Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
After a provocative stunt like that (shooting missiles over Japanese airspace) the US, Japan and Korea should be enacting a policy of shooting down ALL missiles from now.
That's the thing though, we can't. Not even the US has that capability.
They do, its called THAAD, and the ROK is pretty divided over the thing, though I don't know if Japan has access to it.
Its a Catch 22. Shoot it down and you spark a race to develop a missile that can't be shot down.
Fail to shoot it down and NK laughs at you.
By not shooting it down its a calculated risk. It was probably obvious it wasn't aimed at Japan, but obviously these thinks have malfunctioned before and it could have caused damage by just going wrong.
Future War Cultist wrote: Not if we leave and then came back, which would require us to adopt the euro, which would be out of our control. That's the point I was trying to make.
Of course the flaw in this argument is that there are plenty of other EU countries that are part of the EU and have only joined relatively recently and don't have the Euro...
This is just fearmongering as to why we would never rejoin the EU, but the argument is unsound. If every new country that joined the EU had to take on the Euro then the list above wouldn't exist....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: ... so you're against capitalism then, good to know.
I can imagine the conversation in Downing Street now...
Theresa May (TM): Liam how are you doing
Liam Fox (LF): Good, thanks, why did you call me in?
TM: Well...I made some promises to maintain my own power at the expense of the country.
LF: Yes, and what an excellent choice that was (whilst nose extends in length and turns a dark brown at the same time)
TM: Definitely, we couldn't lets those Marxists in! They would undo all our good work, give people more rights and cost us and our allies money!
LF: Yeah my portfolio manager was a bit worried when she thought they could get in; the value dropped quite sharply. And there's definitely not a magic money tree where my money is concerned!
TM: Hmmm...right...yes....[pause]
TM: Still I need to ask you to make some savings from your department.
LF: OK, how much
TM: £1000
LF: £1000 saving, that's fine I'll sack my ass licker
TM: Erh, no I want your department to have a budget of £1000
LF: What? How am I meant to sell the UK with that much money? I can't even afford my boot licker for that!
TM: Be imaginative?
LF: Well I suppose we do have a stand at the Eurostar terminal for free for the next 6 months...
TM: That's the idea
LF: Some leaflets etc, not sure who we can employ for that little though.
TM: I've checked your employment contract...see this at the bottom where it says "any other duties required"
LF:....erh are you suggesting....
TM:...See you in about 6 months, I'm counting on you Liam.... bye...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/30 20:05:36
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Note: I have absolutely no internal contacts with the EU, Her Majesty’s Government or anyone else involved in the Brexit negotiations so this article is speculation based on public documents and news articles.
With that disclaimer out of the way, let me cut to the chase. I’m 99% sure the Brexit negotiations are going to collapse and the UK will thus be entirely separate from the EU. In the medium term that will be a good thing, but in the short term it will cause chaos for the UK, Ireland and probably much of Europe.
Why do I think this? because the EU leadership want to punish the UK for having the temerity to
hold a referendum on the EU
actually follow the popular wishes expressed in said referendum
Other nations have in the past had referenda on various parts of EU membership – France, Ireland and Holland come to mind as ones who have voted against the EU at various times. Whenever the vote has been against the EU, the population has either been told to do it again and this time get the “right” answer or the EU and national governments have simply ignored the vote and pressed on anyway.
The EU elites are simply in denial that a government would not do the same but the Conservatives are absolutely united on the principle that “Out means out” and that therefore the UK will be leaving.
Right now the argument is about the “non-negotiable” cost of leaving, which, as Tim Worstall points out, is really the cost of staying. The EU insists this has to be resolved before anything else and the lead EU negotiator has been really snarky about the UK position. He is of course wrong, only an idiot or a Eurocrat (but I repeat myself) would think it sensible to first agree the price and then haggle on what you get for the money.
A sane EU would first go for the obvious win-win points get them out of the way and then go for the trickier ones. For example no one wants a European version of Indian partition to take place across the English Channel so it is obvious that a) visitors who are non-workers and not entitled to benefits/healthcare etc. will be allowed to enter and live as freely as they do now and that b) current residents as of some defined date like the day the UK formally submitted its leave notification will also be allowed to work etc. etc. Then you’d work on other easy things such as the academic research funding (the UK wants this and has stated its willingness to continue to contribute to it) before moving onto slightly trickier points like, say, the Irish border, customs inspections and how to avoid them by doing the paperwork properly and so on. Only once you’ve got the obvious stuff knocked out do you go to the contentious issues like payment, tariffs and so on.
