[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Kronik85]

It is, but from all the shitty options, it's the least shitty option, simply sacrificing the Brexiteers fantasy of "sovereignity" for a solution that actually keeps everything else working and intact.

Well put really. The WA has no selling points beyond this. I don't think I'll ever be able to puzzle out "we must save Brexit!" as a statement. It is a profoundly stupid move designed to appeal to a very shallow view on what sovereignty is and where it truly lies.

- - - Updated - - -

And now you sound like Mark Francois, trying to fill empty space with pointless soundbites.

So you got nothing then. If you want to try again in good faith at a later date then I'm happy to try again. Or better yet ask the continental Europeans in the thread whether they think I'm being hyperbolic in pointing out that the UK and the EU will be in adversarial roles post Brexit and whether they would ever countenance putting their own countries at the mercy of the UK.

[Slant]

So you got nothing then. If you want to try again in good faith at a later date then I'm happy to try again. Or better yet ask the continental Europeans in the thread whether they think I'm being hyperbolic in pointing out that the UK and the EU will be in adversarial roles post Brexit and whether they would ever countenance putting their own countries at the mercy of the UK.

Well, I don't see anyone on this planet that would understand the EU putting itself at the mercy of the UK. Given... virtually every metric humanity can think of, that is just not the natural outcome of this drama. Under any circumstance.

But, having said that, we will most likely not end up in an adversarial role. Why am I so optimistic? Well, it's not because of politicians, that's for sure. But from business contacts to people in know in the UK and how the conversations go... there's one thing I can say: The people of both sides have no interest in an adversarial role. None whatsoever. The British that aren't zealots are fiercly European. Oh, they may dislike the EU as a concept, but they are deeply rooted in Europe. If only to be the class clown or special snowflake or whatever they want to be. But they need continental Europe, either as friends or at the very least as a background to their eccentric theatrics.

People like Dribbles and their rhetoric are worth nothing without Europe. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasn't for the continent. And vice versa, with all the upset the UK is causing and no matter how pissed off we may be, Europe just wouldn't be the same without Britain. So no, the adversarial role that you fear is not going to happen. That doesn't mean, though, that the UK won't pay a price for its Brexiteers. But that'll be more or less an internal conflict limited to the British isles. Once we're in no-deal land, as far as the continent is concerned, we have hit rock bottom and know what's what. Whatever follows after that is going in a positive direction.

[Kronik85]

Well, I don't see anyone on this planet that would understand the EU putting itself at the mercy of the UK. Given... virtually every metric humanity can think of, that is just not the natural outcome of this drama. Under any circumstance.

But, having said that, we will most likely not end up in an adversarial role. Why am I so optimistic? Well, it's not because of politicians, that's for sure. But from business contacts to people in know in the UK and how the conversations go... there's one thing I can say: The people of both sides have no interest in an adversarial role. None whatsoever. The British that aren't zealots are fiercly European. Oh, they may dislike the EU as a concept, but they are deeply rooted in Europe. If only to be the class clown or special snowflake or whatever they want to be. But they need continental Europe, either as friends or at the very least as a background to their eccentric theatrics.

People like Dribbles and their rhetoric are worth nothing without Europe. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasn't for the continent. And vice versa, with all the upset the UK is causing and no matter how pissed off we may be, Europe just wouldn't be the same without Britain. So no, the adversarial role that you fear is not going to happen. That doesn't mean, though, that the UK won't pay a price for its Brexiteers. But that'll be more or less an internal conflict limited to the British isles. Once we're in no-deal land, as far as the continent is concerned, we have hit rock bottom and know what's what. Whatever follows after that is going in a positive direction.

Lots of nice sentiments here that I don't disagree with on our future relationship, but you dodged a little so I'll be more direct. Flip the situation, Germany is leaving the EU, would you ever accept an agreement which for all intents and purposes removes German sovereignty until another party says you can have it back? Would you be able to say that the politicians in charge had been responsible in doing so?

Jesus, writing it like that it's not too far from the Weimar Republic. Is that where the UK is heading :S.

[Deianeira]

I mean, we could always do both. Blame banks for being unscrupulous shits while also seeking to change the system (idk?)

