shurlock

You’re a big fan of Clinton Morrison, aren’t you?

Having humiliatingly signed up to something that he had vouched he would never accept, Johnson and his government could renege on the legally binding Withdrawal Agreement/Northern Ireland protocol. Supposedly Geoffrey Cox was given the boot because he refused to take part in plans to “get around” it (story initially from the Times behind a paywall). That follows the sacking of the excellent Julian Smith which showed the Government and Brexiters at their ideological worst and most incompetent. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/23/brexit-uk-reneging-on-northern-ireland-pledges-risks-trade-deals-with-us-and-eu

No Les - Canada +++ was peddled by various sides, including you. On one level, it is a meaningless phrase as it can mean different things to different people. But conceptually it is still relevant now. It captures the idea that the market access provided by a simple zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA is wholly inadequate for the UK’s needs - the pluses signifying better access than such a FTA. Please educate yourself on how international trade works in the 21st century, if you think otherwise. The limitations of zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA are indeed recognised by the current government - hence why it is pushing for permanent equivalence for financial services. Raab has spoken about no new regulatory checks which would otherwise be necessary under a zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA. Thoughts? We all know that May and Robbins were willing to give up some sovereignty for improved market access and that trade-off appears dead as dodo under the new Johnson administration. At the same time, the current government is so confident -as you are- in its negotiating abilities and leverage that it should be able to secure much better market access than that implied by a zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA without having to make the same concessions that May and Robbins were willing to consider. So I’ll ask you again what additional market access will we able to secure with our much vaunted leverage?

Mosin - we've left the EU. With a deal. Brexit is done pal. Now it’s about defining the future relationship. Both of you are bullish about the UK’s negotiating strengths and relative weaknesses of the EU but are curiously quiet when it comes to defining what level of market access the UK can secure. Surely the stronger the UK’s position, the better access it can secure and less it will have to give up? Yet all I’ve heard is talk of a Canada-style deal which merely secures zero-tariff, zero-quota access. Given the deficiencies of such a deal for an economy the size and complexity of the UK -see official government analyses on the impact of a Canada-style deal, it suggests that you’re not at all confident in the UK’s bargaining power. Could it be that you’re all talk and no trousers, pure bluster? Surely a strong, confident, assertive UK could secure better terms from the EU? What happened to Canada +++? As Ivan Rogers pointed out, the pluses were inserted to enable one to say that while the existing FTA with Canada does not really work as a Brexit destination, with the additions, but it’s a much better arrangement. How about permanent equivalence that would be a godsend for high value-added services, like finance -one of the few areas in which the UK has a comparative advantage but barely get a look in usual FTAs. Or Raab’s suggestion of no regulatory checks and nontariff barriers which are the main source of frictions in a modern economy and critical to just-in-time production. All these demands -absent from a meek Canada-style deal- are much better economically for the UK. If your confidence is real and you talk a good game (though, Les, surely you can do better than freeports which is a gimmick fed to the bovine masses at brexitcentral and is peashooter compared to the investment needed to close the north-south divide that on some measures is as wide as the one between the old East and West Germany), surely, the UK could secure these benefits with minimal restrictions on its sovereignty. After all, that is the essence of leverage. The UK either has leverage or it doesn't and is unable to make it count. Enlighten me lads.

Little did I know when the thread’s dimmest poster talked about the negotiating difficulties of meeting “the expectations of 27 countries - each with their own different agenda” and some analogy about them having too many fingers in too many pies, he was actually including the UK. Everything my colleagues and I previously and professionally understood about the EU (including the UK) being composed of 28 member states was dead wrong. Turns out the UK was part of the EU27. I learn something new everyday on this place, including how not to cover my tracks and make up a bigger fool of myself This literally my final post on the issue as I can positively feel my IQ declining every minute I’m engaging with such disingenuous simpletons.

Yes Mosin the UK holds the cards and the EU will agree to UK demands because it fears a no deal more than the UK - the UK is fearless because sovereignty trumps all - never mind that the UK has already agreed to a customs and regulatory border in its own country - one that we were previously told that no unionist could ever countenance or accept I look forward to the UK securing permanent equivalence, no extra regulatory checks/paperwork, market access that is superior to other deals in existence without commensurate obligations or restrictions on its sovereignty. The EU is s**tting themselves and don’t want to lose billions in trade. How much do you want to wager that this will happen pal? Name your price.

Exactly. And the reason that the EU27 would not indulge UK demands (at least the cake and eat it type) is precisely because member states were in complete agreement about the importance of preserving the integrity of the single market - a far cry from westie's claim they would be too divided among themselves to agree anything. Time to enjoy our Sundays

edit double post.

