The Brexit Thread

[Longshanks]

Conversely, the UK wants to be granted full access to the EU without having to go through the rigours or the cost of membership. As in more 'Cake'.

No, it doesn't and has been explicit on this - indeed the rationale for rejecting LPF ratchets and EU court oversight is that we are not asking for full access. You know this

I'm drawing a distinction between what each side wants.

If you edit my post to remove the context, it may help you win on the internet, but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

The original point was this:
" this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members".

I said that there was a fine distinction to be drawn; namely that the UK might want to get the best deal possible for their voters, but that the EU had to find the solution which was the least damaging for the 27 remaining members.

By way of example, I said that the EU could, if they wanted to, grant the UK the full access to the European Market without restriction.

This is clearly what David Davies, RM and others thought would happen because they saw no reason why the EU wouldn't as "we hold all the cards".

My point was that the EU cannot afford to grant this access because doing so would be very damaging to the EU.

So, on the one hand the point about getting "the best for their own members" may be true for the UK, but it doesn't really hold for the EU because the EU isn't looking for the "best deal" but it's looking for the least damaging deal.

It's a very subtle distinction, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.

So you've rolled back from "important distinction" to "very subtle distinction" eh?
So very subtle that no one else has seen it.

[Longshanks]

Suggestion that the UK compensate EU fishermen affected by losing access to UK waters.
Deal might still be alive.

[Stranger]

The rugbys on lads

[Carter's Choice]

This whole Brexit thing seems to be going well. Well done Brits

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Suggestion that the UK compensate EU fishermen affected by losing access to UK waters.
Deal might still be alive.

As a British person could I give up my right to fish the seas off the UK and get paid for it, is this how the unicorns get delivered?

[Rinkals]

No, it doesn't and has been explicit on this - indeed the rationale for rejecting LPF ratchets and EU court oversight is that we are not asking for full access. You know this

I'm drawing a distinction between what each side wants.

If you edit my post to remove the context, it may help you win on the internet, but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

The original point was this:
" this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members".

I said that there was a fine distinction to be drawn; namely that the UK might want to get the best deal possible for their voters, but that the EU had to find the solution which was the least damaging for the 27 remaining members.

By way of example, I said that the EU could, if they wanted to, grant the UK the full access to the European Market without restriction.

This is clearly what David Davies, RM and others thought would happen because they saw no reason why the EU wouldn't as "we hold all the cards".

My point was that the EU cannot afford to grant this access because doing so would be very damaging to the EU.

So, on the one hand the point about getting "the best for their own members" may be true for the UK, but it doesn't really hold for the EU because the EU isn't looking for the "best deal" but it's looking for the least damaging deal.

It's a very subtle distinction, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.

So you've rolled back from "important distinction" to "very subtle distinction" eh?
So very subtle that no one else has seen it.

The two are not incompatible.

Something can be important, yet subtle.

[Biffer]

What happens to international refs? Do they now need work visas?

I would imagine there will be some sort of waiver, do musicians on tour need one? Actors filming on location?

Musicians on tour are going to have much more significant problems. Whereas a band could previously take bookings for festivals on the continent, Chuck their stuff in a van and go, they now need to provide full documentation for the equipment they’re taking overseas to get it through customs. Up and coming UK bands will Find it far more difficult, time consuming and expensive to play in Europe.

[Biffer]

Suggestion that the UK compensate EU fishermen affected by losing access to UK waters.
Deal might still be alive.

As a British person could I give up my right to fish the seas off the UK and get paid for it, is this how the unicorns get delivered?

Many of them already did, that’s part of the problem with fisheries. People sold their quotas to foreign fishermen (other countries didn’t allow this).

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Suggestion that the UK compensate EU fishermen affected by losing access to UK waters.
Deal might still be alive.

As a British person could I give up my right to fish the seas off the UK and get paid for it, is this how the unicorns get delivered?

Many of them already did, that’s part of the problem with fisheries. People sold their quotas to foreign fishermen (other countries didn’t allow this).

