Vocal Voices

If German newspapers are quoting Michel Barnier correctly it certainly looks like it.

In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung he said the he is "strongly opposed" to the plan and that it would be the "end" for the European project in that the "UK's proposals for future regulatory alignment on goods, while remaining outside the single market, threatened the EU's future."

He did say that we could have a Norway or Canada type deal, but we would then have to take over all the associated rules and contributions to European solidarity. "But if we let the British pick the raisins out of our rules, that would have serious consequences" in that other third countries would also want bespoke deals.

He also poured scorn on the idea of the UK to collect tariffs on the EU's behalf saying "We cannot relinquish control of our external borders and the revenue there to a third country - that's not legal." He also warned EU car makers "to be careful not to use too many parts from Britain in their vehicles in the future."

His parting shot was about the deadline slippage... "We don't need more time. What we need are political decisions,"

That all sounds very much to me that we are already deep in no-deal territory.

Workingman wrote:His parting shot was about the deadline slippage... "We don't need more time. What we need are political decisions,"

I'd go along with that.
I just wish they would put me in charge of Brexit. We'd be out in a matter of days, if not hours.
What we really need is omeone like Trump in charge.

[quote="Workingman"]His parting shot was about the deadline slippage... "We don't need more time. What we need are political decisions"

Ah yes, the Barnier Refrain. We need more decisions".

Let me translate. "We need you to do what we want"

Let me translate May's response. ""NO"

Works for me. They just need to suck it up and make some decisions to meet us on our terms. Or not. I don't care.

I think the only alternative is a no deal. We will have to pick our way through the complications that will inevitably follow but at least it will be on our own terms. A new start is better than the white flag.

As Fred Trueman used to say on Test Match Special, "I really don't know what's going on out there"

We voted to leave and more than two years later the situation seems as confused as ever. I think two years is long enough to either come to some sort of deal or realise that one is not possible.

What does strike me is that if we go for no deal we are going to need many more fisheries protection vessels, for instance? And Border Guards? And Customs Officers?
I don't remember seeing any ads for those jobs, so my suspicions are that May (advised by our 1000% Remainer civil service) will panic and cave in at the last minute, and we will end up with another Parliamentary drama where any such deal may be passed - or not.

Then again I am a pessimist. The EU have been fairly consistent. The four freedoms are not negotiable according to them, depends if they are telling the truth or not.

If so then yes, the Chequers deal is dead and never stood a chance of being anything else. If not, who knows?

The EU has been firm from day one on the four freedoms, cherry picking, cake and eat it and now raisins. It has never needed to meet us on our terms as it is us that are leaving. All this "they need us more than we need them" has been part of the sunny uplands, unicorns and mermaids fantasy peddled by the likes of Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox and Rees-Mogg.

I also see that Johnson has come out with what looks like a preamble for a leadership[p contest. He says that the Chequers plan offers us two-thirds of diddly squat and "means disaster" for Britain, but offers no alternative. He is right, though he had to wait for Barnier to firm things up. What he does not say is that any deal, for the moment at least, will be worse than the one we already have in our pocket.

Workingman wrote:What he does not say is that any deal, for the moment at least, will be worse than the one we already have in our pocket.

But that is a given. We are leaving. So any deal that is better than WTO, but does not tie the UK to the EU as if we were still in, is a ++.

I don't get a sense that those who wanted to leave believed that we would have a better trading relationship with the EU when we left. My sense is that they believe that the UK needs the distance and that there are other opportunities out there which should be pursued, at the same time as trading with the EU.

It is, to me, those who wanted to remain who keep on saying that we won't get as good a deal as we had. As if we actually thought that. We didn't.

It is straw man syndrome. Put up the straw man as if that is what brexiteers wanted then tear it down.

In some ways I'd like to see a second referendum. The choices would be.

1. Take the deal.
2. Leave now with nothing
3. Wait and try for a better deal later.

My bet? 2 all the way. Wouldn't that be a shocker.

Suff wrote:In some ways I'd like to see a second referendum. The choices would be.

1. Take the deal.
2. Leave now with nothing
3. Wait and try for a better deal later.

If there is a 'no-deal' then 1. and 2. amount to much the same thing. 3. does not really exist as there is not enough time to wait and, as we all know because you Brexiters keep on telling us, we cannot revoke A50.

However, if there is an unforeseen miracle and there is a deal based on the Chequers plan, (unlikely, but stay with it) then we will not actually be Leaving. We get BRINO. How the vote would then go is anybody's guess.

3. still does not exist. Chequers is a bad deal, as it is worse than the one we have, and fits nicely into the description of the oft screamed "no-deal is better than a bad deal" mantra of Brexiters. The only way we could go back is to lose our opt-outs, veto, rebate and to join Schengen and the €. That might be too much even for many Remainers.

So lets jump off the cliff and be done with it.

Workingman wrote:

Suff wrote:The only way we could go back is to lose our opt-outs, veto, rebate and to join Schengen and the €. That might be too much even for many Remainers.

I don't think there is much "might" about it. I'd say it is too much for about 70% of the voters.

The problem is that hysteria is being ramped up. There is no need to jump off the cliff right now. It is an option to be held in reserve. A threat if you like.

Right at the start of this I read an eminently sensible article which talked about the implications of triggering A50. It talked about the fact that we were walking out of the door and the negotiations were about deciding how far off the ground that door was when we walked out of it.

What Davis tried to do was set the benchmark at the roof and then try and negotiate it to the ground. The remainer press and MP's tried to set the benchmark at the ground and convince the people that they had no option but to accept the cost of that.

The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle. So we should let them continue to try and find some common ground. If we have to walk off the roof that is an option. The price of walking out on the ground floor is yet to be seen and may not be an option.