It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British PM close to selling the UK out in negotiations with EU

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

You'll never see me defending Tory's or anyone else for that matter playing politics over something as important as this.

But I can't seem to recall off the top of my head any EU concessions at all, certainly nothing of any great magnitude or importance - I could easily be wrong.
And when it comes to Ireland and the border the EU has been particularly intransigent and uncompromising.

I don't think anyone can deny the UK's negotiating was pretty timid at first and allowed the EU to take the upper hand.
It seems to me that the EU still thinks it has both the moral high ground and some sort of divine right to be the more aggressive in these talks.

And when it comes to the Irish border they just refuse to do 'the right thing'.

I don't doubt for one minute that at times the UK's negotiating team has been unyielding and certainly incompetent.
But the clock is ticking and common sense must prevail.....but it seems the EU is playing chicken with the UK.....a bad thing to do.
We Brits are always at our best and fiercest when our backs are against the wall - No Deal, whilst not the preferred option, holds no fears to the vast majority and if we have to then we have to.
That's an infinitely better option than caving in to the EU's intimidation.

Let's see how our EU neighbours feel when German car workers are being made redundant and French and Spanish farm produce lies rotting in fields.

But as usual I digress.




posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

The border compromise was agreed between the UK and Ireland. Then the Tory party ripped it up and replaced it. They then inserted an opt out of that agreement into UK law. What confidence do you think the EU has in the UK acting in good faith?

It seems much more it's the UK playing chicken in order to appease elements within the Tory party.

Again no intimidation from the EU. However they are not going to give the UK a deal that gives the UK an advantage over continuing EU members.

Trade will continue regardless of any deal or not. But a no deal will put the UK at a serious competitive disadvantage. For example.


www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... a6&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16057270097976&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.in dependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fbusiness%2Fbrexit-nissan-deal-sunderland-factory-b1725017.html



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again no intimidation from the EU.


Bollocks there wasn't. Here's Barmy trying to stich up The U.K.




posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again no intimidation from the EU.


Bollocks there wasn't. Here's Barmy trying to stich up The U.K.



Yep a 30 second clip of a discussion on negotiation strategy is definitely evidence of intimidation...



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I think Nigel Farage is playing the Ghost of Christmas past to remind Johnson he's still floating around , as long as Johnson holds his ground on our Fisheries I'm comfortable with giving ground on State aid , I'm also convinced that as the clock ticks down the EU will give ground.



With Belgium standing to lose over 7% of its GDP I believe there will be a deal and Johnson will hold firm to get that deal , he can't afford not to.



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Again no intimidation from the EU.


It was reported that the EU had threatened to impose a situation where food and goods moving between Britain and Northern Ireland would be jeopardised.

This blackmail was technically possible under the Withdrawal Agreement, but who would have thought “good faith” would allow that to happen, eh? The UK inserting legal provisions to prevent the EU doing such a thing is a defensive measure. The fact that the EU and their supporters have complained so much merely indicates that it was something they were threatening to do and have lost a lever of control.

There are Treaties between the UK and the RoI. If these agreements have been ceded to the EU because the RoI is no longer a sovereign entity, then they are null anyway. Otherwise the EU needs to keep out.

Unfortunately, the ability of the once-sovereign Republic to manage any relationship without having to refer upwards indicates how much has been lost to the EU. Sadly, it’s all happened without the citizens of the RoI being aware.



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again no intimidation from the EU.


Bollocks there wasn't. Here's Barmy trying to stich up The U.K.



Yep a 30 second clip of a discussion on negotiation strategy is definitely evidence of intimidation...



Well it's 30 seconds more than what you have got. Put up your evidence.



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn


The EU has taken such a bullying and uncompromising approach that they bound to fail.


Freeborn look, I'm a full supporter of the referendum and the will of the British people. With that said, negotiations were always going to be hardball between both parties. Evidently, the EU has interests to preserve their market and the 4 rules that apply to it (one of which is freedom of movement for full access). It completely up to them as to how they wish to negotiate and at what term. Just like the UK, they take on a risk when playing hard ball, but IT IS their right to do so as they please. If the UK doesn't like the tone, I think it's best just to walk away.

Let the EU suffer the consequences of a no deal if there is to be one. I say this as it appears this has been dragging on for some time now (4 years) and that the UK government is complicit in this drag along. She should have walked away and started with a clean slate years ago. This all would've been so much easier for both parties.



