Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Tamesaint]

England and Ireland?

 

How about Poland where they use the zloty ?

[badgerx16]

England and Ireland?

GM was being an @rse, so I decided to take the mick.

[Weston Super Saint]

GM was being an @rse, so I decided to take the mick.

 

Do you not think he has a point about different rules operating within the single market?

[badgerx16]

Do you not think he has a point about different rules operating within the single market?

There may be a point to be made, but his example doesn't make it.

[shurlock]

Nice one, well done.

 

 

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.

Edited 23 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

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:

 

 

Ah, bless, you keep telling yourself that pal.

 

The facts speak for themselves, it took you a year longer to reach the same conclusion. I'll lend you a spade if you want to keep on digging!

 

If you'd bothered to look, my response was a reply to your kipper nonsense post. Odd that it would take you over 2 years to try and claim they aren't related - you're coming off desperate now. Hint for you, click the little blue arrows in the post and the magic of the internet will whisk you back in time to the posts!

[shurlock]

Ah, bless, you keep telling yourself that pal.

 

The facts speak for themselves, it took you a year longer to reach the same conclusion. I'll lend you a spade if you want to keep on digging!

 

If you'd bothered to look, my response was a reply to your kipper nonsense post. Odd that it would take you over 2 years to try and claim they aren't related - you're coming off desperate now. Hint for you, click the little blue arrows in the post and the magic of the internet will whisk you back in time to the posts!

 

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.

Edited 23 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

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.

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

Jesus wept! It seems to be a mission of yours to prove to everyone that you are indeed thicker than a whale omelette.

 

Let me spell it out for you using simple words!

 

In 2017 I stated there would be no deal.

 

In 2018 you stated the same thing - well at least it looks like you did, you used way more words than were necessary to provide your conclusion, but that fits your narcissistic M.O.

 

Hence why imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Simple really.

 

Are you now saying that you have never concluded that there will be 'no deal'? - for clarity as it seems to have confused you earlier, by 'no deal' it is commonly believed that there will be NO agreement between the EU and UK and therefore the UK will conclude the transition period for leaving the EU on WTO trading terms.

[Wes Tender]

Sunday Telegraph:-

This week, senior ministers will sign off on the UK's list of demands for the negotiations in a meeting of the Cabinet's "exit strategy", or XS, committee on Tuesday, with the paper due to be published online on Thursday.

 

We have heard the sabre-rattling from the EU, believing that they hold the whip hand and can make demands of us before they are willing to begin serious trade talks with us. I trust that on Thursday we will read the Government's response, which ought to be to tell them they can go and get lost and that talks will not begin until the EU are prepared to stop fooling about with their stupid suggestions that we should accept a lesser trade deal than they offered to Canada/Japan/S.Korea. Also it should be made clear that we will not accept regulatory equivalence, that they cannot have the same access to our coastal waters as before and Gibraltar is not on the table. Up to them if they are prepared to allow the clock to run down to 31st December without negotiations taking place before we leave on WTO terms.

[Fan The Flames]

Jesus wept! It seems to be a mission of yours to prove to everyone that you are indeed thicker than a whale omelette.

 

Let me spell it out for you using simple words!

 

In 2017 I stated there would be no deal.

 

In 2018 you stated the same thing - well at least it looks like you did, you used way more words than were necessary to provide your conclusion, but that fits your narcissistic M.O.

 

Hence why imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Simple really.

 

Are you now saying that you have never concluded that there will be 'no deal'? - for clarity as it seems to have confused you earlier, by 'no deal' it is commonly believed that there will be NO agreement between the EU and UK and therefore the UK will conclude the transition period for leaving the EU on WTO trading terms.

 

I must be thick because I can't see how you have proved anything there. You said that there won't be a deal beacuse the EU won't be able to agree amongst themselves in order to facilitate some of the UK demands required to do a deal and Shurlock has said that there has always been a danger that the EU won't give in to the UK demands.

 

But I thought the point in all of this was we were told by Brexiteers that the EU will hold a strong position until the 11th hour and then they will definitely give in to some of our demands and do a deal because this is how the EU operates and they really want to still be able to sell us prosecco and cars.

 

And anyone that thought this was reckless brinkmanship was Project Fear peddling unpatriotic remoaners. But it seems now that this is exactly the position you are not just gearing up for but happy to end up with. This is what people voted for.

[shurlock]

Jesus wept! It seems to be a mission of yours to prove to everyone that you are indeed thicker than a whale omelette.

 

Let me spell it out for you using simple words!

 

In 2017 I stated there would be no deal.

 

In 2018 you stated the same thing - well at least it looks like you did, you used way more words than were necessary to provide your conclusion, but that fits your narcissistic M.O.

