Rossweisse
RIP Rossweisse, HellHost and long-time Shipmate.
Please see the thread in All Saints remembering her.

No deal Brexit

HugalHugal Shipmate
I thought this deserved a Hell thread all in it’s own.
Boorish has told us (unsurprisingly) to get ready for a no deal Brexit. It is what the floppy haired idiot has wanted all along. Can we have a grown up come and take charge? What an utter b*****d
«13456

Comments

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I don't believe it is what he wanted all along. That would imply a degree of competence that all evidence suggests is beyond him. It's just that he can't be arsed to avoid it.
  • Is it what he always wanted, or just the means to ensure that at least some of the public love him?
  • One of the few politicians who has recently shown any signs of being grown-up is Sir Keir Starmer.

    I might also name the Green Party's Dr Caroline Lucas, Scotland's FM Ms Nicola Sturgeon, Wales' FM Mark Drakeford, and I have no doubt there are more. Some of the elected city Mayors - Mr Khan, Mr Burnham, and others - would also be far, far better PMs than Bog Brush Boris.

    Sadly, none of them are in a position to offer leadership to *England*. Instead, we have a Gang of Gobshites, seemingly intent only on making sure that they get a large share of whatever spoils are to be had. One can only hope that those spoils quickly turn to dust and ashes...

    It really is going to be a winter, spring etc. etc. of discontent. Someone commenting on the Guardian website recently reckoned that 2021 would make a brain tumour seem like a birthday present...having had a brain tumour myself, I know whereof he speaks...
  • Bleurgh.

    I have a layover in London Nov 1 to 2 on the way to Spain. I'm just hoping there won't be any shenanigans, but shenanigans seem to be SOP these days everywhere.

    AFF
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Our oven ready goose seems to be cooked.

    🤬
  • Yes, but what a *world-beating* goose it is! No other country on the face of the Earth has such a well-cooked goose as England!

    Makes yer prahd, dunnit?
  • BTW, talking of leadership, what a big difference between England and Finland, where a coalition government is led by four young women (and a slightly older one):
    https://theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/09/finland-anoints-sanna-martin-34-as-worlds-youngest-serving-prime-minister

    The article is over 10 months old.
  • It's quite an achievement to fail so spectacularly. In 2016 those advocating a Leave vote promised a range of mutually incompatible futures, all of which involved negotiating what some called "the easiest deal in history". When they tried to get agreement from Parliament for their various visions they managed to succeed in almost unanimous agreement that there would be a deal of some form. When Johnson went to the country in December he was still promising a deal.

    And, what do we get from the oven? The same deal with our largest trading partner as we have with Sierra Leone.

    And the NHS is still short of the promised £350m per week while the government have flushed enough cash on this vanity project to fund the entire NHS and care budget for a year.
  • I am still hoping he’s posturing, and will do some sort of deal at the 11th hour, presumably by agreeing to everything the EU asks and then declaring it a victory.
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited October 16
    I am still hoping he’s posturing, and will do some sort of deal at the 11th hour, presumably by agreeing to everything the EU asks and then declaring it a victory.

    I'm torn between hoping they (the EU) won't bend in the slightest making BJ look stupid and a liar and be another dent in his political carreer, and hoping they will bend slightly, just enough to allow 'our side' some tiny cover for giving in and allowing us some sort of bearable future.

    ETA: Of course, I have to hope for the latter.
  • My hope is that the EU won't compromise on the principles they stand for, I'd hate for an idiot like Johnson push them into being less than they are. Let Johnson bend and make the concessions. Since no-deal is as only marginally worse than the sort of deal we could get at this stage (assuming the government isn't going to accept full membership of customs union and single market) the UK doesn't have much to lose, whereas the EU has a lot to lose if it compromises much more than it already has done.
  • You're quite right Alan, the EU shouldn't compromise their principles to accomodate some lying wazzocks like ABJ et al.

    As he's said it's over the EU side should publicly express regret and then NOT attend further negotiations. Yes it's our loss much more than theirs but our moronic voters chose it.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate

    And the NHS is still short of the promised £350m per week while the government have flushed enough cash on this vanity project to fund the entire NHS and care budget for a year.

