Why is Brexit going to be the beginning of the end for the EU... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

In the next few days an announcement will be made that Britain and the EU have churned out a deal. It will be followed by a market rally and cheers across the continent. The usual narratives will play out. Britain got this, EU got that, now "we will be free of the British sabotaging our project" the EU will proclaim. "We will be free and independent" the British will say.

Britain will get most of what she wants because she holds most of the cards. There are essentially 3 important areas that are being negotiated:

1) The nature of the trade relationship.
2) The UK's territorial waters.
3) The power of the EU to curtail British protectionist policies and set manufacturing/consumer/bank standards in Britain.

The EU is demanding access to UK waters and some power to curtail British protectionism and set standards in the UK in exchange for a free-trade deal.

The problem the EU is facing with this logic is that she has already signed very privileged variations of free-trade deals with Canada, Australia and Israel without demanding any of those things she is demanding of Britain. Another problem the EU is facing with her logic is that even though Boris and the UK argue that the UK should be free to impose protectionist policies and set its own standards in effect this is a moot point because the UK is the least protectionist in Europe by a far and wide margin and the one who has been setting both the EU's and global standards anyway. Effectively the EU has absolutely no carrots to offer to the UK and her sticks are totally hollow. Her biggest stick is for the UK to go into WTO terms which is only mildly painful(0.7% of GDP over 5 years :lol: ) and only for a very limited period of time and that only because Boris has not created the appropriate infrastructure for it and that alone should inform you of how seriously he actually takes EU threats on that.

It will not take very long until economies like Spain & Italy start crunching the numbers but they can be kept in the fold by threats of coercion a lot easier than the UK, the biggest concern will be France who is growing more and more tired of German thick-headedness. Germany has shown that she will never budge to anything, making it almost impossible to cooperate with. German consensus means everybody conceding to the German position and that becomes more and more evident with every passing decade. Remember, France left NATO a couple of decades ago for much less reasons.(sub note here: if Nato survived the loss of France during the bloody Cold War, it can easily survive the loss of Turkey)

The UK has already started a new global initiative called the D10 which will indeed take centre-stage for global relations in the following years. This will also undercut the EU's hold over her periphery who rely on the EU for support against Russia & Turkey while the EU's own foreign policy has proven that she will throw any [pro-]EU country under the bus even if it marginally affects German trade with the aggressors. Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, even the Kurds were betrayed by the EU first, politically and diplomatically. Apologists hide behind faux anti-war messages that have enabled the war destruction of all these countries while hypocritically pointing the finger at the US alone but these nonsense only go as far as the idiots in a room.

Now, we have reached a point where Germany openly & shamelessly argues that we should either reward Erdogan to entice him to stop invading official EU territory or to "punish Turkey" by not rewarding Erdogan with a brand new & fantastic trade agreement that we are persistently refusing our British brethren. Reward or let Erdogan be as he already is. Wrap your heads around that if you can. Again, apologists will hide behind custom union terms and other jargon to obfuscate matters in order to deny the very simple truth that in both cases the bottom line is that both countries want to enhance their free-trade access into the EU so that they can increase their trade balance. Turkey is being offered carrots for her outright invasion of official EU territory while Britain is being offered sticks for her aloofness.

PS: Boris will also manoeuvre Scotland into a corner when he hands Scottish fishermen 4 times the catch they had under the EU, then he will be able to claim that pro-EU Scottish politicians are "traitors" who care about "EU bureaucrats more than their own people".

The EU of course will not simply die from one day to the next, she still has time to respond and has a heavy arsenal of carrots to strategically deploy if need be.

The 'deal will not favour the FUK (Englandistan). It still has to go through the European Parliament and it will need to be a very thin deal to avoid the regional assemblies, any one of which can veto a 'deal, so you are talking bollocks as usual.

It will be no-deal by accident or more likely DINO and the EU will get everything it needs off the Sick Man of Europe.

The UK is fucked, every which way, whatever happens.

Last edited by ingliz on 21 Nov 2020 08:14, edited 3 times in total.
Europe says 95% of deal already agreed, also willing to bypass EU parliament ratification to speed things up and have the EU parliament ratify the deal retrospectively. :lol:

You're in denial:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 59157.html

The total EU retreat and unconditional surrender has already happened. All that remains is managing communications and choreographing the final drama scene.
noemon wrote:You're in denial

Its been 95% done this past 6 months.

Unless the UK Internal Market Bill is shelved there will be no deal.

Your Prime Minister says he will not alter a word.

The UK, soon to be the Former United Kingdom, is fucked.

noemon wrote:the EU parliament ratify the deal retrospectively.

The European Parliament have already said they will not ratify any old deal and the deal will need ratifying. If it is not a thin deal, the regional assemblies will have their say and veto.

