Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
BRUSSELS PUSHED BRITAIN TOO FAR
Are Eurocrats, I wonder, starting to feel the tiniest batsqueak of doubt? A year ago, they had the UK where they wanted it. Our officials were promising to adopt EU social and employment laws unilaterally and to pay for the privilege. Had any other country made such an offer, Eurocrats would have snapped its hand off like ravening hounds. But, still bruised and affronted by the referendum result, they instead demanded more. Result? A change of management in Britain, and the sweeping away of various concessions that the previous administration had placed on the table.
Theresa May had approached the talks as a supplicant. The EU laid down the terms, set the preconditions and ordered the protocols. Every meeting took place at the European Commission rather than in London: a token attempt to hold one press conference on British soil at the Brussels embassy was rejected out of hand. Desperate to come back with something – anything – that could technically be labelled “Brexit”, the former PM signed up to every request placed before her. She accepted the EU’s sequencing, announcing that Britain would settle the EU’s demands before it began to discuss trade. She agreed to pay a £39 billion bill that no international tribunal would uphold. She accepted – no, she actively requested – a two-year period where Britain would be subject to every dot and comma of EU law, including new rules passed during that time, with no vote and no veto.
These acts of homage and fealty were packaged together and offered to the EU at the Salzburg summit last September. Never has a sovereign country prostrated itself in such an undignified manner. Here was Britain asking the EU to set its technical standards, promising unilaterally to contribute to the military security of the continent, swearing never to be more competitive than its neighbours. Yanis Varoufakis, the raffish former Greek finance minister, called it “a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war,” though it reminded me more of the ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914 – a deliberately provocative demand to control the internal affairs of another state.
Yet, incredibly, EU leaders held out for even more. Two years of dealing with Theresa May had convinced them that she would talk tough but then grovel. And so it proved. A few days after the summit, the Prime Minister wrote: “Let me be clear. Our Brexit deal is not some long wish-list from which negotiators get to pick and choose. It is a complete plan with a set of outcomes that are non-negotiable”. But it was not long before she made yet more concessions, offering to stay in the EU’s customs union and, in the end, even suggesting a second referendum.
The flaw all the way through was that her officials were (as one of them privately admitted to me in 2017) unwilling to walk away from the table. You don’t need to be an expert in diplomacy to understand how the other side will respond to such a negotiating stance. Taking no deal off the table meant, in practical terms, taking Brexit off the table.
Suppose that, in 1776, the American patriot leaders had said, “OK, we’re leaving, but we mustn’t leave without a deal. We will become independent only on terms agreed by George III”. How do you suppose that that dim and affable monarch would have responded? Would he have suggested mutually beneficial divorce terms? Of course not. He would have done precisely as the EU has been doing, making deliberately harsh and unreasonable demands in the hope that the colonists might drop the whole idea of independence.
Sure enough, the EU pushed and pushed and, shamefully, Britain conceded and conceded. By the end, we were reduced to taking our stand on just one face-saving point. We would accept the financial penalties, the period of non-voting membership, the one-sided acceptance of EU rules, even the principle of the backstop – provided it was not permanent. Parliament, unlike the PM, had a bottom line. It was not willing to swap an arrangement that had an exit mechanism (EU membership) for one that did not (the backstop).
It should have been game set and match to Brussels. Here was the fifth largest economy in the world, the second largest in Europe, offering to become a captive market for EU exporters, retaining the various barriers that keep out more efficient global rivals. Here was the country that had twice helped to liberate the continent volunteering for semi-colonial status. All the EU had to do was to offer a standard break clause of the kind contained in almost every international treaty. But that would, for at least some Eurocrats, have undone the whole point of the withdrawal agreement, namely that it had to be seen to be punitive. So they dug in, precipitating the downfall of Theresa May and her replacement by a ministry that is serious about walking away.
You might protest that, during the referendum campaign, everyone assumed that there would be an agreed, managed withdrawal. I certainly did: I argued before, during and after the campaign for a Swiss-type deal, where we would retain most of our links to the single market while pulling out of the EU’s political structures. But it is now clear that Brussels is not interested in talking terms. It would rather risk a juddering rupture, even when the economy of the eurozone is delicate, than watch Britain succeed on its own.
