It really didn't
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It really didn't
It did cos whatever mismanagement caused it, the greek people voted for. Thats factual.
If the final deal is rejected by the house of commons and Lords (which is likely) a second referendum is the only solution. Who'd win? Probably leave again by a larger margin.
The problem we'd have then is that all the current negotiating going on now would be a complete waste of time. We'd crash out of the EU with no deal.
The problem we'd have then is that all the current negotiating going on now would be a complete waste of time. We'd crash out of the EU with no deal.
Hammond is calling the EU paranoid now which is quite ironic considering that the EU isn't the one whose obsessed to have a trade deal signed ASAP. If other countries are so enthusiastic about signing a trade deal with the UK then surely the UK can afford to stop pesterjng the EU for a trade deal and respect (or decline) the terms offered right? After all Brexit means Brexit and a no deal is better then a bad deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...id-that-other-nations-will-leave-after-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...id-that-other-nations-will-leave-after-brexit
He isn't wrong though, even if it isn't the smartest choice of words that fear does exist. The leading brexiteers in the government do want as many of the benefits as they can get out of their future relationship with the EU while minimizing the contributions... If they're successful at it any right minded european government would at least have to consider copying that. The fear is real and justifiable. The only problem for Hammond is that telling someone to stop fearing something doesn't work, and that the UK fuel that fear pretty much every time any cabinet member opens his mouth.
I agree with Abizzz, EU big-wigs are worried about further breakup, they've said it themselves and I don't blame them; and I'd add that as for as wanting a trade deal ASAP, every time I hear someone stressing the timetable or saying tick tock it's Barnier, and rightly so.
You're losing it devilish, take a break for a bit.
The fear isn't that the UK leaves or that someone else leaves, the fear is that someone that doesn't want to leave disturb the EU with threats of leaving. That's why the art.50 triggering has to be definitive in itself but also the futrure deal has to be far from EU membership. Basically if you want out leave, if you want in stay but don't waste people's time with nonsense like "we are in but out".
In my opinion he's mixing two things that has nothing to do with one another ie the rise of populism and the importance the UK has on Europe. The former is a concern which has an impact not only in Europe but in the UK and the US as well. We've seen the rise of Trump, the rise of fake news some of whom is being fuelled by Russia, Brexit, the rise of the radical right, separatists (Catalans, Scotland with the SNP etc). That is of course concerning especially in a continent were nationalism had brought so much misery and death.
The other is a different argument altogether. Brexit might be a big issue in the UK but it barely makes it on European papers anymore. Very few people on the mainland care if the UK crashes out without a trade deal and this concern is echoed by Hammond himself who complained that the EU seem lacking the enthusiasm to make a trade deal with the UK. The EU might be accused of apathy or rigidity in tackling the issue (which is fair enough considering whose holding the shortest side of the stick) not paranoia.
That's the thing, the UK won't get the benefits unless its hugely beneficial for the EU to do so and there's nothing the UK can do about that. The UK needs the EU far more then the EU needs the UK and the EU can live without the UK far better then the UK can live without the very continent it makes part of. That's why the UK government keeps backtracking at every turn.
As said, if you really want to know what politicians want then ignore the fluff and focus on their actions. Whose constantly doing the running? The EU or the UK? As Hammond clearly stated the EU barely talks about trade deals with the UK. Which is bad news considering how desperate the UK seems to be for one.
Last edited:
That's an additional concern playing into the same tune.
To me that is more a statement of fact and concern than a sign of anxiety, it is to counter the, frankly, delusional approach the likes of Boris and Davis have taken occasionally (easiest deal in history; the wine, cheese and cars argument, etc.).
I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just saying the fear he describes is real and rational. It may very well be the ultimate reason why brexit is destined to fail. If brexit succeeds it will destroy the very thing that can make it succeed (the EU), hence there's no where good to go from here.
To add to what @devilish posted. The main EU members value the UK and would prefer to see them stay, that part isn't even debatable, the problem is that the EU isn't willing to play the game that Cameron initiated, not even for the UK who was a big member and big contributor.
I feel that your mixing Brexit being a success and having a deal that gives the UK all the benefits of membership without counterpart, that's two different things and only the second one makes the EU useless.
I think Hammond is mixing two different things though. The rise of populism/nationalism mostly fuelled by fake news has nothing to do with whether Brexit fails or succeed.
Actually, this rise of nationalism/populism might be a bigger threat to global Britain then the EU itself as financial juggernauts like the US are pulling out of trade deals and blaming the liberal financial world as the reason why the US is not 'great anymore'. Which might explain why the Brexiters are so desperate to seal a trade deal with the very union they are so keen to leave. There's a nasty world out there which is getting nastier with the rise of nationalist leaders like Putin, Trump and Erdogan who care more about their political agenda rather then trade.
I do feel that brexit is only a success if it advantages the UK more than the former arrangement had done. I also think that such an arrangement would ultimately destroy the EU and hence become worthless over time (worse than the previous arrangement).
The UK government is the one equating making a success of brexit with making a success out of Britain. The UK can definitely become a success (whatever that means, lets settle on rich?) outside of the EU, I absolutely and wholeheartedly wish it to be, but it won't be because of brexit, if anything despite it. I also have absolutely no confidence in those who brought about brexit to contribute anything but idiocy to that future success.
I am not sure about that. Nationalism and common sense/trade rarely mix well together, which explains why Hitler was able to take Germany from all sides, why Mussolini entered a war despite knowing that Italy wasn't prepared for it, why Kim Jong Un is destroying his country's economy with his obsession for Nukes and why Putin is allowed to cripple the Russian economy etc. Time and time again we hear of Brexiters who are perfectly comfortable for their economy to tank if that means 'getting control'.
Its funny because nationalism expects others to go distance while they act as cnuts. Hitler was furious that the UK/France declared war against him, Putin think that the sanctions are unfair (while invading places like Crimea and Ukraine), Trump is angry about fake news despite insulting everybody and pulling out of trade deals and Brexit Britain is now calling the EU paranoid for not allowing the UK to have the cake and eat it. I am pretty sure that Salvini will also use the victim's card if he pushes Italy out of the EU only to be told that hordes of Italians will lose their rights to live/work in Europe if Italy leaves the EU.
Don't take me wrong same thing happens with the nationalists in my country who constantly complain about immigrants and EU laws especially regarding hunting but are more then happy with the benefits the EU brings to our economy.
Last edited:
Going back to your previous point, you realize that fear doesn't play a role in what you are describing here, while it's obviously a great narrative that has been used by most populist politicians in the last decade, it seems that people equate the EU not doing something extremely stupid, in this instance giving a better deal to an outsider than an insider, as being afraid that members will leave, if the EU does something as nonsensical as that it doesn't deserve to exist in the first place.
Yeah, you're right.
Of course he is, he'd be stupid not to be. How far he gets is the subject of negotiation, he obviously won't get everything he wants but he might get some of it. If there's no 'giving in' by the EU at all then there will be a hard brexit and all that entails. I'm certainly not calling the result of negotiations, and I'm more than suspicious of anyone who claims they can. For one thing if May were to agree to the four freedoms and the same payments as you say then I think her government would fall, and PMs generally put clinging on to power as their first priority. Although if there were a general election the number of potential scenarios would rise again I suppose.
What are the chances of him getting what he wants by calling them backward looking, bullies and paranoid? Especially considering that according to him the other side is hardly enthusiastic about a deal in the first place.
He seems unable to forget his domestic audience when his priority should be working his opposites in the EU, and I agree calling them paranoid is a stupid way of going about it. They are obviously concerned about further break up, but there's no negotiating advantage in highlighting that, especially with the exaggeration of terming it paranoid.
Yes he's going to try to obtain the best deal he or the government can and details of negotiations such as how much the Uk will have to pay etc and this we can't foresee but the principle ones such as the 4 freedoms are not negotiable and the EU have stated this continuously since the beginning. It still appears that the government and some people in the Uk still think this is possible.
