It's not just about Brexit

[clarethomer]

Both sides wont budge from their position.

There are some comments floating around that the next round of talks may be cancelled by the EU because we won't budge.

If they think we need them more than they need us - It doesn't sound like a good tactic to send people over to try and plead with our PM to alter our stance.

I can only imagine this is because there are states which do need us more than we need them and they are applying internal pressure. That is of course, an ubstantiated view by myself.

Surely if they wanted us to give way, they would just take a step back and say come and speak to us when you are ready to shift your position...?

[martin_p]

When you read stuff like this it really does look like we’re taking the **** and have absolutely no intention of reaching a deal. I don’t understand why we’d even try and make an issue out of this!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2 ... SApp_Other

[clarethomer]

I would agree.

I also think the EU are taking the **** with their demands also.

[tiger76]

Both sides would be better trying to find areas where they can agree, and then take it from there, ATM these talks are going nowhere fast, and it's looking more likely by the passing day that we're heading to a no deal, which I'm sure neither party desires.

[clarethomer]

I believe that has been the approach we have tried but until we give unfettered access towaters and promise to their level playing field, they don't want to know.

It's like a bit of a **** swinging contest from both sides. The bottom line is that if the end result is no deal, the EU gets neither of the things they are looking for. As you say, its better to find a compromise.

[aggi]

You'd think the person least qualified to throw his toys out the pram was Grayling. Doesn't say much for the commitment to the committee from Johnson's man.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... signs-from

[AndrewJB]

You'd think the person least qualified to throw his toys out the pram was Grayling. Doesn't say much for the commitment to the committee from Johnson's man.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... signs-from

A source said that when he stormed out, he slammed and went through the wrong door, so had to sheepishly walk back through the committee room again to the correct exit.

[jrgbfc]

The fact that Chris Grayling managed to lose a vote that was heavily rigged in his favour just about sums the guy up.

[Spijed]

Unaccountable government:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... onsibility

[tiger76]

Unaccountable government:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... onsibility

Nothing surprises me anymore, but they are accountable to the public at the next election, and they'd do well to remember that. I just hope Jane and Joe public remember all these instances of failings when it comes to casting their ballot in 2024, I certainly will, and will vote accordingly.

[AndrewJB]

Nothing surprises me anymore, but they are accountable to the public at the next election, and they'd do well to remember that. I just hope Jane and Joe public remember all these instances of failings when it comes to casting their ballot in 2024, I certainly will, and will vote accordingly.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ ... tion-in-uk

It’ll depend on how well informed the public is. With the rightwing propaganda machine it’s always going to be an uphill battle. I predict that if you continue to judge them as they are, and they continue to fall below the standards you want from a government, then you’ll feel very frustrated in 2024 as the narrative moves into scaremongering about the opposition, and government failings are whitewashed. This frustration will mount as you see many people falling for and amplifying this. Doesn’t mean they’re a shoe in, but their financial wherewithal and media dominance gives them a huge advantage.

[KateR]

Just passing a message along, not my thought, but Keith says you're a Narcissist. lol

[martin_p]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ ... tion-in-uk

It’ll depend on how well informed the public is. With the rightwing propaganda machine it’s always going to be an uphill battle. I predict that if you continue to judge them as they are, and they continue to fall below the standards you want from a government, then you’ll feel very frustrated in 2024 as the narrative moves into scaremongering about the opposition, and government failings are whitewashed. This frustration will mount as you see many people falling for and amplifying this. Doesn’t mean they’re a shoe in, but their financial wherewithal and media dominance gives them a huge advantage.

So basically another Tory government, although if the polls continue to plummet for the Tories I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s with a new leader.

[aggi]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ ... tion-in-uk

It’ll depend on how well informed the public is. With the rightwing propaganda machine it’s always going to be an uphill battle. I predict that if you continue to judge them as they are, and they continue to fall below the standards you want from a government, then you’ll feel very frustrated in 2024 as the narrative moves into scaremongering about the opposition, and government failings are whitewashed. This frustration will mount as you see many people falling for and amplifying this. Doesn’t mean they’re a shoe in, but their financial wherewithal and media dominance gives them a huge advantage.