 

Hence why imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Simple really.

 

Are you now saying that you have never concluded that there will be 'no deal'? - for clarity as it seems to have confused you earlier, by 'no deal' it is commonly believed that there will be NO agreement between the EU and UK and therefore the UK will conclude the transition period for leaving the EU on WTO trading terms.

 

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.

Edited 23 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Fan The Flames]

Jesus wept! It seems to be a mission of yours to prove to everyone that you are indeed thicker than a whale omelette.

 

Let me spell it out for you using simple words!

 

In 2017 I stated there would be no deal.

 

In 2018 you stated the same thing - well at least it looks like you did, you used way more words than were necessary to provide your conclusion, but that fits your narcissistic M.O.

 

Hence why imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Simple really.

 

Are you now saying that you have never concluded that there will be 'no deal'? - for clarity as it seems to have confused you earlier, by 'no deal' it is commonly believed that there will be NO agreement between the EU and UK and therefore the UK will conclude the transition period for leaving the EU on WTO trading terms.

 

I must be thick because I can't see how you have proved anything there. You said that there won't be a deal beacuse the EU won't be able to agree amongst themselves in order to facilitate some of the UK demands required to do a deal and Shurlock has said that there has always been a danger that the EU won't give in to the UK demands.

 

But I thought the point in all of this was we were told by Brexiteers that the EU will hold a strong position until the 11th hour and then they will definitely give in to some of our demands and do a deal because this is how the EU operates and they really want to still be able to sell us prosecco and cars.

 

And anyone that thought this was reckless brinkmanship was Project Fear peddling unpatriotic remoaners. But it seems now that this is exactly the position you are not just gearing up for but happy to end up with. This is what people voted for.

[shurlock]

edit double post.

[Fan The Flames]

Meant to end my post with 'This is NOT what people voted for'.

[shurlock]

I must be thick because I can't see how you have proved anything there. You said that there won't be a deal beacuse the EU won't be able to agree amongst themselves in order to facilitate some of the UK demands required to do a deal and Shurlock has said that there has always been a danger that the EU won't give in to the UK demands.

 

But I thought the point in all of this was we were told by Brexiteers that the EU will hold a strong position until the 11th hour and then they will definitely give in to some of our demands and do a deal because this is how the EU operates and they really want to still be able to sell us prosecco and cars.

 

And anyone that thought this was reckless brinkmanship was Project Fear peddling unpatriotic remoaners. But it seems now that this is exactly the position you are not just gearing up for but happy to end up with. This is what people voted for.

 

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

Edited 23 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Mosin]

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

 

But they are. We have things they want to buy and sell. Our only goal is getting control back of our own country.

 

Every thing else to us comes after this priority.... For us it isn't about making sure Germany can sell us cars or Netherlands can keep selling us it's goods and so on,all those goods which they won't just be able to sell to some different country... All those billions of pounds worth of fresh goods with no customers to buy them..... I am sure all in the eu will be happy for a no Deal to happen. Stop kidding your self, some members of the eu are more worried about a no Deal than we are, might not be all the eu members.. But ultimately the eu does what's best for the bloc and letting it lose billions in trade is not doing what's best for the bloc...

[Lord Duckhunter]

Dan Hannan introducing nail to head.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Weston Super Saint]

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.

 

 

So, just so I've got this clear - you know, what with me being a thickie and all.

 

My post said there would be 'no deal' - despite you pretending not to know what that meant earlier, I suspect you know exactly what I was referring to.

 

Your post is apparently completely different to mine - "diammetrically opposed" in fact - which must mean you believe there will be a deal. The opposite of 'no deal' being 'deal'.

 

Enlighten us, oh great one, what will this deal look like? (If you can use one or two paragraphs rather than your usual diatribe which covers every point ever made but doesn't answer the question, that would be much obliged).

[shurlock]

But they are. We have things they want to buy and sell. Our only goal is getting control back of our own country.

 

Every thing else to us comes after this priority.... For us it isn't about making sure Germany can sell us cars or Netherlands can keep selling us it's goods and so on,all those goods which they won't just be able to sell to some different country... All those billions of pounds worth of fresh goods with no customers to buy them..... I am sure all in the eu will be happy for a no Deal to happen. Stop kidding your self, some members of the eu are more worried about a no Deal than we are, might not be all the eu members.. But ultimately the eu does what's best for the bloc and letting it lose billions in trade is not doing what's best for the bloc...

 

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.

Edited 23 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

I must be thick because I can't see how you have proved anything there. You said that there won't be a deal beacuse the EU won't be able to agree amongst themselves in order to facilitate some of the UK demands required to do a deal and Shurlock has said that there has always been a danger that the EU won't give in to the UK demands.