Rather than getting paid to do nothing (although my cheques from this must be lost in the post along with the unicorn) they're now suggesting we should pay to send in the navy to cause arguments with Nato allies. Putin must be pissin' himself

And seriously, where is the money coming from? We already don't have a big enough navy. Will we be sailing the Chris Grayling Ghost Armada around the islands to ward off foreign boats? And I suppose on the off chance we have any boats in position to act what do they do if the boats sail into EU waters? And...

[Bimbowomxn]

Suggestion that the UK compensate EU fishermen affected by losing access to UK waters.
Deal might still be alive.

As a British person could I give up my right to fish the seas off the UK and get paid for it, is this how the unicorns get delivered?

Many of them already did, that’s part of the problem with fisheries. People sold their quotas to foreign fishermen (other countries didn’t allow this).

Quotas were sold not rights. This isn’t a subtle distinction.

[Paddington Bear]

Conversely, the UK wants to be granted full access to the EU without having to go through the rigours or the cost of membership. As in more 'Cake'.

No, it doesn't and has been explicit on this - indeed the rationale for rejecting LPF ratchets and EU court oversight is that we are not asking for full access. You know this

I'm drawing a distinction between what each side wants.

If you edit my post to remove the context, it may help you win on the internet, but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

The original point was this:
" this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members".

I said that there was a fine distinction to be drawn; namely that the UK might want to get the best deal possible for their voters, but that the EU had to find the solution which was the least damaging for the 27 remaining members.

By way of example, I said that the EU could, if they wanted to, grant the UK the full access to the European Market without restriction.

This is clearly what David Davies, RM and others thought would happen because they saw no reason why the EU wouldn't as "we hold all the cards".

My point was that the EU cannot afford to grant this access because doing so would be very damaging to the EU.

So, on the one hand the point about getting "the best for their own members" may be true for the UK, but it doesn't really hold for the EU because the EU isn't looking for the "best deal" but it's looking for the least damaging deal.

It's a very subtle distinction, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.

This is all well and good but a bit 2017 - HMG has been clear in these negotiations that full access isn't what they're looking for. The negotiations are stalled because the EU is asking for control and governance reminiscent of full access where both sides have agreed not to grant/seek it.

[I like neeps]

Sunak's voice and adobe Photoshop subscription seems to have vanished.

[Longshanks]

I'm drawing a distinction between what each side wants.

If you edit my post to remove the context, it may help you win on the internet, but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

The original point was this:
" this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members".

I said that there was a fine distinction to be drawn; namely that the UK might want to get the best deal possible for their voters, but that the EU had to find the solution which was the least damaging for the 27 remaining members.

By way of example, I said that the EU could, if they wanted to, grant the UK the full access to the European Market without restriction.

This is clearly what David Davies, RM and others thought would happen because they saw no reason why the EU wouldn't as "we hold all the cards".

My point was that the EU cannot afford to grant this access because doing so would be very damaging to the EU.

So, on the one hand the point about getting "the best for their own members" may be true for the UK, but it doesn't really hold for the EU because the EU isn't looking for the "best deal" but it's looking for the least damaging deal.

It's a very subtle distinction, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.

So you've rolled back from "important distinction" to "very subtle distinction" eh?
So very subtle that no one else has seen it.

The two are not incompatible.

Something can be important, yet subtle.

Your premise that the UK is wanting "cake" but the EU isn't, is where I take the issue. The EU wants the most out of a deal just as the UK does. Take the example of state aid; not giving unfair subsidies to businesses has to be part of any reasonable free trade agreement, it prevents one side gaining an advantage or "cake" over the other. This is a red line for the EU. And yet, they also say that if state aid is given to EU business from the EU Covid recovery fund, that will not count, but the UK is not allowed to do likewise.

[dpedin]

No, it doesn't and has been explicit on this - indeed the rationale for rejecting LPF ratchets and EU court oversight is that we are not asking for full access. You know this

I'm drawing a distinction between what each side wants.