Ringo's going to love another of those non-mainstream media outlets that just happen to be owned by Murdoch.

[aggi]

A lot of the posters that used to religiously post opinion polls seem to have stopped doing it for some reason.
Looking at the most recent one Brexit isn't seeming as popular in hindsight (including in the North).
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/e9biz5tt79/ ... 200824.pdf

[Spijed]

A lot of the posters that used to religiously post opinion polls seem to have stopped doing it for some reason.
Looking at the most recent one Brexit isn't seeming as popular in hindsight (including in the North).
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/e9biz5tt79/ ... 200824.pdf

Ultimately, people can say the UK is better off outside the EU, but if that starts to affect their income then attitudes will quickly change. No matter how much some may hate the EU, being unemployed will change mindsets very, very quickly.

[Jakubclaret]

Ultimately, people can say the UK is better off outside the EU, but if that starts to affect their income then attitudes will quickly change. No matter how much some may hate the EU, being unemployed will change mindsets very, very quickly.

I think most people will realise that any unemployment is down to covid-19 & nothing to do with brexit generally speaking, but no doubt some people will seize the opportunity as an excuse to bash Brexit & completely ignore covid-19 as if it never existed.

[TheFamilyCat]

I think most people will realise that any unemployment is down to covid-19 & nothing to do with brexit generally speaking, but no doubt some people will seize the opportunity as an excuse to bash Brexit & completely ignore covid-19 as if it never existed.

Dominic, is that you?

[Tall Paul]

Alternatively, some people will use covid-19 as a convenient distraction from the job losses that brexit will cause.

[KateR]

we've had job losses, pound crashes, won't be able to get medicine, loss of the financial centre to the Euorpean capitals, etc. etc. since 2016, four years of doom and gloom that has never happened, but sure as eggs are eggs someday you will get one of these doom scenarios right.

[AndrewJB]

I think most people will realise that any unemployment is down to covid-19 & nothing to do with brexit generally speaking, but no doubt some people will seize the opportunity as an excuse to bash Brexit & completely ignore covid-19 as if it never existed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... trade-deal

There was never an oven ready deal.

We know that Covid will hit the economy hard, but we also know that a no deal Brexit will hit the economy hard, so why, when the economy will already be subject to the worst recession in our history, would we add a no deal Brexit to the mix?

[Rowls]

My goodness! This glut of disinterested and purely logical Guardian articles is going to persuade all the Brexit voters how wrong they were.

Bubble dwellers, to a man.

[AndrewJB]

we've had job losses, pound crashes, won't be able to get medicine, loss of the financial centre to the Euorpean capitals, etc. etc. since 2016, four years of doom and gloom that has never happened, but sure as eggs are eggs someday you will get one of these doom scenarios right.

Why would major disruptions happen while we’re still operating with the same conditions as being members? We still have free trade, free movement (apart from Covid restrictions), we still belong to the agreements of cooperation. If this all ends abruptly, as the government suggests it might, then there will be disruption. Even the best of governments - which I think ours is not - would be unable to mitigate for all of the problems. And I think you know this already.

[tiger76]

A lot of the posters that used to religiously post opinion polls seem to have stopped doing it for some reason.
Looking at the most recent one Brexit isn't seeming as popular in hindsight (including in the North).
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/e9biz5tt79/ ... 200824.pdf

Doesn't surprise me, if I had the option to vote again I'd vote remain, and as it happens now we know exactly what Brexit entails the nation should be asked again, especially if the government want to go down the no deal route, a no deal was barely mentioned in 2016, it was all about how we'd get a great trade deal, so if they can't deliver what they promised then get a mandate for a no deal, if that's what they really want.

This poll would also suggest that Keir Starmer is making headway, and on these numbers it would almost certainly be a hung parliament.

First Westminster voting intention with anything other than a Conservative lead since summer 2019.