 

 

No, that is not what I said.

 

I said there were too many fingers in too many pies to agree a deal. I also included the UK in that analogy as the owner of some of those fingers and that, therefore, the UK would not agree to demands, not just the EU.

 

However, I'm glad that you recognise that Shurlock has said pretty much the same thing as me, despite his claim that the two opinions are 'diammetrically opposed'. It just took him a year longer to reach the conclusion

[shurlock]

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.

Edited 23 February, 2020 by shurlock

[redkeith]

Wes why you no listen, The few re-moaners on hear think they know more than the 17 odd million who got off their arses and voted OUT!!! Kleenex must of cut down half of Sherwood Forrest by now to fill their boxes.

 

You are only interested in keeping British fish for British fish ****ers, you dirty Skate .

[Winnersaint]

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.

 

I am on the same side as you, however, you really do come across as an arrogant s h i t. Oh, and while were at learn how to spell Gao. Goa is in India and not the owner's name

[mack rill]

You are only interested in keeping British fish for British fish ****ers, you dirty Skate .

 

No need to worry boy!EU not interested in pony stocks:smug:and yes you are right, i do want all joly foreigner fishing boats out of British water.

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

I think that it's about time that you brought yourself up to date with how events have unfolded since the early days of May and Robbins, when claims were made on the basis of circumstances prevailing at that time, and with that incompetent duo of remoaners in charge of the negotiations, ready to accept anything that the EU offered us. It is not only pointless raking over old coals now, it is futile, as the political landscape has altered beyond recognition since May's departure and the arrival of Boris as PM.

 

The penny is slowly dropping in the EU that Boris is not May and that Frost is not Robbins. It is no longer a case of constant delays to article 50 to allow time for article 50 to be revoked. We are out. The Implementation Period will not be extended, so it is a clear choice between a FTA or WTO. If there is no FTA by 31st December, then it is WTO. Despite the remoaner bluster about how blase German industry or French agriculture is about which outcome comes to pass at the end of the year, cracks are starting to appear in EU unity. The EU 27 cannot agree about their next period budget, which will be severely depleted without our contribution. The French fishermen are making hysterical demands to include access to our coastal waters in the trade deal. The Irish under Varadkar allowed the EU to weaponise the Irish border, but he is now gone and the Irish are sh*tting themselves at the increased budgetary payments they will need to make for a smaller return of EU grants, as well as the increased plundering of their fish stocks, once the EU's incursion into our waters will be curtailed. Be in no doubt that the German car makers will grow increasingly shrill in their demands towards their government to give us a decent deal, the closer that the deadline becomes.

 

Of course a FTA is in the interests of both us and the EU, but the desire in the EU to cut off their nose to spite their face so that other countries don't follow us out of the door is strong, and will probably lead to no deal and WTO. If the EU want a deal, then they had better hurry up and be realistic about what will be acceptable to us both. They need to begin making offers instead of issuing demands, and soon. In the meantime, noises are being made here within the past few days about some beneficial changes on the horizon that we might make. One is that we should invest in our own satellite system, now that the EU have done the dirty to us on the Galileo project. The other proposal is to regenerate depressed industrial areas with the development of several free ports. These types of initiatives combined with the lowering of Corporation Tax and the increased trade around the globe will see us thrive outside of the EU. They on the other hand will struggle to thrive without us and I foresee the whole EU project falling apart within a decade.

[Mosin]

I think that it's about time that you brought yourself up to date with how events have unfolded since the early days of May and Robbins, when claims were made on the basis of circumstances prevailing at that time, and with that incompetent duo of remoaners in charge of the negotiations, ready to accept anything that the EU offered us. It is not only pointless raking over old coals now, it is futile, as the political landscape has altered beyond recognition since May's departure and the arrival of Boris as PM.

 

The penny is slowly dropping in the EU that Boris is not May and that Frost is not Robbins. It is no longer a case of constant delays to article 50 to allow time for article 50 to be revoked. We are out. The Implementation Period will not be extended, so it is a clear choice between a FTA or WTO. If there is no FTA by 31st December, then it is WTO. Despite the remoaner bluster about how blase German industry or French agriculture is about which outcome comes to pass at the end of the year, cracks are starting to appear in EU unity. The EU 27 cannot agree about their next period budget, which will be severely depleted without our contribution. The French fishermen are making hysterical demands to include access to our coastal waters in the trade deal. The Irish under Varadkar allowed the EU to weaponise the Irish border, but he is now gone and the Irish are sh*tting themselves at the increased budgetary payments they will need to make for a smaller return of EU grants, as well as the increased plundering of their fish stocks, once the EU's incursion into our waters will be curtailed. Be in no doubt that the German car makers will grow increasingly shrill in their demands towards their government to give us a decent deal, the closer that the deadline becomes.