    No wonder we have so many Doctors from the UK enquiring about work in NZ. (I heard that as a news item this morning).
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited October 17
    And if Ms Ardern wins the election in NZ, it'll carry on being a much better country in which to work...
  • edited October 17
    No "if", the news says the National Party have already conceded with about 70% of results in.
  • SighthoundSighthound Shipmate Posts: 20
    If it is "no Deal" it's going to get very uncomfortable in 2021.

    Mind you, even the sort of crappy free-trade deal envisaged was going to make it pretty crappy anyway. Anything less that Customs Union and Single Market membership was always going to give people one hell of a jolt, whether they realised it or not.

    The thing is this - there are no corresponding compensations. Even if we get a deal with the US, it will open our markets to their vile "food" and allow them to get their dirty hands on our NHS.

    I predict that the public will soon be very, very unhappy. And there will be consequences to that.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Sighthound wrote: »
    If it is "no Deal" it's going to get very uncomfortable in 2021.

    Mind you, even the sort of crappy free-trade deal envisaged was going to make it pretty crappy anyway. Anything less that Customs Union and Single Market membership was always going to give people one hell of a jolt, whether they realised it or not.

    The thing is this - there are no corresponding compensations. Even if we get a deal with the US, it will open our markets to their vile "food" and allow them to get their dirty hands on our NHS.

    I predict that the public will soon be very, very unhappy. And there will be consequences to that.

    I agree. Leaving the EU was always more an emotional than logical choice. When they realise what it means the public will not be happy
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Sighthound wrote: »
    If it is "no Deal" it's going to get very uncomfortable in 2021.

    Mind you, even the sort of crappy free-trade deal envisaged was going to make it pretty crappy anyway. Anything less that Customs Union and Single Market membership was always going to give people one hell of a jolt, whether they realised it or not.

    The thing is this - there are no corresponding compensations. Even if we get a deal with the US, it will open our markets to their vile "food" and allow them to get their dirty hands on our NHS.

    I predict that the public will soon be very, very unhappy. And there will be consequences to that.

    I agree. Leaving the EU was always more an emotional than logical choice. When they realise what it means the public will not be happy

    But they’ll still think it’s all the EU’s fault!
  • Well, it's obvious to the Kippers and other idiots that the EU should dismantle the rules they work by to accommodate UK government pipe dreams. I'm glad that the EU has stuck with what's important - maintaining the freedoms within the EU (which I believe the UK should have been fully a part of all along).
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited October 17
    No "if", the news says the National Party have already conceded with about 70% of results in.

    A landslide victory for Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party (which possibly proves that there is a God...).
    :relieved:

    I know they have a lot of work to do, especially in respect of child poverty, but O what a contrast to the Gang of Gobshites we're stuck with here!

    Doone wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Sighthound wrote: »
    If it is "no Deal" it's going to get very uncomfortable in 2021.

    Mind you, even the sort of crappy free-trade deal envisaged was going to make it pretty crappy anyway. Anything less that Customs Union and Single Market membership was always going to give people one hell of a jolt, whether they realised it or not.

    The thing is this - there are no corresponding compensations. Even if we get a deal with the US, it will open our markets to their vile "food" and allow them to get their dirty hands on our NHS.

    I predict that the public will soon be very, very unhappy. And there will be consequences to that.

    I agree. Leaving the EU was always more an emotional than logical choice. When they realise what it means the public will not be happy

    But they’ll still think it’s all the EU’s fault!

    The EU consists of Bloody Foreigners Not Like Us, so how can it NOT be their fault?
    :rage:
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I gather the EU negotiator's response to Johnson's speech has however been, Johnson's mouth is moving as usual.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I see Gove has walked back Johnson's "it's over" comments somewhat today. The posturing is pathetic.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Perhaps he has a firmer grasp of reality than the PM. He's in charge of No Deal preparations, after all. But power is now concentrated in the hands of 'Number 10', AKA You-Know-Who.
  • It was not only predictable but 100% predicted.

    https://twitter.com/19Conservatives/status/1205102696207962113?s=19

    (Note the date)

    Not one word of the Conservative 'manifesto' was true. Not. One. Word.

    AFZ
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    My hope is that the EU won't compromise on the principles they stand for, I'd hate for an idiot like Johnson push them into being less than they are. Let Johnson bend and make the concessions. Since no-deal is as only marginally worse than the sort of deal we could get at this stage (assuming the government isn't going to accept full membership of customs union and single market) the UK doesn't have much to lose, whereas the EU has a lot to lose if it compromises much more than it already has done.

    How have the EU compromised ?

