.
I guess it depends on who's assessing what is reasonable. The UK presumably knows that some of its negotiating priorities must be (partially) sacrificed in order to achieve a deal, but I'm not altogether convinced that this *is* the approach they'll take.
One way or another, I hope to be proved wrong, be that by the government backing down when appropriate, or by the government showing that they were perfectly correct not to.
One way or another, I hope to be proved wrong, be that by the government backing down when appropriate, or by the government showing that they were perfectly correct not to.
I suppose it is hardly surprising that you want the Government to back down and not the EU.
BoJo should not back down on anything. What he has asked for is perfectly reasonable and no different to what has been offered to others.
If he does he is finished and so will the Tories no matter how bad labour are at the tie they would be annihilated for decades to come.
BoJo should not back down on anything. What he has asked for is perfectly reasonable and no different to what has been offered to others.
If he does he is finished and so will the Tories no matter how bad labour are at the tie they would be annihilated for decades to come.
"simply comparing the relative sizes tells you that we would be proportionally worse hit than the EU"
And you have conveniently ignored the fact our trade is not spread evenly across the countries and the fact the EU is going to be considerably short of brass during a time many are in or on the verge of recession.
And you have conveniently ignored the fact our trade is not spread evenly across the countries and the fact the EU is going to be considerably short of brass during a time many are in or on the verge of recession.
Just because I didn't explicitly mention that the same applies to the EU doesn't mean I don't think it does. Some things really should go without saying. But since it's the UK who are suggesting that they'll have decided what action to take by June, it stands to reason that their views and approach should be more pertinent to that.
That's all. I know we disagree and probably always will on this but it can't hurt to not read the worst possible interpretstion of my point for a change.
That's all. I know we disagree and probably always will on this but it can't hurt to not read the worst possible interpretstion of my point for a change.
Fair enough, but give your stance for the last two years you should understand how it is easy to see your omission as maybe a little deliberate?
The thing is though no one actually knows what is going on behind the scenes, this is the case for much of the 'fact' spouted by the media. Always some 'source' that in most cases turns out to be total rubbish one way or another. And I am not just talking EU related topics either
The thing is though no one actually knows what is going on behind the scenes, this is the case for much of the 'fact' spouted by the media. Always some 'source' that in most cases turns out to be total rubbish one way or another. And I am not just talking EU related topics either
//But it's not a symmetric impact: simply comparing the relative sizes tells you that we would be proportionally worse hit than the EU should trade be disrupted.//
That would be so if there was balanced trade between the EU and the UK Jim. But there isn’t. The EU enjoys something like an £80bn pa trade surplus with the UK. They’d lose some of their £80bn surplus and we’d lose some of our £80bn deficit. But as you say, old ground.
3Ts is right: the EU has not yet grasped that they are now dealing with a different scenario. The UK is no longer a supplicant state trying to tease a few scraps from Mummy EU. It is now an independent nation aiming to negotiate a mutually beneficial trade deal with the bloc. The EU, for its part, is insisting that any trade deal is dependent upon regulatory alignment, the jurisdiction of the ECJ, alignment on State aid, labour legislation, environment legislation and a “level playing field”. It has insisted on no such conditions with any other nation with which it has concluded a trade agreement and there is only one reason why it is doing so with the UK: that is because it wants to protect its remaining members from what it ludicrously deems as “unfair competition” from the UK. Their big fear since June 2016 has been that the UK will demonstrate that outside the EU, independent nations can flourish.
If this protectionist attitude prevails then the Prime Minister would be perfectly justified to walk away. It is fast becoming apparent that the EU has no intention of negotiating a trade deal in good faith. It is only interested in protecting its members from legitimate competition from what it now sees as a rogue state on its doorstep.
That would be so if there was balanced trade between the EU and the UK Jim. But there isn’t. The EU enjoys something like an £80bn pa trade surplus with the UK. They’d lose some of their £80bn surplus and we’d lose some of our £80bn deficit. But as you say, old ground.
3Ts is right: the EU has not yet grasped that they are now dealing with a different scenario. The UK is no longer a supplicant state trying to tease a few scraps from Mummy EU. It is now an independent nation aiming to negotiate a mutually beneficial trade deal with the bloc. The EU, for its part, is insisting that any trade deal is dependent upon regulatory alignment, the jurisdiction of the ECJ, alignment on State aid, labour legislation, environment legislation and a “level playing field”. It has insisted on no such conditions with any other nation with which it has concluded a trade agreement and there is only one reason why it is doing so with the UK: that is because it wants to protect its remaining members from what it ludicrously deems as “unfair competition” from the UK. Their big fear since June 2016 has been that the UK will demonstrate that outside the EU, independent nations can flourish.
If this protectionist attitude prevails then the Prime Minister would be perfectly justified to walk away. It is fast becoming apparent that the EU has no intention of negotiating a trade deal in good faith. It is only interested in protecting its members from legitimate competition from what it now sees as a rogue state on its doorstep.