We can respond to such an attitude as Theresa May did, by whining and pleading with Brussels to be more reasonable. Or we can react as Boris Johnson is doing, by preparing to pivot to the Anglosphere while remaining open to a compromise from the EU side.
There will be a deal sooner or later. How can there not be when the UK is the EU’s single biggest export destination? The only question is whether it is agreed before 31 October, or whether we must negotiate it from the outside.
I have never wanted a no-deal outcome. It took a freakish combination of Brussels intransigence, Theresa May’s hopelessness and the loss of a parliamentary majority to bring us to this point. But at least, following such a break, it will be clear that neither side has any intention of installing infrastructure at the Irish border, and that that whole issue was a cover for the attempt to keep us in the customs union. We can then negotiate on honest terms. In the meantime, we would have keep our dignity and our democracy intact.
Are Eurocrats, I wonder, starting to feel the tiniest batsqueak of doubt? A year ago, they had the UK where they wanted it. Our officials were promising to adopt EU social and employment laws unilaterally and to pay for the privilege. Had any other country made such an offer, Eurocrats would have snapped its hand off like ravening hounds. But, still bruised and affronted by the referendum result, they instead demanded more. Result? A change of management in Britain, and the sweeping away of various concessions that the previous administration had placed on the table.
Theresa May had approached the talks as a supplicant. The EU laid down the terms, set the preconditions and ordered the protocols. Every meeting took place at the European Commission rather than in London: a token attempt to hold one press conference on British soil at the Brussels embassy was rejected out of hand. Desperate to come back with something – anything – that could technically be labelled “Brexit”, the former PM signed up to every request placed before her. She accepted the EU’s sequencing, announcing that Britain would settle the EU’s demands before it began to discuss trade. She agreed to pay a £39 billion bill that no international tribunal would uphold. She accepted – no, she actively requested – a two-year period where Britain would be subject to every dot and comma of EU law, including new rules passed during that time, with no vote and no veto.
These acts of homage and fealty were packaged together and offered to the EU at the Salzburg summit last September. Never has a sovereign country prostrated itself in such an undignified manner. Here was Britain asking the EU to set its technical standards, promising unilaterally to contribute to the military security of the continent, swearing never to be more competitive than its neighbours. Yanis Varoufakis, the raffish former Greek finance minister, called it “a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war,” though it reminded me more of the ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914 – a deliberately provocative demand to control the internal affairs of another state.
Yet, incredibly, EU leaders held out for even more. Two years of dealing with Theresa May had convinced them that she would talk tough but then grovel. And so it proved. A few days after the summit, the Prime Minister wrote: “Let me be clear. Our Brexit deal is not some long wish-list from which negotiators get to pick and choose. It is a complete plan with a set of outcomes that are non-negotiable”. But it was not long before she made yet more concessions, offering to stay in the EU’s customs union and, in the end, even suggesting a second referendum.
The flaw all the way through was that her officials were (as one of them privately admitted to me in 2017) unwilling to walk away from the table. You don’t need to be an expert in diplomacy to understand how the other side will respond to such a negotiating stance. Taking no deal off the table meant, in practical terms, taking Brexit off the table.
Suppose that, in 1776, the American patriot leaders had said, “OK, we’re leaving, but we mustn’t leave without a deal. We will become independent only on terms agreed by George III”. How do you suppose that that dim and affable monarch would have responded? Would he have suggested mutually beneficial divorce terms? Of course not. He would have done precisely as the EU has been doing, making deliberately harsh and unreasonable demands in the hope that the colonists might drop the whole idea of independence.
Sure enough, the EU pushed and pushed and, shamefully, Britain conceded and conceded. By the end, we were reduced to taking our stand on just one face-saving point. We would accept the financial penalties, the period of non-voting membership, the one-sided acceptance of EU rules, even the principle of the backstop – provided it was not permanent. Parliament, unlike the PM, had a bottom line. It was not willing to swap an arrangement that had an exit mechanism (EU membership) for one that did not (the backstop).
