Westministenders: Canada Plus and the Transition Phase

[RedToothBrush]

As we approach the 31st January, we slowly tick towards exit and transition.

Things are not yet signed off though the No Deal planning has quietly been stood down with no press release and the government have said they won't talk about trade deals post 31st Jan because the public are bored of them and don't understand.

The new EU president has said that the UK doesn't have time to make a full deal with the EU before 31st December with a deadline which isn't flexible.

We still have no idea what the government plans are. We still have many EU citizens feeling very vulnerable.

Perhaps we should start talking about this rather than Royals for a couple of weeks...

[AuldAlliance]

LouiseCollins
Those two examples are completely different. One is flexibility for EU member states. The other is the EU's approach to the start of actual negotiations with a member state that has chosen to quit.
Negotiations that successive Tory gvmts have got off to a very bad start by lying, mismanaging their comms, presuming that since they don't look at EU media the same applies to EU citizens and groups and showing general ignorance over their various briefs (BJ on paperwork for NI exports; Raab on whether Calais-Dover is an important crossing, etc.).
Flexibility is unlikely to be shown now. If BJ showed any, he'd doubtless be criticised by Leavers for it, so it's a bit rich to expect the EU to.

[jasjas1973]

The deal johnson got was the deal the EU originally offered TM.

The article Louise linked says
“You cannot expect to have a level playing field if there’s a huge divergence in taxation or social standards or environmental standards"

“So it’s the choice of the UK how far they want to align or diverge. But this is decisive for how good the access to the single market will be or not, in short. It’s the old proverb, ‘You cannot have the cake and eat it at the same time’.”

Its not a difficult concept.

[Danetobe]

Louise, it's sensible to show flexibility towards member states in order to respect their differences. It's also sensible to take an inflexible approach when dealing with third countries to uphold the democratically agreed priorities that bind the EU countries together.

[LouiseCollins28]

I think Auld and JasJas may have missed the point I was trying to make.

The EU can clearly be flexible when it seems to suit their aims, as in the case of the wages thing for Nordic countries. Yet it decides to be totally inflexible in negotiating with the UK both while we were a member (the Cameron "deal" farce for example) and expects to hold us to different standards after we've left than those that apply to their current membership? Neither of these are evidence of commitment to a "level playing field" IMO.

Jas' underlying point is correct, that more access and more alignment will likely go together, I agree, that concept is not difficult.

[AuldAlliance]

I think Auld and JasJas may have missed the point I was trying to make.
Or not.

[DGRossetti]

The EU can clearly be flexible when it seems to suit their aims, as in the case of the wages thing for Nordic countries. Yet it decides to be totally inflexible in negotiating with the UK both while we were a member (the Cameron "deal" farce for example)

I know. All those opt-outs the UK secured over decades didn't really mean much did they ?

and expects to hold us to different standards after we've left than those that apply to their current membership?

You point being ? If you don't like it, what are your choices ?

Neither of these are evidence of commitment to a "level playing field" IMO.

The EUs sole aim in any negotiations with the future 3rd party country that is the UK will be to get the best possible deal for all 27 EU members. If they can extract a deal which places the UK at a disadvantage whilst placing them at an advantage, they will. I know I would.

For a nation of shopkeepers, it seems the British struggle with business sometimes.

[LouiseCollins28]

Danetobe why then would the EU not allow the UK, if it wished to, to apply current EU standards as substitutes for it's own current ones? as in the labour and environmental standards mentioned in the article I linked to.

How is it OK for a bloc we have been members of since 1973 and are now leaving to say to our government "you can't change your standards so they match ours?" I just don't get that.

[Stinkyeddie]

Happy new year pmk

[jasjas1973]

Louise - Denmark applies a £13 ph min wage, so why would the EU interfere, when the issues are in lower wage economies and lack of enforcement... such as the UK and eastern europe.

The EU wanted a NI only CU arrangement, the EU backed down and gave TM the UK wide one she wanted.
The EU signed off the WA over a year ago, it was the UK that couldn't agree.
The EU agreed to go back to the deal offered too and rejected by the UK and gave Johnson his WA.
Then despite BJ threatening a no-deal exit, the EU is still willing to negotiate, it is perfectly acceptable to say to the UK that if they want FS access to the SM, then we have to give them something e.g. fishing rights.
Further SM access means following EU law i.e. on enviro and employment... two areas which only today in PMQs BJ said he wants to exceed EU rules!!!

I think they have shown remarkable patience and flexibility to a leaving member state.

[LouiseCollins28]

If we don't like it, the obvious choice is to do either no deal at all or do a minimal one. Neither are options I favour.