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I fully understand why the EU wish to take the tough approach in negotiations.

But let's not beat about the bush, their primary drivers for this approach are to deter any other nation from seeking to leave the EU and to punish the UK for what it see's as some sort of betrayal for choosing to govern itself.
It has not got the best interests of either the Briitsh people - and yes, why should it? - or the ordinary people within its own borders.

The FACT is that people in Northern Ireland do not want a hard border.
Neither do people in the Republic of Ireland.
Nor does the UJ government

So, with all that in mind one would expect it to be relatively easy to negotiate a mutaully acceptable arrangement.
And it would be if the RoI and the UK were left to sort things out with each other.
Its EU involvement that is complicating things.

And the fact is that its the EU inflexibility that could open old wounds and threaten the peace.

Is the EU's stance really worth compromising peace?



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again no intimidation from the EU.


Bollocks there wasn't. Here's Barmy trying to stich up The U.K.



Yep a 30 second clip of a discussion on negotiation strategy is definitely evidence of intimidation...



Well it's 30 seconds more than what you have got. Put up your evidence.



You are the one making the claim.



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Again no intimidation from the EU.


It was reported that the EU had threatened to impose a situation where food and goods moving between Britain and Northern Ireland would be jeopardised.

This blackmail was technically possible under the Withdrawal Agreement, but who would have thought “good faith” would allow that to happen, eh? The UK inserting legal provisions to prevent the EU doing such a thing is a defensive measure. The fact that the EU and their supporters have complained so much merely indicates that it was something they were threatening to do and have lost a lever of control.

There are Treaties between the UK and the RoI. If these agreements have been ceded to the EU because the RoI is no longer a sovereign entity, then they are null anyway. Otherwise the EU needs to keep out.

Unfortunately, the ability of the once-sovereign Republic to manage any relationship without having to refer upwards indicates how much has been lost to the EU. Sadly, it’s all happened without the citizens of the RoI being aware.


It was reported where?

People are complaining that the UK backtracked on an agreement made months earlier by the same government. That is hardly evidence of bad faith on the part of the EU.

The ROI want a to be part of the EU and single market. Shared trade agreements are part of that. International agreements work by all parties playing by the rules, something some brexiters seem to struggle with.



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There's no vote on how we leave the EU so it's not a question of selling out or not.

The vast majority of economic analysis shows leaving the EU without a deal to be detrimental to the UK economy. The impact of this on top of the pandemic is only going to be worst.

The deal with Japan is miniscule in comparison to the trade we do with the EU.


Utter crap.. you're parroting from the MSN.

The UK will prosper with No deal! we have over 50 signed up trade agreements already.
The EU is in its death throws why take us down with it.
I cant for the life of me understand why there is this obsession among remainers wanting to hang on to Brussels.

It just a copy of the USSR and like that failed state , The EU will go the same way"



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There's no vote on how we leave the EU so it's not a question of selling out or not.

The vast majority of economic analysis shows leaving the EU without a deal to be detrimental to the UK economy. The impact of this on top of the pandemic is only going to be worst.

The deal with Japan is miniscule in comparison to the trade we do with the EU.


Utter crap.. you're parroting from the MSN.

The UK will prosper with No deal! we have over 50 signed up trade agreements already.
The EU is in its death throws why take us down with it.
I cant for the life of me understand why there is this obsession among remainers wanting to hang on to Brussels.

It just a copy of the USSR and like that failed state , The EU will go the same way"


No basing it on analysis done by the treasury, bank of England and numerous other organisations and economists.

That and an understanding of how being in the outside of a customs union/ single market of your major trade partner is detrimental to the economy.

You on the other hand are parroting pro brexit propaganda that has little if any relation to reality.

The 50 trade agreements (not technically correct its deals covering 50 countries) are mostly roll overs we have agreed based on existing EU deals so confer no new advantage, just stop some of the disadvantage of leaving. The cover about 8% of UK trade versus about 45% we have with the EU.



posted on Nov, 18 2020 @ 06:22 PM
link   
"Over there! Over there!...And we won't come back, untill,.. it's over,.. over there!"... I'm sorry our Britainic cousins. But most likely? We ain't going to be able to help ya'll, with this one.
It looks like, we're going to be "engaged", with our own "problems" very soon.