If you edit my post to remove the context, it may help you win on the internet, but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

The original point was this:
" this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members".

I said that there was a fine distinction to be drawn; namely that the UK might want to get the best deal possible for their voters, but that the EU had to find the solution which was the least damaging for the 27 remaining members.

By way of example, I said that the EU could, if they wanted to, grant the UK the full access to the European Market without restriction.

This is clearly what David Davies, RM and others thought would happen because they saw no reason why the EU wouldn't as "we hold all the cards".

My point was that the EU cannot afford to grant this access because doing so would be very damaging to the EU.

So, on the one hand the point about getting "the best for their own members" may be true for the UK, but it doesn't really hold for the EU because the EU isn't looking for the "best deal" but it's looking for the least damaging deal.

It's a very subtle distinction, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.

This is all well and good but a bit 2017 - HMG has been clear in these negotiations that full access isn't what they're looking for. The negotiations are stalled because the EU is asking for control and governance reminiscent of full access where both sides have agreed not to grant/seek it.

I thought the EU were telling the UK the price for access to their market. As they said we retain sovereignty to decide if we pay the price or pay the tariffs they charge. Its their ball and they can decide who plays the with it! We knew this would happen, surely?

[Bimbowomxn]

Correct they can demand anything they like , pretending this is reasonable though is funny .

I wonder what we will demand from Scotland post their departure.

[tabascoboy]

Getting more and more like

[I like neeps]

Correct they can demand anything they like , pretending this is reasonable though is funny .

I wonder what we will demand from Scotland post their departure.

Agree. Can't see how anyone watches the UK untangle themselves from a more powerful political union and think we need more of that.

However, if anything it makes it more likely. Funny old world eh.

[GogLais]

I'm drawing a distinction between what each side wants.

If you edit my post to remove the context, it may help you win on the internet, but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

The original point was this:
" this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members".

I said that there was a fine distinction to be drawn; namely that the UK might want to get the best deal possible for their voters, but that the EU had to find the solution which was the least damaging for the 27 remaining members.

By way of example, I said that the EU could, if they wanted to, grant the UK the full access to the European Market without restriction.

This is clearly what David Davies, RM and others thought would happen because they saw no reason why the EU wouldn't as "we hold all the cards".

My point was that the EU cannot afford to grant this access because doing so would be very damaging to the EU.

So, on the one hand the point about getting "the best for their own members" may be true for the UK, but it doesn't really hold for the EU because the EU isn't looking for the "best deal" but it's looking for the least damaging deal.

It's a very subtle distinction, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.

This is all well and good but a bit 2017 - HMG has been clear in these negotiations that full access isn't what they're looking for. The negotiations are stalled because the EU is asking for control and governance reminiscent of full access where both sides have agreed not to grant/seek it.

I thought the EU were telling the UK the price for access to their market. As they said we retain sovereignty to decide if we pay the price or pay the tariffs they charge. Its their ball and they can decide who plays the with it! We knew this would happen, surely?

This is what really gets my back up. Brexiteers spent thirty years criticising the EU and telling us how nasty it was to the UK and now they act all surprised when the EU isn’t negotiating “reasonably”. The EU never promised us anything.

[Insane_Homer]

Fanatical lunacy reaching it peak? Gunboats to protect 'our fish'

[Bimbowomxn]

Correct they can demand anything they like , pretending this is reasonable though is funny .

I wonder what we will demand from Scotland post their departure.

Agree. Can't see how anyone watches the UK untangle themselves from a more powerful political union and think we need more of that.

However, if anything it makes it more likely. Funny old world eh.

Agree. I also agree that the departure was a reason for another Indy vote as it was clearly against Scottish voters wishes.

[GogLais]

Correct they can demand anything they like , pretending this is reasonable though is funny .

I wonder what we will demand from Scotland post their departure.

Agree. Can't see how anyone watches the UK untangle themselves from a more powerful political union and think we need more of that.

However, if anything it makes it more likely. Funny old world eh.

If I were a Scot I’d want another referendum after I knew on what terms Scotland would be leaving the UK.

