Britain outside the EU

Originally Posted by Hugh

In general, if an entity shows it can't be trusted, why should it be trusted the next time one tries to deal with it?

People/countries aren't judged on what they say they'll do, but on what they actually do - why should anyone sign a treaty/deal with the UK if six months later we say "oh, we didn't think it would work, but just signed it to get the deal done"?

I suspect they’re taking a calculated risk in unique circumstances and believe they can successfully paint the EU as the bad actor interfering with the territorial integrity of a sovereign state.

I agree countries are judged on their actions, but I disagree with your implication that trust can be so comprehensively lost in the way you’re suggesting, over one incident - especially where the circumstances are so specific.

[1andrew1]

David Frost talking about honesty boxes for goods destined not to leave Northern Ireland. Nice idea, but as even the keenest Leaver would concede, the UK government is acting with little honesty with regard to the NI Agreement. Frost's efforts to renegotiate from a position of weakness look doomed. Could this be another U-turn or does David Frost have an ace up his sleeve, and not the "specific and limited" aka joker card he tried to play before?

Originally Posted by Chris

I suspect they’re taking a calculated risk in unique circumstances and believe they can successfully paint the EU as the bad actor interfering with the territorial integrity of a sovereign state.

I agree countries are judged on their actions, but I disagree with your implication that trust can be so comprehensively lost in the way you’re suggesting, over one incident - especially where the circumstances are so specific.

I would normally agree with you over the "one incident" scenario, but unfortunately, our current PM is renowned for his lack of consistency and flip-flopping when pushed by others (within and without the Party).

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

David Frost talking about honesty boxes for goods destined not to leave Northern Ireland. Nice idea, but as even the keenest Leaver would concede, the UK government is acting with little honesty with regard to the NI Agreement. Frost's efforts to renegotiate from a position of weakness look doomed. Could this be another U-turn or does David Frost have an ace up his sleeve, and not the "specific and limited" aka joker card he tried to play before?

It really sounds like you’ve cut and pasted that from somewhere else

First: is HMG negotiating from a position of weakness? Please quantify. I’ve already outlined where I believe they see the strength of their position: that it’s a matter of territorial integrity that absolves them from accusations of dishonesty and risks to future potential trade deals around the world.

Second: the admission of “specific and limited” violation of international treaties was crafted to enrage remainers, in order to use that rage to convince the EU negotiators that the UK was willing to play hardball. Insiders have described it as “the berserker strategy”. It worked magnificently - Barnier was effectively sidelined from that point onwards because the EU side realised two things, namely that they were going to have to compromise, and that Barnier was too much of a zealot to do it. It’s slightly amusing that you’re still triggered by that line though, so long afterwards.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I did answer the question. It's the preface to my answer which offended you. But you ignore the reality of what's going on so Remainer pap it remains.

So the EU could have decided not to uphold the Treaty that both sides agreed to, in a timeframe driven by our PM?

Where does that leave the EU next time another country decides to abrogate a Treaty - setting a precedent like this is never a good thing.

Originally Posted by Hugh

I would normally agree with you over the "one incident" scenario, but unfortunately, our current PM is renowned for his lack of consistency and flip-flopping when pushed by others (within and without the Party).

True, but fundamentally, states sign treaties with states, not their government du jour. it might be the heads of government that sign the papers but the treaty binds the permanent apparatus of each state, not the politicians presently controlling them. If a state is generally regarded as an upholder of the rule of law then one numpty in charge for a few years is not going to fundamentally alter that perception.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

It really sounds like you’ve cut and pasted that from somewhere else

First: is HMG negotiating from a position of weakness? Please quantify. I’ve already outlined where I believe they see the strength of their position: that it’s a matter of territorial integrity that absolves them from accusations of dishonesty and risks to future potential trade deals around the world.

Second: the admission of “specific and limited” violation of international treaties was crafted to enrage remainers, in order to use that rage to convince the EU negotiators that the UK was willing to play hardball. Insiders have described it as “the berserker strategy”. It worked magnificently - Barnier was effectively sidelined from that point onwards because the EU side realised two things, namely that they were going to have to compromise, and that Barnier was too much of a zealot to do it. It’s slightly amusing that you’re still triggered by that line though, so long afterwards.

It's a position of weakness as the UK cannot offer the EU anything in return. No EU negotiator is going to sell this to the member states who would need to vote on it. This seems largely intended for internal consumption.
Some have said it's from the Putin play book. When things aren't going well domestucallt, pick a fight overseas. I don't think that's the case here but I'm sure it will give the leader writers of the Express and Sun plenty of column inches.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

I agree countries are judged on their actions, but I disagree with your implication that trust can be so comprehensively lost in the way you’re suggesting, over one incident - especially where the circumstances are so specific.

It's not over one incident though, we might not have been liked 20 years ago but we were respected and to a certain extent trusted but ever since the Iraq war our prestige has plummeted

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

True, but fundamentally, states sign treaties with states, not their government du jour. it might be the heads of government that sign the papers but the treaty binds the permanent apparatus of each state, not the politicians presently controlling them. If a state is generally regarded as an upholder of the rule of law then one numpty in charge for a few years is not going to fundamentally alter that perception.

The trouble is the UK is now coming across consistently as reneging on its promises. There was the original threat to breach the NI treaty in a "specific and limited" manner which went down badly in the EU and US, there was the u-turn in the aid commitment and now this attempt to re-write an agreement.
Trust is easy to lose and harder to gain. If the UK acted in a more trustworthy manner, we may have harnessed our goodwill to renegotiate the NI agreement. Unfortunately, our goodwill tank is currently empty.

[papa smurf]

Does any one wish to borrow 1/2 ounce of patriotism, this thread is rapidly running out of it.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Does any one wish to borrow 1/2 ounce of patriotism, this thread is rapidly running out of it.

I have plenty of patriotism, thanks - you’re probably confusing it with your large stockpile of nationalism…

[Carth]

I can understand why some people blather on about the UK being untrustworthy.

I can't understand why they believe that the UK is the only one

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I have plenty of patriotism, thanks - you’re probably confusing it with your large stockpile of nationalism…

Must be stealth patriotism, it's not showing on my radar

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

I can understand why some people blather on about the UK being untrustworthy.

I can't understand why they believe that the UK is the only one

Re the second point. I don't think they do but other countries are not the ones asking for the NI agreement to be fundamentally altered.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Re the second point. I don't think they do but other countries are not the ones asking for the NI agreement to be fundamentally altered.

aah I see . . . it only applies in specific situations