UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Speculating for the Government Old Boy. You seem to, unfortunately, be stuck in the toxic rhetoric of Brexit. Which is a shame really - the way it seems to permeate every single post you make. It is unnecessarily divisive. Brexit is done. The national interest is the national interest for everyone - those who voted remain and those who voted leave.

You clearly know very little about Government if you think such a major policy shift would be announced at half five on a Wednesday night by a Cabinet Minister who is neither the PM, Foreign Secretary or Minister for International Trade for whom the policy would cross cut their Ministerial portfolios.

Talk about twisting it, when you are in complete denial about the government's position on this. They have said consistently there will be no extension. The only reason they have failed to deliver on such promises in the past is because the House of Commons did all it could in various attempts to ensure Brexit did not happen.

That barrier is no longer there. It's just between the Government and the EU now.

While I cannot say absolutely for certain that the trade agreement will be done by the end of the year, what you keep doing is contradicting what the government say, with just your own specious arguments to justify your comments. You have no evidence whatsoever to claim the government is painting a false picture of when we will be free of EU rules. It's pure speculation. Nothing more, nothing less. So pardon me for suggesting that your claim to speak for the government is laughable.

As I said before, there are separate teams working on trade deals that are not being diverted by the coronavirus emergency. It is possible to do more than one thing at a time, you know. Boris is not a one-trick pony, as you will come to see.

Why do you keep harping on that Brexit is done? What are you trying to prove? Yes, we've left the EU, but we are still subject to its rules. I am very clear that what we are talking about now is negotiating a no tariff trade deal with the EU, as well as addressing all the regulatory provisions that need to be put in place to accommodate the new arrangements, at the same time as we negotiate a trade deal with the US and other countries. Yes, that means we do more than one thing at a time.

As for me being 'unnecessarily divisive', all I'm doing is supporting the government line on Brexit and the new trade deals we wish to negotiate. You are the one questioning everything, not me!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Talk about twisting it, when you are in complete denial about the government's position on this. They have said consistently there will be no extension. The only reason they have failed to deliver on such promises in the past is because the House of Commons did all it could in various attempts to ensure Brexit did not happen.

I'm fully aware of the Government's stated position, and as Chris notes this will be the stated position right up until it isn't. That's how poisonous our political discourse has become in recent times - Government can't be seen to be thinking without being accused of a 'u-turn', 'a betrayal' or similar. Thus it finds it easier to trot out a line until it decides to adopt another one.

That barrier is no longer there. It's just between the Government and the EU now.

While I cannot say absolutely for certain that the trade agreement will be done by the end of the year, what you keep doing is contradicting what the government say, with just your own specious arguments to justify your comments. You have no evidence whatsoever to claim the government is painting a false picture of when we will be free of EU rules. It's pure speculation. Nothing more, nothing less. So padon me for suggesting that your claim to speak for the government is laughable.

At no point have I ever claimed to speak for the Government - I'm simply pointing out that you clearly haven't been following politics very closely if you think that such a major policy announcement would come out, unexpected and uncontrolled, at half 5 on a Wednesday.

Special Advisers and communications teams aren't paid handsomely for such a major policy change to come out so haphazardly.

As I said before, there are separate teams working on trade deals that are not being diverted by the coronavirus. It is possible to do more than one thing at a time, you know.

As before - you clearly fail to understand the machine that is the Civil Service if you think that none of the people or priorities cross cut between Coronavirus response and future trading relationship with the EU.

Why do you keep harping on that Brexit is done? What are you trying to prove? Yes, we've left the EU, but we are still subject to its rules.

Time limited, and importantly by our own agreement.

I am very clear that what we are talking about now is negotiating a no tariff trade deal with the EU, as well as address all the regulatory provisions that need to be put in place to accommodate the new arrangements, at the same time as we negotiate a trade deal with the US and other countries. Yes, that means we do more than one thing at a time.

