Brexit talks at the final but most important hurdle

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brexit is really a political issue. There is no logical reason for it, from an economic or business or commercial point of view. So for that reason the negotiators ( particularly the British negotiators) will have to judge the political impact of another delay. Like a plane lumbering down the runway, with a broken engine, there is a point of no return. You have to take off and deal with the problems in the air. I get the feeling that Brexit is too far down the political runway and they will have to go for it this time. The calculation might be that they have to get on with it, and then deal with the consequences as they occur.

That is an exceptionally high risk strategy and would cause a lot of collateral damage! If you cannot feed or cloth your people in January there will be hell to pay and fine, you can blame it on the EU, the French fishermen, the Irish the lot but it still doesn't sort your problems. What are your options the... go to war!
 
Brexit is really a political issue. There is no logical reason for it, from an economic or business or commercial point of view. So for that reason the negotiators ( particularly the British negotiators) will have to judge the political impact of another delay. Like a plane lumbering down the runway, with a broken engine, there is a point of no return. You have to take off and deal with the problems in the air. I get the feeling that Brexit is too far down the political runway and they will have to go for it this time. The calculation might be that they have to get on with it, and then deal with the consequences as they occur.

I also happen to think that yes, it is a political project but I believe very wealthy backers have supported Brexit with the idea of cashing in with their shorts on Sterling (I saw articles about huge short positions published over the summer) and they are using the political class as useful idiots. Decent politicians of substance like Clarke, Grieve, Gauke etc have all been purged.
 
So it was France then.
After 4yrs of the Brexit quagmire, of soft-Brexit, hard-Brexit, Canadain, Australian style deal, of no-deal, of international law-breaking, of no-backstop, yes-backstop.
It was the French who took control of their own borders.
How the Brexiteers can turn up for any more negotiation without egg all over their face I do not know.
 
Some sort of brexit deal has been agreed... details still being digested.
No tariffs or quotas but will be more checks on goods between UK and EU.
Seems like EU will get more access to UK fishing grounds than initially offered.
Subject to 4 year review to ensure level playing field respected - if not then tariffs or quotas could be levied.

 
its a deal nonetheless and a relief for our indigenous industries already hammered by covid and lockdowns. If there was no brexit deal the consequences would have been severe for all of us, shortages in supermarkets here aswell as UK as so much of our processed and fresh food comes from the UK. A victory for common sense and pragmatism at the end of it all
 
More details here. While no tariffs or quotas as UK is leaving single market there will no longer be free movement of people, goods, services or students.

On fisheries Irish fishermen are unhappy:
Under the deal announced today, the EU will hand back to the UK 25% of the value of fish stocks caught by European boats in British waters, having originally proposed to hand back between just 15% and 18%.
Earlier this week, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier rejected a push by UK diplomats to reduce EU access to British fish stocks by as much as 35%.
 
Guy Verhofstadt (MEP) posted this on Twitter about the chaos at Dover."We forgot what borders look like. Some thought they would remain open with or without the EU. They will now start to understand what leaving the EU really means... ". He was roundly roasted by many Twitterati some more Twit that Twitter to be fair. Here's one keyboard warrior's comment:" Some forgot what Nazis look like but just one look at you will remind them what the Third Reich was and what it's aims for Europe were. You didn't win in 1945, you will not win now."

I don't see a future for the UK in the EU for at least a generation, if not more. Reading some of the comments, (and I accept it draws a certain type of commentator), I think the concept of the EU is toxic. We in the EU don't need the grief, and IRL can begin forging new links with the Continent. We have already started with extra shipping lanes. Now, with the EU out of the immediate framework as the go to 'baddie and kicking boy,' there will be less opportunity for nefarious politicians in Westminster and Belfast to avoid responsibility. I also think Scotland is in play to leave the UK, and Northern Ireland may well get a taste for being inside the EU with the border down the Irish sea, and discover they rather like it. So, the Brexiter's and their cheerleaders in the Mail, Express and Telegraph may have started the ball rolling on the disintegration of the UK and not the EU. Now that might be a turn for the books.
 
Hi horusd,

I agree with your posting. Still I’m sure the ruling class of the UK will still use the bogeyman of the EU to explain away their problems even though they’re not part of it anymore. I think you made a small typo saying the concept of the EU is toxic whereas I think you meant UK?

I fully agree with you that we need to push on with forging new links with the rest of Europe. As you say it’s already happening with new port routes but also in terms of electricity supply via France etc.

As for the UK, well they can enjoy their slide into further mediocrity with the added bonus of a break up of the Union as a possibility as you said. I actually don’t care anymore as to what they do, to be perfectly honest with you.

