The Brexit aftermath thread

[Kallisto]

I mean that much was wholly obvious from his very first post.

Yeah but it needs to be said every so often so someone impressionable doesn't think he's sane. Also who knows maybe he'll realise it himself sometime.

[Mormolyce]

I mean, he's still pushing that 350 million pounds per week straight into the NHS line I used to taunt Kalis with. He's beyond the satire threshold.

[Noradin]

Also I like how agriculture is not affected. It shows imo that there are parts where the UK was decidedly right that the EU is broken, in particular the CAP but also other similar industry regulations (e.g. Fisheries).

I do not see how you can make this interference without knowing the details of their assumption.

[Noradin]

Inference mate. And I mostly make it by knowing that those regulation ARE broken. The British certainly have a point that using quotas decided on data that is multiple decades old is inane. Their primary production is artificially constrained by quotas some of which were established over production capacities two decades ago.

Yes, they probably are, but I still do not see how this report shows that by indicating they expect no change, because that could for example mean they do not plan to fix those regulations but keep them this way. It simply is too far a logical jump to make with no stepping stones in between.

For there being no change for agriculture means the prices are set artifically at a very high level and regulations are to be kept the same--or alternatively exports will die but the starving population will pay a premium for potatoes so on average it evens out.

We need the details otherwise your interference is not based on the report at all, but on knowledge you had anyway.

[Kiri]

The thing is for some of the Brexit voters, the economy was not important. Some simply wanted to removed this fictional tyranny of Brussels that impinged on their sovereignty. It is a simple fact, old realists (not neo-realists) refuse to admit that isolationism did not win us this unprecedented area of peace for the West, it was a mixture of liberalism and constructivism. To gain power you must first cede it.

Also I like how agriculture is not affected. It shows imo that there are parts where the UK was decidedly right that the EU is broken, in particular the CAP but also other similar industry regulations (e.g. Fisheries).

Tbh, agriculture is one of the areas where the EU was never really accepted, since every country wanted to be able to produce their own food still if need be. Due to that, EU agricultural policy is a mess. Though I do think that fishery regulations are not there for economic reasons but rather ecological ones.

[ranzino]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ng-brexit-plan

Theresa May is frustrating top officials in European capitals with her Brexit strategy, according to three people familiar with the situation.


still no clue in Westminster aside from "Brexit means Brexit" ? Pfft !

[Deleted]

More likely than not they have taken bets against the pound and the British economy or are investend in US firms seeking to take over weakened British companies after Brexit. A lot a profit can be made by destroying things and exploitation of hardships and stupility.

That's certainly what their backers are thinking off, but the politicians themselves want's to 'reinvigorate' the British worker, and cut away at all the 'socialist regulation' - Like the Workplace directives (And i'm pretty sure that the NHS should be scrapped too).
All politically impossible things, but you know, With the right Crisis.
(basically steer the country to a Greece style Crisis, and then do it, 'Because it has to be done').

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, he's still pushing that 350 million pounds per week straight into the NHS line I used to taunt Kalis with. He's beyond the satire threshold.

Even Farrage walked that one back day one.

[Breccia]

Anything else would be unfair (and potentially lead to disputes) to existing partners.

Yeah, the UK is a powerful country, but leaving the EU like this does reduce their bargaining potential. In particular, I don't see the Trump admin giving the UK any trade deals any better than the EU already has, because Trump has been pushing the "all trade deals made by people other than me are bad, and must be made better bigly MAGA" message for quite some time. I don't expect him to break with that mantra for the shithole country where his golf courses are losing millions upon millions of dollars.

[Deleted]

Tbh, agriculture is one of the areas where the EU was never really accepted, since every country wanted to be able to produce their own food still if need be. Due to that, EU agricultural policy is a mess. Though I do think that fishery regulations are not there for economic reasons but rather ecological ones.

The reality is that since there is a common market, everyone needs to play by the same agricultural subsidies rules - And some want subsidies, and some don't, it's an unsolvable problem.
Ideally, we shouldn't have any but ...
I can't wait for all British farmers to understand that when Tories say 'Reform' CAP, they mean spend less money on it though - The Farmers are very liable to get shafted hard outside the CAP.

[Deleted]

Oh! And there was me, The Guardian and apparently the person I was replying to, thinking that the EU ministers were meeting in Brussels to finalise their negotiating stance. But, of course.... you know best...

This is what's on the Menu - And it cannot change, for pure mechanistic reasons.

