Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Very informative twitter feed here on current state of negotiations https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1341482445808537604?s=20

we are miles apart and the EU demands seem ridiculous.
Thanks for the link.

Word of warning for those with high blood pressure. There are comments by Guy Verhofshatt and Lord Andrew Adonis on this page which may enrage those that have worked out by now just how undemocratic the EU is.
 
Thanks for the link.

Word of warning for those with high blood pressure. There are comments by Guy Verhofshatt and Lord Andrew Adonis on this page which may enrage those that have worked out by now just how undemocratic the EU is.

It is quite amusing watching GV & AA's swivelled eyed heads explode whenever they're interviewed. 10/10 for entertainment IMO :)
 
Negotiating with the EU appears to ignore reality. It's a bit like putting your hand into a box full of gold coins and a rattlesnake. Many people warn you about the risk of putting your hand in the box but you do so anyway and the rattlesnake bites you. The person bitten then blames the rattlesnake and in doing so denies the nature of all rattlesnakes. Its bit like the frog and scorpion fable. In the end they both drown.
 
Negotiating with the EU appears to ignore reality.
I agree, but not in the terms the rest of the post describes.

The reality is that the EU never negotiates in good faith. It treats every "negotiation" as a zero sum game which it must win. They do this by setting a "negotiating mandate" for the technocrats given the task of undertaking the "negotiation" which means that they have a pre-defined position, formed before any discussion, from which they won't deviate. Yanis Varoufakis made this point five or more years ago when he observed that you may as well be "negotiating" with a pre-programmed robot.
 
It's down to balance.

However this negotiation is skewed because of intrusion into areas of sovereignty and supremacy of jurisdiction.

This is a reason that a no-deal may well have been the UK's best strategy from the outset - as it would reset thinking and allow a build up of a less tangled mutually balanced deal.

I don't disagree, but I still can't help wondering if those campaigning for Brexit in the run-up to the 2016 referendum didn't know all that then, but kept quiet about it, and gave us the song and dance about a great trade deal instead?

Sure, those who wanted Brexit all along (some of whom may have even voted against joining as far back as the first European referendum back in 1975) weren't affected by any campaigning. And, perhaps some people voted Leave as a kneed-jerk reaction to what has been coined here as Remain's Project Fear.

But these weren't the people that the Leave campaign was targetting - instead, it was targetting those few voters who could get the Brexit vote over the finishing line - the undecided. This how almost all political campaigning works - they target the few 'floating' voices, not the masses whose feet are already firmly planted in one camp or the other. And, I would hazard a guess, that to anyone who wasn't sure which way they should be voting, the promise of a great trade deal may have made all the difference.

Before anyone says sour grapes... I am not questioning the validity of the Brexit vote. A referendum is a political act, and politicians - on all sides - have always made pre-elections promises that they knew they couldn't or wouldn't keep. No one has ever suggested before that the result of any elections or referendum should be nullified because of false promises made by politicians. And, in any event, the Remain campaign lost, so we will never know which of their rosy predictions regarding our bright future - if we stayed in the EU - would have never come true.

However, the reason this is relevant, is that one has to wonder - if the above is true - to what extent this now exerts political pressure on Boris Johnson? Does he know, like he may have always done, that a deal is not possible, and he tosses around the word Sovereignty in the hope to obfuscate the issue and somehow emerge victorious, rather than a political failure?

I am certain that there are many on here who will disagree with me. Their version of events might be that Boris really thought that through tough negotiations a good deal can be achieved, he thought so in 2016 and then again when he got elected PM in 2019, but wasn't expecting the EU to behave dishonourably and make such outlandish demands. He did his best, but failed - no one could have done it any better.

To those I say - fair point. Yes, this is how it may have happened. In return, I am not asking that you accept the version of events that I put forward to be true, or even likely. All I am asking is that you either accept that my version of events is equally possible, or alternatively, prove that it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Tony is quite respected by most for his more impartial commentating than others. More often than not he gets things right too.

I see the new deadline is now Christmas Eve 🤣

The big question is will BoJo throw it away and give the EU everything they ask for? If he does then he'll be toast and rightfully so to.

IMO and at this stage it has to be WTO from 1/1/21.

The EU were saying that they are willing to negotiate "beyond 1st January". So what do you think their message is? Reconciliatory? Bullish? Or is it just a matter of practicality?
 
Is the EU blameless? Is it all the UK's fault that there isn't a deal yet?

Since this is a motoring forum... see this great thread:


To my mind, it is not about apportioning blame, it is about being responsible for our own actions.