You've taken two statements -"there isn't going to be a deal" and the "the EU made it clear from the start that it would never let the UK have its cake and eat it" (well you've paraphrased mine) that say completely different things and pretend they are they are the same Only in Westie world. As suspected you failed to provide the necessary evidence and blew your chance. Instead you wriggle uncomfortably in the hole you've dug,whimpering "Not well at least it looks like you did" which is the sound of you with your pants pulled down. What makes your claims even more idiotic is that, digging deeper, the substance of my analysis is diametrically opposed to yours. In terms of Article 50 negotiations and whether the UK would leave the EU with a deal (the point under discussion - hence talk of 18months in Sept 2017), your claim was that the EU27 would be too divided to get behind a single agenda, leading to no deal. Apart from your prediction being flatout wrong, the starting point for my analysis was the exact opposite. Rather than division, I argued that there would be virtual unanimity among the EU27 regarding the importance of the four freedoms and integrity of the single market -and that very unanimity would rule out cherrypicking by the UK, exposing many of the Brexiters claims/promises as fundamentally undeliverable. I made no predictions whether there would be a deal or not - I simply claimed that the unique importance of the single market and four freedoms to the EU27 meant it would not allow the UK to have its cake and eat it. Contrary to your prediction, the EU27 and UK ultimately agreed a deal before the end of the Article 50 period because Brexiters realised they couldn't have their cake ('technological solutions') and agreed to a border in the Irish Sea respecting the EU’s demands to preserve the integrity of the single market (and GFA). Trust you to get the wrong end of the stick. Staggering stuff. I see you've not touched the quote “More kipper bunker talk. Is this the new no deal is better than a bad deal?”. FWIW I was simply taking the pîśś out of LD and Nolan’s fantastical view that the UK could withhold paying the divorce bill and use it as leverage in negotiations - in much the same that they had been prattling on about using the threat of no deal as leverage ("no deal is better than a bad deal". My post was a gratuitous, throwaway comment aimed at the Brexiters rhetoric and their understanding of how negotiations work- it had absolutely nothing to with divisions in the EU 27 and predictions of no deal per your post. Quite how you reached the conclusion that I was saying the same thing as you is beyond demented. Look Westie, I try to engage with most people -if robustly and with a bit of harmless pantomime. Les and I disagree about virtually everything Brexit-related but we can still have a discussion of sorts. Perhaps you're a nice and intelligent fella offline but on here do yourself no favours. Being dim is one thing (even your level of dimness). Being the Tyson Fury of thickos and more importantly acting in manifestly bad faith is quite another. It makes any kind of discussion completely untenable and I'm unable to continue on that basis.

Which same conclusion? My post didn’t share your analysis (at the least that contained in the quote you provided) and as far as the outcome of article 50 negotiations/withdrawal agreement is concerned, your prediction was spectacularly wrong. How is the kipper quote an endorsement of your quote “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” in your words? Simply repeating it’s so doesn’t make it so. Unless you’re going to explain and join the dots, the only conclusion I can reach is that you’re unable to do so.

Now that you have got your quote and your characteristically petty and foolish gotcha attempt has (once again) exploded in your face, can you explain how this quote of mine you’ve taken the trouble of digging up: “More kipper bunker talk. Is this the new no deal is better than a bad deal?” (please provide the context/date as I’m not going to trawl through thousands of posts - otherwise it’s incredibly disingenuous) Relates to and is an endorsement or this quote “There isn't going to be a deal. Anyone who genuinely believes that the expectations of 27 countries - each with their own different agenda - can honestly be met during these negotiations is completely deluded! Way too many fingers in the EU pie for this to be resolved by way of a fair deal for everyone. The next 18 months will be more of the same with each side 'leaking' that the other isn't playing ball until the inevitable split happens without any resolution in place” (please provide date) I could have pulled two quotes out of my backside, one in Chinese and one in Latin and they would have had more in common pal. Also which deal did you claim wouldn’t happen? If it’s a quote from a few years ago (as you proudly boast), it can only logically mean the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement that was about to be/being negotiated at the time (unless you explicitly stated otherwise). If so, not to rain on your little parade, Nostradamus, but there was a deal and the EU maintained an extremely united front. In case you missed it, the Withdrawal Agreement was agreed, signed and took effect a few weeks ago. Whoops In all seriousness, little Westie, I suspect you may have diagnosable reading difficulties. That’s your problem, not mine, though I do object to having words put in my mouth. Hopefully you can clarify matters rather than convolute, dissemble or run off for which you have form. Now back to the Nevada caucuses and the buildup to the Wilder-Fury fight.