In my opinion the fact that the EU is attempting to do the whole thing bass ackwards is a strong indication that they want it to fail unless the UK is humiliated. I’m fairly sure that HMG is not keen on the humiliation idea so therefore I expect they will prefer a hard Brexit with no agreement to some kind of deal where the UK pays a huge amount to not really escape the tentacles of Brussels other than in a few meaningless areas. This might also explain why Jean Claude Druncker spouts utter bollocks regarding the negotiations. On the other hand it is possible that this bass ackwards approach is because the payment issue is the most important thing for the Eurocrats personally. If the UK pays nothing then the EU budget will take a big hit and the generous Eurocrat lifestyle may have to go on a bit of a diet, not that the Eurocrat perks will likely suffer much, after all some of the top ones have nice lucrative side jobs, more likely there will just be less pork to spread around and thus the EU will become less popular with the populace. Either way the UK clearly needs to play hardball on the contribution issue and work on contingency plans for when the EU stomps off in a huff because it isn’t getting the money is wants.
The crudest response is to simply and unilaterally declare that the UK will allow tariff free entry of goods from the entire world and that it will look at ways to strengthen its position as a financial center. The former is obviously just a UK benefit, the latter part is potentially a weapon to wield in a war against the EU
For example the UK might, say, declare that it will not share tax information with countries with which it does not have a free trade deal in place or in the works. Since it is highly likely that it will have deals nearly ready to sign with much of the Anglosphere (as well as some of Asia) this will effectively mean the only developed nations that it won’t share tax information with are EU ones. This would make London a tax haven for EU entities which means that if EU citizens/companies want to stash their loot in London to avoid paying local taxes on it (because you can be fairly sure that the UK tax rates will be lower) the UK will not tell the EU tax authorities how much capital and income is involved. At this point you can watch a giant money vacuum appear in London that sucks liquidity from all sorts of EU financial institutions and associated nations leading to their economies going titsup.com.
This is of course speculative but it’s an interesting thought experiment to continue with. I don’t know exactly what a continent-wide bank run would look like but it wouldn’t be nice and the only way to stop it would be to implement capital controls and other similar rules from the economic boom times (ha ha) of the 1970s. Now while those capital controls might stop the outflow in the extremely short term they will also trash the EU economy even more, slash imports of just about everything from Russian natural gas to African bananas and eliminate inward investment (see how this has worked in places like Argentina or Venezuela). As a result they will be intensely unpopular and (see Argentina and Venezuela again) they won’t work because people will find ways to get their cash out and required goods in anyway. Worse, they’ll devote more energy to that than to doing productive work and so the economy will suffer even more.
Now this won’t be all smoothness and light for the UK. The EU nations, the French particularly, might decide to try and play hardball back and cut exports of electricity and food to the UK. In the longer term this won’t work as tariff free imports of food from places like New Zealand, Canada and the US will easily replace the EU sourced food in a fairly short time and the UK can get serious about fracking and build gas-powered generators to make up the energy shortfall but it would be painful in the short term. Of course cutting exports of food and power to the UK will also hurt the French economy badly and French farmers are not known for their restraint when it comes to seeing their incomes cut, so the French and/or EU authorities will have to spend even more money they don’t have propping up the sectors that are no longer making money by export to the UK and thereby destabilize their economies even more.
The Irish, assuming that the UK decides to not inspect traffic across that border, will undoubtedly continue to trade with the UK because they have to and indeed an adroit information campaign would make the Irish population extremely anti-EU when they then discover that they too are embargoed from trade with the rest of Europe as a result. Note that if they aren’t embargoed then all the exports that formerly went direct to the UK will simply take the indirect route via Ireland as will lots and lots of UK exports to the rest of the EU. For goods that might add a bit to the cost, but there will also be all sorts of more immaterial trade that will go via Dublin electronically for a pretty nominal fee.
Of course it is not clear that Mrs May will have the spine for this, but based on her actions to date I suspect she will turn out to once it becomes clear that the EU is negotiating in bad faith – which probably won’t take very long the way things appear right now. The EU appears to think that it can back Mrs May and her government into a corner and that they will be forced to capitulate. I think this is a serious misreading of Mrs May and the UK in general. In fact if HMG has sense it is already wargaming and simulating potential actions once the negotiations fail and, if I were in their shoes, I’d be spending a lot more time on that than I would on trying to negotiate with the blockheads from Brussels.