 

Of course a FTA is in the interests of both us and the EU, but the desire in the EU to cut off their nose to spite their face so that other countries don't follow us out of the door is strong, and will probably lead to no deal and WTO. If the EU want a deal, then they had better hurry up and be realistic about what will be acceptable to us both. They need to begin making offers instead of issuing demands, and soon. In the meantime, noises are being made here within the past few days about some beneficial changes on the horizon that we might make. One is that we should invest in our own satellite system, now that the EU have done the dirty to us on the Galileo project. The other proposal is to regenerate depressed industrial areas with the development of several free ports. These types of initiatives combined with the lowering of Corporation Tax and the increased trade around the globe will see us thrive outside of the EU. They on the other hand will struggle to thrive without us and I foresee the whole EU project falling apart within a decade.

 

He don't see it, he just can't grasp the fact we ARE leaving... He can't grasp that with or with out a deal we are leaving and this is the uk's stance not the eu's who have always said they prefer a deal and even better for us not to leave.....

 

Its simple we want our sovereignty back and no trade deal is going to stop us from getting this. He just can't grasp it..

 

Just think about it shurlock, why does the eu nit want a free trading global power on its door step making trade deals freely for the only benefit of its own Kingdom and not chained to eu trade deals which hurts us every time they sign a new one? Just think about it...

[shurlock]

I think that it's about time that you brought yourself up to date with how events have unfolded since the early days of May and Robbins, when claims were made on the basis of circumstances prevailing at that time, and with that incompetent duo of remoaners in charge of the negotiations, ready to accept anything that the EU offered us. It is not only pointless raking over old coals now, it is futile, as the political landscape has altered beyond recognition since May's departure and the arrival of Boris as PM.

 

The penny is slowly dropping in the EU that Boris is not May and that Frost is not Robbins. It is no longer a case of constant delays to article 50 to allow time for article 50 to be revoked. We are out. The Implementation Period will not be extended, so it is a clear choice between a FTA or WTO. If there is no FTA by 31st December, then it is WTO. Despite the remoaner bluster about how blase German industry or French agriculture is about which outcome comes to pass at the end of the year, cracks are starting to appear in EU unity. The EU 27 cannot agree about their next period budget, which will be severely depleted without our contribution. The French fishermen are making hysterical demands to include access to our coastal waters in the trade deal. The Irish under Varadkar allowed the EU to weaponise the Irish border, but he is now gone and the Irish are sh*tting themselves at the increased budgetary payments they will need to make for a smaller return of EU grants, as well as the increased plundering of their fish stocks, once the EU's incursion into our waters will be curtailed. Be in no doubt that the German car makers will grow increasingly shrill in their demands towards their government to give us a decent deal, the closer that the deadline becomes.

 

Of course a FTA is in the interests of both us and the EU, but the desire in the EU to cut off their nose to spite their face so that other countries don't follow us out of the door is strong, and will probably lead to no deal and WTO. If the EU want a deal, then they had better hurry up and be realistic about what will be acceptable to us both. They need to begin making offers instead of issuing demands, and soon. In the meantime, noises are being made here within the past few days about some beneficial changes on the horizon that we might make. One is that we should invest in our own satellite system, now that the EU have done the dirty to us on the Galileo project. The other proposal is to regenerate depressed industrial areas with the development of several free ports. These types of initiatives combined with the lowering of Corporation Tax and the increased trade around the globe will see us thrive outside of the EU. They on the other hand will struggle to thrive without us and I foresee the whole EU project falling apart within a decade.

 

 

He don't see it, he just can't grasp the fact we ARE leaving... He can't grasp that with or with out a deal we are leaving and this is the uk's stance not the eu's who have always said they prefer a deal and even better for us not to leave.....

 

Its simple we want our sovereignty back and no trade deal is going to stop us from getting this. He just can't grasp it..

 

Just think about it shurlock, why does the eu nit want a free trading global power on its door step making trade deals freely for the only benefit of its own Kingdom and not chained to eu trade deals which hurts us every time they sign a new one? Just think about it...

 

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.

Edited 23 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Guided Missile]

A Washington based conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, published a paper on the best option for the UK, should we leave the EU, focusing on free trade deals. To me, this is the most important thing to get right. (" It's all about the economy, stupid"). In summary, the report states:

 

 

1. The U.S. and the U.K. should negotiate a free trade area based on the principles of national sovereignty and economic freedom.
   