But?.. The two "colors/colours", that "SHOULD NOT", and "WILL Not",... ever Fall!..Are that of The U.S.A. and The U.K! We're family!



posted on Nov, 19 2020 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The ROI want a to be part of the EU and single market. Shared trade agreements are part of that. International agreements work by all parties playing by the rules, something some brexiters seem to struggle with.


Sorry, bit of a long reply!

The RoI needs to decide whether abdication of their sovereignty to the EU compromises pre-existing agreements with the UK, and whether they have any say in those agreements. This includes the Good Friday Agreement which the EU has nothing to do with – at least on paper.

On EU bad faith, which you question. Off the top of my head…

- On fisheries - The EU saying that they respect the UK sovereignty over the UK's marine EEZ, as defined by established International Law, but state the UK cannot say to who fishes in them.
- Back in 2018 the EU said the UK could have a Canada-style agreement - both Tusk and Barnier repeated this offer. When the UK said, "Oh, OK let's do that then" the EU backpedalled and have been going backwards ever since.
- The EU has consistently tried to cut off NI. It’s obvious that they want the whole island of Ireland under their control. Under the Withdrawal Agreement pushed through a Remainer Parliament, a “no deal” effectively annexes Northern Ireland into the EU. Until the UK put in laws for that not to happen the EU have been very content to allow a “no deal” to happen. They would have achieved a strategic aim.
- The EU have threatened to list the UK as a country from which they import food. This despite the fact that the UK already complies with EU law and has promised to notify the EU in advance of any proposed changes to those laws. This would blockade food from between NI and Britain.
- The EU is undermining the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement by forcing a change of the constitutional status of NI without the consent of the people in NI.

The much cited Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement calls for “best endeavours, in good faith” in negotiations so as to “negotiate expeditiously the agreements”. The EU, by lumping everything together (including things which have sod-all to do with trade), and dictating sequence, the EU is putting up barriers. For example, the EU have not negotiated a deal over fisheries, something that should have been done by 1st July. The EU’s position on fisheries is simply a continuation (would that be cherry picking) of the status quo with no negotiation possible. The staus quo does not respect UK's soverignty.

On the Withdrawal Bill changes. The EU has broken the Agreement because they are not negotiating in “good faith”. The UKs Internal Market Bill and forthcoming Finance Bill disapply parts of the Withdrawal Bill to protect NI from being forced into the EU’s control – an annexation in all but name. Perversely, the changes by the UK make a deal more likely because it removes an EU strategic aim from the equation.

If the EU negotiate a deal in good faith then everyone wins. If a no deal comes to pass then the territorial integrity of the UK is preserved.

Even staunch Remainers must see that the EU is playing a game here and that they don't want a deal at all. Or rather they do, and it's a deal whereby the UK is a vassal state outside of the EU, but controlled by the EU. Why the Remainers think this is good is beyond me.



posted on Nov, 19 2020 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again no intimidation from the EU.


Bollocks there wasn't. Here's Barmy trying to stich up The U.K.



Yep a 30 second clip of a discussion on negotiation strategy is definitely evidence of intimidation...



Well it's 30 seconds more than what you have got. Put up your evidence.



You are the one making the claim.


What ?

You're the one claiming there is no intimidation from The EU. Where is your evidence to prove that ?



posted on Nov, 19 2020 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again no intimidation from the EU.


Bollocks there wasn't. Here's Barmy trying to stich up The U.K.



Yep a 30 second clip of a discussion on negotiation strategy is definitely evidence of intimidation...



Well it's 30 seconds more than what you have got. Put up your evidence.



You are the one making the claim.


What ?

You're the one claiming there is no intimidation from The EU. Where is your evidence to prove that ?



You want me to provide evidence for the absence of something?

Not sure you understand how this works.
edit on 19-11-2020 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2020 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The ROI want a to be part of the EU and single market. Shared trade agreements are part of that. International agreements work by all parties playing by the rules, something some brexiters seem to struggle with.


Sorry, bit of a long reply!

The RoI needs to decide whether abdication of their sovereignty to the EU compromises pre-existing agreements with the UK, and whether they have any say in those agreements. This includes the Good Friday Agreement which the EU has nothing to do with – at least on paper.