It should have been game set and match to Brussels. Here was the fifth largest economy in the world, the second largest in Europe, offering to become a captive market for EU exporters, retaining the various barriers that keep out more efficient global rivals. Here was the country that had twice helped to liberate the continent volunteering for semi-colonial status. All the EU had to do was to offer a standard break clause of the kind contained in almost every international treaty. But that would, for at least some Eurocrats, have undone the whole point of the withdrawal agreement, namely that it had to be seen to be punitive. So they dug in, precipitating the downfall of Theresa May and her replacement by a ministry that is serious about walking away.
You might protest that, during the referendum campaign, everyone assumed that there would be an agreed, managed withdrawal. I certainly did: I argued before, during and after the campaign for a Swiss-type deal, where we would retain most of our links to the single market while pulling out of the EU’s political structures. But it is now clear that Brussels is not interested in talking terms. It would rather risk a juddering rupture, even when the economy of the eurozone is delicate, than watch Britain succeed on its own.
We can respond to such an attitude as Theresa May did, by whining and pleading with Brussels to be more reasonable. Or we can react as Boris Johnson is doing, by preparing to pivot to the Anglosphere while remaining open to a compromise from the EU side.
There will be a deal sooner or later. How can there not be when the UK is the EU’s single biggest export destination? The only question is whether it is agreed before 31 October, or whether we must negotiate it from the outside.
I have never wanted a no-deal outcome. It took a freakish combination of Brussels intransigence, Theresa May’s hopelessness and the loss of a parliamentary majority to bring us to this point. But at least, following such a break, it will be clear that neither side has any intention of installing infrastructure at the Irish border, and that that whole issue was a cover for the attempt to keep us in the customs union. We can then negotiate on honest terms. In the meantime, we would have keep our dignity and our democracy intact.
Not at all the penny will only drop after a disastrous Brexit, and people start looking for scapegoats.
The authorship of this nonsense is predictably The Telegraph.
.
Did you write this crap? or borrow it from somewhere ?
Why the larger bold font?
The message is quite plain
You and those like you are simply saboteurs, you have no plausible plan other than to beg the USA to wipe your backsides for you.
Nothing that was promised has come true, and you just admitted that.
The intransigence is yours, not Brussels.
It doesn't seem to penetrate your arrogance that we are the ones asking for something that isn't available.
Boris will be given a sop and sell you May's deal with gift wrapping.
What fun! your real boss Mr Trump won't let you negotiate honestly with the EU, after all he will own you, won't he?
And he will make you accept terms and conditions the EU can't tolerate.
Everything is going as foreseen, first Brexit then chaos followed by trouble, as your so clever plotters find they missed many fundamental problems, and all their so called plans are meaningless.
Great idea. No Deal Brexit, easily the quickest route to destroy this right wing coup and get on track to rejoining the EU
Perhaps you should be asking yourself why we are trying to negotiate a far worse deal than we already have?
Only a complete idiot does that... and Boris is and does.....
I thought there was something fishy about the Telegraph poll
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/peter-kellner-on-telegraph-no-deal-brexit-comres-poll-1-6213098
PETER KELLNER: The Telegraph's Brexit polling comes straight from the Sir Humphrey Appleby playbook
The three preceding questions to the one in the headline consisted of statements; people were asked in each case whether they agreed with it or disagreed.
"Parliament is out of touch with the British public" (Agree 77%, Disagree 11%, don't know 12%)
"On Brexit, most MPs seem to ignore the wishes of voters and push their own agendas" (78%, 9%, 12%)
"The Queen should remain above politics and refuse to get involved in Brexit" (62%, 19%, 19%)
And only then:
"Boris needs to deliver Brexit by any means, including suspending parliament if necessary, in order to prevent MPs stopping it (44%, 37%, 19%)
This is the basis for the Telegraph informing us that "more than half the public" back driving Brexit through regardless
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/peter-kellner-on-telegraph-no-deal-brexit-comres-poll-1-6213098
PETER KELLNER: The Telegraph's Brexit polling comes straight from the Sir Humphrey Appleby playbook
The three preceding questions to the one in the headline consisted of statements; people were asked in each case whether they agreed with it or disagreed.