  • I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.
  • And, in other news I see that in addition to the Boris Bogs (porta-loos for lorry drivers stuck in queues) that the government lorry park (with the proposal opened to public consultation four months after starting work) has already been called "The Farage Garage" with a with a petition to make that official.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited October 19
    My hope is that the EU won't compromise on the principles they stand for, I'd hate for an idiot like Johnson push them into being less than they are.

    The BBC is reporting that the sticking points are fishing rights and 'competition issues', which makes me think there is no actual point of principle at stake here and the impasse is indeed just posturing.

    Fishing rights are just horse-trading. Competition is potentially a question of principle, but unless the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has become a partisan of the late Viscount Stansgate*, I imagine the EU and the UK government are on the same side of the question (i.e., competition = good, state aid = bad).


    * Translation: Michael Gove and Tony Benn.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    My hope is that the EU won't compromise on the principles they stand for, I'd hate for an idiot like Johnson push them into being less than they are.
    The BBC is reporting that the sticking points are fishing rights and 'competition issues', which makes me think there is no actual point of principle at stake here and the impasse is indeed just posturing.

    Fishing rights are just horse-trading.
    I don't think Hippocampinae are regularly caught for commercial porpoises ....

    The issues with fishing are two fold. First, the UK fishing industry is dependent upon EU access - both as markets for what's caught, and access to territorial waters of other nations to catch those fish; added to which much of the fish we eat isn't caught by UK boats, and so is an import from the rest of the EU. The second issue is no one tells the fish who controls the water they swim in, and so fisheries policy needs to be a shared responsibility between all the nations controlling those waters - in practice that means that the UK and EU need to work together to set quotas and control who gets to fish where.

    The contribution of fishing to GDP is very small, and likewise the number of people employed or directly impacted by this issue. So, it is to a large extent a political issue with both sides knowing that they need a good deal to satisfy a relatively small part of the electorate, but an electorate concentrated in a small number of constituencies and so key to future electoral success. To that extent it's posturing, but it's also an issue that will ultimately decide the long term viability of an industry as no agreement on this could result in incompatible management of a common stock and everyone losing out if this results in stocks plummeting and no one able to catch anything. The principal is that in issues of trans-national importance it is essential that nations work together rather than just declare "this is mine, I can do what I want with it".
    Competition is potentially a question of principle, but unless the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has become a partisan of the late Viscount Stansgate*, I imagine the EU and the UK government are on the same side of the question (i.e., competition = good, state aid = bad).
    The EU is founded on principles that are intended to level the playing field so that businesses within all nations within the EU can compete on an equal footing. This includes some controls over state funding of businesses (though, still allowing public ownership of public services such as rail or utilities). That includes a range of regulations regarding working conditions, environmental protection, animal welfare (in particular relating to agriculture), product standards etc. For one nation to reduce those standards to allow their businesses to produce goods at lower cost would be competitive but also contrary to the principal of the level playing field. The UK government has been pushing for cake all along - access to the EU markets as before, but gaining a competitive edge by operating to lower regulatory standards. That can never fly with the EU, and that has always been clear. The UK government has two options in this regard: 1. accept the EU regulations so that UK businesses can compete on the EUs level playing field, or 2. accept that the UKs interests are to lower regulatory standards which would then require UK businesses trading with the EU to demonstrate that their products and services meet EU standards, which would put them at a competitive disadvantage unless there are other factors in play (eg: a UK business with a patent on a process that significantly cuts costs and/or improves quality cf EU based competitors).

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited October 19
    As the EU and the UK have agreed most of the points at issue, I imagine the EU must have agreed some compromises on some issues. Although as the UK negotiators went into the negotiations proclaiming that they held all the cards and wouldn't need to compromise on a thing, it's a bit rich to complain about the EU not compromising now they've been disabused of their illusions.

    I think the other point to note is that fishing communities from the French coast have been fishing in British waters in good faith for generations. Under English common law long-standing use of a resource in good faith establishes a right to that resource. Or to put it another way, it's not fair to wreck the livelihood of communities, even in other countries, without giving them a say in the matter.