[Bimbowomxn]

Correct they can demand anything they like , pretending this is reasonable though is funny .

I wonder what we will demand from Scotland post their departure.

Agree. Can't see how anyone watches the UK untangle themselves from a more powerful political union and think we need more of that.

However, if anything it makes it more likely. Funny old world eh.

If I were a Scot I’d want another referendum after I knew on what terms Scotland would be leaving the UK.

And all Westminster has to say is , no currency Union, 10% gross on all debt, and leasing of faselaine for 100 years as a minimum starting point.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Fanatical lunacy reaching it peak? Gunboats to protect 'our fish'

plural or singular?

[fishfoodie]

Fanatical lunacy reaching it peak? Gunboats to protect 'our fish'

Has the Navy perfected the Teleporter ?

... because with 4x boats, & the huge area involved, they got their work cut out for them.

[Sandstorm]

Fanatical lunacy reaching it peak? Gunboats to protect 'our fish'

Has the Navy perfected the Teleporter ?

... because with 4x boats, & the huge area involved, they got their work cut out for them.

I hear they already patrol UK waters and keep an eye on fishing. What’s with the hysteria today?

[fishfoodie]

Fanatical lunacy reaching it peak? Gunboats to protect 'our fish'

Has the Navy perfected the Teleporter ?

... because with 4x boats, & the huge area involved, they got their work cut out for them.

I hear they already patrol UK waters and keep an eye on fishing. What’s with the hysteria today?

Before now they'd stop a few boats a day, & check nets, & what they're catching.

Now they could be faced with hundreds of boats, & they know that most of them are fishing illegally; & those boats can't be simultaneously off Portsmouth, & Skegness; these boats won't just calmly pull over & let themselves be boarded, so their boat can be seized.

They will run, & there will be clashes, & it will be ugly; they'll be luck to seize one trawler a day

[Longshanks]

Has the Navy perfected the Teleporter ?

... because with 4x boats, & the huge area involved, they got their work cut out for them.

I hear they already patrol UK waters and keep an eye on fishing. What’s with the hysteria today?

Before now they'd stop a few boats a day, & check nets, & what they're catching.

Now they could be faced with hundreds of boats, & they know that most of them are fishing illegally; & those boats can't be simultaneously off Portsmouth, & Skegness; these boats won't just calmly pull over & let themselves be boarded, so their boat can be seized.

They will run, & there will be clashes, & it will be ugly; they'll be luck to seize one trawler a day

Gun boats does seem extreme. But surely you don't approve of entering UK waters illegally?
Where would they sell the fish? How would they explain the catch?

[fishfoodie]

I hear they already patrol UK waters and keep an eye on fishing. What’s with the hysteria today?

Before now they'd stop a few boats a day, & check nets, & what they're catching.

Now they could be faced with hundreds of boats, & they know that most of them are fishing illegally; & those boats can't be simultaneously off Portsmouth, & Skegness; these boats won't just calmly pull over & let themselves be boarded, so their boat can be seized.

They will run, & there will be clashes, & it will be ugly; they'll be luck to seize one trawler a day

Gun boats does seem extreme. But surely you don't approve of entering UK waters illegally?
Where would they sell the fish? How would they explain the catch?

It doesn't matter what I approve of, or don't, it'll happen. I remember when Spanish trawlers fished illegally in Irish waters, & remember one being tied up in Galway for years, complete with the holes in the hull from the rounds the Irish Navy had shot in it trying to get them to stop.

They'll sell the fish in their home ports; the fish don't have passports; so who's to say where they were caught ?

The nightmare scenario is a French trawler fishing in UK waters, & making a run for it when challenged; & then the UK Ship doing what the Irish ones did back in the day, but maybe after chasing the trawler into French waters, & then the French Navy will respond. God forbid some gets killed.

The EU proposal for a 1 year extension, while something more permanent gets agreed, sounds reasonable; especially when the EU gave the UK multiple extensions when they needed them.

