Will Brexit happen?

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

I've read it and the UK's position is one that no reasonable person could disagree with. Unfortunately we are not dealing with people who are either reasonable or trustworthy.

I wish you told me you were going to read it. I could've told you your conclusion in advance and saved you the time.

Moe_The_Bartender

Very well. Please point out to me where in the document the UK is being unreasonable. I won’t be holding my breath.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Very well. Please point out to me where in the document the UK is being unreasonable. I won’t be holding my breath.

I've not read it but read your detailed assessment with interest.

However if the utterances of Gove are credible for a change (as if) then the UK position is that if the EU / UK are in regulatory alignment at the end of the transition that should be good for all time. That doesn't seem reasonable. Gove is looking at this from the point of view that the UK should be able to get a FTA and then do whatever she wishes. That's fair enough because we're at the moon on a stick stage of negotiations. However, don't you think it's rather short-sighted? Can you really not envision the situation where the EU gets their FTA and then regulates to tilt the playing field in their direction (the opposite of which is what the EU fear)? Given you think the EU are unreasonable and untrustworthy wouldn't you want to prevent this happening too?

The bit about substantive progress being made by June also seems unreasonable where, presumably, Dominic Cummings decides what substantive means. What's the rush? Most of the brexit frothers are bored now and have gone away so we could leave the grown-ups to to find the best deal which values mutual advantage over speed. The hysteria / justifiable concern about Covid-19 is likely to throw a spanner in the works as far as timings are concerned anyway.

I said there was willy waving ahead and I've already seen Gove with his flabby chest puffed out, small willy in hand banging on about sovereignty. The man's a fool - any agreement between nations requires sovereignty to be traded - only idiots use that sort of language though. If sovereignty is the absolute imperative we may as well tell the EU and every other nation to do one now. May as well say the same to the WTO too - who the hell are they to set tariffs?  

Moe_The_Bartender

Why don't you actually read the text of the document instead of a bad tempered rant about Gove and Cummings which bears little relation to what it actually says? You obviously haven’t done so - or, for that matter, paid careful attention to what Gove said. 

If you think that the EU is being reasonable, you have to ask why they think it necessary to include matters unconnected with trade negotiations such as the status of Gibraltar, 'illegally obtained artefacts' (maybe they are thinking about the Venus de Milo) and injecting absurdities about geographical proximity into their negotiating mandate.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Why don't you actually read the text of the document instead of a bad tempered rant about Gove and Cummings which bears little relation to what it actually says? You obviously haven’t done so - or, for that matter, paid careful attention to what Gove said. 

If you think that the EU is being reasonable, you have to ask why they think it necessary to include matters unconnected with trade negotiations such as the status of Gibraltar, 'illegally obtained artefacts' (maybe they are thinking about the Venus de Milo) and injecting absurdities about geographical proximity into their negotiating mandate.

Duly noted that when asked to suggest a couple of areas where the UK could be considered acting unreasonably and providing such the debate stopped.

Who says I think the EU is being reasonable either? I quite said clearly the ridiculous willy waving  is an affliction of both sides. I also said that we're at the moon on a stick stage of negotiations so why not just put the illegally obtained artefacts in that category and take a chill pill?

Geographic proximity, of course, is a real thing and we'd be wise to consider that this is a two way street too. You can't get away from the fact that most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs - that's because of geographic proximity. Take just a tiny step back - the EU have thought long and hard about how to avoid getting the shaft from the UK. Shouldn't we be looking at their thinking and trying to prevent them shafting us too?

adindas

Moe_The_Bartender said:

I've read it and the UK's position is one that no reasonable person could disagree with. Unfortunately we are not dealing with people who are either reasonable or trustworthy.

The EU position is based on insecurity who wanted to make the UK as a case for those EU countries wanted to leave the EU. Which countries punish their members wanting to exit organisation ? Off hand I could only think of threes examples: Mafioso types organisations, secret religious sect undermining order, Terrorist/ organisations like ISIS. Well done Bojo ....

Fran_Klee

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Why don't you actually read the text of the document instead of a bad tempered rant about Gove and Cummings which bears little relation to what it actually says? You obviously haven’t done so - or, for that matter, paid careful attention to what Gove said. 

If you think that the EU is being reasonable, you have to ask why they think it necessary to include matters unconnected with trade negotiations such as the status of Gibraltar, 'illegally obtained artefacts' (maybe they are thinking about the Venus de Milo) and injecting absurdities about geographical proximity into their negotiating mandate.

This is hilarious!
So not only will Sailtheworld tell you what you should think about the document when they've admittedly not even read it, but they've formed an unbiased opinion about it without reading it too!  Where's the winning lottery numbers for the weekend - and how about the winner of tomorrow's 3:45 at Kempton too please? 

Some people have said all along that the EU aren't really interested in a deal and the document suggests that to be correct. There is far too much in there which does not belong in a trade negotiation.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

I've read it and the UK's position is one that no reasonable person could disagree with. Unfortunately we are not dealing with people who are either reasonable or trustworthy.

It depends on what you view as reasonable.  Intro section 5 already rules out any comprehensive free trade. 

Because the terms on which it will be offered are unacceptable to the UK. As a consequence the stance is reasonable. Immediately crosses an item off the agenda. Time is of the essence. 

Moe_The_Bartender

Herzlos said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

I've read it and the UK's position is one that no reasonable person could disagree with. Unfortunately we are not dealing with people who are either reasonable or trustworthy.

It depends on what you view as reasonable.  Intro section 5 already rules out any comprehensive free trade. 

I'm assuming the short version is the cake and eat it: completely free trade with the EU but without having to follow any of the rules?

It doesn’t, actually. Substitute 'EU' for 'UK' and then tell us how it reads. It simply sets out the position of a sovereign state.

Enterprise_1701C

The eu seem to have forgotten that the UK has left the club.  If you are no longer a member of a club then you should no longer have to follow it's rules.  It seems to me that the eu want to make us stick to their rules whilst allowing them to continue to fish the waters dry and letting them tell us what to do through the ECJ.

We should remind them that they will lose the lot if there is no trade deal, and that includes the services of our security services which are heavily depended upon by the eu and which are among the best in the world.