ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Are The E U S S R So Desperate To Keep Their Tentacles In The Uk?
26 Answers
https:/
looks like no deal is a real possibility.
looks like no deal is a real possibility.
Answers
Because, contrary to their inferred position during the Brexit negotiations
09:27 Fri 06th Mar 2020
Because, contrary to their inferred position during the Brexit negotiations, they need our trade, probably more, or at least as much, as we need theirs.
It suited them to take a 'take it or leave it' attitude when they wanted to hammer the best deal for themselves out of the negotiations, now that they have no power, real or imagined, they have to take a different approach.
They will need to offer far more now, and be more willing to be conciliatory that before because Britain can threaten to walk away, and mean it.
Europe absolutely cannot afford for that to happen - their approach will change because it has to, they will come round, because they need us.
It suited them to take a 'take it or leave it' attitude when they wanted to hammer the best deal for themselves out of the negotiations, now that they have no power, real or imagined, they have to take a different approach.
They will need to offer far more now, and be more willing to be conciliatory that before because Britain can threaten to walk away, and mean it.
Europe absolutely cannot afford for that to happen - their approach will change because it has to, they will come round, because they need us.
-- answer removed --
Right from the start the EU has taken a ‘will not back down, dominant approach’ yet even though their puppets have been defeated and Mr. Johnson was given the go ahead by the majority of the British electorate to go for a proper Brexit, they still won’t admit defeat.
It’s just a head in the sand, fingers in the ears, big fat bluff.
And when it all comes back to bite them and they have no control over us and the rest of them have to stump up even more money, I will watch their downfall with interest.
It’s just a head in the sand, fingers in the ears, big fat bluff.
And when it all comes back to bite them and they have no control over us and the rest of them have to stump up even more money, I will watch their downfall with interest.
It was and remains economically dubious to argue that the UK matters more to the EU than vice versa. Both sides will lose out to a considerable degree if the UK diverges, as now seems likely. Even if that's inevitable, a more "staggered" withdrawal than the UK is proposing would be better.
Nor does the new democratic situation in any sense change the economic reality. Britain can threaten to walk away and mean it, but it's still equivalent to threatening to shoot ourselves in the foot as well as the EU.
Nor does the new democratic situation in any sense change the economic reality. Britain can threaten to walk away and mean it, but it's still equivalent to threatening to shoot ourselves in the foot as well as the EU.
They need us more, they did/do not recognise reality, they want to dominate but will instead themselves disappear, we are the Force, we will/have unilaterally choose/chosen what the deal will look like. To which side does/will this apply more accurately ? Which side voices this more persistently and advocates negotiating on that basis - what is the likeliest outcome ?
steg - // If it looks like “no deal” is a real possibility then they can’t be that desperate //
I said on this site right back when all the started, that negotiation is the complex equivalent of a poker game.
You never know what cards your opponent holds, or how much they are bluffing.
The different now is, the UK holds a far better hand than it ever did before, and the EU knows it.
Cameron and May were far too timid and conciliatory - Johnson is made of much sterner stuff.
I said on this site right back when all the started, that negotiation is the complex equivalent of a poker game.
You never know what cards your opponent holds, or how much they are bluffing.
The different now is, the UK holds a far better hand than it ever did before, and the EU knows it.
Cameron and May were far too timid and conciliatory - Johnson is made of much sterner stuff.
//Cameron and May were far too timid and conciliatory - Johnson is made of much sterner stuff.//
I don’t think they were ‘timid’ - rather they - well Mrs May - was attempting to find a way that would keep us tied to the EU - in short she was on their side - and they knew that. They thought they had it made - until with Mrs May’s departure it all went pear-shaped for them. Yes, Boris is made of sterner stuff - thank goodness.
I don’t think they were ‘timid’ - rather they - well Mrs May - was attempting to find a way that would keep us tied to the EU - in short she was on their side - and they knew that. They thought they had it made - until with Mrs May’s departure it all went pear-shaped for them. Yes, Boris is made of sterner stuff - thank goodness.
naomi - // //Cameron and May were far too timid and conciliatory - Johnson is made of much sterner stuff.//
I don’t think they were ‘timid’ - rather they - well Mrs May - was attempting to find a way that would keep us tied to the EU - in short she was on their side - and they knew that. They thought they had it made - until with Mrs May’s departure it all went pear-shaped for them. Yes, Boris is made of sterner stuff - thank goodness. //
On reflection I am inclined to agree with your assessment, rather than my initial point.
I think it is common knowledge that Mr Cameron went for a referendum because he fully expected to win it, and remain within the EU, and his successor Mrs May was an affirmed Remainer, so she was never going to push as hard as was necessary for us to get out of the clutches of the European economic machine.
As you say, Boris is firmly against the power the EU held over us, and he now has the majority to stop the pointless elf-serving time-wasting that went on, and actually get on with realistic negotiations from a position of strength.
I don’t think they were ‘timid’ - rather they - well Mrs May - was attempting to find a way that would keep us tied to the EU - in short she was on their side - and they knew that. They thought they had it made - until with Mrs May’s departure it all went pear-shaped for them. Yes, Boris is made of sterner stuff - thank goodness. //
On reflection I am inclined to agree with your assessment, rather than my initial point.
I think it is common knowledge that Mr Cameron went for a referendum because he fully expected to win it, and remain within the EU, and his successor Mrs May was an affirmed Remainer, so she was never going to push as hard as was necessary for us to get out of the clutches of the European economic machine.
As you say, Boris is firmly against the power the EU held over us, and he now has the majority to stop the pointless elf-serving time-wasting that went on, and actually get on with realistic negotiations from a position of strength.
Alternatively, Theresa May *did* push hard but was met by the reality of both a minority in Parliament (her own fault) and of the immense complexity of severing ties with an institution we've been part of for decades. Describing her as a Remainer, during her premiership at least, flies in the face of all reason. She was never on the said of Remainers after that "Brexit means Brexit" stuff, and continuing to push a deal that *both sides* regarded as rotten, albeit for different reasons.
//…and continuing to push a deal that *both sides* regarded as rotten, albeit for different reasons.”
I don’t know why Remainers regarded the deal as rotten. Leavers thought so because it was arguably worse (from their point of view) than remaining. I should have thought Remainers were overjoyed with it as it tied the UK to the EU for eternity (or for as long as the EU desired, which amounts to the same thing).
It’s about control. The EU operates on a “command and control” basis. The “common goal” in that process is a Federal State called Europe, the abolition of nation states and the subsumation of them into the Federation. The strategy is to use trade as a lever and insist that no trade is undertaken with the Federation unless laws (unconnected with the trade concerned) are complied with by the “third country”. Nations in the vicinity that don’t wish to take part in the project are squeezed until it is easier for them to join and comply than to continue as independent. The project then becomes a political entity and not a trading bloc.
Switzerland is a good example of such mistreatment. It exists in the middle of the Continent but is not an EU member (the electorate rejected membership of the EEA in 1992 and the country formally abandoned its application for EU membership in 2016). Instead it operates as a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and has a number of bilateral agreements with the EU. Whilst these agreements bind Switzerland to the EU in many ways that membership does, they can be rescinded at any time (with six months’ notice), although there is a clause that, should one of the ten main agreements fall then they all fall. Nonetheless the Swiss electorate have consistently rejected membership of the EEA or of the EU. Since 2014 the EU has been attempting to coerce the Swiss into an “International Framework Accord” (aka associate EU membership by any other name)which would not leave the Swiss free to reject EU legislation as easily as it can now. These negotiations broke down in 2018. As a result the EU has refused to renew the “equivalence” which the Swiss Stock Exchange enjoyed with EU markets and stock trading between Switzerland and the rest of the EU has become extremely problematic. There is no pragmatic reason to do this; it is simply "punishment" for failing to fall into line.
It is highly likely that if the UK refuses to succumb to the demands of the EU in the trade deal currently being negotiated similar measures will be taken. It wants the UK to comply with EU legislation on freedom of movement, environmental matters, labour laws and State aid (among many others). It sees nations that compete with its members as threats to be nullified. It has succeeded in protecting its members from each other and wants to do the same with non-members. That is why the EU wants its tentacles to remain firmly embedded in the UK.
I don’t know why Remainers regarded the deal as rotten. Leavers thought so because it was arguably worse (from their point of view) than remaining. I should have thought Remainers were overjoyed with it as it tied the UK to the EU for eternity (or for as long as the EU desired, which amounts to the same thing).
It’s about control. The EU operates on a “command and control” basis. The “common goal” in that process is a Federal State called Europe, the abolition of nation states and the subsumation of them into the Federation. The strategy is to use trade as a lever and insist that no trade is undertaken with the Federation unless laws (unconnected with the trade concerned) are complied with by the “third country”. Nations in the vicinity that don’t wish to take part in the project are squeezed until it is easier for them to join and comply than to continue as independent. The project then becomes a political entity and not a trading bloc.
Switzerland is a good example of such mistreatment. It exists in the middle of the Continent but is not an EU member (the electorate rejected membership of the EEA in 1992 and the country formally abandoned its application for EU membership in 2016). Instead it operates as a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and has a number of bilateral agreements with the EU. Whilst these agreements bind Switzerland to the EU in many ways that membership does, they can be rescinded at any time (with six months’ notice), although there is a clause that, should one of the ten main agreements fall then they all fall. Nonetheless the Swiss electorate have consistently rejected membership of the EEA or of the EU. Since 2014 the EU has been attempting to coerce the Swiss into an “International Framework Accord” (aka associate EU membership by any other name)which would not leave the Swiss free to reject EU legislation as easily as it can now. These negotiations broke down in 2018. As a result the EU has refused to renew the “equivalence” which the Swiss Stock Exchange enjoyed with EU markets and stock trading between Switzerland and the rest of the EU has become extremely problematic. There is no pragmatic reason to do this; it is simply "punishment" for failing to fall into line.
It is highly likely that if the UK refuses to succumb to the demands of the EU in the trade deal currently being negotiated similar measures will be taken. It wants the UK to comply with EU legislation on freedom of movement, environmental matters, labour laws and State aid (among many others). It sees nations that compete with its members as threats to be nullified. It has succeeded in protecting its members from each other and wants to do the same with non-members. That is why the EU wants its tentacles to remain firmly embedded in the UK.
It seems the EU is willing to bite its nose off to spite its face, no surprise there.
There is no need for the EU to amend its framework in any shape or form and as far as I can see no one has asked for that. But they cannot expect us to abide by their laws and be rules by the ECJ, I dont believe Canada does so why us?
This may all come down the the wire. It is quite possible big commerce in Germany will pressure the EU to sort something out, they are not so stupid and their aim is purely for the economics of their firm.
There is no need for the EU to amend its framework in any shape or form and as far as I can see no one has asked for that. But they cannot expect us to abide by their laws and be rules by the ECJ, I dont believe Canada does so why us?
This may all come down the the wire. It is quite possible big commerce in Germany will pressure the EU to sort something out, they are not so stupid and their aim is purely for the economics of their firm.
Latest Posts
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music2 mins ago
Death Of Three Young Ladies Backpacking...
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.