[Longshanks]

FF
But what about the CFP? Quotas? Being in the EU you can't just catch what you want and hope nobody finds out.
You predict illegal fishing en masse, but I think that's you using hyperbole again. It'll be isolated instances.

[Sandstorm]

FF
But what about the CFP? Quotas? Being in the EU you can't just catch what you want and hope nobody finds out.
You predict illegal fishing en masse, but I think that's you using hyperbole again. It'll be isolated instances.

This. Fishing is a National Front-type propaganda smokescreen. There are dozens of more important parts of the deal we should be talking about. Fucking cod......

[fishfoodie]

FF
But what about the CFP? Quotas? Being in the EU you can't just catch what you want and hope nobody finds out.
You predict illegal fishing en masse, but I think that's you using hyperbole again. It'll be isolated instances.

Yeah; I do; & I think the UK talking about bring extra vessels in to police their waters shows they think there will be too. Just look at the cod wars !

I when to college with a couple of guys from Killybegs, which would be probably the largest Irish fishing town; & the shit the would talk about when it came to cheating the rules on the CFP .....

It's a big part of fishing everywhere from what I've seen & heard. It doesn't matter what the country is; commercial fishing is full of people who cheat the rules.

[Longshanks]

FF
But what about the CFP? Quotas? Being in the EU you can't just catch what you want and hope nobody finds out.
You predict illegal fishing en masse, but I think that's you using hyperbole again. It'll be isolated instances.

Yeah; I do; & I think the UK talking about bring extra vessels in to police their waters shows they think there will be too. Just look at the cod wars !

I when to college with a couple of guys from Killybegs, which would be probably the largest Irish fishing town; & the shit the would talk about when it came to cheating the rules on the CFP .....

It's a big part of fishing everywhere from what I've seen & heard. It doesn't matter what the country is; commercial fishing is full of people who cheat the rules.

I know you're wrong, but if that's what you think then fine.
I just try to be a voice of reason if I can and not take sides.

[fishfoodie]

FF
But what about the CFP? Quotas? Being in the EU you can't just catch what you want and hope nobody finds out.
You predict illegal fishing en masse, but I think that's you using hyperbole again. It'll be isolated instances.

Yeah; I do; & I think the UK talking about bring extra vessels in to police their waters shows they think there will be too. Just look at the cod wars !

I when to college with a couple of guys from Killybegs, which would be probably the largest Irish fishing town; & the shit the would talk about when it came to cheating the rules on the CFP .....

It's a big part of fishing everywhere from what I've seen & heard. It doesn't matter what the country is; commercial fishing is full of people who cheat the rules.

I know you're wrong, but if that's what you think then fine.
I just try to be a voice of reason if I can and not take sides.

Fair enough. I think we all know how the French operate when their pissed & feel aggrieved.

In the Cods wars the UK fishermen didn't like Iceland unilaterally deciding to put them out of work; & I don't see the French taking it any better.

Like I say; I think; given the UK was supposedly proposing a 5 year deal to try & resolve the situation; I don't really see the problem with giving it a year to come up with something better. It's one of those things where the Tories really need to decide if this is the hill they want to die on.

[Longshanks]

Yeah; I do; & I think the UK talking about bring extra vessels in to police their waters shows they think there will be too. Just look at the cod wars !

I when to college with a couple of guys from Killybegs, which would be probably the largest Irish fishing town; & the shit the would talk about when it came to cheating the rules on the CFP .....

It's a big part of fishing everywhere from what I've seen & heard. It doesn't matter what the country is; commercial fishing is full of people who cheat the rules.

I know you're wrong, but if that's what you think then fine.
I just try to be a voice of reason if I can and not take sides.

Fair enough. I think we all know how the French operate when their pissed & feel aggrieved.

In the Cods wars the UK fishermen didn't like Iceland unilaterally deciding to put them out of work; & I don't see the French taking it any better.

Like I say; I think; given the UK was supposedly proposing a 5 year deal to try & resolve the situation; I don't really see the problem with giving it a year to come up with something better. It's one of those things where the Tories really need to decide if this is the hill they want to die on.