2. For both nations, the barrier to this goal is the European Union. Britain cannot negotiate unless it leaves the EU, while the U.S. has wrongly supported the EU over the sovereignty of its member nations.
   
3. The U.S. policy of using Britain as its Trojan Horse in the EU is wrong in principle and doomed to failure in practice.
   
4. The U.K. must ensure that its referendum on EU membership offers a real choice. There is no reason why the U.K., the world’s sixth-largest economy, cannot negotiate trade arrangements outside the EU.
   
5. The benefits of an Anglo–American free trade area would be both economic and political. It would insulate the U.K. from the damaging effects of further EU regulatory interference and signal the two countries’ shared political commitment to their close relationship
   

 

For those interested, the full text is here and I found it exciting and stimulating. Onwards and upwards!

 

PS. For any miners out there, ignore the name of the centre publishing the paper....

Back to the future...

Boris Johnson is set to kick start trade talks with the US within the next two weeks, amid frustration in Number 10 at EU “time wasting.” The moves on US trade will be seen as an attempt to pile further pressure on the EU whose leaders have questioned whether a trade deal can be agreed before the end of year and are resisting the Prime Minister’s demand for a Canada-style agreement.

Boris continues to play a blinder....

[Mosin]

[quote=Mosin;2805060

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Let me spell it out again

 

Uk's main priority is sovereignty.. Not any deal.

 

 

When will you get it into your head.

 

A whole world of trade waiting for us, why do we want to handcuff our self's to eu rules and regulations after spend all this time trying to get rid off them...

 

Oh OK, let's sign away our sovereignty so we can get tomatoes from Netherlands still.. Lol... It'll be worth it.... Don't even think about potatoes... We want your crown jewels for that... Lmfao.

[Wes Tender]

 

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.

 

As I've pointed out several times, Gavyn, times have moved on and the political landscape is totally changed. As you will see, Canada+++ was so Theresa May, Robbins and Tusk.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/05/the-eu-offers-an-alternative-brexit-but-what-is-canada-8009257/

 

On the face of it, if Canada, Japan and S.Korea can achieve a basic FTA with the EU, then it would be logical that we as the much bigger economy, with whom the EU have a massive trade surplus, should be capable of getting a much better deal. Indeed, having it called Canada +++, or Super Canada, inferred that a better deal was what was on offer. After all, we brought to the table other inducements to a better deal in terms of defence, security and foreign policy cooperation among other things. Now that push has come to shove, it becomes clear that what the EU are prepared to offer is less than Canada/Japan/S.Korea. It would certainly be Canada +++ to them, but to us it is Canada---.

 

I note that you're happy to continue quoting government figures suggesting that a Canada style deal has deficiencies for an economy of our size. You ought to realise by now, that we Brexiteers are sceptical about reports from the Civil Service warning about the Armageddon that we face for leaving the EU. We're still laughing at those pre-referendum Treasury forecasts, so please excuse us if we take those sorts of predictions with a pinch of salt. You seem to take them as the gospel truth, so I'm sure that somebody as thorough and clued up as you, must have seen the forecasts provided by the economists to the EU on the impact of them not achieving a trade deal with us. I would imagine that they are pretty dire. What is clear, is that the EU are scared stiff that we will become a major competitor right on their doorstep and that our success will be the impetus needed to have other member states follow us out, this being the reason why the EU is playing silly beggars in their vain attempt to restrict our independence. In retrospect, they must be kicking themselves for not tying down May to the BRINO deal that a remoaner parliament might just have voted through. When it comes to leverage in these negotiations, the EU has cocked it up at every stage since they sent Cameron away empty-handed.

 

In the same way that May, Robbins and Tusk are yesterday's people, so is that other remoaner, Ivan Rogers. Today's man is David Frost who has made our position crystal clear in his recent speech. I presume that you read it? It means a basic zero tariff/zero quota or WTO. You continue to insist that we lack leverage in those negotiations, but the biggest lever in any trade deal is the threat to walk away without a deal and to be seen to mean it. I suggest that you wait to hear what our position will be when the government makes its statement on our position on Thursday. The EU have made a list of demands about what will have to be on the table in order that trade talks can commence. I am expecting to hear Johnson and Frost quickly and without any element of doubt, tell the EU to go and get stuffed until they can take the situation and its implications seriously.