On EU bad faith, which you question. Off the top of my head…

- On fisheries - The EU saying that they respect the UK sovereignty over the UK's marine EEZ, as defined by established International Law, but state the UK cannot say to who fishes in them.
- Back in 2018 the EU said the UK could have a Canada-style agreement - both Tusk and Barnier repeated this offer. When the UK said, "Oh, OK let's do that then" the EU backpedalled and have been going backwards ever since.
- The EU has consistently tried to cut off NI. It’s obvious that they want the whole island of Ireland under their control. Under the Withdrawal Agreement pushed through a Remainer Parliament, a “no deal” effectively annexes Northern Ireland into the EU. Until the UK put in laws for that not to happen the EU have been very content to allow a “no deal” to happen. They would have achieved a strategic aim.
- The EU have threatened to list the UK as a country from which they import food. This despite the fact that the UK already complies with EU law and has promised to notify the EU in advance of any proposed changes to those laws. This would blockade food from between NI and Britain.
- The EU is undermining the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement by forcing a change of the constitutional status of NI without the consent of the people in NI.

The much cited Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement calls for “best endeavours, in good faith” in negotiations so as to “negotiate expeditiously the agreements”. The EU, by lumping everything together (including things which have sod-all to do with trade), and dictating sequence, the EU is putting up barriers. For example, the EU have not negotiated a deal over fisheries, something that should have been done by 1st July. The EU’s position on fisheries is simply a continuation (would that be cherry picking) of the status quo with no negotiation possible. The staus quo does not respect UK's soverignty.

On the Withdrawal Bill changes. The EU has broken the Agreement because they are not negotiating in “good faith”. The UKs Internal Market Bill and forthcoming Finance Bill disapply parts of the Withdrawal Bill to protect NI from being forced into the EU’s control – an annexation in all but name. Perversely, the changes by the UK make a deal more likely because it removes an EU strategic aim from the equation.

If the EU negotiate a deal in good faith then everyone wins. If a no deal comes to pass then the territorial integrity of the UK is preserved.

Even staunch Remainers must see that the EU is playing a game here and that they don't want a deal at all. Or rather they do, and it's a deal whereby the UK is a vassal state outside of the EU, but controlled by the EU. Why the Remainers think this is good is beyond me.


Sorry on phone so reply my not be as detailed but to address a couple of your points.

The constitutional.change to northern Ireland is a result of the leave vote (which NI voted against). Irving the EU, the ROI or NI that is forcing that change. It voters in rest of the UK.

On fishing EU states have developed fishing industries based around access to UK waters over decades . Changes to that access are a threat to that and the EU, as pointed out already, has to protect EU interests. They want continued access or at least a gradual change. The UK wants an overnight change to the rules. That isn't intimidation or threats it's realistic negotiation.

It's worth noting that this is a largely a symbolic political point. Loss of single market access is worth far far more than the value of fishing to the economy.

The EU do want a deal, but not a deal at any costs. The reluctance to deal seems driven more by the UK and specifically internal Tory party politics. Even staunch leavers must see that.


edit on 19-11-2020 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2020 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2020 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again no intimidation from the EU.


Bollocks there wasn't. Here's Barmy trying to stich up The U.K.



Yep a 30 second clip of a discussion on negotiation strategy is definitely evidence of intimidation...



Well it's 30 seconds more than what you have got. Put up your evidence.



You are the one making the claim.


What ?

You're the one claiming there is no intimidation from The EU. Where is your evidence to prove that ?



You want me to provide evidence for the absence of something?

Not sure you understand how this works.


It's easy really.

If you are accused of being on the scene of a crime but you say you weren't, then it's up to you to prove it.

Get it ?

So what's your proof The EU aren't using intimidation ? Is it because they said so.




posted on Nov, 19 2020 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again no intimidation from the EU.


Bollocks there wasn't. Here's Barmy trying to stich up The U.K.



Yep a 30 second clip of a discussion on negotiation strategy is definitely evidence of intimidation...



Well it's 30 seconds more than what you have got. Put up your evidence.



You are the one making the claim.


What ?

You're the one claiming there is no intimidation from The EU. Where is your evidence to prove that ?



You want me to provide evidence for the absence of something?

Not sure you understand how this works.


It's easy really.

If you are accused of being on the scene of a crime but you say you weren't, then it's up to you to prove it.

Get it ?

So what's your proof The EU aren't using intimidation ? Is it because they said so.



You threatened me.

Prove you didn't.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join