The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[ez8004]

No dear heart, indoctrinated, not educated.

 

You’re just demonstrating your inability to interpret basic statistical facts.

 

It’s not difficult with a GCSE level understanding of mathematics dear. The council run special courses for people like you.

[tzijlstra]

Nothing of the sort has been established. In fact I'd say that the EU government is far far worse than any modern UK government, and that includes Sunny Jim's.

 

I can't help you being a fan of federalism, and don't care about the deception, but you have to live in a world where you are the minority, wrong, and outvoted by people who've worked it out.

 

Every single meeting the EU Commission or Parliament is involved in is announced, all minutes and preparation docs are available publicly, all MEPs have all their expenses, incomes etc. out and declared. I am not sure what you are on about to be honest.

[ENG601PM]

You’re just demonstrating your inability to interpret basic statistical facts.

 

It’s not difficult with a GCSE level understanding of mathematics dear. The council run special courses for people like you.

 

How's the EU's later audit coming along?

 

But go then, I'll humour you. Educate me on these "statistical facts" which I'm apparently unable to interpret, although I will warn you that I'm too old to have done a GCSE and I might have to rely on my master's degree, so keep it simple.

 

Off you pop.

[RJRB]

No dear heart, indoctrinated, not educated.

 

I think that you should be seconded to the U.K. negotiation team.

Your vast experience and knowledge is much needed to give direction to what Brexit actually means.

There seems to be much conflict on this within our political leaders,but perhaps all will be made clear come Friday.

David Jones says that the EU proposals are unacceptable and they are living in fantasy land.He seems to forget that we are the ones who have to come up with the acceptable solutions to the multiplicity of problems that we face.

[ENG601PM]

I think that you should be seconded to the U.K. negotiation team.

Your vast experience and knowledge is much needed to give direction to what Brexit actually means.

There seems to be much conflict on this within our political leaders,but perhaps all will be made clear come Friday.

David Jones says that the EU proposals are unacceptable and they are living in fantasy land.He seems to forget that we are the ones who have to come up with the acceptable solutions to the multiplicity of problems that we face.

 

I have done one or two negotiations in my time, and I do to agree with what you say. Negotiations involve two sides who have a similar outcome in mind but often with very different issues to input. A good negotiation resolves the differences as far as possible and that involves compromise for both parties.

 

The UK has to deliver Brexit. The EU27 have to deliver Brexit too. There's the common output.

 

By default, the EU27 can only present a single unified position because it is impossible to have 28 parties negotiating, but that's not to say that it is an agreed position by each of the EU27. That is the EU's achilles heel in a nutshell; different nations have very different priorities and requirements, from agriculture to tourism, human rights to immigration. The only thing that they agree on is that they want their respective national economies to succeed so that they get voted in again.

 

Then we have the various institutions of the EU. They also want to hold on to power, and they do this with a through votes, but primarily by redistribution of wealth.

 

The UK is in quite a luxurious and consequently very strong position. It can present a unified negotiation according to government policy. However this is where we begin to fail because the present PM hasn't shown the stomach to push through individual matters and play to the strength, relying instead on mantras like "Brexit is Brexit", "red lines" and "no deal is better than a bad deal". These truisms are political nonsense that makes headlines, not agreements.

 

Remember what I said about what the EU27 agrees on? That is to the UK's advantage. National economic interests will trump politics - mark my words, they nearly always do, and where political ideology wins we see failed nations.

 

Remember what I said about how the EU holds onto power? The EU is already broke and corrupt, and therefore unauditable. The UK's money is the only thing that will keep it going. This isn't even up for debate because the EU will collapse without the UK's financial muscle long into the future.

 

So yes, the UK's negotiation, at least the visible part we see, has been generally poor but don't make the mistake of thinking that the UK is like a helpless child who will have to roll over.

 

These high level fundamentals should be quite clear to somebody with a little negotiating experience. It takes good leadership to conclude a good negotiation with ease but my expectation while writing this today is that the respective EU27 governments and the EU itself will have to succumb to the national economic interests, which is a good Brexit for the EU.

[chalga]

I have done one or two negotiations in my time, and I do to agree with what you say. Negotiations involve two sides who have a similar outcome in mind but often with very different issues to input. A good negotiation resolves the differences as far as possible and that involves compromise for both parties.

 

The UK has to deliver Brexit. The EU27 have to deliver Brexit too. There's the common output.

 

By default, the EU27 can only present a single unified position because it is impossible to have 28 parties negotiating, but that's not to say that it is an agreed position by each of the EU27. That is the EU's achilles heel in a nutshell; different nations have very different priorities and requirements, from agriculture to tourism, human rights to immigration. The only thing that they agree on is that they want their respective national economies to succeed so that they get voted in again.

 

Then we have the various institutions of the EU. They also want to hold on to power, and they do this with a through votes, but primarily by redistribution of wealth.

