[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Rockyreg]

How... can you be this stupid. So they hammer out a last minute compromise deal that is super flaky to begin with. And then Davis goes on to say that it's not binding...

Now EU officials are considering to insist putting it into law, as in actually ratifying the first part into UK legislation. As if the UK had time to do that... sheesh.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ys-verhofstadt



Is this what the UK considers "professional negotiation"? Good luck with that kind of attitude when trying to make deals with third parties. This isn't a child's game. When you say silly things like that on TV, be mindful that other nations do have free access to the footage and will take you seriously. This type of commentary isn't a joke that you can play off later.

In other words, sooner or later you will have to tell the truth, the stark naked truth. And you will have to face the British electorate about what you promised and what you actually can deliver. The EU won't save you from that.

I actually think this is a good thing (for both the EU and the UK). We won't get the trading relationship that we would like so instead of wasting another year of futile negotiations this may bring it all to a head and make the UK government either choose an EEA/EFTA type agreement or make a clean break.

They will however have to re-write that joint report as its so full of contradictions it could never be a legal document.

[Rockyreg]

I think it was intentionally ambiguous to make it easier for May to sell it, and instead of selling it, her negotiator and party made clear they consider the document signed by their PM as non-binding. It is non-binding, but parading that fact is just . . . not something you do. The moment in a negotiation where you feel that the opposing party actually has no authority to negotiate is the moment you need to either ask for the issues to be escalated or just scrap the entire thing.

It was not made intentionally ambiguous just for the UK, the EU also wants things to move on too. Both sides are guilty of wanting to postpone the difficult parts for as long as possible. I for one would be glad they make all this legally binding as hopefully it will bring it to a close quicker and we can all get on with our lives and I can start watching the news again.

[Rockyreg]

It must really be bad, my UK friends just do not want to discuss anything Brexit related, they are completely sick of it. I don't think it's even that much in the news around the rest of Europe.

I'm definitely suffering from Brexit fatigue!

I think Europe has bigger things to worry about at the moment as there seems to be a bit of a 'cold war' going on at the moment in relation to the future of the EU. What I fear is that France will win and replace Germany as the major player in the EU.

[Noradin]

"They don't invite me because I am handsome but because of what I did for the Balkans!"

"Let's see it, I told her. I had read about the English tea and I wanted to drink it."

"When she comes to Bulgaria I will give her yoghurt."

Our Prime Minister, visiting the UK's Prime Minister. Remember those cultural differences I was harping on about?

Can I get a few more details on where you wanted to go with that post?
Because I do not see the relevance of those specific quotes to your last sentence.

[Deleted]

How... can you be this stupid. So they hammer out a last minute compromise deal that is super flaky to begin with. And then Davis goes on to say that it's not binding...

The sad part is that he is right - and if he just spelled out the whole thing (if he grasps it) it wouldn't be a problem.
The current deal is a necessary but, not sufficient, condition to have a friction less border - Even if the UK unilaterally maintained regulatory equivalence, it wouldn't be possible to have no border.
Of course doing that would have defeated the purpose, which was to tell the brexiteers that their insane world is still intact, frictionless border + regulatory Independence (of course, this literally could not be maintained except if the UK annexes Ireland).
At best this winds up being positive, because the UK will be forced to say that absent another deal, they will take a Norway solution, one of those could be hammered out in a matter of weeks.

[Rockyreg]

The sad part is that he is right - and if he just spelled out the whole thing (if he grasps it) it wouldn't be a problem.
The current deal is a necessary but, not sufficient, condition to have a friction less border - Even if the UK unilaterally maintained regulatory equivalence, it wouldn't be possible to have no border.
Of course doing that would have defeated the purpose, which was to tell the brexiteers that their insane world is still intact, frictionless border + regulatory Independence (of course, this literally could not be maintained except if the UK annexes Ireland).
At best this winds up being positive, because the UK will be forced to say that absent another deal, they will take a Norway solution, one of those could be hammered out in a matter of weeks.

There are so many contradictions in this joint agreement though that it'll take some doing to convert this into a legal document. The EU has said that they are only willing to offer EEA or CETA type agreements. Surely in the strictest sense both of those agreements would require a border in Ireland.

[ranzino]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42315280

Nearly all the possible trading relationships between Britain and the European Union following Brexit would be less favourable than staying in the European Union, according to an influential US think tank.

No shit, Sherlock...

[Deleted]

There are so many contradictions in this joint agreement though that it'll take some doing to convert this into a legal document. The EU has said that they are only willing to offer EEA or CETA type agreements. Surely in the strictest sense both of those agreements would require a border in Ireland.

If the UK went for an EEA agreement including agriculture, the remaining issue would be customs, and that could be solved by monitoring the border crossings and forcing all trucks to go to designated customs crossings (it's how it's done on the Swedish-Norway border) - this could work.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42315280

Nearly all the possible trading relationships between Britain and the European Union following Brexit would be less favourable than staying in the European Union, according to an influential US think tank.

No shit, Sherlock...

RAND is clearly in the pocket of the EU.

[Rockyreg]

If the UK went for an EEA agreement including agriculture, the remaining issue would be customs, and that could be solved by monitoring the border crossings and forcing all trucks to go to designated customs crossings (it's how it's done on the Swedish-Norway border) - this could work.[/I]

- - - Updated - - -

And I assume that something similar could be devised should the UK go for a CETA type deal? And if that is the case why could they not do something similar outside of a EEA/CETA type deal?

RAND is clearly in the pocket of the EU.

I saw this today, seemed to be a plug for restarting TTIP!! I wonder where they get the bulk of their funding from?

[Noradin]

And I assume that something similar could be devised should the UK go for a CETA type deal? And if that is the case why could they not do something similar outside of a EEA/CETA type deal?

No.
This only works because EEA means there is free movement of people, goods, and services accross the border in question.

As soon as you don't have free movement of people a manned fence is needed.

[Triks]

Can I get a few more details on where you wanted to go with that post?
Because I do not see the relevance of those specific quotes to your last sentence.

@Mayhem and I were talking about UES and I said that there was a massive cultural difference between the nations or, as I put it, "What do I have in common with the Dutch?".

[Rockyreg]

No.
This only works because EEA means there is free movement of people, goods, and services accross the border in question.

As soon as you don't have free movement of people a manned fence is needed.

So why is it then the EU has said, the UK can either have an EEA/CETA type deal? Is there the free movement of people, goods and services between the EU and Canada?

[Ishayu]

A few billion euro to begin with.
The UK has enormeous outstanding obligations that the EU has offered to take care of for them in exchange for a paltry down payment* of a fraction of the money the UK promised.

(*unaccurately and dishonestly portrayed as a "divorce bill" by the UK, and its politicans and media outlets)

- - - Updated - - -



If you are of age and still didn't get to vote then that is on your nation state, not on the EU.
Since all member states of the EU are sovereign nations the EU left the details of the organisation of the voting process up to the member states.
Unfortunately some botched it (like the UK), but most did an adequate job. If you didn't get a say, maybe show up for the vote next time?

And the EU has massive outstanding obligations to the UK. If you add the debt up both ways, it came out to quite little. Economists disagree on who owes more money to the other party. The largest figure released was 50B from the UK to the EU, but some economists suggested 20B from the EU to the UK as well.

Either way, the EU appears to have decided to become gentlemen today. Took them long enough. They started negotiations despite the UK saying they would only pay if a trade deal was reached. Of course, Guy Verhofstadt immediately started to retract once he realized that what he had agreed to was not legally binding for either party until a full deal was reached, because he is, indeed, an imperialist dick.

It's funny how I was written off as a complete idiot in this thread when I suggested the EU was capable of starting trade negotiations without the obligation of paying the bill up-front, and now it turns out the EU agrees with me. Funny that.

The people of Denmark have not voted for Margrethe Vestager to sit at the EU commission. Rather, they had voted for the social democrats 3 years earlier, been massively disappointed, and Radikale held around 8% of the seats in that government, but somehow she was able to strike a deal and make our government elect her despite her having no support from the people. In the election that came a few months after she got into office in the EU, her and her party lost a massive number of seats, going down to <5% of the vote. Her party was nearly thrown out of parliament.

WE_DID_NOT_ELECT_HER.

She is now the only person from Denmark who can propose legislation to the EU parliament. Considering the importance of such a job, the fact that she isn't somehow directly elected is a travesty. We don't want her, and we never did.

[Deleted]

So why is it then the EU has said, the UK can either have an EEA/CETA type deal? Is there the free movement of people, goods and services between the EU and Canada?

a CETA deal would involve a hardening of the border.

- - - Updated - - -

Either way, the EU appears to have decided to become gentlemen today. Took them long enough. They started negotiations despite the UK saying they would only pay if a trade deal was reached. Of course, Guy Verhofstadt immediately started to retract once he realized that what he had agreed to was not legally binding for either party until a full deal was reached, because he is, indeed, an imperialist dick.

There are two problems here, A, the issue was not money, and B, there will not be a trade deal at the end of this, because C, it's impossible to do in time, and D, because a trade treaty sorts under article 218 (of a different treaty), not article 50.

It's funny how I was written off as a complete idiot in this thread when I suggested the EU was capable of starting trade negotiations without the obligation of paying the bill up-front, and now it turns out the EU agrees with me. Funny that.

By capable do you mean willing?

The people of Denmark have not voted for Margrethe Vestager to sit at the EU commission. Rather, they had voted for the social democrats 3 years earlier,

Did you vote on any government appointee? - the answer to that question is no, and you still aren't living in a dictatorship.

WE_DID_NOT_ELECT_HER.

No, your chosen representatives did.

She is now the only person from Denmark who can propose legislation to the EU parliament. Considering the importance of such a job, the fact that she isn't somehow directly elected is a travesty. We don't want her, and we never did.

There is nothing in the EU treaties that forbids the states creating a direct election to commissioner, they are both in law and actual reality, allowed to pick whomever they like - Feel free to campaign for the danish constitution to be amended to provide for direct election if you like.
STILL NOT THE EU'S FUCKING FAULT.

[Rockyreg]

a CETA deal would involve a hardening of the border.

That is my own personal view as well, yet that is what the EU (Barnier) is offering which would surely break the terms of the GFA (would require a border) would it not?

[Deleted]

That is my own personal view as well, yet that is what the EU (Barnier) is offering which would surely break the terms of the GFA (would require a border) would it not?

Well the EU is perfectly willing to entertain special solutions for NI - Of course, that would be problematic for the Unionists.

[Rockyreg]

Well the EU is perfectly willing to entertain special solutions for NI - Of course, that would be problematic for the Unionists.

Its not just the unionists that would not entertain a border at the Irish Sea or NI staying in the customs union and single market.

This brings me back to my original point of why I think its good that the withdrawal agreement will become a legal document. It will bring forward the hard choices that have to be made.

Just one example, the part of the agreement where it says (paraphrase) 'in the absence of an agreement the UK will maintain full alignment with the single market and the customs union'. If this becomes a legal document it will have to be spelt out exactly what this means rather than punting the issue down the road for god knows how many months.

[Ishayu]

There are two problems here, A, the issue was not money, and B, there will not be a trade deal at the end of this, because C, it's impossible to do in time, and D, because a trade treaty sorts under article 218 (of a different treaty), not article 50.

A, no it wasn't, it was about strongarming the UK and making them look weak, B, probably not no, C, of course it is when the EU purposefully delays it endlessly and the UK government doesn't believe in its own current mission either, and D, what difference does that make?

By capable do you mean willing?

No, I meant capable. People in this thread were telling me it wasn't possible to start trade talks, I stated they weren't willing because they were being asshats, and I was roundly condemned for that comment. Read through the thread if you like, it's all there.

I said they could start them if they wanted to; they don't want to, because they want to be nasty to the UK because the UK dared defy the EU's dreams of expanding into a superstate spanning across Europe.

Did you vote on any government appointee? - the answer to that question is no, and you still aren't living in a dictatorship.

Other government appointees are not solely capable of initiating legislation, so the comparison makes no sense. A minister is not the same as a president. A president represents residents, hence the name president. The presidents of the EU were not elected by the residents, hence calling them a president is a joke.

This is why the UK and Denmark have prime ministers instead of presidents - they are the minister appointed by the other ministers, but other than a fancy title and extra speaking time they have the exact same amount of power in Parliament as any other directly elected representative, hence the concern that I raise with the EU's system does not apply.

No, your chosen representatives did.

Well, I didn't vote for them, but I know what you mean. Yeah, they "elected" someone a few months before they lost the next election by a landslide. As a result, someone with very low public approval got the job as a consolation price for being completely wrecked in the actual election. This sequence of events is very common and is the reason why people call the EU process "uniquely antidemocratic" - basically the only people allowed to make legislation get their job positions when they can tell they are unpopular in their own country and is about to be kicked out of office.

This also applies to Guy Verhofstadt, Jose Manuel Barosso, and many other EU representatives whose name I cannot spell off the top of my head because they don't belong to my culture, I haven't elected them, and I barely know them.

There is nothing in the EU treaties that forbids the states creating a direct election to commissioner, they are both in law and actual reality, allowed to pick whomever they like - Feel free to campaign for the danish constitution to be amended to provide for direct election if you like.
STILL NOT THE EU'S FUCKING FAULT.

I don't want the Danish constitution polluted with EU nonsense, thank you very much. We've already rejected rewriting the constitution to include or account for various EU rules. We voted against the Euro tand banking union wice, and we voted against police and army integration next, and then we finished off by voting against the superiority of EU law and courts in Denmark.

It ain't happening, and I fail to see how making the EU behave in a democratic way is the responsibility of the nation state itself. Surely the EU should be democratic on its own terms, no?

[Noradin]

@Mayhem and I were talking about UES and I said that there was a massive cultural difference between the nations or, as I put it, "What do I have in common with the Dutch?".

Yes, I got that part, but what have the quotes in that post got to do with this?
They do not seem nation-specific to me, but maybe that's just me.
What does make them relevant to "massive cultural differences between Bulgaria and The Netherlands" in your opinion?
That's what I wanted details on.

I get what you were discussing, just not how those quotes tie into it.

- - - Updated - - -

So why is it then the EU has said, the UK can either have an EEA/CETA type deal? Is there the free movement of people, goods and services between the EU and Canada?

No, a CETA type of deal would therefore require that NI be treated different from the rest of the UK (it would need at least a EEA kind of deal if the GFA is to be kept by the UK, the rest of the UK could have something like CETA).

- - - Updated - - -

And the EU has massive outstanding obligations to the UK. If you add the debt up both ways, it came out to quite little.

Yes, €50bn is quite little, wouldn't you agree?
It is basically pocket change to the EU and even to the UK.

- - - Updated - - -

They started negotiations despite the UK saying they would only pay if a trade deal was reached.

If no deal is reached then both parties will have to pay for obligations they agreed to in the past--which means the UK will still be paying at least €50bn to the EU.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny how I was written off as a complete idiot in this thread when I suggested the EU was capable of starting trade negotiations without the obligation of paying the bill up-front, and now it turns out the EU agrees with me. Funny that.

We would not resort to calling you names, but you do have a tendency to misread the situation. (Like right now.)

- - - Updated - - -

WE_DID_NOT_ELECT_HER.

You did, you just don't understand how your own national democracy works.

- - - Updated - - -

That is my own personal view as well, yet that is what the EU (Barnier) is offering which would surely break the terms of the GFA (would require a border) would it not?

Not necessarily.
There could be extra terms that would then allow for an open border (by adding free movement of people, and possibly services and goods--thus turning it into an EEA type of deal).

- - - Updated - - -

A, no it wasn't, it was about strongarming the UK and making them look weak

You are delusional, if you think that was the intent.

- - - Updated - - -

It ain't happening, and I fail to see how making the EU behave in a democratic way is the responsibility of the nation state itself. Surely the EU should be democratic on its own terms, no?

It is, all "antidemocratic" parts you whine about are responsibilities of its sovereign member states, they can change the setup of those any time they want--that's why they are sovereign. Something the EU is not.

[Ishayu]

Sure we do, she's doing an awesome job.

- - - Updated - - -


Wrong - we don't have presidents because we are monarchies.

Okay, 5% of the people want her in this position. You can speak on behalf of those, but certainly not on behalf of the Danish people as an overall group. The Danish people overwhelmingly rejected her the last time they were asked.