[Plastic]

Google is moving your data to US where it is easier to monetise, because they can now.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/20/google_shifting_uk_data_to_us/

[shurlock]

As I've pointed out several times, Gavyn, times have moved on and the political landscape is totally changed. As you will see, Canada+++ was so Theresa May, Robbins and Tusk.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/05/the-eu-offers-an-alternative-brexit-but-what-is-canada-8009257/

 

On the face of it, if Canada, Japan and S.Korea can achieve a basic FTA with the EU, then it would be logical that we as the much bigger economy, with whom the EU have a massive trade surplus, should be capable of getting a much better deal. Indeed, having it called Canada +++, or Super Canada, inferred that a better deal was what was on offer. After all, we brought to the table other inducements to a better deal in terms of defence, security and foreign policy cooperation among other things. Now that push has come to shove, it becomes clear that what the EU are prepared to offer is less than Canada/Japan/S.Korea. It would certainly be Canada +++ to them, but to us it is Canada---.

 

I note that you're happy to continue quoting government figures suggesting that a Canada style deal has deficiencies for an economy of our size. You ought to realise by now, that we Brexiteers are sceptical about reports from the Civil Service warning about the Armageddon that we face for leaving the EU. We're still laughing at those pre-referendum Treasury forecasts, so please excuse us if we take those sorts of predictions with a pinch of salt. You seem to take them as the gospel truth, so I'm sure that somebody as thorough and clued up as you, must have seen the forecasts provided by the economists to the EU on the impact of them not achieving a trade deal with us. I would imagine that they are pretty dire. What is clear, is that the EU are scared stiff that we will become a major competitor right on their doorstep and that our success will be the impetus needed to have other member states follow us out, this being the reason why the EU is playing silly beggars in their vain attempt to restrict our independence. In retrospect, they must be kicking themselves for not tying down May to the BRINO deal that a remoaner parliament might just have voted through. When it comes to leverage in these negotiations, the EU has cocked it up at every stage since they sent Cameron away empty-handed.

 

In the same way that May, Robbins and Tusk are yesterday's people, so is that other remoaner, Ivan Rogers. Today's man is David Frost who has made our position crystal clear in his recent speech. I presume that you read it? It means a basic zero tariff/zero quota or WTO. You continue to insist that we lack leverage in those negotiations, but the biggest lever in any trade deal is the threat to walk away without a deal and to be seen to mean it. I suggest that you wait to hear what our position will be when the government makes its statement on our position on Thursday. The EU have made a list of demands about what will have to be on the table in order that trade talks can commence. I am expecting to hear Johnson and Frost quickly and without any element of doubt, tell the EU to go and get stuffed until they can take the situation and its implications seriously.

 

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?

Edited 24 February, 2020 by shurlock

[ecuk268]

Good to see that our wonderful new blue British Passports are produced by a German/Dutch company who print them in Poland.

 

https://newsthump.com/2020/02/24/all-jingoistic-****-will-now-be-manufactured-in-poland-admits-government/

[shurlock]

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

Edited 24 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

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

 

Congratulations on accepting that an article based on "reports" just has to be the gospel truth. I'm sure that you also lapped up all the conjecture from so-called experts about what the implications of us "reneging" on our legal obligations over the Irish border would be, and the conspiracy theory about why Geoffrey Cox was replaced by Suella Braverman. There is a great deal of mischief going on within the Civil Service at the moment along similar lines of leaks designed to put a bad gloss on the government. Just within the past few days, there have been stories published in the media that Priti Patel bullies her Civil Servants and that she is not trusted to be given security information by our spymasters. Also that Sir Mark Sedwell, the head of the Civil Service, had taken it upon himself to decide that we could not go for our own Global Navigation Satellite System and he had therefore decided that we should go for latching on to some other cheaper option, probably Galileo. Apparently Boris was very angry, demanding to know why he wasn't informed about this decision, to be told by Sedwell that he had intended to tell him after the meeting.

 

About time that Sedwell and his like were put out to grass and replaced by those who accept that it is the government's place to decide policy and the Civil Servants place to implement it, not the other way around.

[buctootim]

replaced by those who accept that it is the government's place to decide policy and the Civil Servants place to implement it, not the other way around.

 

What if the minister's policy would breach legal obligations if implemented?

[badgerx16]

What if the minister's policy would breach legal obligations if implemented?

It won't matter once the review of the relationship between Parliament and the Courts is concluded.

[buctootim]

It won't matter once the review of the relationship between Parliament and the Courts is concluded.

 

The ultimate result of that is that Parliament passes laws and international agreements made but they aren't enforced or complied with on the whim of the Executive. Decision making is so much quicker and easier, only drawback is that you become an unreliable authoritarian pariah state.

 

Ps. Before the mouth breathers start, I'm not suggesting we're there. But its a dangerous slope to begin to go down.

[Nolan]

Good to see that our wonderful new blue British Passports are produced by a German/Dutch company who print them in Poland.