Crow if you want but it doesn't look good for your adopted country.

article of the pro-EU anti-Brexit Independent from today wrote:European Commission secretary general Ilze Juhansone told diplomats from the 27 member states today that the deal on post-Brexit relations with the UK was 95 per cent complete, but said wide gaps remain on the key issues of fisheries, governance and a level playing field for standards.

And with just 41 days left before Boris Johnson’s deadline for a deal, officials have floated proposals for an agreement to be provisionally implemented at the end of 2020 before being given formal approval later by the European Parliament.

Monday is believed to be the deadline for agreement if the deal, stretching into hundreds of pages of complex legal text, is to be translated into all the EU’s official languages as required before the end of the UK’s transition period.

But France is understood to have raised objections to approval of an English-only treaty text, insisting it must be translated into French before going to MEPs for scrutiny.

So it will be translated to French as well. Lots of win everywhere. As I said you are entitled a few more days of total denial, then you will reach the stage of acceptance.
noemon wrote:The EU of course will not simply die from one day to the next, she still has time to respond and has a heavy arsenal of carrots to strategically deploy if need be.

There's a sentence you don't read every day. :)
I would say a deal/no deal only hinges on France at the moment. They are likely to get hit hardest from a no deal and perhaps that is why the EU is holding out now as Macron is talking tough. Although I don't buy the UK will be hit harder as the net exporter always loses out in these situations and import duty is a simple way to pay off the Covid clusterfuck without rising taxes too high at the moment. Perhaps the UK will lose out in terms of losses made per individual states but not as an EU collective vs UK economy.

Also most things have been agreed now and it is a matter of coming down to fishing and subsides now. I suspect a deal is likely to be agreed in the end as Macron has other domestic issues to deal with and the fallout of Brexit isn't a crisis he can deal with at the moment. Perhaps now it is time to move on rather than bash the drum. But in any case if the UK do not concede on the Northern Ireland protocol at the very least, a deal cannot be achieved - even under other concessions. So I am still skeptical a deal can be reached even now.
Varadkar has already greenlighted the deal. Only holdout is France and that in name only.

It's done mate, we are just waiting on the choreography now.

Boris' greatest strength is managing expectations, you expect he will be a total clusterfuck and then he isn't.
noemon wrote:Varadkar

It's not up to Varadkar.

It is unlikely the European Union will grant the UK a grace period in January to help business adjust to the new post-Brexit trading regime, Ireland's foreign affairs minister has told Euronews.

The EU and UK are in the final stages of negotiations on a possible post-Brexit trade deal, although differences remain.

Either way, significant disruption to trade is expected from January 1 when the UK ceases to be a member of the EU single market and customs union. While the UK left the EU at the end of January, an 11-month transition period was instigated to preserve the status quo. That ends at 23h GMT on December 31.

Trade experts say an initial grace period of around three to six months may be necessary to allow businesses to get used to the changes.

However, Ireland's foreign affairs minister, Simon Coveney, says such flexibilities are “very difficult” for Brussels to allow.

“No, I don't think that's likely, you know, I think that the law changes as regards to trade at the end of the year”, he told Euronews.

— Euronews 16 Nov. 2020

Last edited by ingliz on 21 Nov 2020 09:38, edited 1 time in total.
Rugoz wrote:what kind of deal it will be

It will be a shit deal, if one is signed, and Boris (after lauding it to the skies) will be saying so once it's signed to please the ERG. Then he will blame the EU, the opposition, the 'people from nowhere', the blacks and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, when the UK sinks into the brown stuff.

Last edited by ingliz on 21 Nov 2020 13:28, edited 1 time in total.
The latest feeling I get is that the EU is circle jerking the UK. The aim is too run the clock down and make it look like that "both sides tried but couldn't reach a deal". Hopefully I am wrong however the EU does have an inherent interest at torpedoing UKs economy and sending in to free fall even at some cost to itself.
The Telegraph wrote:Sacrifices were made, but this Brexit deal is closer to what the UK wanted than the Europeans

Sovereignty and control over access to British waters among key achievements for UK's chief negotiator

By James Crisp,
24 December 2020 • 3:05pm

Britain was forced to make concessions, but the final Brexit trade deal is far closer to the UK's demand for a Canada-style agreement than the trading partnership the EU wanted.

Sovereignty was baked into the British negotiating strategy for the trade deal from the moment Lord David Frost was appointed chief negotiator.

Britain could no longer be subject to any foreign power and must have the ability to autonomously set its own rules, independent of Brussels. Fail in this goal, Lord Frost made clear to his team, and the very point of Brexit would be lost.

That decision has consequences for the future trading relationship with the EU. It will never be as easy or frictionless as it was when the UK was a member. It also meant foregoing the temptation of becoming a rule-taker, with no say in the forming of EU rules and regulations, in return for easier trade and more money.