...eh... seems hard brexit is the worst option and hope cooler heads prevails...
I would bet money that if we tried to return to the EU, they'd force the euro on us as a condition of re-entry.
Why? As I've pointed out it is not an essential requirement of being in the EU. Why should it be any different, what evidence do you have to suggest this is the case (other than your desire to attack the EU and try and dissuade people from considering rejoining?)
On an aside I've heard the Europeans are happy to see that there will be a trade stand. It will give them something to laugh at when they walk by...
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Because from what I'm seeing from them in the negotiations is that they're a shower of vindictive bastards.
No they are doing their best to protect the interests of the EU which we are leaving. They have no reason to go for anything that doesn't meet that requirement. The UK chose to leave and we will have to pay the consequences (well you might, I'm trying to leave the sinking ship). We can't whine that we are no longer going to benefit from a hard nosed, well practiced negotiating team compared to a bunch of incompetents that can barely understand the difference between their ass and their elbow. We benefited from this experience whilst in the EU. You wanted to leave, whining that the EU no longer supports the UK and is being tough in the negotiations isn't being "vindictive bastards" but rather your misconceptions that we could leave whilst dancing off into the distance into a flowery meadow beyond and that everything was going to be perfect...not going to happen, and never was going to happen. Of course this was warned about but....
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Because from what I'm seeing from them in the negotiations is that they're a shower of vindictive bastards.
All of this comes down to the circular argument that you think we are right to leave the EU because you think they won't let us back in on the terms that you want because they wouldn't let us stay in on the terms you want even though you never wanted to be in in the first place.
You haven't presented a shred of evidence to support any of your views, and everything you have said has been easily and completely refuted.
You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/30 20:32:23
Back up a bit. I (like many others) felt that the eu had long overstepped it's bounds with regards to control and that a line had been crossed, which meant either leaving it now and becoming an idependant nation again or forever staying within it and ceasing to be an independent nation. And I think that having left it, trying to return to it a later date would be a very bad idea. Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
"You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases."
at me again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/30 20:55:26
Future War Cultist wrote: Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
"You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases."
at me again.
Well the first sentence in itself is an inarguable prejudice and bias. You've stated it's a bad idea and we'll lose the concessions we currently have. Yet you have not provided any evidence for this, only statements calling the EU "vindictive bastards" which is not evidence. However statements you have said have been argued against with evidence (for example your statement that UK would have to take the Euro is questionable given that not all EU countries have the Euro; hence having the Euro is not a mandatory requirement for joining the EU). Your arguments lack substance and anything to back them up. You are just reiterating the same thing over and over in an attempt to win an argument with emotional and unsubstantiated statements as 'fact'.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Future War Cultist wrote: Back up a bit. I (like many others) felt that the eu had long overstepped it's bounds with regards to control and that a line had been crossed, which meant either leaving it now and becoming an idependant nation again or forever staying within it and ceasing to be an independent nation. And I think that having left it, trying to return to it a later date would be a very bad idea. Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
"You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases."
at me again.
Cite an example of control that you felt overstepped the bounds. The Lisbon treaty is not an example, that was ratified by the UK parliament and so, could certainly not be an example of the EU overstepping its bounds but rather the UK choosing to extend its bounds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/30 22:22:32
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Future War Cultist wrote: Not if we leave and then came back, which would require us to adopt the euro, which would be out of our control. That's the point I was trying to make.
That leaving in the first place is a gakking idiotic idea, because we'd lose our unique privileges? I agree entirely!
Future War Cultist wrote: Back up a bit. I (like many others) felt that the eu had long overstepped it's bounds with regards to control and that a line had been crossed, which meant either leaving it now and becoming an idependant nation again or forever staying within it and ceasing to be an independent nation. And I think that having left it, trying to return to it a later date would be a very bad idea. Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
"You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases."
at me again.
Cite an example of control that you felt overstepped the bounds. The Lisbon treaty is not an example, that was ratified by the UK parliament and so, could certainly not be an example of the EU overstepping its bounds but rather the UK choosing to extend its bounds.
I'd go further; an example where the EU overstepped bounds, and the UKs objection was ignored.
If the UK agreed with it, then it's as responsible as the EU.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/31 07:18:12
Whirlwind wrote: Your arguments lack substance and anything to back them up. You are just reiterating the same thing over and over in an attempt to win an argument with emotional and unsubstantiated statements as 'fact'.