As I say, I have no wish to disappear down rabbit holes inhabited by the furiously hard of thinking Westie but -to paraphrase you- he was the one raking over old coals (see his above posts). Unwisely, perhaps, I indulged him but I will follow your advice, draw a line and move on. Of course, when a final agreement is reached (assuming we don’t revert to WTO terms), it will be perfectly right and legitimate to hold up that deal against earlier claims, not least during the recent election campaign. I still don’t understand why you’ve stopped talking about Canada +++ which you previously talked up but now seem to be lowering your sights. Truly odd I must say. What do you think of the UK’s current demand for permanent equivalence - surely as it’s consistent with Canada +++ and involves no loss of sovereignty, you must be fully supportive? And that’s leaving aside a new customs and regulatory border in the Irish Sea (our own country) that we were told no PM could ever countenance. Mind you Johnson has told us that there will be no new checks or paperwork. What are your thoughts on the NI protocol’s sections on state aid which appear to have UK-wide implications (I assume you know what I’m talking about)? As you can see all this is relevant to the here and now. But I’m happy to wait and see what the government delivers before undertaking that assessment.

I don’t intend to disappear down one of your excruciatingly dim rabbit holes, so will keep this short. This from 2018 took me 5 minutes to find. Alas I will never get that time back. The EU made it clear from the start that it would never let the UK have its cake and eat it, that is, enjoy the trade benefits of EU membership without commensurate obligations (ECJ oversight, FoM etc) -see Barnier’s presentation- the same one that according to LD we remainers have taken great pleasure in quoting throughout the process (yet more proof). Nonetheless the claims we’ve heard from Brexiters over the past few years and even now in cases -no additional regulatory checks, mutual recognition, permanent equivalence, exact same benefits etc- are all variants of the same deluded, arrogant and misleading belief that the UK could do precisely that. Didn’t you ever read the links to Ivan Rogers speeches I approvingly posted saying the same thing? No doubt all this will go over your little head (btw what is the difference between feasible and achievable - my English thesaurus doesnt do Westie-speak?). As a consolation prize of sorts, in my rapidfire search, I did stumble upon some of your ‘back catalogue’ (e.g. on immigration). Admittedly it’s not a patch on zlotygate which is still unmatched in its sheer dribbling thickness- but it does illustrate a startling and disturbing tendency to wade into others arguments and quite literally not have a clue what’s going on. Have a good weekend and don’t overexert yourself, little Westie.

Jesus wept. I know you are one of the dimmest posters on here. But the EU made it abundantly clear from the outset that it would never allow the UK to cherrypick the best parts of EU membership - that is enjoy full market access and frictionless trade with EU on the one hand yet be free from its regulation and freedom of movement on the other. To do so would strike at the integrity of the single market and the four freedoms. Your parents must be really proud of you little Westie.

Thanks for clarifying that you think there will be a few bumps in the road and you agree that Brexiters like Dominic Raab who say that regulatory divergence will mean no new checks are chatting s**t. Likewise plans for permanent equivalence. What other guff don’t you believe pal? Are you saying that Brexiters have feeding us s**t? What does holding all the cards mean if all we do is get a Canada-style agreement on similar (or worse) terms? Or having our cake and eat it? Perhaps you can explain what all this means, Les.

So you finally accept that there will be trade frictions and services will barely get a look in. Well done.

Not sure they’ll win. But it could be a nervy afternoon. They will bring loads down which will only amplify the restlessness of our support and pressure on the side if we don’t start brightly.

Lots of us (me included).

You really are special Westie. You do realise that when posters said the Brexiters claims/demands were not feasible and mocked their other statements, it was precisely because they knew that EU was highly likely to reject them, as it made crystal clear from virtually day one. But well done for realising, like the rest of us that a negotiation takes two to tango

I don’t know either way. I’m not the person to ask. But when people who are gay have felt a need to keep quiet and lead a double life, then it’s usually a good idea to listen pal.

What was it like when you came out? I assume you’re gay -maybe you’ve played professional sports too?- since you appear to talk very authoritatively and conclusively about the subject and have presumably dealt with the private emotions and public reactions to your sexuality.

It’s absolutely delicious watching the climbdown in train. Such big talk from such little men. It was only ever going to end one way.

We were told we hold all the cards, we can have our cake and eat it and they need us more than we need them. It’s time for Brexiters to deliver on their claims -see Raab earlier this month for a masterclass in pure delusion (supposedly we can have frictionless trade and regulatory divergence as it’s all in the WA and PD). No more excuses pal.

After the game too? From Soton Central?

With contributions like this, [name removed], I’m surprised the navy lets you near a potato peeler.