I don't want to see anyone lose their livelihood, I've no idea how it'll be sorted. I think a blockade at Calais is more likely though.

[Biffer]

Matthew Parris spot on in the Times today.

Can there be a sadder disgrace, personal as well as political, for those in power to pursue a project for which they have no enthusiasm in which in their secret hearts they do not believe, and which most of them suspect, and some of them know, will damage the nation they lead, the ordinary men and women who placed their trust in them?

...

But there is something infinitely depressing in the picture of a British cabinet avoiding the eyes of history even as they make it. Shame on the whole damn lot.

[Biffer]

Yeah; I do; & I think the UK talking about bring extra vessels in to police their waters shows they think there will be too. Just look at the cod wars !

I when to college with a couple of guys from Killybegs, which would be probably the largest Irish fishing town; & the shit the would talk about when it came to cheating the rules on the CFP .....

It's a big part of fishing everywhere from what I've seen & heard. It doesn't matter what the country is; commercial fishing is full of people who cheat the rules.

I know you're wrong, but if that's what you think then fine.
I just try to be a voice of reason if I can and not take sides.

Fair enough. I think we all know how the French operate when their pissed & feel aggrieved.

In the Cods wars the UK fishermen didn't like Iceland unilaterally deciding to put them out of work; & I don't see the French taking it any better.

Like I say; I think; given the UK was supposedly proposing a 5 year deal to try & resolve the situation; I don't really see the problem with giving it a year to come up with something better. It's one of those things where the Tories really need to decide if this is the hill they want to die on.

For many of them, it is.

[fishfoodie]

I know you're wrong, but if that's what you think then fine.
I just try to be a voice of reason if I can and not take sides.

Fair enough. I think we all know how the French operate when their pissed & feel aggrieved.

In the Cods wars the UK fishermen didn't like Iceland unilaterally deciding to put them out of work; & I don't see the French taking it any better.

Like I say; I think; given the UK was supposedly proposing a 5 year deal to try & resolve the situation; I don't really see the problem with giving it a year to come up with something better. It's one of those things where the Tories really need to decide if this is the hill they want to die on.

I don't want to see anyone lose their livelihood, I've no idea how it'll be sorted. I think a blockade at Calais is more likely though.

No one does; & I don't think anyone in the EU want's do see Welsh sheep farmers go the same way; but both are inevitable at the moment.

The first sin was the insistence of the Brexshiters to not extend the end of the transition period; even though there were numerous extensions to get the WA thru. It meant that the time left for negotiating a trade deal was too short.

No doubt they thought they were geniuses; & that the EU would just fold.

[Bimbowomxn]

The first sin was the insistence of the Brexshiters to not extend the end of the transition period; even though there were numerous extensions to get the WA thru. It meant that the time left for negotiating a trade deal was too short.

The first sin was accepting the ludicrous 4 year EU time table. The French have had 4 years to adjust to brexit.

[Slick]

Matthew Parris spot on in the Times today.

Can there be a sadder disgrace, personal as well as political, for those in power to pursue a project for which they have no enthusiasm in which in their secret hearts they do not believe, and which most of them suspect, and some of them know, will damage the nation they lead, the ordinary men and women who placed their trust in them?

...

But there is something infinitely depressing in the picture of a British cabinet avoiding the eyes of history even as they make it. Shame on the whole damn lot.

Absolutely spot on

[fishfoodie]

Matthew Parris spot on in the Times today.

Can there be a sadder disgrace, personal as well as political, for those in power to pursue a project for which they have no enthusiasm in which in their secret hearts they do not believe, and which most of them suspect, and some of them know, will damage the nation they lead, the ordinary men and women who placed their trust in them?

...

But there is something infinitely depressing in the picture of a British cabinet avoiding the eyes of history even as they make it. Shame on the whole damn lot.

Absolutely spot on

Yeah. It's like the Tea Party take over of the GOP now for the Tories; we just have to pray that it doesn't metastasize now in the same way.