So, 100% consistent and on-brand with the rest of the leave campaign?
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Future War Cultist wrote: Back up a bit. I (like many others) felt that the eu had long overstepped it's bounds with regards to control and that a line had been crossed, which meant either leaving it now and becoming an idependant nation again or forever staying within it and ceasing to be an independent nation. And I think that having left it, trying to return to it a later date would be a very bad idea. Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
...
I think that's a fair point. We may not have got to the stage of having the Brexit referendum if the government had held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
In terms of the concept of independency, there is a philosophical difference between your view of it and mine. I don't believe total national sovereignty is practical in the modern world, and even if it was, I also don't believe it's an excellent goal in itself.
I think that's a fair point. We may not have got to the stage of having the Brexit referendum if the government had held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
In terms of the concept of independency, there is a philosophical difference between your view of it and mine. I don't believe total national sovereignty is practical in the modern world, and even if it was, I also don't believe it's an excellent goal in itself.
I don't think anyone is arguing for 'total national sovereignty' so much as a reversion to the same relationship with the EU as many other nations already practice. That is to say, a tailored trade deal and cross-counter interaction on clearly laid out and defined areas (ala Canada, Japan, Turkey, and so on). Which really isn't entirely objectionable as a concept.
The only question is whether or not it is worth the short term economic pain to get there. To which the answer is dependent upon your personal views of our relationship of the EU and general life philosophy. Much like most things in politics.
Regarding the Brexit current negotiations, there's been a lot of shifting in the various government ministries and negotiations that isn't entirely obvious from the headlines. Davis appears to have consolidated his grip on the process and cut Fox/Bojo out altogether. Hence their somewhat ridiculous attempts of late to try and show that they're 'still in the loop' and relevant (seriously, a stand in Brussels?!). In terms of strategy, he's carried on with the minimal press briefing/poker face approach, likely because a lot of the cock-handed stuff in earlier electoral/cross-ministry confusion gave away more than he would have liked. The Europeans have noted the shift and begun redirecting their pr pieces accordingly. You'll note Fox and Boris rarely feature in their attempts to discredit the British negotiating team anymore.
This is a good thing, because the less those two have to do with anything, the better.
In terms of the negotiations themselves, the British team appear to have adopted a strategy of chicken, and point blank refused some of the more ludicrous demands from Barnier. They've begun preparing plans for a hard Brexit, not because they want it, but because all the kerfuffle earlier which revealed their lack of planning in that direction. It gave their hand (that they don't want hard brexit) away too early, which now in turn means that they have to convince the lot in Brussels that they are willing to go that far or be at a serious disadvantage. Ironically, had the Press not picked up on that and run with it so hard, they would have been more likely to fold earlier, now they have to accommodate hard brexit as an actual potential alternative or not get taken seriously by the opposition.
The EU negotiating team is starting to get nervous though. For all the bluffing and pretending that all pressure is entirely on the British side, they have various people who need answers on their own. The Irish are getting particularly antsy, and the Visegrad group less and less amused by the media antics of the Eurocrats. Barnier overplayed his own hand with regards to his demands for European legal pre-eminence in Britain, and Juncker's continued dropping of blown up figures has only exacerbated things. They over-extended because of perceived British weakness, and now that the opposition has rallied and got their house more in order, the EU team's been left with lines arbitrarily drawn in the sand that they're finding it difficult to withdraw from back to more reasonable grounds.
So now we're in a game of chicken, to an extent. The Europeans are floundering slightly, because they weren't expecting the British team to get it together. The question now is whether or not Barnier and co. will get told to wind their necks in and get to actual negotiating instead of newspaper briefings, or whether pride will prevent that. As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options. And Ireland and co. know it and are not amused.
Things are actually starting to get interesting. I wish we'd been in this position six months ago, but internal politics threw a massive spanner in the works. May's election was a massive screw-up. Hopefully, all will work out in the end.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/08/31 09:55:13
From a legal basis, Britain might not have to pay the EU that much by the sounds of it.
I've always said that we have a duty to honour our treaty obligations and pay what we owe, but that only goes so far. Not a penny more, not a penny less.
If it were me, I'd put 25 billion on the table and tell the EU to take it or leave it. Final offer.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Cite an example of control that you felt overstepped the bounds. The Lisbon treaty is not an example, that was ratified by the UK parliament and so, could certainly not be an example of the EU overstepping its bounds but rather the UK choosing to extend its bounds.