[Breccia]

They need to reenter dozens of international negotiations as new entrants

All of which can be "renegotiated" by the other parties, if the existing deals the EU had aren't their favorite. Basically, what Trump wants to do with a few countries, the UK has given as an option to every country on Earth.

[Pann]

This is what's on the Menu - And it cannot change, for pure mechanistic reasons.

This has nothing to do with what ranzino and I were discussing but... thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

All of which can be "renegotiated" by the other parties, if the existing deals the EU had aren't their favorite. Basically, what Trump wants to do with a few countries, the UK has given as an option to every country on Earth.

There is no guarantee that other parties are interested in renegotiating FTAs with the UK once it leaves or that any FTA would be equal or better to that agreed the UK by EU proxy.

[ranzino]

oh, the picture is accurate, per what UK once said about future relationship. but it's not the "Canada plus plus plus" deal they dream of.

btw: stage 2 of negotiations still falls flat on its face unless the results of stage 1 are enshrined in law. means the "open irish border" is still scheduled to become reality instead of a mere state of intent.

[Deleted]

"But it is unclear how much leeway Brussels, which will publish its negotiating guidelines for the next phase of the talks on Monday, would be willing to allow Britain while granting the “frictionless” access to EU markets the government is demanding."

The problem is that both the EU and UK want to cause as little damage to each other as possible but the harder the EU's stance more it plays into the, so called, Hard Brexit supporters' hands which would be damaging for both of us.

I thought it related perfectly.
The reality is, There is no 'cake' option - Cakeism is the unifying belief of three sets of people; One, the Delusional brexiteer Tories, who don't understand that the things they like about the EU is only possible because of the things they don't like, Two; The people madly trying to keep the United Kingdom together (you seem to fall into this category) , Three; The people who either vastly overestimates the UK's position, or don't even remotely understand how the UK works (These are the people who think that a FTA can achieve the same thing as EU membership).
The EU will not, and Cannot budge from it's position, no matter what the UK does - If that plays into the Hardliners hand's do be it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nowhere as bad as it used to be, mostly it's pretty good now - no more butter mountains and such.

To be fair, this was also a time of people who remembered Literally starving just a few years ago - I don't necessarily think they thought that was a bad outcome at first.

[Pann]

I thought it related perfectly.
The reality is, There is no 'cake' option - Cakeism is the unifying belief of three sets of people; One, the Delusional brexiteer Tories, who don't understand that the things they like about the EU is only possible because of the things they don't like, Two; The people madly trying to keep the United Kingdom together (you seem to fall into this category) , Three; The people who either vastly overestimates the UK's position, or don't even remotely understand how the UK works (These are the people who think that a FTA can achieve the same thing as EU membership).
The EU will not, and Cannot budge from it's position, no matter what the UK does - If that plays into the Hardliners hand's do be it.

Did you? Great! As you can see, and have even helpfully highlighted, ranzino was clearly talking about an event that had not happened and my reply was in relation to what might result from that event. You then chimed with "The EU's stance haven't changed..." which was not accurate as at the time of your post and the preceding conversation that inspired it the EU had neither finalised nor released details of its stance, I simply pointed this out to you.

I don't really want to get into the whole cake debate as it has been done to death and is, quite frankly, a pointless discussion. With regard to playing into the hard line Brexit supporters' hands my point was related to the fact these people cannot be bargained with, what they want is damaging to both the UK and the EU and whilst some may recognise this they believe it is a price worth paying.

To me it seems that both parties should (and they probably will) work to minimise both the damage and the potential for the more lunatic fringes to cause even more. Of course this does not mean that the EU should deviate for its ideals, I must confess that I respect the desire to protect the ideology behind the EU above all else, and the fact that it is the UK that caused the problem means it should be on us to do most of the running however I feel that some flexibility may be required.

[Deleted]

Did you? Great! As you can see, and have even helpfully highlighted, ranzino was clearly talking about an event that had not happened and my reply was in relation to what might result from that event. You then chimed with "The EU's stance haven't changed..." which was not accurate as at the time of your post and the preceding conversation that inspired it the EU had neither finalised nor released details of its stance, I simply pointed this out to you.

I don't really want to get into the whole cake debate as it has been done to death and is, quite frankly, a pointless discussion. With regard to playing into the hard line Brexit supporters' hands my point was related to the fact these people cannot be bargained with, what they want is damaging to both the UK and the EU and whilst some may recognise this they believe it is a price worth paying.