    But that's actually not the main sticking point. The main sticking point is that Cummings wants to use UK taxpayer money to subsidise the UK technology industry in order to undercut EU industries, and the EU say that the UK can either do that or have tariff-free access to the EU but not both.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements

    Yes but they don’t need to take the rubbish we have thrown at them. I said left us out to set by now. That means some negotiations will have happened and some agreements made. If the UK government act like children then they could just leave it at what was negotiated.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements
    It says they are obliged to
    negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
    That was the withdrawal agreement, about which the government was so triumphant, and which they are now proposing to breach. There was no obligation on the EU to negotiate once withdrawal had taken place, except in so far as required by the withdrawal agreement itself. Even then, an agreement to negotiate does not require one to do so indefinitely.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements
    It says they are obliged to
    negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
    That was the withdrawal agreement, about which the government was so triumphant, and which they are now proposing to breach. There was no obligation on the EU to negotiate once withdrawal had taken place, except in so far as required by the withdrawal agreement itself. Even then, an agreement to negotiate does not require one to do so indefinitely.

    I have to disagree with you. I was refering to the trade situation after the withdrawal.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements

    Yes but they don’t need to take the rubbish we have thrown at them. I said left us out to set by now. That means some negotiations will have happened and some agreements made. If the UK government act like children then they could just leave it at what was negotiated.

    The UK are concerned about fishing rights in their own waters and the ability to do their own thing within the UK.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements
    It says they are obliged to
    negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
    That was the withdrawal agreement, about which the government was so triumphant, and which they are now proposing to breach. There was no obligation on the EU to negotiate once withdrawal had taken place, except in so far as required by the withdrawal agreement itself. Even then, an agreement to negotiate does not require one to do so indefinitely.

    I have to disagree with you. I was refering to the trade situation after the withdrawal.
    You said
    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements

    The only ‘future arrangements’ Article 50 requires the EU to negotiate is a withdrawal agreement. They did that, and withdrawal took place on 31st January. After that, as far as Article 50 is concerned, no further negotiation is necessary.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements

    Yes but they don’t need to take the rubbish we have thrown at them. I said left us out to set by now. That means some negotiations will have happened and some agreements made. If the UK government act like children then they could just leave it at what was negotiated.

    The UK are concerned about fishing rights in their own waters and the ability to do their own thing within the UK.

    Yes, but *doing our own thing* might include the use of lethal force against Johnny Foreigner and his wicked fishing-boats...

    The patience of the EU negotiators is surely akin to that of Job. They must be longing for No Deal, just to get rid of Perfidious Albion.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I don't think the EU negotiators are longing for No Deal, because I believe they realise how damaging it will be for both sides, and actually believe that it's their duty to achieve the best possible (or least bad) outcome for those they represent.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »

    I think the other point to note is that fishing communities from the French coast have been fishing in British waters in good faith for generations. Under English common law long-standing use of a resource in good faith establishes a right to that resource. Or to put it another way, it's not fair to wreck the livelihood of communities, even in other countries, without giving them a say in the matter.

    That is a real non-sequitur. The question is how long has the owner of that boat been fishing in UK waters. Community only comes into it if the boats are owned by the community as a legal entity.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements
    It says they are obliged to
    negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
    That was the withdrawal agreement, about which the government was so triumphant, and which they are now proposing to breach. There was no obligation on the EU to negotiate once withdrawal had taken place, except in so far as required by the withdrawal agreement itself. Even then, an agreement to negotiate does not require one to do so indefinitely.

    I have to disagree with you. I was refering to the trade situation after the withdrawal.
    You said
    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements

    The only ‘future arrangements’ Article 50 requires the EU to negotiate is a withdrawal agreement. They did that, and withdrawal took place on 31st January. After that, as far as Article 50 is concerned, no further negotiation is necessary.

    from Article 50
    The leaving agreement is negotiated on behalf of the EU by the European Commission on the basis of a mandate given by the remaining Member States, meeting in the Council of the European Union. It must set out the arrangements for withdrawal, taking account of the framework for the member state's future relationship with the EU

    I assume this is why they have been talking all year
  • Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm sure the EU could have come up with a suitable figure to cover the costs of preparing for a range of different Brexit scenarios forced on it by the UK government constantly shifting the goal posts. Or the opportunities lost as they employed a large team of people to negotiate with children throwing tantrums when they could have been employed doing something constructive - negotiating trade deals with governments who actually want to behave like adults, or managing the logistics of housing refugees or making sure PPE is where it's needed in a pandemic. The very act of entering negotiations in good faith with a government obviously intent on acting in bad faith was a compromise.