This approach by the British government is partly why Brexit succeeded, because they too have stabbed the public in the back too often (The way the government did nothing in the EU to support the blocking of cheap Chinese steel flooding our markets which then killed off our steel industry is an example. Just whose side are they on?)
Too long the government of the day, labour or tory, have been signing away independence and making closer ties to Europe, without really explaining what these treaties were doing or how it would affect us. Almost no one knows when we are following EU or UK instruction. No one in power asked the British people if they wanted all these treaties being signed, Lisbon or Maastrict. Brown didn't even show his face for the public signing of Lisbon, he knew it wasn't what a lot of people wanted and wasn't proud to be seen signing it. If he knew people didn't like it, why wasn't there more debate or involvement of the British public? Had Brexit been rejected, it would likely be the last time anyone got asked about decisions in Europe again, the assumption being that voices opposing EU integration would now be legitimately ignorable.
That's why I think Brexit succeeded. People haven't been able to input into he decisions being made for so long, that as soon as they get a choice, effectively being told, get off now or stay on the ride forever, they jumped off however damaging it is. Lots of people were happy with the Europe of twenty years ago, but the EU demands constant expansion and power. Where the EU will be in ten or twenty years concerns me, because it won't stand still.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/31 10:34:11
Ketara wrote:As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/31 11:17:19
Ketara wrote:As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
I think you'll find that the UK members on here would disagree with you. as to who is always saying no to proposals. And if, as is reported, that the EU position of the divorce bill was a 4 page document running to billions of pounds with no explanation of how they got there anyone would say no. As it stands, the EU will not negotiate until the divorce bill is sorted, but they haven't explained how they have their figures calculated, Junker and Barnier keep contradicting each other as to how much it will be, and as in every divorce assets have to be divided as well, but are refusing to admit the existence of EU assets.
Cheers
Andrew
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
You may not be aware of this, but the British Government has published fairly large documents this past week or two on most aspects of Britain leaving the EU. They are somewhat open-ended in several regards, but that's to be expected. If you go in for specific proposals at this stage without leaving room for flexibility or alternative suggestions, it's not much of a negotiation.
The EU, on the flip side, has roundly disdained most of what is in these documents as impractical, but proffered no alternatives for the most part. And those few that they have are along the lines of those ridiculous proposals of ECJ pre-eminence over people in the UK. In other words, they are in the position now of being on the back foot. They now need to produce what they think should happen, and get on with negotiating. The reason they haven't so far seems to be a mixture of confusion (for all the talk of a solid front, there is little consensus on what the EU actually wants), and surprise that the Brits got their stuff together (they assumed the prior state of confusion would last indefinitely).
Accordingly, you couldn't link me to the EU's proposed solution on say, the Irish border right now. Primarily because it doesn't exist.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
That was on a specific issue, namely the exit bill. That's one of the few points the Brits have deliberately left openended. And frankly, as a negotiating tactic, I'd leave it open too. As the Guardian article linked above points out, the EU cash demand right now is a bunch of vaguely assorted overarching titles on a 4 page document.
I mean, seriously? I just signed a loan agreement ten times that length and that's a personal loan, not an international agreement. They want us to sign it on 'general principles' with no detail so that they can crowbar as much stuff in as possible. In effect, they're trying to pressure us into signing a blank cheque. If you're going to point that for an example of how the British are unprepared and the Europeans willing, you really need to pick a better example.
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
You've literally just described the European negotiating position so far. I mean, have you not seen all their veiled comments about clocks?
Barnier and co. expected the British confusion to last until we were four months away from running out of time, and that they could ride it out to that point by offering blanket denials, lots of negative pr briefings against the British, and a general lack of co-operation. Then in that last three months, we'd be forced to sign whatever they put in front of us, because we wouldn't be willing to do a hard Brexit. That was the European negotiating strategy. And you know? Objectively speaking, it wasn't a bad one.
Now though? They can carry it on like that if they like, but given that the British side has actually gotten their crap together now, the longer they play for time, the more obvious it will be to Irish and Visegrad governments who do need an agreement. What's more, if the British actually are getting prepared seriously for a hard Brexit now, that's not their desired outcome either. So Barnier now needs to re-assess the situation and come up with a fresh approach.
Hopefully, everything will work out now. But the ball is very much back in the European court now, and everyone knows it.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/08/31 14:55:21
Cite an example of control that you felt overstepped the bounds. The Lisbon treaty is not an example, that was ratified by the UK parliament and so, could certainly not be an example of the EU overstepping its bounds but rather the UK choosing to extend its bounds.
This approach by the British government is partly why Brexit succeeded, because they too have stabbed the public in the back too often (The way the government did nothing in the EU to support the blocking of cheap Chinese steel flooding our markets which then killed off our steel industry is an example. Just whose side are they on?)
Too long the government of the day, labour or tory, have been signing away independence and making closer ties to Europe, without really explaining what these treaties were doing or how it would affect us. Almost no one knows when we are following EU or UK instruction. No one in power asked the British people if they wanted all these treaties being signed, Lisbon or Maastrict. Brown didn't even show his face for the public signing of Lisbon, he knew it wasn't what a lot of people wanted and wasn't proud to be seen signing it. If he knew people didn't like it, why wasn't there more debate or involvement of the British public? Had Brexit been rejected, it would likely be the last time anyone got asked about decisions in Europe again, the assumption being that voices opposing EU integration would now be legitimately ignorable.
That's why I think Brexit succeeded. People haven't been able to input into he decisions being made for so long, that as soon as they get a choice, effectively being told, get off now or stay on the ride forever, they jumped off however damaging it is. Lots of people were happy with the Europe of twenty years ago, but the EU demands constant expansion and power. Where the EU will be in ten or twenty years concerns me, because it won't stand still.
Then none of that is an EU issue, it's a British government issue.
You can't blame the EU for our government signing us up to a bunch of EU stuff without asking us, besides it's not like we hadn't had an impact on those things with our MEP's (those that turned up) and whatnot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/31 12:03:18
And I didn't blame the EU, I blame the UK government for its failure to protect our industries and take a stronger role in the EU in situations when the opportunity was there.
I can't handle the cognitive dissonance on Brexit anymore. There's clearly 2 completely different and utterly incompatible views on everything and I can't see how they'll ever be rationalized.
To me, the news from today reads that the UK is still woefully underprepared and the EU is getting frustrated by it. I'm starting to suspect it's just a case of the UK deliberately wasting time in the hope that a solution will appear. But some people (not just on here) are taking the same news as some sort of evidence that the UK is running rings round the EU by wasting time.
On one side, the UK is out of it's depth and unwilling to compromise, on the other, the EU is out of it's depth and unwilling to compromise.
Is this all just about setting up blame for when negotiations fail miserably?
Ketara wrote:As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
I think you'll find that the UK members on here would disagree with you. as to who is always saying no to proposals.
A lot of UK members on here agree with him. Everyone seems pretty well split on the matter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/31 17:50:51
Whirlwind wrote: Your arguments lack substance and anything to back them up. You are just reiterating the same thing over and over in an attempt to win an argument with emotional and unsubstantiated statements as 'fact'.
So, 100% consistent and on-brand with the rest of the leave campaign?
To be balanced, it wasn't like the Remain camp was any better. Rather than having an intelligent debate on the EU we had stupid and unrealistic soundbites (or when it came to UKIP just plain bigoted messages). The Tories being Tories played project Fear to the max on both sides and none of the benefits that we see by being in the EU were ever detailed or given a reasoned chance to debate the points (BBC/ITV/SKY/Daily Fail/Sunday Distress/Scum) were all guilty of this.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Ketara wrote:As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
I think you'll find that the UK members on here would disagree with you. as to who is always saying no to proposals. And if, as is reported, that the EU position of the divorce bill was a 4 page document running to billions of pounds with no explanation of how they got there anyone would say no
The document is publicly available and doesn't have any number on it. Barnier is asking the UK for their own list not a number.
Something both sides can start working with.
@Ketara. From what I've seen published so far all UK documents are deliberately vague in key issues. You may not agree with what the EU has published but they're several degrees of magnitude more to the point. They don't require imagination or a creative mind to interpret things like "seamless goods movement" or magic-eye borders.
I'm sure my customers would never sign a deal with me if I used the kind of words the UK team puts on their documents. International trade is done on specifications, not buzzwords.
On a cui bono analysis sure, I would definitely think it's in the EU interests to stall negotiations, but everything else points at the other side of the table.
Ketara wrote: things. They over-extended because of perceived British weakness, and now that the opposition has rallied and got their house more in order, the EU team's been left with lines arbitrarily drawn in the sand that they're finding it difficult to withdraw from back to more reasonable grounds.