"But it is unclear how much leeway Brussels, which will publish its negotiating guidelines for the next phase of the talks on Monday, would be willing to allow Britain while granting the “frictionless” access to EU markets the government is demanding."

The answer to that question is Zero - No matter how many times it's asked, it's Zero.
The position has been know since before this debacle started.
There is a reason it took them two minutes to agree to this, Because it already was clear.
To a certain degree it's wrong to consider this a 'negotiation' - That implies there isn't a fixed menu.

To me it seems that both parties should (and they probably will) work to minimise both the damage and the potential for the more lunatic fringes to cause even more. Of course this does not mean that the EU should deviate for its ideals, I must confess that I respect the desire to protect the ideology behind the EU above all else, and the fact that it is the UK that caused the problem means it should be on us to do most of the running however I feel that some flexibility may be required.

You don't get it, this isn't a question of Ideology - Apart from FoM (Which is merely politically impossible) - Other demands from the UK is functionally impossible, There is no flexibility possible; If you have regulatory and/or customs autonomy, you by necessity have to have a border of those areas - It's like pouring a glass of water into a bucket of water and imagining that you can keep them separate.

[Pann]

"But it is unclear how much leeway Brussels, which will publish its negotiating guidelines for the next phase of the talks on Monday, would be willing to allow Britain while granting the “frictionless” access to EU markets the government is demanding."

The answer to that question is Zero - No matter how many times it's asked, it's Zero.
The position has been know since before this debacle started.
There is a reason it took them two minutes to agree to this, Because it already was clear.
To a certain degree it's wrong to consider this a 'negotiation' - That implies there isn't a fixed menu.


You don't get it, this isn't a question of Ideology - Apart from FoM (Which is merely politically impossible) - Other demands from the UK is functionally impossible, There is no flexibility possible; If you have regulatory and/or customs autonomy, you by necessity have to have a border of those areas - It's like pouring a glass of water into a bucket of water and imagining that you can keep them separate.

Right? And? I'm not sure what point you're trying make, at the time of writing the Guardian felt that the issue, which had not been finalised or announced, was not clear and we were discussing the potential outcome of the EU's stance which you claimed had not altered, despite it not being officially known at the time.

Had you have said that it was unlikely that the EU would deviate from their previous course you would have been correct however it still would not have contradicted my post that both sides will want to minimise damage and the harder the EU's stance more it plays into the Hard Brexit crowd's hands and the greater potential damage both will suffer.

I've tried to have a sensible conversation with you and you continue to drag it back and try twist what has been written to score some internet points. And whilst the prospect of you, again, inadvertently doxxing yourself whilst proving your point wrong or trying resurrect a long dead argument is, almost, amusing I can't be bothered with it.

[Noradin]

All of which can be "renegotiated" by the other parties, if the existing deals the EU had aren't their favorite. Basically, what Trump wants to do with a few countries, the UK has given as an option to every country on Earth.

Calling it an They wll have todo it"option" makes it sound optional, as if they will have a choice in the matter.
They won't. They will have to do it, and they will have to sell themselves short.

[Noradin]

There is no guarantee that other parties are interested in renegotiating FTAs with the UK once it leaves or that any FTA would be equal or better to that agreed the UK by EU proxy.

That makes it sound like the UK has the option to just keep the terms it had while in the EU.
That's not the case. The UK leaves those FTAs when it leaves the EU and it will be severly weakened internationally as a consequence, at least temporary until it gains new FTAs. Thus it is fair to assume the UK will get worse deals in almost all cases. Other countries' negotiators owe it to their countries to exploit the UK's weakness for all it is worth when they come begging for FTAs.

[Mayhem]

Right? And? I'm not sure what point you're trying make, at the time of writing the Guardian felt that the issue, which had not been finalised or announced, was not clear and we were discussing the potential outcome of the EU's stance which you claimed had not altered, despite it not being officially known at the time.

Had you have said that it was unlikely that the EU would deviate from their previous course you would have been correct however it still would not have contradicted my post that both sides will want to minimise damage and the harder the EU's stance more it plays into the Hard Brexit crowd's hands and the greater potential damage both will suffer.

How do you think the EU can change it's stance without harming relations to other countries or established treaties?

I've tried to have a sensible conversation with you and you continue to drag it back and try twist what has been written to score some internet points. And whilst the prospect of you, again, inadvertently doxxing yourself whilst proving your point wrong or trying resurrect a long dead argument is, almost, amusing I can't be bothered with it.

Well, you've obviously failed, try again next time.