Yes you can blame the banks, but why not rather have the banks still there and make sure that legislation/regulation is put out there and enforced. Because remember the crash in 2008-2009 was largely because of the abhorrent behaviour in the US by all multinational banks and it affected everyone in the world pretty much. So what makes you think that the UK would not be affected if they moved their HQs out of UK and crash the markets after?

[Demolitia]

Which takes us back to Master Negotiator David Davis handing over all our lunch money on day 1. Which leaves me in the awful bind of having to agree with Michael Howard that we should never have agreed to the sequencing and should of played our only card, No Deal (that is to say, if you're a Brexiteer and think No Deal was actually a credible threat).



Not really no. The issue of the border isn't an issue because it's a contingent part of the DUP/Conservative relationship but because The Troubles weren't a time we should ever look to repeat.

But clearly No Deal was never a card, and the lunch money was just the bill you have already agreed to pay.
Ok so for the backstop we can agree there is no particular reason why one party would want to stop it unilaterally, or why it should be limited in time. If we find a better solution it will be replaced, and if not we will need it.

[AeneasBK]

You can't change the system without burning it down entirely.

Apparently it was the politicians fault anyway *shrug*

- - - Updated - - -

So what makes you think that the UK would not be affected if they moved their HQs out of UK and crash the markets after?

Would the bailout have been as expensive? Thats the bit that sticks in the craw, Iceland jailed their bankers we gave them half a trillion. Because we "have to".

Anyway I kinda feel I shouldn't be driving the thread off topic any more than I already have, so yeah... by all means PM me to point out what I don't know if you have a spare week or so but otherwise lets stay on Brexit

[Slant]

Lots of nice sentiments here that I don't disagree with on our future relationship, but you dodged a little so I'll be more direct. Flip the situation, Germany is leaving the EU, would you ever accept an agreement which for all intents and purposes removes German sovereignty until another party says you can have it back? Would you be able to say that the politicians in charge had been responsible in doing so?

Jesus, writing it like that it's not too far from the Weimar Republic. Is that where the UK is heading :S.

Erm, not sure why you bring the Weimar Republic into this. The situations are vastly different. And the Republic didn't have near the loss of sovereignity the UK is about to have.

Flipping the situation doesn't really change anything. If we're ever so stupid as to do what the UK just did, I wouldn't expect the EU to just roll over and let us play stupid games with it.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't change the system without burning it down entirely.

This is something almost every historian worth their salt will be aware of by now. In that sense, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, Brexit is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It's going to cause a lot of destruction and misery, it's of course easier to sell all this if you pretend that there won't be any negative consequences.

That's a load of bollocks. You can change the system properly without burning everything down.

[Slant]

I don't share your optimism, an optimism which imagines a world in which those who "have" (power, wealth, influence, etc.) are somehow going to quietly surrender what they have to the "have nots", because majority elections or some words on a piece of paper.

But I wish you good luck with your view!

It's not optimism, it's observation. But hey, if seeing the world burn is your thing... you do you. I'm not here to judge.

[Slant]

Care to share your observations?

The EU. Nothing else needs to be said here.

[Pann]

Would the bailout have been as expensive? Thats the bit that sticks in the craw, Iceland jailed their bankers we gave them half a trillion. Because we "have to".

Anyway I kinda feel I shouldn't be driving the thread off topic any more than I already have, so yeah... by all means PM me to point out what I don't know if you have a spare week or so but otherwise lets stay on Brexit

We didn't give them half a trillion. The majority of the money made available was in the form of short term loans and underwriting lending between banks, without this intervention banks would have stopped lending, in order to minimise their exposure to losses, which would have severely damaged the UK economy.

Several bankers have been prosecuted for their roles in LIBOR rigging, etc but seeing as the Global Financial Crisis was kicked off by subprime mortgages in the US and the resulting collapse of Lehman Brothers it would perhaps be a little unfair to jail UK bankers for this.

[Dizzeeyooo]

Tell me why you believe that the backstop isn't a legitimate threat to UK sovereignty then? Geoffrey Cox couldn't sign off on it and he's the AG.

The act of Brexit is the actual threat to UK sovereignty, the backstop is just a natural outcome of Brexit.

Unless you think that the UK breaching the GFA, NI holding a referendum and choosing to re-join ROI, Scotland telling England/Wales to fuck off, and the remaining parts of the UK turning into the 51st state of the USA would not be a far greater threat to the sovereignty of the UK?

I'll repeat the point I've been making since we started this discussion, supporting Brexit and supporting the GFA but complaining about the backstop is like asking for and signing a contract for 15 years of house insurance and then complaining that you are "trapped" in a contract for 15 years and did not understand what you were signing - read that shit before you decide to go ahead with the process in the first place.

[Demolitia]

Looks like Macron is set to ask for the UK to give up its commissioner in exchange for a delay.

[Kronik85]

But clearly No Deal was never a card, and the lunch money was just the bill you have already agreed to pay.
Ok so for the backstop we can agree there is no particular reason why one party would want to stop it unilaterally, or why it should be limited in time. If we find a better solution it will be replaced, and if not we will need it.

I'd actually forgotten about the Brexit bill! What I meant with the lunch money was that when we agreed to the sequencing we, for want of a better term, lost the negotiation. The WA was pretty much drafted between the Chequers meeting where May take back with her red lines and day 1 of the negotiation when Davis agreed to the sequencing. After these 2 events it could never look much differently to what we have today.

[Demolitia]

I'd actually forgotten about the Brexit bill! What I meant with the lunch money was that when we agreed to the sequencing we, for want of a better term, lost the negotiation. The WA was pretty much drafted between the Chequers meeting where May take back with her red lines and day 1 of the negotiation when Davis agreed to the sequencing. After these 2 events it could never look much differently to what we have today.

Had he not agreed to the sequencing, how different do you think the deal would be?
edit: I'm genuinely curious about that. As I see it we could have started talks on the future relationship at the same time, but handling the UKs exit would still have the same red lines and the Irish border would still be a central issue.

[Kronik85]

Erm, not sure why you bring the Weimar Republic into this. The situations are vastly different. And the Republic didn't have near the loss of sovereignity the UK is about to have.

Not a tangent I want to pursue too heavily but it's not worlds apart superficially. Feelings of betrayal (Brexit must be saved!), economic downturn, failing politics (the rise of both extremes in politics), a crumbling of faith in politicians themselves and a highly unpopular treaty.

I certainly hope.your right though Slant.

Flipping the situation doesn't really change anything. If we're ever so stupid as to do what the UK just did, I wouldn't expect the EU to just roll over and let us play stupid games with it.

Exactly. We might hope for a good future relationship but there is no reason to expect to be treated as anything other than the extremely vulnerable country the UK will be outside the EU.

[Slant]

Looks like Macron is set to ask for the UK to give up its commissioner in exchange for a delay.

Which would violate the EU treaties.

[Demolitia]

Which would violate the EU treaties.

Not really, the Lisbon treaty foresees that the number of commissioners need to be set by unanimous council decision, so the number could be reduced, or increased in theory.
That's my understanding at least.

[Iphie]

Not really, the Lisbon treaty foresees that the number of commissioners need to be set by unanimous council decision, so the number could be reduced, or increased in theory.
That's my understanding at least.

Right, so if one country says no to this then I guess France will veto the delay, putting the UK on a collision course with reality the 12th. we'll see how it plays out. Of course, even if all countries agree, does the HoC still need to agree with this condition?

[Demolitia]

Right, so if one country says no to this then I guess France will veto the delay, putting the UK on a collision course with reality the 12th. we'll see how it plays out. Of course, even if all countries agree, does the HoC still need to agree with this condition?

I don't really see France vetoing the delay. I wonder if May would refuse such a condition however … I guess we'll find out tonight

It looks like the treaties only mention that there should be less commissioners than member states. Under the current model there is the president, 26 commissioners and the country that is not represented gets the high representative post, but they could potentially reduce the number.

[Dizzeeyooo]

Of course, even if all countries agree, does the HoC still need to agree with this condition?

If all countries (including Theresa May) agree, the extension will happen at an international level. The HoC could vote against it (the ERG tried and failed to do this with the last extension), but that would just lead to domestic UK legal issues - a disconnect between UK law saying we have left and international law saying we have not left.