So now we're in a game of chicken, to an extent. The Europeans are floundering slightly, because they weren't expecting the British team to get it together. The question now is whether or not Barnier and co. will get told to wind their necks in and get to actual negotiating instead of newspaper briefings, or whether pride will prevent that. As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options. And Ireland and co. know it and are not amused.
On what basis are we assuming the UK has got its act together. All they've produced is a lot of position statements rather than anything concrete that we have seen. A shopping list if you want. However you can't build a contract out of a shopping list. I can imagine the EU's frustration that the UK turned up 3 months ago told them what they want, the EU go away work out how much it's going to cost and when they table it the UK balk at the cost which I think is a more likely scenario. The likelihood is that the 4 page summary was the a summary of the costs the UK would have to pay from what they asked to continue to be a part of after we leave. The EU are much more experienced at negotiating than the bunch of buffoons we have sent of which our response has simply been "we won't pay". However they are unwilling to detail how much they are willing to pay so the EU can work out which things the UK won't have access to in the future after they have stripped it down to what we already have committed to. The worrying thing is that this is the easy part. They haven't even started the complex detailed negotiations...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I can't handle the cognitive dissonance on Brexit anymore. There's clearly 2 completely different and utterly incompatible views on everything and I can't see how they'll ever be rationalized.
Civil War? If the government armed each side and then let them get on with we might get a more conclusive forward direction; and the undertakers would be happy too. Seriously though the idea that the UK government has that the country is coming together is far from reality. Either the government is seriously deluded or sticking its head in the sand and hoping the populace will forgive and forget completely screwing the country over.
Basically work for free for a business or we won't give you any allowances...its effectively hugely subsided cheap workforce so businesses don't have to pay the minimum wage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/31 18:38:31
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Herzlos wrote: I can't handle the cognitive dissonance on Brexit anymore. There's clearly 2 completely different and utterly incompatible views on everything and I can't see how they'll ever be rationalized
To me, the news from today reads that the UK is still woefully underprepared and the EU is getting frustrated by it. I'm starting to suspect it's just a case of the UK deliberately wasting time in the hope that a solution will appear. But some people (not just on here) are taking the same news as some sort of evidence that the UK is running rings round the EU by wasting time.
On one side, the UK is out of it's depth and unwilling to compromise, on the other, the EU is out of it's depth and unwilling to compromise.
Is this all just about setting up blame for when negotiations fail miserably?
How you choose to interpret the news ultimately comes down to both what media you digest, how sceptically you treat the sources, and a dozen other factors. As someone who very begrudgingly voted to leave, I like to think that I'm reasonably impartial. I know my beliefs, preferences, and biases, and do my level best to account for them in my analyses.
Up until extremely recently (aka, the last month or so, I'd say), the Government has been utterly cack-handed with the whole thing. Internal politics, priorities, and divisions were the name of the game, and that only got amplified/extended by the decision to hold a general election. At the same time, there's been a fairly consistent wave of negative media and leaks emanating from Brussels doing their best to make that cack-handedness visible across Britain, and to exaggerate it even if possible(.I think it is possible to assert both of those things with reasonable reliability. Because:
(i)The actions of the UK government over the last six months in focusing on internal matters is more or less a matter of public record. To an extent, I think it was inevitable. They didn't have the negotiating staff, a new department had to be spun out of thin air, and there was a lot of legwork to do. All the backbiting and knives coming out has exacerbated and prolonged that matter considerably though.
(ii) Again, the EU's media strategy is something of public record. We have the daft things like the Davis 'no documents' photo doing the round, 'leaks' coming off Juncker's desk three hours after phone calls, conversation with Juncker about the power he believes the British press have over the government, and so forth.
Taking both of those things as a given (anyone is welcome to debate them with me, but some sourcework will be needed to convince me otherwise), we can turn to look at the actions of the past few weeks.
The first thing that is noticeable is that the British Government has finally published a fat stack of documents on the direction they would like many issues to go in. Much is unrealistic, more is idealistic. But it does what the EU has been pressuring the British Government to do for months; which is lay out what Britain is after at the negotiating table. It lays out some ideas to explore, some more to be shot down, and generally gives a starting point for negotiations. Anyone who looks at that and decrys it as being pointless does not, I think, comprehend how international agreements (or indeed, any kind of more complex treaty) is formed. The process begins with both sides roughly laying out what they want, and then gradually working their way down to something both find digestible. A point is surrendered here, another is gained there. This is simply the first step, and it is a crucial one. Granted, it should have been done six months ago, but here we are.