Britain Elects
@britainelects
· 29 Aug
Westminster voting intention:

CON: 40% (-2)
LAB: 40% (+1)
LDEM: 6% (+1)

via @OpiniumResearch

[Jakubclaret]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... trade-deal

There was never an oven ready deal.

We know that Covid will hit the economy hard, but we also know that a no deal Brexit will hit the economy hard, so why, when the economy will already be subject to the worst recession in our history, would we add a no deal Brexit to the mix?

You seem to have very little faith, let's minimise the effects of covid-19 & at least try to stabilise that & everything will sort itself out, things weren't half as bad before all this covid business kicked off there's absolutely no reason as soon as that as calmed down & people are back to work completely the economy will be sound again, let's not make a drama eh?

[KateR]

Why would major disruptions happen while we’re still operating with the same conditions as being members? We still have free trade, free movement (apart from Covid restrictions), we still belong to the agreements of cooperation. If this all ends abruptly, as the government suggests it might, then there will be disruption. Even the best of governments - which I think ours is not - would be unable to mitigate for all of the problems. And I think you know this already.

Andrew, you and so many others should be answering this, you are the ones been posting about these things for years.

There will be disruptions, there will be problems, but not everyone at the same time, I have said for years what effects the fishing industry wont effect the financial district, the car industry, etc etc. It will take years to smooth itself out, so don't be hasty in condemning everything now or even in 2021, which is my perception of your stance and many others, it will never be all good for everyone.

You've been saying it for years, you never qualified it that you thought it wouldn't happen until 2021 or any other period of time, it's just doom and gloom scenarios, now people adding the C-19 issues in as something in the blame game.

Additionally I think it is pointless throwing poll results up and saying what you will vote for in 4 years, so much can happen and we will all know so much more about what went wrong what improved and can make some meaningful decisions regarding voting that is so irrelevant as of today, just IMO of course.

[CrosspoolClarets]

A lot of the posters that used to religiously post opinion polls seem to have stopped doing it for some reason.
Looking at the most recent one Brexit isn't seeming as popular in hindsight (including in the North).
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/e9biz5tt79/ ... 200824.pdf

We are in the midst of a pandemic. It is perfectly natural for a few percent of the population to nervously swing back to the cautious status quo.

I’ve never been a fan of polls because they are instinctive, in the moment, when asked snap questions by a pollster.

The only thing that has changed in my mind since 2016 is the rise of China and the dangers it represents. They appear more brazen about it now as the virus weakens the world, so whatever our future outside the EU, it doesn’t change our need to have strong democratic allies.

[AndrewJB]

Andrew, you and so many others should be answering this, you are the ones been posting about these things for years.

There will be disruptions, there will be problems, but not everyone at the same time, I have said for years what effects the fishing industry wont effect the financial district, the car industry, etc etc. It will take years to smooth itself out, so don't be hasty in condemning everything now or even in 2021, which is my perception of your stance and many others, it will never be all good for everyone.

You've been saying it for years, you never qualified it that you thought it wouldn't happen until 2021 or any other period of time, it's just doom and gloom scenarios, now people adding the C-19 issues in as something in the blame game.

Additionally I think it is pointless throwing poll results up and saying what you will vote for in 4 years, so much can happen and we will all know so much more about what went wrong what improved and can make some meaningful decisions regarding voting that is so irrelevant as of today, just IMO of course.

I have to admit, you’re the more sensible of leavers, in that you admit there will be disruption. What level of disruption (and I think you’ll agree) will come down to how closely we’re able to align the future with how things are now, in terms of trade.

You said: “it will never be good for everyone.” - so what should our government have in place for those who lose out?

[KateR]

I have to admit, you’re the more sensible of leavers, in that you admit there will be disruption. What level of disruption (and I think you’ll agree) will come down to how closely we’re able to align the future with how things are now, in terms of trade.

You said: “it will never be good for everyone.” - so what should our government have in place for those who lose out?

The Government should be doing what the Labour and Tory Gov's. should have been doing for decades while we were in the EU regarding those who have been losing out, unless of course you think while we were in the EU it was utopia and nobody was losing out.