I mean, that's not really how trade deficits work though is it? It's lose-lose if trade is hit, we don't become better off. And that's why I'd spoken about proportions instead, which are a far more meaningful part of this. Roughly half of our trade is with the EU, and only 10% of their trade is with us. That's the imbalance that matters.
For the rest of your post, may I make the following points: when you say that "[The EU] has insisted on no such conditions with any other nation with which it has concluded a trade agreement...", it is clearly relevant that the EU has never had to reach a new trade agreement with a country that was previously a member, and with whom it already had the closest-possible free trade arrangement. That's clearly going to shape the EU's wishes for economic reasons, far more than cynical political reasons -- although yes, these too will play a part. But then of course it would: the EU wants to hold itself together.
Also, on the subject of "good faith", the reports this morning are that the UK is already considering abandoning parts of the Withdrawal Deal it made, in particular“robust commitments to ensure a level playing field” that were expressly stated in the Political Declaration. Abandoning those only a few short months later doesn't exactly demonstrate good faith.
For the rest of your post, may I make the following points: when you say that "[The EU] has insisted on no such conditions with any other nation with which it has concluded a trade agreement...", it is clearly relevant that the EU has never had to reach a new trade agreement with a country that was previously a member, and with whom it already had the closest-possible free trade arrangement. That's clearly going to shape the EU's wishes for economic reasons, far more than cynical political reasons -- although yes, these too will play a part. But then of course it would: the EU wants to hold itself together.
Also, on the subject of "good faith", the reports this morning are that the UK is already considering abandoning parts of the Withdrawal Deal it made, in particular“robust commitments to ensure a level playing field” that were expressly stated in the Political Declaration. Abandoning those only a few short months later doesn't exactly demonstrate good faith.
//Also, on the subject of "good faith", the reports this morning are that the UK is already considering abandoning parts of the Withdrawal Deal it made,//
Good.... The EUSSR has arbitrarily added new conditions and demands to the tentative "agreement". Time to show them the big stick. We have been polite and accommodating now for 4 years since we voted to leave, and for 40 years before that when we were tricked into the ponzi scheme. Kipling had it right. Beware the British being polite.
In extended observation of the ways and works of man,
From the Four-mile Radius roughly to the Plains of Hindustan:
I have drunk with mixed assemblies, seen the racial ruction rise,
And the men of half Creation damning half Creation's eyes.
I have watched them in their tantrums, all that Pentecostal crew,
French, Italian, Arab, Spaniard, Dutch and Greek, and Russ and Jew,
Celt and savage, buff and ochre, cream and yellow, mauve and white,
But it never really mattered till the English grew polite;
Till the men with polished toppers, till the men in long frock-coats,
Till the men who do not duel, till the men who war with votes,
Till the breed that take their pleasures as Saint Lawrence took his grid,
Began to "beg your pardon" and-the knowing croupier hid.
Then the bandsmen with their fiddles, and the girls that bring the beer,
Felt the psychological moment, left the lit Casino clear;
But the uninstructed alien, from the Teuton to the Gaul,
Was entrapped, once more, my country, by that suave, deceptive drawl.
As it was in ancient Suez or 'neath wilder, milder skies,
I "observe with apprehension" how the racial ructions rise;
And with keener apprehension, if I read the times aright,
Hear the old Casino order: "Watch your man, but be polite.
“Keep your temper. Never answer (that was why they spat and swore).
Don't hit first, but move together (there's no hurry) to the door.
Back to back, and facing outward while the linguist tells 'em how -
`Nous sommes allong ar notre batteau, nous ne voulong pas un row.'"
So the hard, pent rage ate inward, till some idiot went too far...
"Let 'em have it!" and they had it, and the same was merry war -
Fist, umbrella, cane, decanter, lamp and beer-mug, chair and boot -
Till behind the fleeing legions rose the long, hoarse yell for loot.
Then the oil-cloth with its numbers, like a banner fluttered free;
Then the grand piano cantered, on three castors, down the quay;
White, and breathing through their nostrils, silent, systematic, swift -
They removed, effaced, abolished all that man could heave or lift.
Oh, my country, bless the training that from cot to castle runs -
The pitfall of the stranger but the bulwark of thy sons -
Measured speech and ordered action, sluggish soul and un - perturbed,
Till we wake our Island-Devil-nowise cool for being curbed!
When the heir of all the ages "has the honour to remain,"
When he will not hear an insult, though men make it ne'er so plain,
When his lips are schooled to meekness, when his back is bowed to blows -
Well the keen aas-vogels know it-well the waiting jackal knows.
Build on the flanks of Etna where the sullen smoke-puffs float -
Or bathe in tropic waters where the lean fin dogs the boat -
Cock the gun that is not loaded, cook the frozen dynamite -
But oh, beware my Country, when my Country grows polite!
Et Dona Ferentes.
Good.... The EUSSR has arbitrarily added new conditions and demands to the tentative "agreement". Time to show them the big stick. We have been polite and accommodating now for 4 years since we voted to leave, and for 40 years before that when we were tricked into the ponzi scheme. Kipling had it right. Beware the British being polite.