Surely if "the best deal" for the UK as we are repeatedly told is "the current one", then equally the best deal for the EU, faced with a UK that has decided to leave is "as close to the current one as possible?" No?

[Mockers2020Vision]

Some clever marketing is all that is required.

Back in the days (soon to be re-established) when you could only get olive oil in eyedrops sized bottles at the chemists, Pizza was known as "Italian Rarebit."

[Songsofexperience]

If we don't like it, the obvious choice is to do either no deal at all or do a minimal one.

And that would mean depending entirely on the US who will bully us into fighting their dirty wars. Nice.

[LouiseCollins28]

Jas sorry, the detail you missed out it that the EU gave UK wide customs alignment with no exit because of the "backstop"

Let me ask you, can you honestly not see the difference? between:

a) If the UK wants to exceed EU standards it should be able to.

and

b) That it should be forced to do so by the EU after it has left.

Are those two really the same for you?

[AuldAlliance]

the best deal for the EU, faced with a UK that has decided to leave, is "as close to the current one as possible?" No?
Well, only if that is to the advantage of all EU member states.
The difference between a member state of the EU and a third country (previously a rather spoilt member state) is relevant here.
The tired old tennis club analogy springs to mind.

[DGRossetti]

Some Brexiteers appear to be struggling understanding that the EU really doesn't give a shiny shit about the UK anymore. It's no use asking "why don't they ...?" or "why do they ...?" with respect to things being a bad deal for the UK, because they don't care. They really don't.

I'm vaguely reminded of my MiL (who was a cheeky fucker) pointing out that if her neighbour used a much more expensive paint on his side of the fence she was responsible for, it would last longer and she wouldn't have to replace it for longer.

Yes" he said "I think you have a point there. But then I don't really want to." And that was that. (I think the fact that she told^ him he had to spend more on paint had something to do with it).

[jasjas1973]

Louise - i do understand the point you are making, however, is it really any different from an ex employee/govt minister signing up to not working for a direct competitor for x months following resignation

The UK is about to be a rival to the EU, so both sides will be seeking to maximise/minimise the "level playing field" co-op will go out the window.
However, a lot will depend on who wins the US elections in November.

[DGRossetti]

However, a lot will depend on who wins the US elections in November.

That's already decided. If there is any question, it'll just be how exactly the states fall out, bearing in mind voters don't vote for the President.

[Songsofexperience]

Currently looks like Trump could do a Boris... sorry for my pessimism but I can't see that any of his shortcomings are actually an impediment, at least as long as Democrats fail to put forward a strong candidate (sounds familiar?)

[LouiseCollins28]

it would appear such clauses typically last 3-6 months.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/leaving-a-job/resigning/if-your-employer-says-you-cant-work-for-a-competitor/

that's entirely different from a nominally permanent trading arrangement. Remember this isn't "you can't change stuff during a transition period" this is "you can't change stuff, ever".

[Mockers2020Vision]

I'm not sure anything's decided yet, but there is increasing talk of a Dem majority of six million plus in votes still not being enough to win the electoral college. Which could be interesting.

[DGRossetti]

I'm not sure anything's decided yet

DB is assuming it is. He was talking about backing Bloomberg himself at Xmas when he was over, but it all made me go a bit MEGO.

So the question is really where does a second-term Trump presidency place Brexit on what is effectively a bucket list ?

[LouiseCollins28]

DGR You are predicting that Trump will win then?

[DGRossetti]

DGR You are predicting that Trump will win then?

Yup. Hard to see it happening any other way. But unless he's able to rescind the 22nd amendment, that's it for Donnie Darko. And unlike Russia you can't really rejig the US government to create any other role that has the power of POTUS, so no Putin-esque games of musical premiers and prime ministers.

So the next Trump presidency is the last with no chance to patch anything once he's gone. Anything which takes us beyond 2024 is going right to the bottom of the pile. Worth bearing in mind if you're starting negotiations now, I'd say.

[Motheroffourdragons]

If we don't like it, the obvious choice is to do either no deal at all or do a minimal one. Neither are options I favour.

Whether we like it or not, we have very little time to do anything other no deal or a very minimal one.

To expect anything else, we will need to extend the transition, which in the current climate will undoubtedly go down like a lead balloon.

Trump will win, there is no doubt of that. The Democrats do not have anyone who will inspire people to vote for them. But then maybe that is the long term plan - let Trump do out his second term, then come back next time around with a sure fire winner for the Democrats, hopefully all the old contenders will have moved on.

[DGRossetti]

If we don't like it, the obvious choice is to do either no deal at all or do a minimal one. Neither are options I favour.

In case you hadn't noticed, what you favour is now immaterial. What you will get is what Boris gives you. That's democracy.