When a biker gets knocked off his bike by a van that didn't stop when he was supposed to give way, the Biker could either see this as 100% the fault of the van, or share the blame between him and the van driver, or the Biker could just say to himself that he misjudged the situation and made wrong decisions - full stop.

The former is how the insurance company will see it. The second option is how most people will probably see it. The latter is how old bikers will see it, because those who see it any other way usually don't get to see old age.

The short answer is that we're not responsible for the actions of other countries, but we need to be 100% accountable to ourselves. The only pertinent question to my mind is: could we have done anything better? And not how barstewards the French are etc.
 
The EU were saying that they are willing to negotiate "beyond 1st January". So what do you think their message is? Reconciliatory? Bullish? Or is it just a matter of practicality?


They have clearly demonstrated they don't want to negotiate and simply want to dictate terms. Terms that no other third Country have ever had to sign up to in any FTA. If the EU said it was raining I'd have to look out the window to see if it was.
 
The way I see it, Sovereignty means that you decide what you wish to give and what you don't.

French trawlers sailing uninvited in British waters is a breach of our Sovereignty, clearly

But French trawlers fishing in British waters with our permission, is not.

As for the 'forever'... this should read 'for as long as the current trade deal hasn't been revoked or amended'. That's what Sovereignty means - we enter a deal willingly, and we can decide to exit it if we believe that leaving is in our best interests. Just as we've done with the EU.

As for mentioning 'Sovereignty' in this context, I personally believe it's a political red herring, aimed at obscuring the Government's failing to negotiate a deal.

It's not a 'Sovereignty' issue if, as part of a trade deal, you allow another nation access to your territory. Calling it that, stirs-up people's emotions, which is something politicians often do when common sense doesn't support their argument.
Having "control" over out waters is, as Markjay points out is exercising Sovereignty as it is out choice on how much access is granted to other countries.

From the figures I have seen published the UK fishing fleet as it stands could not hope to pick up the equivalent catch that EU boats currently take.

Perhaps by finding an amicable split of quotas we can allow some fishing grounds to rest and recover therefore helping to maintain stocks for all although in reduced numbers for some.
 
The EU were saying that they are willing to negotiate "beyond 1st January". So what do you think their message is? Reconciliatory? Bullish? Or is it just a matter of practicality?
Obviously, they want a deal with the UK, after all they sell more to us than we do to them. In any case, being so close to each other, geographically, we and they must get some sort of trade deal. That is where I think the problem lies. The EU are worried it will enable the UK to exploit the many loopholes that probably exist in other trading arrangements.

In reality, the EU was never going to make it easy for the UK, they were and are worried it will disintegrate the whole of the EU with other members wanting to leave.
 
I don't disagree, but I still can't help wondering if those campaigning for Brexit in the run-up to the 2016 referendum didn't know all that then, but kept quiet about it, and gave us the song and dance about a great trade deal instead?

Well both sides had stories - and chose to emphasise the positives and negatives.

I suspect that the voters for leave didn't think about 'great trade deals'.

What those who vote leave almost certainly did not expect was pro-EU establishment and parliament actively undermining the process. That has made the process a lot more toxic than it should have been.
 
To my mind, it is not about apportioning blame, it is about being responsible for our own actions.

your words:
"I personally believe it's a political red herring, aimed at obscuring the Government's failing to negotiate a deal."
 
Last edited:
Since this is a motoring forum... see this great thread:


very poor analogy, if an analogy at all.

accidents are about lack of concentration, skill and other factors that may not be within your control.

a negotiation is a delicate balancing act of interests, desires, expectations and power.
 
The way I see it, Sovereignty means that you decide what you wish to give and what you don't.

French trawlers sailing uninvited in British waters is a breach of our Sovereignty, clearly

But French trawlers fishing in British waters with our permission, is not.

As for the 'forever'... this should read 'for as long as the current trade deal hasn't been revoked or amended'. That's what Sovereignty means - we enter a deal willingly, and we can decide to exit it if we believe that leaving is in our best interests. Just as we've done with the EU.

As for mentioning 'Sovereignty' in this context, I personally believe it's a political red herring, aimed at obscuring the Government's failing to negotiate a deal.

It's not a 'Sovereignty' issue if, as part of a trade deal, you allow another nation access to your territory. Calling it that, stirs-up people's emotions, which is something politicians often do when common sense doesn't support their argument.

Access to UK waters has never been refused in these trade talks it’s just that the EU want to dictate how much access they should have. If that’s not a Sovereignty issue I don’t know what is.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom