Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

There will be a problem for the continental side as well if the EU decides to get really anal about work permits for lorry drivers, because of course Britain would retaliate.

The problem -- seen from across the pond-- is that two parties who have a relatively small number of issues that divide them, run the risk of blowing up many things which are of mutual benefit because of the need to make a point and retaliation.

The French diplomat Talleyrand once observed that "most things get done by not getting done".

Britain and the EU are suffering from diplomacy directed by mercurial politics. A much better course would be slower, more boring, less Bojo.

There is skill to negotiations-- no divorce is every really amicable, but handled badly, they can be _really_unpleasant.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by jacques22

To answer your point, of course it is in the interest of both the UK and the EU to have a deal. The EU has already said that they will keep cooperating with the UK on military, intelligence and criminal matters, but not at the same intimate level as with EU members, because of trust and legal issues. Basically, the Europeans don't want the UK to act as a Trojan horse for the Americans

This makes complete sense. We need a trade deal of some sort. And they've been promised a security deal, although it's clear they won't get top-level access to sensitive data because there will be no ECJ oversight

I can't imagine where the UK military wants to be involved, except to find out what the EU are doing. Their practical input is zero. The EU has sufficient defense potential, without the UK or US. That's the message they're sending. There is no need to involve the UK in EU defense, and anyone can see why

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

This makes complete sense. We need a trade deal of some sort. And they've been promised a security deal, although it's clear they won't get top-level access to sensitive data because there will be no ECJ oversight

I can't imagine where the UK military wants to be involved, except to find out what the EU are doing. Their practical input is zero. The EU has sufficient defense potential, without the UK or US. That's the message they're sending. There is no need to involve the UK in EU defense, and anyone can see why

Potential and actual are not the same thing.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The problem -- seen from across the pond-- is that two parties who have a relatively small number of issues that divide them, run the risk of blowing up many things which are of mutual benefit because of the need to make a point and retaliation.

The French diplomat Talleyrand once observed that "most things get done by not getting done".

Britain and the EU are suffering from diplomacy directed by mercurial politics. A much better course would be slower, more boring, less Bojo.

There is skill to negotiations-- no divorce is every really amicable, but handled badly, they can be _really_unpleasant.

"Slower" is probably not the best option given that Britain leaves the EU on 29 March 2019, deal or no deal. The absence of any role or any input whatsoever for Boris Johnson is clearly a good move, however.

If anyone says to me that the British government has utterly mishandled this process, I would instantly agree. Most of them are not genuinely on board for it and I strongly suspect that many of them actively want to make a mess of it, and then say that proves it is a bad idea. What this would prove is that they themselves are a bad idea and should not be in positions of power and responsibility.

However, I would prefer this separation to be agreed and (if not amicable) at least orderly and civilised. But I do want a separation; I don't want this Chequers Plan, which is a "lets pretend" option, basically a con and a pack of bollocks. I'd rather have a simple free trade deal and negotiate terms for trade in services.

[G-Type]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

If anyone says to me that the British government has utterly mishandled this process, I would instantly agree. Most of them are not genuinely on board for it and I strongly suspect that many of them actively want to make a mess of it, and then say that proves it is a bad idea. What this would prove is that they themselves are a bad idea and should not be in positions of power and responsibility.

Thanks for your realistic point of view

Originally Posted by scoundrel

"Slower" is probably not the best option given that Britain leaves the EU on 29 March 2019, deal or no deal.

Given the quote from above and the mess in your actual government, don´t you think that this date is putting additional pressure on your negotiators? Under these circumstances, I would certainly not exclude categorically an extention of the process. This issue is certainly more important than a timely fixed change in the colour of a license-plate, n´est-ce pas?

Originally Posted by scoundrel

However, I would prefer this separation to be agreed and (if not amicable) at least orderly and civilised. But I do want a separation; I don't want this Chequers Plan, which is a "lets pretend" option, basically a con and a pack of bollocks. I'd rather have a simple free trade deal and negotiate terms for trade in services.

Unfortunately, it´s neither you or me who are participating in this process, but the elected politicians who have to deal with this shit.

I can fundamentally agree with your personal sentiments and (as I´ve said before) I do fully respect the intention of the UK to leave the European Union, for whatever plausible or unplausible reasons.

However (and this is not to be taken hostile), I would certainly not agree if our negotiators from the EU-side gave up core principles just because your negotiators have failed to offer substantial counter-offers and/or are now under pressure because of the fixed time-line.

We -the EU- can´t impossibly be held responsible for this particular situation on your side.

But hey, we still talk
.

[scoundrel]

The reason why Mrs May is making such a dog's dinner of this process is that her position is weak, she herself is weak, and she is attempting to reconcile irreconcilable things. She wants to leave the jusrisdiction of the ECJ, which I agree with, but cannot bring herself to accept that this also means not being the single market - so she tries to invent an ersatz common trade area. I am actually glad that Mr Barnier will not allow this. As Charles De Gaulle once did when he refused to allow Harold MacMillan's Britain to join, Mr Barnier is showing Britain tough love and working towards an actually achievable solution instead of a pack of bollocks designed to serve internal Tory Party needs.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

"Slower" is probably not the best option given that Britain leaves the EU on 29 March 2019, deal or no deal. The absence of any role or any input whatsoever for Boris Johnson is clearly a good move, however.

The speed is the the problem.

The problem with "drop dead deadlines" -- is that sometimes you do "drop dead".

I think a neutral view would be that both Britain and the EU's negotiating positions are being shaped by a very precarious political environment.

This is, objectively, a very complex negotiation with a lot of moving parts. You can compare with other multinational trade agreements-- these typically take between five and ten years. That's actually a reasonable amount of time to budget to get something like this done, if you want to avoid unnecessary unhappiness.

The UK has a lot of interests in play, a lot of security interests in a strong Europe to counter a murderous Russia. With the US in decline -- for how long who can say-- blowing up a necessary alliance isn't a win.

I do see the logic of a UK deaccession, but not a chaotic "free fall" because of an arbitrary deadline.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The speed is the the problem.

The problem with "drop dead deadlines" -- is that sometimes you do "drop dead".

I think a neutral view would be that both Britain and the EU's negotiating positions are being shaped by a very precarious political environment.

This is, objectively, a very complex negotiation with a lot of moving parts. You can compare with other multinational trade agreements-- these typically take between five and ten years. That's actually a reasonable amount of time to budget to get something like this done, if you want to avoid unnecessary unhappiness.

The UK has a lot of interests in play, a lot of security interests in a strong Europe to counter a murderous Russia. With the US in decline -- for how long who can say-- blowing up a necessary alliance isn't a win.

I do see the logic of a UK deaccession, but not a chaotic "free fall" because of an arbitrary deadline.

May has boxed herself in with her premature triggering of Article 50 with no idea of any plan and previous pledges on 'leaving' dates. And with her pledge to leave the Customs Union or EEA.

If there is a 'no deal' by the deadline, she and her Gov't are finished, the Tories implode.

Or she has to face the total humiliation of asking the EU and Parliament for an extension. Again she's politically finished and the Tories implode.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

May has boxed herself in with her premature triggering of Article 50 with no idea of any plan and previous pledges on 'leaving' dates. And with her pledge to leave the Customs Union or EEA.

If there is a 'no deal' by the deadline, she and her Gov't are finished, the Tories implode.

Or she has to face the total humiliation of asking the EU and Parliament for an extension. Again she's politically finished and the Tories implode.

On the plus side though VP we do have an extremely strong and totally united opposition party so if the Conservatives do implode it won't be a big issue

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

However, I would prefer this separation to be agreed and (if not amicable) at least orderly and civilised. But I do want a separation; I don't want this Chequers Plan, which is a "lets pretend" option, basically a con and a pack of bollocks. I'd rather have a simple free trade deal and negotiate terms for trade in services.

Completely agree. The trouble is that May can't see what other Brexiters in the Tory party see: with all her red lines, the Canada-style deal is the only serious option left.

If May had started the Brexit negotiations for a Canada deal in late 2016, it might have been completed by the end of 2020. But now, there's too little time left to sign such a deal by the end of 2020. The EU and the hard Brexiters don't want another extension of the transition. So we have a blind Brexit or a no-deal Brexit as possible scenarios left.