The one notable exception to above is the settlement bill. At the moment, the EU has presented Britain with a short document containing generalised subheadings, and a statement that effectively says 'Do you agree all of this stuff is things you should be paying for?'. Britain, on the other hand (it not being their place to draw up a costing of the EU) has countered with 'Can I see a detailed breakdown from the bottom up of what you'd like me to pay for?' It's a case of a request for a blank cheque being met with a demand for a detailed invoice. I understand why both are doing what they are doing, and it makes sense from both perspectives. The EU wants as much jam as it can extract, Britain wants a detailed invoice so it can point to various items and haggle or dismiss them.
The second noticeable feature has been the lack of paperwork from Barnier's negotiating team. In line with their media strategy, they have blitzed the British proposals with varying levels of denigration and insults. Some of it rightly so, others not so much. But whilst Britain has now laid its first hand on the table and said, 'Let's see yours', Barnier's team is still trash talking as if it wasn't there. There is no set of EU proposals on the Irish border. There isn't a single EU proposal on travel arrangements post Brexit. The only EU proposal on the table regarding citizen's rights post-Brexit was a headline grabber that no sane country would ever accept. The only EU proposal on the table regarding the Brexit bill is a vague four page document. I could go on, but the point is made.
Now some of the above has a good reason for it. Barnier doesn't want to put anything on the table relating to post-Brexit trade because he wants to keep that sort of thing uncertain until he extracts a fat wodge of cash, for example. But that only explains away so much. This lack of paperwork from the European side is again, more or less a matter of information very clearly in the public domain, so there's not a huge amount to disagree on.
My speculation (and this is where it turns into interpretation) is that this is because they did not expect the British team to get their stuff together and so did not feel the need to produce it. And judging by the Tories over the last few months, I thought that too until the last few weeks. I have noticed a trend though, over the last few months, of Bojo and Fox saying things that simply didn't line up with Davis and May's much tighter lips and precise statements. It's very much contributed to the impression of a disparate government. Yet at the same time, Davis has just thrown a large pile of paperwork at the EU. The logical conclusion is that Fox and Bojo have now been cut out of the loop, and Davis is getting on with things.
Another observation noticeable by its absence is the lack of headlines talking about the new department's need for staff. The most recent ones I've seen actually, have been decrying how much they're paying the staff that they have hired (whatever they wanted in a nutshell). The conclusion I'm therefore drawing, is that they have now assembled a team of reasonable size, who will now be beavering away on the matter. Given we're six months in and the above, I don't believe that's an unreasonable conclusion to make.
Regarding the EU over the last three or four weeks, there's been the appearance of a much greater proportion of headlines relating to an increasingly twitchy Ireland, who appears to think the EU is planning on using their border as a bargaining chip. The Visegrad group has also announced that they'll torpedo anything that doesn't take their interests into account. In other words, the national governments in the EU with the most to lose are getting restless. I think it is a safe assumption to say that Barnier will currently have these two factions on the phone to him emphasising the need to make this work and not slide into hard brexit.
Finally, examining the British delegation's actions so far, we have begun to see both a media and diplomatic pushback over the last fortnight for the first time. The British negotiating strategy appears to be to present a seeming willingness to publicly meet the imposed criteria of 'proceeding sufficiently far on certain issues' to get to the meat of what interests them, but to not actually conclude/sign anything until everything is on the table. They also appear to have taken note of both Barnier's lack of documentation now compared to them, and the anxieties of Ireland/the Visegrad group. So they're pushing some headlines on the former, and some diplomatic feelers on the latter.
If you think that any of the above is particularly biased/untrue, I'm more than happy to discuss why it might be wrong.
I have to say, while I'm on the other side of the fence to Ketara as regards the benefits of Brexit, I reckon his analysis of the negotiations is getting close to the point. It is beginning to look like the UK government having been very slow indeed off the mark, is now putting out some good papers and positions, while the EU begins to look less well prepared than we might have thought 6 months ago.
This question of the bill is crucial. The EU needs to present a proper bill with workings, or else it looks like a Mafia style "facilitation payment".
So all we're doing -- with our "impressive" 3 hour filibuster YMDCRAW worthy attack on their position is hold our own ground, at best, and manage to make no progress in any other area.
One notes what you refer to as the Uks " fat stack of documents"
WE've released 7 papers with regards to our position(s).
.. Which, TBF, is quite impressive considering that our main one is "bent over"
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