The dust around the negotiations is still settling, but several of Lord Frost's wins are already clear.

The European Court of Justice will have no role in the trade agreement or direct impact on British courts.

Future British governments will be free to diverge from EU standards, provided they accept that the EU can take remedial measures, such as tariffs, to preserve the level playing field of fair competition.

The UK has taken back control of access to its waters, at the cost of agreeing a transition period of five and a half years for EU fishermen to adapt. After that, its goal of annual negotiations of fishing opportunities in its seas will be achieved. Arguments will rage long and hard over the amount of quota guaranteed to EU fishermen, but it is undeniable that the British fishing industry will be given a shot in the arm.

Britain will, as promised, leave the Single Market and Customs Union, which means it can strike its own trade deals and end free movement.

The EU had reason to be confident after trouncing Theresa May's officials in the negotiations over the divorce treaty. Michel Barnier saw off no fewer than three Brexit Secretaries and one Prime Minister before the Withdrawal Agreement was finally ratified.

Mr Barnier's mandate, and his opening negotiating positions, were correspondingly strong. The EU called for the European Court of Justice to oversee the continuation of EU subsidy law in Britain. It demanded dynamic alignment on state aid, which would mean Britain accepting EU law wholesale, and evolution clauses on environment, tax and labour rights. These would see the UK update its laws to match Brussels over time.

These "level playing field" demands were seen as crucial to the EU member states. They were were wary that the UK would use Brexit to slash and burn EU regulation and undercut Brussels standards for an unfair competitive advantage.

Most egregiously, the EU member states insisted that their fishing boats should have continued access to UK waters, under exactly the same conditions as the Commons Fisheries Policy, as if Brexit had never happened. Even Mr Barnier found that position difficult to defend at times, describing it as "maximalist".

Lord Frost, no fan of the Withdrawal Agreement, was determined to shift the European Commission from its complacent view of the UK as a departing member state. He would not make the same mistake as his predecessors by allowing the EU to set the sequencing of the talks, which was the foundation of the commission's triumph in negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement.

From now on, he decided, the EU had to see the UK as a sovereign equal, regardless of the asymmetry in the tussle with the much larger bloc and the 460 million-strong Single Market behind it at the negotiating table.

The principle informed every decision made by the UK in the months of torturous trade talks and set the narrative for the negotiations. At times, it knocked a Brussels still fresh from its victory in the negotiations over the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement off its stride.

Brussels wanted the big three issues of fishing, "level playing field" guarantees and the deal's enforcement to be settled first. Britain argued that the big stuff was always left till last in trade talks. After an almighty tussle with Brussels, Lord Frost got his way in the end.

So successful was the messaging on sovereignty that it was co-opted by Michel Barnier. He argued that the EU had to have the sovereign right to govern access to its market.

This ultimately unlocked the deal. The UK would be able to diverge and would have control of its waters.

In return, the EU would have the power to hit back with trade measures, shutting off access to the Single Market, if it felt it was being undercut or frozen out of UK waters.

These actions will be governed through arbitration in independent committees, rather than unilateral decisions by the European Commission and rather than by decisions based on EU law. Both sides' sovereignty would be respected. It is a sign of how successfully Lord Frost set the narrative and shaped the second phase of the Brexit negotiations.

Brussels wanted a comprehensive and close trading relationship, covered by an overarching treaty, which would have preserved the supremacy of its regulatory tractor beam.

The final deal does not preserve the lingering legal ties binding the UK and EU over 47 years of membership.

Sacrifices were made. Britain would have preferred better access to criminal databases, the continued recognition of UK labs as hubs for testing for EU standards and rules that would have allowed products assembled with imported products to be counted as British.

Critics will always compare the new deal to EU membership, but that ship sailed at 11pm on January 31.

Crucially, the new relationship prevents the economic damage of no deal WTO terms, the "ground zero" alternative after the UK left the EU on January 31.

It replaces it with a new relationship, which risks in the short-term making Britain poorer and presents the EU with a new economic and regulatory competitor on its doorstep.

Sovereignty has been regained. It is now up to British governments beyond Brexit to prove the price paid for it was worth it.

this thread needs skepticism [1] also needs friendly hope [2] and what will came up from all is continuous risk of derivative bubble [3][3] - [3] - [3][3] especially in/with eU until there is no new TTIP marriage between eU and usA, at least now to some extent clearing should be resolved, but in derivative world uncertainty always leads to fall!

@Rancid Rancid when are you going to get your […]

If you want to cripple Russia then introduce se[…]

the US as a democracy are at least accountable to[…]

A question for our Marxists

It is not a commodity in the sense that it is not[…]