I think May will try and stretch this out as far as she can to near as 2022 . Maybe the government would fail but with Corbyn as her opponent she is much safer than she would normally be with a better opposition leader.
I also think the Uk government are overestimating how much the EU really want the UK to stay, as I've said before their best scenario would be for the Uk to pay and have no say under a soft Brexit. I think they also consider the Uk not stupid enough to drop off the cliff.
Over the next three months they'll be getting the UK to express clearly what they want but also to get the UK to legally sign up to what they agreed to, ie one of those being to keep the Irish border open which means member of the CU.
I agree with all that except the ending, if all of it is right then over the cliff we go! To avoid confusion I'm not advocating that, I'm just pointing out the possibility.
An honest question for anyone, what would be the obstacles to the UK remaining a CU member, what conditions might the other members lay down for that?
I don't really know what answer to give other than a custom union means that all members are under the same jurisdiction and follows the same basic rules. There is nothing special about it.
http://www.comresglobal.com/polls/18394/
51% think there shouldn't be a second referendum, but 55% say they'd vote to remain.
51% think there shouldn't be a second referendum, but 55% say they'd vote to remain.
Fair enough. I was just thinking of Turkey, they're in the Customs Union without any four freedoms. Apart from agricultural products, which the EU want to sell to the UK anyway, so it could be 100% for us.
Yes it is a possibility.
The EU want to know what the UK wants because basically the UK leaves the Custom's Union when they leave the EU in less than 15 month's time. So really they have to renegotiate another Custom's Union agreement. Turkey have a different Custom's Union agreement to the EU members.
Instead of having wasted all this time since the referendum posturing and procrastinating the UK government should have got on with it. Tell the EU what they want but stop the ridiculous cake and eat it stance, then they might get somewhere.
Negotiating an associate member status of the European Customs Union looks a good option to me. It doesn't seem to have stopped Turkey negotiating separate agreements with other non-member states either.
It's a partial custom's union but they have common external tariffs which may not please BoJo. Also doesn't address the Uk's biggest problem, finance and services.
Also with the Turkey type agreement it doesn't solve the border checks problem standards compliance and especially the Irish border.
Last edited:
In the end, it always comes back to the type of relationship that the UK wants in the future and what they are willing to give. The EU can't reasonably decide what the UK will have and what they will give without the will and consent of the latters. That's basically what is said in the article provided by Devilish.
Yeah, I get the damage losing access for finance would do, hopefully as the rest would be to the EUs advantage there might be some room to find agreement on that too. If not it's austerity mark two, super-austerity. We could have some sort of annual celebration with Cameron replacing Guy Fawkes.
The question is what does the Uk government want that is a sensible proposition, nobody seems to know and that includes the Uk government itself, parts of which all want different things.
I edited my post about the border problems which this does type of agreement does not solve, the Turkey agreement seems only a slight improvement on WTO terms with a view that Turkey may join the EU at some point (probably in the very distant future).
Don't see this as something that would please the UK or the EU.
There is no agreement to find on that. To make it clear, countries like France or Germany don't really care about that we have enough ways to make money to let you have that one, now the problem is that it's still worth a lot of money, that money is made on the back of European citizens and companies, so the counterpart is that you need to share a part of the wealth created by that industry one of the price is and will mostly likely always be to take a part of the population from countries like Romania, Poland or Bulgaria and give them jobs if you have jobs for them. That reality isn't always accepted.
Ah right, I thought checks, standards and compliance was what it was about, thanks for that.
The EU aren't paranoid, they just are being smart. Allowing too many concessions will damage the EU more then telling us to sod off.
It's like someone unsubscribing from Premium Netflix, but wanting the same access to 4k and multi screens while creating their own terms of service and paying £2.99 per month. Everyone would want the same deal.
It's like someone unsubscribing from Premium Netflix, but wanting the same access to 4k and multi screens while creating their own terms of service and paying £2.99 per month. Everyone would want the same deal.
The EU are acting like any other members club, you want to use the facilities, you gotta pay the dues