 

The UK is in quite a luxurious and consequently very strong position. It can present a unified negotiation according to government policy. However this is where we begin to fail because the present PM hasn't shown the stomach to push through individual matters and play to the strength, relying instead on mantras like "Brexit is Brexit", "red lines" and "no deal is better than a bad deal". These truisms are political nonsense that makes headlines, not agreements.

 

Remember what I said about what the EU27 agrees on? That is to the UK's advantage. National economic interests will trump politics - mark my words, they nearly always do, and where political ideology wins we see failed nations.

 

Remember what I said about how the EU holds onto power? The EU is already broke and corrupt, and therefore unauditable. The UK's money is the only thing that will keep it going. This isn't even up for debate because the EU will collapse without the UK's financial muscle long into the future.

 

So yes, the UK's negotiation, at least the visible part we see, has been generally poor but don't make the mistake of thinking that the UK is like a helpless child who will have to roll over.

 

These high level fundamentals should be quite clear to somebody with a little negotiating experience. It takes good leadership to conclude a good negotiation with ease but my expectation while writing this today is that the respective EU27 governments and the EU itself will have to succumb to the national economic interests, which is a good Brexit for the EU.

 

If the EU is going to collapse,how is it going to become a federalist state at the same time?

Why are the UK negotiating with a body that won't exist without the money from the UK?......all the UK has to do is walk away,not pay anything,wait for the collapse and May,the ERG group,the Brexiteers are happy,she keeps her job,hard Brexit delivered.

We've already seen how the UK ideology of Eurosceptism led to it not joining the ECSC in the 50'ies,and while the UK became the sick man of Europe,Europe went from strength to strength and the UK eventually had to ditch Eurosceptism and join it to save its skin,now the UK repeats that mistake.

Edited February 28, 2018 by chalga

[ENG601PM]

If the EU is going to collapse,how is it going to become a federalist state at the same time?

Why are the UK negotiating with a body that won't exist without the money from the UK?......all the UK has to do is walk away,not pay anything,wait for the collapse and May,the ERG group,the Brexiteers are happy,she keeps her job,hard Brexit delivered.

We've already seen how the UK ideology of Eurosceptism led to it not joining the ECSC in the 50'ies,and while the UK became the sick man of Europe,Europe went from strength to strength and the UK eventually had to ditch Eurosceptism and join it to save its skin,now the UK repeats that mistake.

Most of what you've written there is very confused but I do believe that we're on course for what you might call a hard Brexit. I don't see that as a bad thing for now and it might well not be the eventual outcome.

[chalga]

Most of what you've written there is very confused but I do believe that we're on course for what you might call a hard Brexit. I don't see that as a bad thing for now and it might well not be the eventual outcome.

 

No,it's quite clear,If as you say,the EU is going to become a Federalist Superstate,how can it be going to collapse without UK money?........it can't do both,so which one is it?

Why are the UK negotiating to trade with a bloc that is going to collapse without the money that the UK has been giving it,when a large number of the ruling party want it to collapse,or don't want anything to do with it,and the leader is on the ropes because of it?

Why not just walk away,pay nothing and solve everything?..........on a scale of 1-10,how stoopid would you say the UK policy of giving billions to trade with a bloc that is going to collapse,while tearing itself apart as a country at the same time while negotiating with it instead of walking away now, is?

Also,if as you say,that individual nations interests in the EU will prevail in negotiations,how can that result in the hard Brexit you are predicting as well?,that is just another contradiction,individual nations needs would result in a compromise and a trade deal,not hard Brexit.

Edited February 28, 2018 by chalga

[RJRB]

Most of what you've written there is very confused but I do believe that we're on course for what you might call a hard Brexit. I don't see that as a bad thing for now and it might well not be the eventual outcome.

 

A much more pleasant approach which is appreciated.

I can begin to believe that if you were in negotiations that you would not get the other parties backs up by slapping your demand on the table and then saying “Off you pop Sonny”

[ENG601PM]

No,it's quite clear,If as you say,the EU is going to become a Federalist Superstate,how can it be going to collapse without UK money?........it can't do both,so which one is it?

Why are the UK negotiating to trade with a bloc that is going to collapse without the money that the UK has been giving it,when a large number of the ruling party want it to collapse,or don't want anything to do with it,and the leader is on the ropes because of it?

Why not just walk away,pay nothing and solve everything?..........on a scale of 1-10,how stoopid would you say the UK policy of giving billions to trade with a bloc that is going to collapse,while tearing itself apart as a country at the same time while negotiating with it instead of walking away now, is?

Also,if as you say,that individual nations interests in the EU will prevail in negotiations,how can that result in a the hard Brexit you are predicting as well?,that is just another contradiction,individual nations needs would result in a compromise and a trade deal,not hard Brexit.

No it isn't clear. You appear confused and to not really understand what you're trying to say so you're conflating different things. Brexit, federalisation, budgets, viability, trade deals - these are all really different things.

 

Let's break it down and make it easier for both of us, but especially you. Make one point, ask one question. Which do you want to address first? Please try not to go over old ground otherwise I'll just tell you to go find what I've written before.