"Parliament is out of touch with the British public" (Agree 77%, Disagree 11%, don't know 12%)
"On Brexit, most MPs seem to ignore the wishes of voters and push their own agendas" (78%, 9%, 12%)
"The Queen should remain above politics and refuse to get involved in Brexit" (62%, 19%, 19%)
And only then:
"Boris needs to deliver Brexit by any means, including suspending parliament if necessary, in order to prevent MPs stopping it (44%, 37%, 19%)
This is the basis for the Telegraph informing us that "more than half the public" back driving Brexit through regardless
Best post of entire thread. By a large margin. Well said.
I don't know if we are on the same page.
Brexit is hijacked by those who want no import tariffs.
However, there is no better deal than what TM has negotiated.
Remainers may not be able to stop brexit, soft brexiters may not be able to stop no deal but the 16 millions who voted for remain won't change their mind any more than those who voted for brexit.
When the next GE comes, those who voted for brexit may not be so motivated to vote for the tory while those who voted against brexit are motivated to remove the tory from power.
Where will brexit be if the tony loses the next GE?
After the visit of " John Bolton"
Now we hear of a trade deal with the USA supposedly says Boris "after tough negotiations" on day one after Brexit?
This from the same government that failed miserably to get anywhere with the EU?
This is all getting Bizarre
Especially if the American Congress have a hand in the matter
Now we hear of a trade deal with the USA supposedly says Boris "after tough negotiations" on day one after Brexit?
This from the same government that failed miserably to get anywhere with the EU?
This is all getting Bizarre
Especially if the American Congress have a hand in the matter
Last edited:
If brexit goes ahead, under any terms but most particularly without a deal, we have ALL lost.
Are you really falling for this crap? what is good about it?
Do explain.
Remember we asked for the backstop not the EU
Possibly not in the long term if the damage it does affects the public badly
Your still being a woman’s part then. Stop it.
Yes. No import tariffs! Amazing huh?
Meaning...... consumers don't pay extra for stuff.
Benefiting.... ordinary folk.
Like the ones who voted leave.
You're welcome.
Can you really be that naive? do you imagine the USA is in the business of doing us any favours?
Good grief, we should bottle your optimism and sell it to broken down street walkers.
So it will be cheaper? really?
heguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/aug/13/how-a-no-deal-brexit-threatens-your-weekly-food-shop?CMP=share_btn_tw
UK reliance on EU food imports is a major risk if the country crashes out of the union
Josh Holder
Walk into any British supermarket and you will be surrounded by European products, from Italian cheeses to French wines. Around 30% of all food consumed in the UK is imported from the EU, but for some foods, such as spinach and olives, the EU is practically the UK’s sole supplier.
With Boris Johnson claiming he will take Britain out of the EU by 31 October “do or die”, the UK’s reliance on EU food is a major risk. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK would be obliged under World Trade Organization rules to impose average food import tariffs of 22% and conduct product inspections, leading to delays and shortening the shelf-life of products.
Despite Brexiters’ assurances of tariffless trade, a House of Lords inquiry concluded: “… in either a ‘deal’ or ‘no-deal’ scenario, Brexit will result in some additional border checks and documentation requirements for food imported from the EU to the UK. These will increase the time it takes for food to reach shop shelves and result in additional costs.”
In 2016 more than £30.3bn of Britain’s food imports and £12.3bn of its food exports were with the EU, totalling almost £1,300 of trade every second and highlighting the scale of economic disruption on both sides if the UK crashes out without a deal.
....................................................
What the Americans will do is turn us into servile lapdogs and make us participate their foreign foreign wars like the cheaply bought mercenaries, your despicable party has turned the nation into.
Throwing off the so called "Tyranny" of the EU to be fitted with a collar, lead and a muzzle by Uncle Sam, because they threw the British poodle a chlorinated chicken.
And making us the laughing stock of the Entire world in the process.
What's Rasputin Cummings up to today?
Last edited:
