Macron's behaviour is despicable Part two

[Snowymountainsalways]

The thread was closed as it has exceeded 1000 posts.

I have reopened another one in hope that we will be able to discuss with honesty the Salzburg summit, both sides of the brexit debate and with cordiality. This is not a place for venting. Please do that elsewhere. This is a place for polite debate and conversation.

Around dinner tables and on the touch lines we are talking about the future of the brexit deal, if there is a future with the EU or not and what the options are for us now.

I voted to remain, and I am unhappy with the impasse. I had expected and hoped for progress. It did not happen.

Macron descended into name calling, and Tusk posted jokes and photos that are not in the least bit funny about a diabetic person. It was unsettling and disturbing to see how disrespectful they were to our PM TM. So we consider where we are this morning.

Thoughts?

If they choose to remain this way, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise, then a border of some kind will be needed. This doesn't have to take us back to the misery of the IRA times, but a grown up and mature solution will be required at some point.

Yeah, and all the people who live on one side or work on the other, or live on one side and go to school on the other, or who own a farm with land on both sides of the border... can just go fuck themselves?

Apart from anything else, if they're going to put up a hard border which they promised would never happen as part of a difficult and hard won peace agreement, and promised again would never happen less than a year ago, they're probably going to have to move where the border actually falls. Some roads meander back and forth across it up to thirty times.

as suggested today in the times maybe the UK should now stop talking to the EU and start working on free trade agreements with the US etc?

The only issue I have with that is the timescale. To my mind we should have been investigating these possibilities long ago, and who knows - we might have got a better response from the EU, had they known we'd already received decent offers elsewhere

I'm aware of course that members aren't supposed to do this, but given the amount of rule-breaking the EU already tolerates when it suits my concern is, frankly, limited

Barnier had some interesting options on the NI border in response to the Chequers proposals - that May dismissed out of hand without considering, presumably because she has her hands tied by the DUP.

I know!! And then she had the cheek to say her own proposals wouldn't be 'ready' by October!!

She doesn't know the meaning of respect.

as suggested today in the times maybe the UK should now stop talking to the EU and start working on free trade agreements with the US etc?

The thing is, I know people said they were planning to vote leave because of TTIP. (Mostly left wing Brexiters who were worried about the impact a trade deal like that could have on things like the NHS.) We (the UK) were one of the biggest supporters of TTIP but it was eventually binned because other EU member states thought it was contrary to their interests and wouldn't get behind it.

Some might say that is just an example of the scleroticism of the EU and how it is difficult to get anything done because everyone has to be in agreement, which is a valid point, but it's a different point.

The point with TTIP is that it didn't happen because the US expected to agree terms which were beneficial to them but not necessarily to small EU countries with a more socialist set up, and those small EU countries said "no, fuck off".

We are not going to be in a position to say "no, fuck off" to a trade deal with the US, which means it's going to look like TTIP on steroids. And that isn't what most people want.

If they choose to remain this way, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise, then a border of some kind will be needed. This doesn't have to take us back to the misery of the IRA times, but a grown up and mature solution will be required at some point.

You do realise this is a culture where teenagers are routinely shot in the knees, wrists and elbows by paramilitaries, with the support of the local community? Your idea of grown up and mature may tally with the vast majority of the NI population but the people doing the damage have entirely different definitions of grown up and mature. No matter how you frame it. NI doesn't respond well to being told to be grown up.

ethel no, fuck off" to a trade deal with the US, which means it's going to look like TTIP on steroids. And that isn't what most people want.

How do you know what most people want? You don't speak for everyone. A trade agreement with the US would go down very well in lots of quarters.

Yeah I'm sure all the people who are against the EU because they think it stops us from privatising the railways (spoiler: not true) and who want to stop paying money to Brussels so we can "fund our NHS instead" would absolutely love a TTIP style trade deal with the US.

And they would have absolutely no problem with it killing off British agriculture, because it's a price worth paying to protect British jobs for British peop... Wait. What?

The thing is, if we want a trade deal with the US, we'll have to accept whatever terms they're willing to give. And then we'll really find out what it means to be dictated to by an unaccountable foreign power.

Given the EU have no intention of doing a deal clearly, then it is in the best interests of the UK to organise other deals asap.

Who knows it might even bring much needed prosperity. Not that I expect you to agree, but I am an optimist if nothing else.

A trade agreement with the US would go down very well in lots of quarters.

In the rich quarters.
In the anti-NHS quarters.
In the anti-Health & Safety quarters.
In the pro-worker exploitation quarters.
In the pro-business, anti government policy quarters.

A lot of work needs to be done and quickly to get any deal done or we are crashing out

Oh yes. That is another of the lies that Macron was talking about. Brexiters telling people deals will be done very quickly and entirely to only what Britain wants. Davis stating that German car makers would be demanding a deal on day one after the referendum. Not realising that car makers like their supply chains intact.

Who knows it might even bring much needed prosperity.

How, beyond blind and misplaced opitmism, will this actually happen. No actual trade expert can point to how leaving our biggest and unified market for smaller, different and disparate, markets is a positive thing economically.

Given the EU have no intention of doing a deal clearly, then it is in the best interests of the UK to organise other deals asap.

The EU would prefer to do a deal as hard Brexit will hurt them (but not as much as it will hurt us).

What they are not able to do is give us a better deal out of the EU than we have as full members. This is the part the UK government is currently struggling with.

They also cannot agree to anything which will undermine the structural integrity of the single market, or have an open, unpoliced external border with a country which is not part of the customs union, because this would be in breach of their own laws and also WTO law, and make Ireland/Northern Ireland a hotspot for smuggling goods in and out of the EU.

It's interesting to note that when it comes to doing a deal with the EU, "no deal is better than a bad deal", but when it comes to doing deals with countries such as the US, "a bad deal is better than no deal".

Why the inconsistency?

The EU would prefer to do a deal as hard Brexit will hurt them (but not as much as it will hurt us).

I can't see any inclination from the EU whatsoever at any time to accommodate any kind of deal.

Before, I would have agreed with you, that the EU will want to get a deal done and that this was entirely the right route for both sides. Now I believe that view is total naive. The EU do not want a deal or to keep things respectful or friendly, they want to make this as painful as possible to stop any other country going. Yes it makes the EU look like bullies, and yes it will be shooting themselves (and businesses in the foot) but they won't care, because the project is more important than the people.

The project IS more important than the people.

And whilst I voted to stay, I am not comfortable with what we have seen lately.

Ethel FWIW I very much agree with the point you raised about TTIP, but I'm not sure it can be assumed that any deal with the US - or anywhere other new partner, come to that - has to be a bad one

As said, I'm not one of the leavers who naively believes everything will be easy, but around here there does seem a whiff of that old couplet "always keep a hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse"

The EU would prefer to do a deal as hard Brexit will hurt them (but not as much as it will hurt us).

That isnt true though. We have set the lines of our departure.

We have said No to:
European Court of Justice jurisdiction over anything in UK
No free movement of people
No regular financial contributions
No regulatory alignment

Thus that means we are out of the EU and dont want Norway EEA style deal. We have said this. Not EU.

This also means we cant have the same deal as the Swiss.

This also means we cant have the same deal as Ukraine

We also want total trade policy autonomy.

This means we dont even get the Turkey deal.

There are many steps to a deal but the UK has red lines. People here, including the OP, keep saying the EU should offer something but what? The EU has rules that members all agree to. We are leaving as those rules were problematic to some. But the EU wont change its rules for 27 countries to appease the insane desires of a 28th.

I keep attaching graphics here that show all this but Brexiters dont like facts so they ignore them. I will try this one instead.

Here we see what Brexiters want (the Cake part - single market access without the rules, governance or anything else). The EU have said No. Thats like full access to Netflix without paying and sticking to regional codes.

A bespoke partnership or even Association Agreement is possible (e.g. Canada or Ukraine) but that does take a lot of time and because it isnt the same as the Single Market its economically inferior to what we have now. But remember, Brexiters told us things would be better outside than in so cant be seen to be aiming for that.

Then we have WTO and/or a chaotic exit. Which is what is going to happen if the UKs red lines remain. This is not the EU being unwilling to negotiate or give a hard deal. Its the UK saying it wants all the freedoms of driving off the cliff but the benefits of remaining in the EU. Which is a really odd thing if you thing about it (why leave?).

The EU would not prefer a hard Brexit. It would probably prefer maintaining something like what Norway or Switzerland have. But the UK doesnt want that. It is the UK that is driving the hard brexit position, not the EU.

That isnt true though. We have set the lines of our departure.

We have said No to:
European Court of Justice jurisdiction over anything in UK
No free movement of people
No regular financial contributions
No regulatory alignment

Thus that means we are out of the EU and dont want Norway EEA style deal. We have said this. Not EU.

This also means we cant have the same deal as the Swiss.

This also means we cant have the same deal as Ukraine

We also want total trade policy autonomy.

This means we dont even get the Turkey deal.

There are many steps to a deal but the UK has red lines.

Agree with all of that but whose red lines are these?

They aren't the electorate's red lines.

It's all very well to say that people voted to end free movement and CJEU jurisdiction, but those things weren't on the ballot paper. The problem with framing the referendum in the way they did was that there was absolutely no information about what kind of relationship we should be seeking with the EU if we voted to leave.

Before the referendum, Norway and Switzerland were touted as viable options. (As were Turkey and Canada.) These red lines you speak of have been drawn since the referendum, with no input from the electorate whatsoever.

Given that the 51.8% included some people who said they voted leave to give David Cameron a kicking, or to send a message to the EU, but didn't actually think we would vote to leave, and it also included an unknown number of people who would be fine with a Norway or Switzerland type arrangement, my question is this.

If we held a referendum tomorrow, knowing what we now know, and the options on the ballot paper were "leave - hard Brexit" or "leave - Norway style", who would win?

My guess is that essentially all the people who voted remain would vote for Norway style, and so would a proportion of those who voted leave, and the Norway style deal would have a good chance of coming out on top.

So where have these red lines come from? Where is the majority for hard Brexit?

I realise that ending free movement and CJEU jurisidiction are the be all and end all for some voters, but unless you can be sure that those are red lines for a majority of voters (which you can't be unless you hold a referendum asking that specific question), you can't say there is any kind of majority support for the course of action the government has chosen to take.

And given that soft Brexit is really the only option compatible with keeping an open border in Ireland, which the government promised they would do, I am unclear about why this option was taken off the table and remains off the table.

I can't see any inclination from the EU whatsoever at any time to accommodate any kind of deal

The EU has been consistent, they said months ago that Chequers would not work.

Honestly you sound like my 7 year old. When she doesn’t get her way I’m being mean too.

EthelThePiratesDaughter

Well it seems Brexit means Brexit to the PM.

Our red lines have been dictated by the Prime Minister. Backed by people like Johnson, Gove, Davis and Rees-Mogg.

These red lines you speak of have been drawn since the referendum, with no input from the electorate whatsoever.

I totally agree with this statement.

Before the referendum, Norway and Switzerland were touted as viable options. (As were Turkey and Canada.)

Ah now, remember, the OP thinks that Macron is a very very naughty young man for pointing out that many Brexiters said many things before and during the referendum that were untruthful (lies).........

I can't see any inclination from the EU whatsoever at any time to accommodate any kind of deal.

Then you have your eyes shut.

Barnier said he could work with Chequers as a starting point. He and his team looked at the realities of cross border trade and made a proposition, which May refused without even giving it due consideration, because of her Neanderthal pals the DUP.

Both sides have red lines, and something will have to give. The EU is 14 times the size and there are 27 times as many of them. This is not a tug of war between equals.

Brexiters just don't get the fact that what they are asking for would mean the EU fundamentally changing its rules for the sake of a country that is leaving. And then they wail about the EU being unreasonable when it refuses. The mind boggles.

The EU isn't always reasonable (although it is a model of reasonableness compared to the middle-headed thinking in UK circles). It's big enough that it doesn't need to be.

That's what trade negotiations are like, as anyone watching the US behave like a gorilla on steroids should have clocked by now. The bigger party always has more to gain and less to lose, and in the UK-EU negotiations the scales are particularly tipped in the EU's favour. Under normal trade negotiations, both parties can simply return to the status quo if negotiations fail. Here, if negotiations fail, the UK faces a cliff edge.

Brexiters, by very definition, think that the UK is an important country that (a) can survive and thrive on its own in the big bad world and therefore (b) has a great deal of negotiating clout. Oh how humiliating it is to see them try.

There's no point in the project if it doesn't confer most benefits to members. Fully fledged members get more benefits than part members.

But doncha kno. We is speshul

Brexiters, by very definition, think that the UK is an important country that (a) can survive and thrive on its own in the big bad world and therefore (b) has a great deal of negotiating clout. Oh how humiliating it is to see them try. OK I've cracked. Why don't you want to see our country do well? I'm not a 'Brexiteer' but this anti UK stuff is getting on my tits.