As for me being 'unnecessarily divisive', all I'm doing is supporting the government line on Brexit and the new trade deals we wish to negotiate. You are the one questioning everything, not me!

Supporting the Government line unquestionably doesn't mean you aren't stoking division.

I recognise that you aren't questioning what you are being spoon fed Old Boy, but I can't control your inability to engage in critical analysis of events.

[Sephiroth]

@jfman

The "critical analysis of events", as I see it, is about the sensibility of delaying trade negotiations vs sticking to the current legal deadline (albeit with scope for extension).

The arguments as between the two choices have been stated, restated and done to death between us all.

I don't think either of you nor OB have failed to engage in critical analysis, depending on what you mean by the word "critical".

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@jfman

The "critical analysis of events", as I see it, is about the sensibility of delaying trade negotiations vs sticking to the current legal deadline (albeit with scope for extension).

The arguments as between the two choices have been stated, restated and done to death between us all.

I don't think either of you nor OB have failed to engage in critical analysis, depending on what you mean by the word "critical".

If he's just trotting out the Government line, ad nauseum, then he's not paying attention to the thousands of political u-turns (Brexit dates being an example) but across many policies by both Conservative and Labour Governments over the decades.

If the justification for 'there won't be a policy change' is the fact they are still using the same line then it's observably no justification at all.

Although I agree - the arguments have been done to death.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm fully aware of the Government's stated position, and as Chris notes this will be the stated position right up until it isn't. That's how poisonous our political discourse has become in recent times - Government can't be seen to be thinking without being accused of a 'u-turn', 'a betrayal' or similar. Thus it finds it easier to trot out a line until it decides to adopt another one.

At no point have I ever claimed to speak for the Government - I'm simply pointing out that you clearly haven't been following politics very closely if you think that such a major policy announcement would come out, unexpected and uncontrolled, at half 5 on a Wednesday.

Special Advisers and communications teams aren't paid handsomely for such a major policy change to come out so haphazardly.

As before - you clearly fail to understand the machine that is the Civil Service if you think that none of the people or priorities cross cut between Coronavirus response and future trading relationship with the EU.

Time limited, and importantly by our own agreement.

Supporting the Government line unquestionably doesn't mean you aren't stoking division.

I recognise that you aren't questioning what you are being spoon fed Old Boy, but I can't control your inability to engage in critical analysis of events.

You have never claimed to speak for the government. So what did you mean in post #2816?

This claim of yours that the government wouldn't trot out a major change to the government's position in the coronavirus scenario is of course correct, probably. However, one thing even you cannot deny is that it is the government's position that there will be no extension. I'm not concerned at all by any posts that question whether that is even possible, but your comments state categorically that it will not happen. I think I am perfectly justified to challenge you on that, because it is not based on evidence.

Of course I understand that the coronavirus is sapping the resources of politicians and the civil service. However, the government has made clear that the team dealing with trade deals are not involved in the coronavirus issues.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

If he's just trotting out the Government line, ad nauseum, then he's not paying attention to the thousands of political u-turns (Brexit dates being an example) but across many policies by both Conservative and Labour Governments over the decades.

If the justification for 'there won't be a policy change' is the fact they are still using the same line then it's observably no justification at all.

Although I agree - the arguments have been done to death.

I think the bit I've highlighted is the nexus of the argument between you two.

The circumstances of the past political u-turns were a result of a minority government and a Remainer parliament. That is not now the case so the same comparison is not valid, imo.

]

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"I think the bit I've highlighted is the nexus of the argument between you two.

The circumstances of the past political u-turns were a result of a minority government and a Remainer parliament. That is not now the case so the same comparison is not valid, imo.

][/COLOR]

On that, we can most certainly agree!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You have never claimed to speak for the government. So what did you mean in post #2816?

You said I was speculating against the Government. I'm simply not. Saying you think they should do something, and would be supportive if they did, is a positive move. Back in the day when politics wasn't polarised and compromise was quite natural.