    Besides which, this was entirely the UK's idea. We left them; they didn't leave us. If I choose to leave a club that club is under no obligation to try to make me a happy non-member.

    I was going to say just the same thing.
    I am amazed how negotiations have got this far. If I was on the EU team I would have left us out to dry now. Looks like it could all be a waste of time now.

    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements
    It says they are obliged to
    negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
    That was the withdrawal agreement, about which the government was so triumphant, and which they are now proposing to breach. There was no obligation on the EU to negotiate once withdrawal had taken place, except in so far as required by the withdrawal agreement itself. Even then, an agreement to negotiate does not require one to do so indefinitely.

    I have to disagree with you. I was refering to the trade situation after the withdrawal.
    You said
    Article 50 says that the EU are obliged to negotiate future arrangements

    The only ‘future arrangements’ Article 50 requires the EU to negotiate is a withdrawal agreement. They did that, and withdrawal took place on 31st January. After that, as far as Article 50 is concerned, no further negotiation is necessary.

    from Article 50
    The leaving agreement is negotiated on behalf of the EU by the European Commission on the basis of a mandate given by the remaining Member States, meeting in the Council of the European Union. It must set out the arrangements for withdrawal, taking account of the framework for the member state's future relationship with the EU

    I assume this is why they have been talking all year

    You assume wrong. The Article 50 process concluded with the withdrawal agreement and the UK leaving the EU. The accompanying political declaration included an intent to pursue a trade deal. The EU has been negotiating because it considers a trade deal to be economically advantageous; the UK has apparently been pretending to negotiate because it sees blaming the EU for the economic fallout of no deal to be politically advantageous.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    The EU has been negotiating because it considers a trade deal to be economically advantageous; the UK has apparently been pretending to negotiate because it sees blaming the EU for the economic fallout of no deal to be politically advantageous.
    This strikes me as painfully true.

    The irony is all the greater in that back in the day, the UK joined the 'Common Market' because it believed it to be economically rather than politically advantageous (and, I believe, never grasped the political nature of the 'European Project', which I also believe is one of the underlying causes of Brexit).

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The irony is all the greater in that back in the day, the UK joined the 'Common Market' because it believed it to be economically rather than politically advantageous (and, I believe, never grasped the political nature of the 'European Project', which I also believe is one of the underlying causes of Brexit).

    Exactly - and because the UK thought it could dominate the EEC (as it was the called) just as it had the EFTA group. It did not then consider itself to be part of Europe, and the Brexit campaign in the referendum showed that was still the case 40 or so years later.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The EU has been negotiating because it considers a trade deal to be economically advantageous; the UK has apparently been pretending to negotiate because it sees blaming the EU for the economic fallout of no deal to be politically advantageous.
    This strikes me as painfully true.

    The irony is all the greater in that back in the day, the UK joined the 'Common Market' because it believed it to be economically rather than politically advantageous (and, I believe, never grasped the political nature of the 'European Project', which I also believe is one of the underlying causes of Brexit).

    I have the sense that Leave saw the vision of Monet and Schuman, and didn't like it, whereas Remain tried to pretend everything was purely economic until it was too late.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I don't think the EU negotiators are longing for No Deal, because I believe they realise how damaging it will be for both sides, and actually believe that it's their duty to achieve the best possible (or least bad) outcome for those they represent.

    I expect you're right - I was (sort of) expressing some sympathy for them, engaged in such an unenviable task as trying to talk sense to England...

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Remain used facts. Leave played to the emotions. Emotion is a very strong motivator
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Remain used facts. Leave played to the emotions. Emotion is a very strong motivator

    The 3 points you make are all very true.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    I think the other point to note is that fishing communities from the French coast have been fishing in British waters in good faith for generations. Under English common law long-standing use of a resource in good faith establishes a right to that resource. Or to put it another way, it's not fair to wreck the livelihood of communities, even in other countries, without giving them a say in the matter.
    That is a real non-sequitur. The question is how long has the owner of that boat been fishing in UK waters. Community only comes into it if the boats are owned by the community as a legal entity.
    IANAL but right of way AIUI does not have to be established by any single individual and does not only apply to the particular individuals who established it.
    The principle of communal rights in a resource has been undermined over history, in particular by the various enclosure acts, but under common law theory I believe it is still valid.
    (In any case, the community is comprised of the owners of the boats and their heirs and those industries and traders that resource them.)
Sign In or Register to comment.