The biggest issue around all of it from both sides regarding Brexit and the UK/EU is that it has always been about trade off's, the fishing industry lost out, things like being able to support British Steel for what ever things, without getting into the minutia, we gave things up in the UK. Negotiations are easily looked up, it takes two sides when it is a 2 party negotiation, I really don't think you or anyone else can convince me that Hungary care anything about the fishing for example. Yet when one side says I want this before we actually start talking then it is bound to cause issues and delays, I am not blaming it all on the EU but it is the perception I get that many believe it is all failure of the UK in these trade negotiations.

The Gov. will have to give somewhere but so will the EU, why we have the saying "trade offs".

[AndrewJB]

The Government should be doing what the Labour and Tory Gov's. should have been doing for decades while we were in the EU regarding those who have been losing out, unless of course you think while we were in the EU it was utopia and nobody was losing out.

The biggest issue around all of it from both sides regarding Brexit and the UK/EU is that it has always been about trade off's, the fishing industry lost out, things like being able to support British Steel for what ever things, without getting into the minutia, we gave things up in the UK. Negotiations are easily looked up, it takes two sides when it is a 2 party negotiation, I really don't think you or anyone else can convince me that Hungary care anything about the fishing for example. Yet when one side says I want this before we actually start talking then it is bound to cause issues and delays, I am not blaming it all on the EU but it is the perception I get that many believe it is all failure of the UK in these trade negotiations.

The Gov. will have to give somewhere but so will the EU, why we have the saying "trade offs".

The EU placing an importance on fishing is an advantage for us. If fishing in our waters is important enough to them, we should be able to extract some concessions in return.

Nobody is saying it’s all the fault of the UK government that negotiations aren’t going well, but contrasting the picture painted of an easy pain free withdrawal, with the reality (which leavers insisted was project fear whenever it was brought up). So many lies were told that scepticism is my first response to any government statement. We were told that leaving a no deal on the table was crucial because our negotiators needed maximum flexibility, but now our negotiators have red lines. Both can’t be right. It’s the lack of trust so many people have in Johnson that leads to people thinking the unthinkable: Is Johnson angling for a no deal Brexit just so the government can use the ensuing chaos to remake the country as a low tax low pay no regulations right wing paradise?

[KateR]

The EU placing an importance on fishing is an advantage for us. If fishing in our waters is important enough to them, we should be able to extract some concessions in return.

Nobody is saying it’s all the fault of the UK government that negotiations aren’t going well, but contrasting the picture painted of an easy pain free withdrawal, with the reality (which leavers insisted was project fear whenever it was brought up). So many lies were told that scepticism is my first response to any government statement. We were told that leaving a no deal on the table was crucial because our negotiators needed maximum flexibility, but now our negotiators have red lines. Both can’t be right. It’s the lack of trust so many people have in Johnson that leads to people thinking the unthinkable: Is Johnson angling for a no deal Brexit just so the government can use the ensuing chaos to remake the country as a low tax low pay no regulations right wing paradise?

There is no real black and white answer to this, just what your perception is and using any experience you might have in doing actual negotiations, but at the end of the day the perceptions will of course be polar opposites among many and therefore divisive but it should be remembered unless you are very close to BJ you don't know the answer. Therefore it is best to not argue and pontificate about this because you really don't know (not you personally) because the actual reality of this could be either of the scenarios.

I have my opinion/perception and that is you always keep things as an option to walk away and you always have red lines that will not be accepted, both sides will have this, the important point is that both sides need to review/reflect on the stance they take and look to relax some areas to gain more in other areas, a trade off if you like.

Bottom line is we will find out pretty soon and we will be able to analyse the actual outcome.

[TheFamilyCat]

Been listening to Talkradio ( officially the fastest growing conversation based radio station in the world)

A guy rang in. His daughter is a charity worker in South Sudan. She's dealing with water shortage, famine and Coronavirus. People traffickers are turning up in far flung villages showing them footage that's been sent back by illegal immigrants of 4 star hotels and Anfield stadium tours. These people have no means of paying the thousands demanded by the exploitative traffickers for getting them to the UK. Apart from the few cattle that their family owns. The family are then left in the clutches of the people traffickers at one end. They are using the cattle as a down payment for their "services" . They are told that the UK government will give them money. However in reality at this end, the rest if the debt will be secured by those who reach these shores working in the black economy under the threat of "consequences" for their family members should they not work in slave like conditions in places like the back streets of Leicester.

The guy said that the people traffickers are making the perilous situation in places like Sudan even worse. Whole villages are losing their young men capable of working the fields to grow crops or even defending their families from tribal feuds.

This has to stop.

The recruiters can now add "get to live in an-ex international footballer and TV presenter's house" to their sales pitch.

[RingoMcCartney]

The recruiters can now add "get to live in an-ex international footballer and TV presenter's house" to their sales pitch.

Indeed. Perhaps , local boy, Lineker can take the people traffickers "product", straight to the back street sweatshops of Leicester where they'll be exploited in the booming modern day slavery industry .

[evensteadiereddie]

Shouldn't he be sorting out the institutionalised sexism and racism in all our schools, too ? Assuming he can be bothered - unlike some !

[clarethomer]

I think Barnier is losing the plot. (Quotes from https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... xit-latest)

"Obviously the UK will recover the full sovereignty of their waters. No doubt. No question. But it is another thing, another story, speaking about the fish which are inside those waters."

He seems to accept we will retain full sovereignty of our waters but we can't keep the fish within them? Is he suggesting that they will not respect the laws which will no longer permit EU trawlers to fish in our waters? Or, has he come up with some sort of way of attracting the fish from our waters so we have none to fish?

"Mr Barnier wished the UK "good luck" in surviving a no-deal Brexit, warning there would be a "huge difference" between striking a trade deal and a no-deal exit at the end of the transition period on December 31."

I don't think we will need luck to survive... arrogant *****

[Devils_Advocate]

Didnt Barnier also remind us of the issue we need to resolve around truckers and the licencing requirement of a no deal brexit to be able to drive in the EU? Last I read we had around 30-40k truckers and our quota allowed for 2k licences.

I wonder why pro Brexit Paul Withers left this out of his article but I guess if youre gonna use biased sources then dont get upset when they feed you duff info that gets you all triggered

[clarethomer]

Didnt Barnier also remind us of the issue we need to resolve around truckers and the licencing requirement of a no deal brexit to be able to drive in the EU? Last I read we had around 30-40k truckers and our quota allowed for 2k licences.

I wonder why pro Brexit Paul Withers left this out of his article but I guess if youre gonna use biased sources then dont get upset when they feed you duff info that gets you all triggered

Come again? What has the above got to do with what he has said about fisheries and the consequences of no deal.

Are you saying he hasn't said the things I have quoted? Whether they are biased or not - I want to understand why he thinks this way.

[Devils_Advocate]

Come again? What has the above got to do with what he has said about fisheries and the consequences of no deal.

Are you saying he hasn't said the things I have quoted? Whether they are biased or not - I want to understand why he thinks this way.

You've linked a report thats been very selective around what Barnier said in the recent run of talks and used selective quotes to form a distorted opinion.

The issue that was raised around the haulage licences is a serious one but its unsurprisingly been ignored by a paper and journalist with a clear agenda

Now I dont have a problem with the Express having a distorted biased opinion cause its easy to show how musleading it is but you made a big point about the neutrality of news sources so you seem a little hypocritically

You may want to understand what he means but you seem to have already decided that we either cant keep the fish in our waters or he's found a way to extract all the fish so we have none.

I wouldnt like to act like I know exactly what Barnier meant but Im sure theres more sensible explanation than the EU extracting all our fish (unless you spend to much time reading news articles by the Express)

[clarethomer]

Didnt Barnier also remind us of the issue we need to resolve around truckers and the licencing requirement of a no deal brexit to be able to drive in the EU? Last I read we had around 30-40k truckers and our quota allowed for 2k licences.

I will do you the courtesy of replying to your question - even though it wasn't what I was asking. The below may be of interest in terms of that subject.

The licences you are referring to I presume are ECMT permits which are vastly limited and were never intended for this situation.

19th August 2020

The RHA is deeply concerned at the continuing refusal from Brussels to grant British truckers the access to Europe they need to keep the UK supply chain moving.

Not allowing them the same access rights that the UK is willing to negotiate with the EU will severely damage businesses on both sides of the Channel.

RHA chief executive, Richard Burnett said: “The UK Government is trying to provide symmetry but in terms of market access the EUs position is far more damaging because of the balance, or imbalance, of trade.

“85% of the volume of goods that come into the UK is moved by European hauliers – UK operators are responsible for the movement of only 15%.

“The government approach is to try and negotiate access to the EU while trying to maintain symmetry, but the EU’s current decision puts them at a disadvantage. Maintaining the supply chain between the Great Britain and the rest of Europe can only be achieved on a level playing field.

“The UK is taking a liberal view – suggesting that cabotage remains on the table. But symmetry works both ways. If the EU remains adamant to remove cabotage, the UK will have no choice but to follow suit.

“If this is the outcome then the intransigence of the EU means that they will be shooting themselves in the foot.”

[clarethomer]

You've linked a report thats been very selective around what Barnier said in the recent run of talks and used selective quotes to form a distorted opinion.

The issue that was raised around the haulage licences is a serious one but its unsurprisingly been ignored by a paper and journalist with a clear agenda

Now I dont have a problem with the Express having a distorted biased opinion cause its easy to show how musleading it is but you made a big point about the neutrality of news sources so you seem a little hypocritically

You may want to understand what he means but you seem to have already decided that we either cant keep the fish in our waters or he's found a way to extract all the fish so we have none.

I wouldnt like to act like I know exactly what Barnier meant but Im sure theres more sensible explanation than the EU extracting all our fish (unless you spend to much time reading news articles by the Express)

Again - I am not questioning the bias of the paper.

Barnier has said that he accepts our sovereignty of our waters but not the fish within them is how I have understood it. Ignore my sarcastic comment about what he may have meant. Like Barniers comments I have quoted, my sarcastic comments seem to have had a similar inflammatory reaction with you.

Let me ask the question more generally in hope that it gives the opportunity of a proper discussion

Why does Barnier believe making inflammatory comments in this way help his position of securing an ongoing trade agreement with us?

You want to secure your fishing rights for your member states. In what world does it make sense to say what he has and take the position he has when it's more likely to achieve the thing he want's to so desperately avoid?

[martin_p]

Why does Barnier believe making inflammatory comments in this way help his position of securing an ongoing trade agreement with us?

Maybe he’s finally come to the conclusion ‘if you can’t beat them, join them!’

[Devils_Advocate]

With regards the RHA, why will the EU be shooting themselves in the foot and why is this on the EU. We chose to leave and we have failed to agree to the conditions required by the single market in services that negate the need for any special licences

Happy to try and keep this sensible but before I can answer first you'll need to explain in what way is what Barnier said inflammatory?

I could easily follow it up with some of the grandstanding and negative comments our govt and negotiators have made towards the EU but I understand they are playing to their audience in a way that will give them the best outcome so whether I agree or disagree this is how it often works

[clarethomer]

Interesting approach.

He represents the EU and he is tasked to get access to the UK fishing waters. Under what circumstances demanding and threatening the other party is ever been successful in a negotiation.

Not sure where we have done that in the negotiations but no doubt there will be something someone will remind me of but reading that No Deal could be called next week would probably be a blessing at this rate.

[Devils_Advocate]

Interesting approach.

He represents the EU and he is tasked to get access to the UK fishing waters. Under what circumstances demanding and threatening the other party is ever been successful in a negotiation.

Not sure where we have done that in the negotiations but no doubt there will be something someone will remind me of but reading that No Deal could be called next week would probably be a blessing at this rate.

What has he demanded and where is the threat. It sounds more to me that he is trying to emphasise that a lot of things work because the countries throughout Europe and especially in the EU work together and work collaboratively.

With regards fishing then fish migrate in and out of different waters but due to trade agreements and harmonious relationships not only do countrys stick to legal rules but they also will work together and adhere to more moral rules around things like over fishing so we dont just descend in to a battle ground where everybody loses out

There has been a narrative with Brexit that the EU is undemocratic and that certain countrys rule the roost and that we are often treated unfairly. Maybe he is just making the point that if you think that we are hard done by now wait until we go it alone and our interests are not the concern of the EU at all unless it suits them

Brexiteers cant have it both ways in moaning that the EU is unfair and undemocratic and then acting surprised and hard done to because the EU have negotiated unfairly but then this is exactly the kind of contradictory stances I see

Maybe if our govt and our media was more honest then Barnier could stick to a more civilised and adult conversation

[clarethomer]

With regards the RHA, why will the EU be shooting themselves in the foot and why is this on the EU. We chose to leave and we have failed to agree to the conditions required by the single market in services that negate the need for any special licences

Happy to try and keep this sensible but before I can answer first you'll need to explain in what way is what Barnier said inflammatory?

I could easily follow it up with some of the grandstanding and negative comments our govt and negotiators have made towards the EU but I understand they are playing to their audience in a way that will give them the best outcome so whether I agree or disagree this is how it often works

Thank you for keeping it civil and confirming your intention was to be uncivil in your response with the aim of trying to gain a reaction. Not really needed is it? It's a bit petty if you ask me just because we couldn't agree on a different point. Happy to draw a line under it though.

I assume the RHA believe the EU are shooting themselves in the foot because we have said we are prepared to allow their hauliers to continue to come into the country and not cause any issues for their hauliers. In return we want the same. If the EU were to not permit this, we would withdraw our offer and that would mean the EU hauliers would face similar challenges to our hauliers.

Im not in haulage so don't profess to know what that would mean if we ended up in that position - maybe it would be terrible news all round. Maybe the UK hauliers would pick up more work in the UK to backfil the gap that the EU hauliers in the UK would leave?

The inflammatory comments from Barnier is that he is suggesting that we have no right to prevent access to the fish in our waters should no deal happen and by suggesting that we will need luck to survive a no deal brexit.

There may have been grandstanding and it may be that he is playing up to an audience he is representing but it's still appears very short sighted.

We can still trade on WTO with the members of the EU and by return so it's not like trade is going to stop. Yes we may have some increases in prices and there may be some things to work through in the short term.

If they let us leave with no deal - they can't fish in our waters and by forcing our hand to choosing to 'cull' the relationship they have with us is more likely to mean that we will just aim to become more competitive and do all we can to win trade/business and fulfil the fears they have.

It just appears as the EU are prepared to cut off their own nose to spite your face.

[Devils_Advocate]

Thank you for keeping it civil and confirming your intention was to be uncivil in your response with the aim of trying to gain a reaction. Not really needed is it? It's a bit petty if you ask me just because we couldn't agree on a different point. Happy to draw a line under it though.

I assume the RHA believe the EU are shooting themselves in the foot because we have said we are prepared to allow their hauliers to continue to come into the country and not cause any issues for their hauliers. In return we want the same. If the EU were to not permit this, we would withdraw our offer and that would mean the EU hauliers would face similar challenges to our hauliers.

Im not in haulage so don't profess to know what that would mean if we ended up in that position - maybe it would be terrible news all round. Maybe the UK hauliers would pick up more work in the UK to backfil the gap that the EU hauliers in the UK would leave?

The inflammatory comments from Barnier is that he is suggesting that we have no right to prevent access to the fish in our waters should no deal happen and by suggesting that we will need luck to survive a no deal brexit.

There may have been grandstanding and it may be that he is playing up to an audience he is representing but it's still appears very short sighted.

We can still trade on WTO with the members of the EU and by return so it's not like trade is going to stop. Yes we may have some increases in prices and there may be some things to work through in the short term.

If they let us leave with no deal - they can't fish in our waters and by forcing our hand to choosing to 'cull' the relationship they have with us is more likely to mean that we will just aim to become more competitive and do all we can to win trade/business and fulfil the fears they have.

It just appears as the EU are prepared to cut off their own nose to spite your face.

Your first paragraph is nonsense and I havent been uncivil at all but was just trying to reassure you my arguments were genuine as too often people will use an attack on someone in this way as a defence to knot engaging in the conversation

The UK have had to make allowances because we need to allow haulage companies from Ireland to be able to continue to move freely around the mainland. The impact on UK haulage bussiness will far outreach any impact on the EU so they are not cutting off their nose to spite their face but just unwilling to concede on a principle that is important to them (see sovereignty)

Also the EU cannot except our current position on divergence and so until that is resolved they are not going to give us unfettered access to their markets as we would as a member of the single market

Again as I have explained in a previous post Barnier has not suggested we cant stop them fishing in our waters, this is just your interpretation that takes me right back to the start of what effect using totally biased and unreliable news sources can have on your thinking

[Claretnick]

Came across this piece today that some of you might find informative, and a change from potentially biased reporting

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... rexit-deal

[clarethomer]

What has he demanded and where is the threat. It sounds more to me that he is trying to emphasise that a lot of things work because the countries throughout Europe and especially in the EU work together and work collaboratively.

He is demanding unfettered access to our waters to allow the EU to continue to fish as they currently do.

He is demanding the regulatory level playing field.

If we don't concede on these points - no deal. You will be lucky if you survive brexit.

With regards fishing then fish migrate in and out of different waters but due to trade agreements and harmonious relationships not only do countrys stick to legal rules but they also will work together and adhere to more moral rules around things like over fishing so we dont just descend in to a battle ground where everybody loses out

Yet he is suggesting that our waters are ours but the fish in it are not. If a fish migrates into the EU waters then it's no longer our fish is it? That is what was confusing - was he suggesting that our fish were still game for the EU trawlers which I have interpreted that he was suggesting that these laws would be ignored. Whether that is what he meant - I don't know hence my question earlier.

There has been a narrative with Brexit that the EU is undemocratic and that certain countrys rule the roost and that we are often treated unfairly. Maybe he is just making the point that if you think that we are hard done by now wait until we go it alone and our interests are not the concern of the EU at all unless it suits them

Brexiteers cant have it both ways in moaning that the EU is unfair and undemocratic and then acting surprised and hard done to because the EU have negotiated unfairly but then this is exactly the kind of contradictory stances I see

Maybe if our govt and our media was more honest then Barnier could stick to a more civilised and adult conversation

I think our difference in opinions and views on narratives will never see us agree on this given the narrative. Which is fine. It just intrigues me how badly these negotiations have gone to be where we are. There is no smoke without fire I guess. It's like no one wants to concede.

Will be interesting to see how we look back on this in 5 years time..

[Devils_Advocate]

He is demanding unfettered access to our waters to allow the EU to continue to fish as they currently do.

He is demanding the regulatory level playing field.

Think we are coming to a natural conclusion to this discussion so will only comment on the above.

If this is what you are classing as his demands than I'll say fair enough but then any red line that any side sets is a demandi and both sides have plenty of these so dont understand how you class this as a criticism of the EU or Barnier

Will be interesting to see how we look back on this in 5 years time..

I hope so cos interesting suggests we wont have to look back on it with sadness and disbelief in the mistake we made

[martin_p]

He is demanding unfettered access to our waters to allow the EU to continue to fish as they currently do.

He looking to protect the jobs of EU fishermen in some of the countries that have a ‘sea border’ with the U.K. entirely as you’d expect him to. The point he’s made that some fishermen (certainly some in Ireland) will be barred from waters they’ve been fishing since before the EU existed and that will destroy them. It’s not an unreasonable point whether you agree with it or not.