 

https://newsthump.com/2020/02/24/all-jingoistic-****-will-now-be-manufactured-in-poland-admits-government/

Excellent isn't it. We can choose the best value wherever in the world it is.

[hypochondriac]

The ultimate result of that is that Parliament passes laws and international agreements made but they aren't enforced or complied with on the whim of the Executive. Decision making is so much quicker and easier, only drawback is that you become an unreliable authoritarian pariah state.

 

Ps. Before the mouth breathers start, I'm not suggesting we're there. But its a dangerous slope to begin to go down.

That's just scaremongering. No evidence of that at all so far.

[Wes Tender]

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?

 

Canada +++ appeared to be a better deal than the straight Canada deal, on the basis that we were a considerably bigger economy with more to offer in terms of security, defence and foreign policy cooperation among other things, so that our expectations for a better deal were naturally higher, as I said. But as you say, until it became clear that what the EU meant by it was not what we thought it to mean, it was a meaningless phrase meaning many things to different people. Despite it being a meaningless phrase, you amusingly go on to argue that it is still currently relevant and that a simple FTA without the +++s is totally inadequate for our purposes. As it was a meaningless phrase, that excuses anybody who was misled by it when May was making a complete horlicks of the negotiations, so please stop harping on about it; it is ancient history. The addition of +++s for improved trade access in return for sovereignty ain't going to happen.

 

As usual, the implied insult is that if anybody disagrees with you, they simply don't understand how international trade works in the 21st century, and yet here we are having left the EU and as a third country facing the possibility that we might subsequently not even have a FTA with the EU. No doubt the same applied to those who voted to leave the EU, they were just too thick to understand the implications of going it alone in the big bad world. Except of course we won't be going it alone, as we will set up FTAs with other enterprising and developing countries around the world, whilst still retaining a large chunk of trade with the EU member states no matter what, as they will want to maintain their huge surplus with us.

 

I'm pleased that you accept that we are no longer prepared to give up some sovereignty in return for improved market access now that May and Robbins have gone. Where did Boris say that he expected more trade access as a result of our strong position? As far as I can see, he has issued red lines stating that we do not accept regulatory alignment with the EU and that we would accept a simple FTA like Canada/Japan/S/Korea. I have to keep telling you, that we are discussing what our trade negotiation stance will be on Tuesday, and announcing it on Thursday. Much as you enjoy speculation and conjecture, please show some patience. All will become clear by then.

[buctootim]

Excellent isn't it. We can choose the best value wherever in the world it is.

 

De La Rue cut 179 jobs in Gateshead after losing the passport contract. Weren't you one of those up in arms about jobs shifting overseas because of EU policy? But it's okay if Boris the Brave does it?

[shurlock]

Canada +++ appeared to be a better deal than the straight Canada deal, on the basis that we were a considerably bigger economy with more to offer in terms of security, defence and foreign policy cooperation among other things, so that our expectations for a better deal were naturally higher, as I said. But as you say, until it became clear that what the EU meant by it was not what we thought it to mean, it was a meaningless phrase meaning many things to different people. Despite it being a meaningless phrase, you amusingly go on to argue that it is still currently relevant and that a simple FTA without the +++s is totally inadequate for our purposes. As it was a meaningless phrase, that excuses anybody who was misled by it when May was making a complete horlicks of the negotiations, so please stop harping on about it; it is ancient history. The addition of +++s for improved trade access in return for sovereignty ain't going to happen.

 

As usual, the implied insult is that if anybody disagrees with you, they simply don't understand how international trade works in the 21st century, and yet here we are having left the EU and as a third country facing the possibility that we might subsequently not even have a FTA with the EU. No doubt the same applied to those who voted to leave the EU, they were just too thick to understand the implications of going it alone in the big bad world. Except of course we won't be going it alone, as we will set up FTAs with other enterprising and developing countries around the world, whilst still retaining a large chunk of trade with the EU member states no matter what, as they will want to maintain their huge surplus with us.

 

I'm pleased that you accept that we are no longer prepared to give up some sovereignty in return for improved market access now that May and Robbins have gone. Where did Boris say that he expected more trade access as a result of our strong position? As far as I can see, he has issued red lines stating that we do not accept regulatory alignment with the EU and that we would accept a simple FTA like Canada/Japan/S/Korea. I have to keep telling you, that we are discussing what our trade negotiation stance will be on Tuesday, and announcing it on Thursday. Much as you enjoy speculation and conjecture, please show some patience. All will become clear by then.