Best,

Opus.
 
Brexit and the fragility of the Brexiteers have strangulated any real development at EU level for four years... even after the British left the EU earlier in the year, the diplomatic/administrative resources of the union were so heavily drained by the trading agreement with our neighbours that I am sure the EU civil service (and each country's own input) are more than relieved that a deal has been done. There are practicalities that will play out affecting almost everyone on this island at some point in the future (reintroduction of roaming rates for UK visits, no more Erasmus) but they'll be experienced and dealt with as things normalise. In the meantime, Ireland will get back to batting away ideas of tax code harmonisation and ambition on climate action at EU level!
 
Hi Opus, I did mean the idea of the EU (in parts the UK social and political fields) is toxic, not the idea and growing reality of the EU - which at its heart is a reimagined notion of identity countering the myriad of small 'nationalisms' the Continent is home to, and a ground source of conflict in the past.

I imagine the UK's relationship with its imagined past and its current status will take time to work itself out. In a sense, the UK (meaning primarily England) needs to find peace with a role as a medium-sized European power and not some fantastical Shakespearean notion of a 'sceptered isle' different and exceptional in some kind of unknowable sense. We saw this in the raw with the incredibly nationalistic pronouncements of Gavin Williamson on the COVID19 vaccine - the potential for self-delusion is great not so much because the lie is credible, rather it is because it appeals to something deeply desired. We want to believe we are an exceptional person/country/race because it feeds our egos and calms our fears.
 
Hi Opus, I did mean the idea of the EU (in parts the UK social and political fields) is toxic, not the idea and growing reality of the EU - which at its heart is a reimagined notion of identity countering the myriad of small 'nationalisms' the Continent is home to, and a ground source of conflict in the past.
But you could say that about any continent, what about the middle east or south east Asia, or Latin america, are they also not a "myriad of small 'nationalisms'", are they also not a bit backward for wanting their own small nationalism above for example an "Arab Union" in the middle east or a "Latin union" in South America etc. THe EU is the exception in the political world it is actually not the norm.
For example why is it essential for european countries to be contained in a Union but not for anybody else?
 
...THe EU is the exception in the political world it is actually not the norm.

This is precisely what I am saying. The EU is a child of two catastrophic wars. The essential idea initially was to make war impossible - hence the focus on the coal and steel industries. The greater, evolving idea in the Treaty of Rome is ' ever closer union.' This is arguably and logically the USA in baby steps and agreement, except it is focused much wider than a particular cultural, regional or ethnic set, it is broader than that and less defined. I think the idea (and I think all these concepts start with an idea) of the EU was born out of a speech by Churchill (of all people) in Zurich in1946: " We must build a kind of United States of Europe.. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.’

During this momentous speech, Churchill proclaimed:
‘We cannot aim at anything less than the Union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that Union will be achieved."

More on this Churchillian notion here:

It is an irony of history that one of the founding father's of the EU was a Conservative Brit, and another (Thatcher) a founder of the Single Market.[/Q
 
Last edited:
This is precisely what I am saying. The EU is a child of two catastrophic wars. The essential idea initially was to make war impossible
but history has moved on Europe no longer contains the big military powers it once did, in fact it depends on the US for its protection now. There are other far more dangerous and volatile countries in Asia that are nuclear armed. For example in terms of global peace a union between Pakistan and India would be far more beneficial in 2020 than a European one.
 
@joe sod. France and the UK are nuclear powers. Gun boats in the Channel ready to protect British waters recently demonstrate that war or conflict in Europe is not impossible. The conceptual importance of the EU is a bit like the idea of democracy. You need to demonstrate how it works and that it works and this becomes the idea that changes the world. Hence, it is always an idea that is both the most dangerous and liberating thing. The very idea and later the fact of European unity on foot of two terrible wars fueled by nationalisms demonstrates a counter-narrative to the likes of Trump, Putin and the wider world.
 
The very idea and later the fact of European unity on foot of two terrible wars fueled by nationalisms demonstrates a counter-narrative to the likes of Trump, Putin and the wider world.
But thats the past, not the future. Its 1950s thinking and euro centric in that Europe is still the centre and that future cataclysmic conflicts will come from Europe and that the EU is the protection against that. That narrative is now 70 years out of date because the most likely cataclysmic conflict will come from Asia and only last year Pakistan and India almost went to war again. Britain and France are the least likely of all nations to ever go to war sure they were allies in the last 2 world wars, you would have to go back to Napoleon to find them on opposite sides.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top