This claim of yours that the government wouldn't trot out a major change to the government's position in the coronavirus scenario is of course correct, probably.

It's absolutely correct.

However, one thing even you cannot deny is that it is the government's position that there will be no extension. I'm not concerned at all by any posts that question whether that is even possible, but your comments state categorically that it will not happen. I think I am perfectly justified to challenge you on that, because it is not based on evidence.

I understand that some of the more right wing on this forum oppose discussion on certain topics, but it's an absolutely dangerous step in the fascist direction if you simply cannot query a Government policy being viable in the midst of what is likely to be the biggest global economic slump since the Great Depression.

Of course I understand that the coronavirus is sapping the resources of politicians and the civil service. However, the government has made clear that the team dealing with trade deals are not involved in the coronavirus issues.

You simply don't understand it at all.

Governments will always trot out such lines because they provide reassurance when the public requires it. Tens of thousands of people are working on both in the background. Again, implementing a trade deal is much wider than negotiating one - one that will affect almost every Civil Service department.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You said I was speculating against the Government. I'm simply not. Saying you think they should do something, and would be supportive if they did, is a positive move. Back in the day when politics wasn't polarised and compromise was quite natural.

It's absolutely correct.

I understand that some of the more right wing on this forum oppose discussion on certain topics, but it's an absolutely dangerous step in the fascist direction if you simply cannot query a Government policy being viable in the midst of what is likely to be the biggest global economic slump since the Great Depression.

You simply don't understand it at all.

Governments will always trot out such lines because they provide reassurance when the public requires it. Tens of thousands of people are working on both in the background. Again, implementing a trade deal is much wider than negotiating one - one that will affect almost every Civil Service department.

My God, jfman! Nobody minds a debate, and questions being put forward about deliverability. But what gets my goat is those who simply say that stuff can't be done. It can.

Anyway, you will absolutely contradict everything I say on this subject, so I'm going to leave it there. I think people on this forum are sick and tired of this deliberately contrived bickering. I think everyone understands our respective positions on this. Time to give them a much deserved break.

[jfman]

I've said I'd absolutely welcome a trade deal by the end of the year if it was possible, only that we shouldn't walk away for a short period - 365 days - in our economic interest following the inevitable Coronavirus shock if it wasn't.

I fail to understand why you find it so objectionable to the extent you wouldn't even consider it a reasonable proposition in difficult circumstances.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I've said I'd absolutely welcome a trade deal by the end of the year if it was possible, only that we shouldn't walk away for a short period - 365 days - in our economic interest following the inevitable Coronavirus shock if it wasn't.

I fail to understand why you find it so objectionable to the extent you wouldn't even consider it a reasonable proposition in difficult circumstances.

I do not disagree with that. Where did I put my balloons?

I just do not believe that an extension is inevitable, as you appear to, judging by everything you said.

Thank you for your help in bringing this matter to a close.

It's going to be interesting what happens after the virus in terms of trade though.

There will be a big push to produce things domestically. Macron has said France will look to boost it's internal production capability and I imagine other countries will feel the same. The single market will likely decline.

But this will also be an issue here too because in any trade deals we're looking to make there will be higher domestic pressure not to give away anything that might inhibit our own producers. I.E Farmers were worried what we might concede to the Americans - that's less likely to happen too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52414155

The progress made in post-Brexit trade talks between the UK and EU has been disappointing, Michel Barnier has said.

Good. This strongly suggests that the UK delegation is sticking to its lines.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52414155

Good. This strongly suggests that the UK delegation is sticking to its lines.

What lines?

But he said "no progress" had been made on fisheries, as the UK has "not put forward a legal text".

Originally Posted by jfman

What lines?

That sounds like a fairly thin lawyer's excuse to me. Even in the absence of a formal legal text, I highly doubt that the EU does not by now know in some detail what the UK's position on fisheries is.