 

Still not answering the question then. How will the UK use its much vaunted leverage? Will the UK government be able to use it to secure permanent equivalence as it is currently demanding? Finally what is your reading of the general economic literature on the impacts and benefits of nontariff, nonquota FTAs that the UK wishes to strike with countries around the world? Note that this assessment has nothing to do with Brexit or the UK going it alone as you wrongly imply. Take your blinkers off, it’s simply about the source and magnitude of trade frictions in a global economy where average tariffs are already very low.

Edited 24 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

What if the minister's policy would breach legal obligations if implemented?

 

I mentioned this is the case of Sir Mark Sedwell, the Head of the Civil Service. Is having our own GNSS illegal? Is it right that he should take the decision to ignore government wishes to explore the possibility of having our own system and decide himself whether it is viable or not?

[Wes Tender]

Still not answering the question then.

 

Do I have to repeat myself yet again? It will become clear on Thursday what we expect our leverage to be. Personally I would be happy if our negotiating leverage was to walk away from the talks and tell the EU that we will reopen them when they had come to their senses and were prepared to listen to what they were told by Frost in his speech last week. I'm entirely happy with WTO myself, so I don't know why you insist on your stuck record questioning.

[buctootim]

I mentioned this is the case of Sir Mark Sedwell, the Head of the Civil Service. Is having our own GNSS illegal? Is it right that he should take the decision to ignore government wishes to explore the possibility of having our own system and decide himself whether it is viable or not?

 

You don't know whether he did or not, and nor do I. If he did I agree that's wrong. Given his long track record working successfully with many different ministers, I doubt that is what happened. I suspect it has more to do with Sedwell refusing, rightly, to authorise the release of a Treasury costing of Labours manifesto promises because it would have compromised civil service impartiality during an election campaign.

[Wes Tender]

De La Rue cut 179 jobs in Gateshead after losing the passport contract. Weren't you one of those up in arms about jobs shifting overseas because of EU policy? But it's okay if Boris the Brave does it?

 

I'm sure that you're bright enough to realise that the award of the contract to the French printers was due to the EU procurement rules which we were obliged to follow at that time. Had we been more devious about it, as the French often are, we could have used some cock and bull excuse that farming out the passports to an external country was potentially a security risk, but unfortunately the vicar's daughter didn't have the gumption to take such a course. But now we are free from the procurement rules, we can give these contacts to British firms if we deem it expedient.

[shurlock]

Do I have to repeat myself yet again? It will become clear on Thursday what we expect our leverage to be. Personally I would be happy if our negotiating leverage was to walk away from the talks and tell the EU that we will reopen them when they had come to their senses and were prepared to listen to what they were told by Frost in his speech last week. I'm entirely happy with WTO myself, so I don't know why you insist on your stuck record questioning.

 

I’m asking you - over hundreds of pages, you and fellow Brexiters have repeatedly played up our bargaining power - you mentioned the massive trade surplus in goods the EU enjoys and the fact we’re now ready to walk away if necessary in your last few posts, so must have some views on how we can make these ‘advantages’ count and what they can get us in return?

 

And what is your reading on the economic impact of nontariff, nonquota FTAs? You dismiss my view, so you must have some basis for that confidence. As I say, this has nothing to do with Brexit or the UK going it alone as presumably the UK will be signing similar FTAs with other countries around the world.

Edited 24 February, 2020 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

You don't know whether he did or not, and nor do I. If he did I agree that's wrong. Given his long track record working successfully with many different ministers, I doubt that is what happened. I suspect it has more to do with Sedwell refusing, rightly, to authorise the release of a Treasury costing of Labours manifesto promises because it would have compromised civil service impartiality during an election campaign.

 

The treasury costing of Labour's manifesto promises? What are you going on about? I'm talking about the apparent decision by Sedwell that we shouldn't proceed with our own Satellite system, now that the EU cut us out of Galileo in a fit of pique because we voted to leave the EU. It seems he decided himself that it wasn't economically sound and that we should go for an inferior cheapie alternative. Boris was livid that Sedwell had taken this decision upon himself and he only fund out about it subsequently.

[buctootim]

I'm sure that you're bright enough to realise that the award of the contract to the French printers was due to the EU procurement rules which we were obliged to follow at that time. Had we been more devious about it, as the French often are, we could have used some cock and bull excuse that farming out the passports to an external country was potentially a security risk, but unfortunately the vicar's daughter didn't have the gumption to take such a course. But now we are free from the procurement rules, we can give these contacts to British firms if we deem it expedient.

 

Meh. That was just the fig leaf. Most other countries in the EU keep production in-house on national security grounds - which is a perfectly valid exemption. May chose not to do it - but that is a British problem made in Britain. Even Brexit central, the Daily Express acknowledged it.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/936265/eu-uk-passports-security-printing-brexit