In extended observation of the ways and works of man,
From the Four-mile Radius roughly to the Plains of Hindustan:
I have drunk with mixed assemblies, seen the racial ruction rise,
And the men of half Creation damning half Creation's eyes.
I have watched them in their tantrums, all that Pentecostal crew,
French, Italian, Arab, Spaniard, Dutch and Greek, and Russ and Jew,
Celt and savage, buff and ochre, cream and yellow, mauve and white,
But it never really mattered till the English grew polite;
Till the men with polished toppers, till the men in long frock-coats,
Till the men who do not duel, till the men who war with votes,
Till the breed that take their pleasures as Saint Lawrence took his grid,
Began to "beg your pardon" and-the knowing croupier hid.
Then the bandsmen with their fiddles, and the girls that bring the beer,
Felt the psychological moment, left the lit Casino clear;
But the uninstructed alien, from the Teuton to the Gaul,
Was entrapped, once more, my country, by that suave, deceptive drawl.
As it was in ancient Suez or 'neath wilder, milder skies,
I "observe with apprehension" how the racial ructions rise;
And with keener apprehension, if I read the times aright,
Hear the old Casino order: "Watch your man, but be polite.
“Keep your temper. Never answer (that was why they spat and swore).
Don't hit first, but move together (there's no hurry) to the door.
Back to back, and facing outward while the linguist tells 'em how -
`Nous sommes allong ar notre batteau, nous ne voulong pas un row.'"
So the hard, pent rage ate inward, till some idiot went too far...
"Let 'em have it!" and they had it, and the same was merry war -
Fist, umbrella, cane, decanter, lamp and beer-mug, chair and boot -
Till behind the fleeing legions rose the long, hoarse yell for loot.
Then the oil-cloth with its numbers, like a banner fluttered free;
Then the grand piano cantered, on three castors, down the quay;
White, and breathing through their nostrils, silent, systematic, swift -
They removed, effaced, abolished all that man could heave or lift.
Oh, my country, bless the training that from cot to castle runs -
The pitfall of the stranger but the bulwark of thy sons -
Measured speech and ordered action, sluggish soul and un - perturbed,
Till we wake our Island-Devil-nowise cool for being curbed!
When the heir of all the ages "has the honour to remain,"
When he will not hear an insult, though men make it ne'er so plain,
When his lips are schooled to meekness, when his back is bowed to blows -
Well the keen aas-vogels know it-well the waiting jackal knows.
Build on the flanks of Etna where the sullen smoke-puffs float -
Or bathe in tropic waters where the lean fin dogs the boat -
Cock the gun that is not loaded, cook the frozen dynamite -
But oh, beware my Country, when my Country grows polite!
Et Dona Ferentes.
WOW! Togo (20... whatever). I didn't know that one, thanks. I was sticking with GK Chesterton and the lion stirring.
The EU is obviously in a state of disbelief and unable to move. Very, very unfortunately they had the appeaser T. May to deal with and she obviously wriggled in embarrassment and said the equivalent of 'Terribly sorry, chaps, but they don't really want to break loose, we can cobble some sort of deal together that looks like freedom, but we'll really change very little. So we will merge back again in a year or two.' If she didn't actually say that, then that is what they thought and still think and they haven't got it yet.
The irony is that if the Remainers had supported May - we'd still be tied to the EU (and probably rejoining) but now, I hope and it looks likely, we'll set off on WTO terms as Leavers wished. Old saying 'Be careful what you wish for!'.
The EU is obviously in a state of disbelief and unable to move. Very, very unfortunately they had the appeaser T. May to deal with and she obviously wriggled in embarrassment and said the equivalent of 'Terribly sorry, chaps, but they don't really want to break loose, we can cobble some sort of deal together that looks like freedom, but we'll really change very little. So we will merge back again in a year or two.' If she didn't actually say that, then that is what they thought and still think and they haven't got it yet.
The irony is that if the Remainers had supported May - we'd still be tied to the EU (and probably rejoining) but now, I hope and it looks likely, we'll set off on WTO terms as Leavers wished. Old saying 'Be careful what you wish for!'.
The EU want to keep us aligned and uncompetitive because of location apparently.
Why our proximity has anything to do with it is a bit beyond me. Canada could be 100 miles or 1,000 or 10,000 miles away the trade is the same.
TBH the EU simply want to protect itself and always have. That is understandable. But we should have the same consideration though. Every negotiator goes in hard. If they don’t they end up with a dross deal like Mays deal. Go in soft and you end up in quicksand. Negotiations are, or should be, a two way street and at the end of the day both sides give a bit and take a bit.
Why our proximity has anything to do with it is a bit beyond me. Canada could be 100 miles or 1,000 or 10,000 miles away the trade is the same.
TBH the EU simply want to protect itself and always have. That is understandable. But we should have the same consideration though. Every negotiator goes in hard. If they don’t they end up with a dross deal like Mays deal. Go in soft and you end up in quicksand. Negotiations are, or should be, a two way street and at the end of the day both sides give a bit and take a bit.
