Discussion:
Negotiations mired in stalemate?
(too old to reply)
MM
2017-10-06 11:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-06 11:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?

When it was suggested recently that we might not pay anything at all as
a divorce settlement unless we achieved a satisfactory trade deal, the
EU rather huffily said the two could not be linked.

But, if they're not linked, they can surely be discussed in parallel.

So, why is the EU making them preconditions for talks on trade?

Etc etc.
Jethro_uk
2017-10-06 12:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Why did the UK agree ?
Post by Norman Wells
When it was suggested recently that we might not pay anything at all as
a divorce settlement unless we achieved a satisfactory trade deal, the
EU rather huffily said the two could not be linked.
Huffily ? Referring one party in a negotiation to a condition the other
party agreed to is now "huffy"?
Post by Norman Wells
But, if they're not linked, they can surely be discussed in parallel.
So, why is the EU making them preconditions for talks on trade?
So why did the UK agree ? Or are the EU such super-clever negotiators
they can bamboozle the poor UK into all sorts of conditions ? If that is
the case, then perhaps the UK should have better negotiators ?
James Harris
2017-10-06 12:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Why did the UK agree ?
Post by Norman Wells
When it was suggested recently that we might not pay anything at all as
a divorce settlement unless we achieved a satisfactory trade deal, the
EU rather huffily said the two could not be linked.
Huffily ? Referring one party in a negotiation to a condition the other
party agreed to is now "huffy"?
Not so when the qualifying criteria are so vague. "Sufficient progress"
means different things to different people.
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
But, if they're not linked, they can surely be discussed in parallel.
So, why is the EU making them preconditions for talks on trade?
So why did the UK agree ? Or are the EU such super-clever negotiators
they can bamboozle the poor UK into all sorts of conditions ? If that is
the case, then perhaps the UK should have better negotiators ?
I suspect/hope the UK agreed because the EU stipulated that _nothing_
would be agreed until the signatures were on the dotted line. Hence, the
UK can agree payments now but the EU won't get a penny unless the UK is
satisfied later.

I don't have much confidence in the nous of the British side, though.
--
James Harris
Jethro_uk
2017-10-06 13:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
[quoted text muted]
Not so when the qualifying criteria are so vague. "Sufficient progress"
means different things to different people.
Which is true. It might even be interesting if it was of importance here.

The conditions the UK agreed to were not, and are not vague. The 3
matters of EU citizens rights; final UK payment; and Irish border all
have to be agreed before trade talks can commence.

Ironically the EU was actually trying to cut the UK some slack by
suggesting that if progress seemed promising on those 3 issues,
*preparations* for trade talks could begin.
James Harris
2017-10-06 13:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by James Harris
[quoted text muted]
Not so when the qualifying criteria are so vague. "Sufficient progress"
means different things to different people.
Which is true. It might even be interesting if it was of importance here.
The conditions the UK agreed to were not, and are not vague. The 3
matters of EU citizens rights; final UK payment; and Irish border all
have to be agreed before trade talks can commence.
Wasn't the EU's idea to say the three points had to be agreed "to a
sufficient degree" where it would decide what was sufficient and what
was not?
Post by Jethro_uk
Ironically the EU was actually trying to cut the UK some slack by
suggesting that if progress seemed promising on those 3 issues,
*preparations* for trade talks could begin.
Cool.
--
James Harris
Jethro_uk
2017-10-06 13:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
[quoted text muted]
Wasn't the EU's idea to say the three points had to be agreed "to a
sufficient degree" where it would decide what was sufficient and what
was not?
It was an attempt to help the UK. EU member states are starting to
realise that the UK appears to be intending to leave the EU in the manner
in which it was a member.

Badly.
tim...
2017-10-06 14:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by James Harris
[quoted text muted]
Wasn't the EU's idea to say the three points had to be agreed "to a
sufficient degree" where it would decide what was sufficient and what
was not?
It was an attempt to help the UK.
no, it was an attempt not to box the EU into a position where they had to
compromise to get out of

The EU need to move to a discussion on future trading terms as much as we
do, and need a get out if we really can't agree the other terms first.
Post by Jethro_uk
EU member states are starting to
realise that the UK appears to be intending to leave the EU in the manner
in which it was a member.
As in "Yes we really do mean it" you mean

If only the commission would understand that

tim

Norman Wells
2017-10-06 14:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by James Harris
[quoted text muted]
Not so when the qualifying criteria are so vague. "Sufficient progress"
means different things to different people.
Which is true. It might even be interesting if it was of importance here.
The conditions the UK agreed to were not, and are not vague. The 3
matters of EU citizens rights; final UK payment; and Irish border all
have to be agreed before trade talks can commence.
Ironically the EU was actually trying to cut the UK some slack by
suggesting that if progress seemed promising on those 3 issues,
*preparations* for trade talks could begin.
How kind.
Yellow
2017-10-06 13:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:20:57 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Why did the UK agree ?
I have no idea nor do I know if the UK even did but in any case -
"making sufficient progress" is an airy fairy phrase that can mean
whatever the side with the whip hand on the day wants it to mean.

So if it was agreed by someone in the UK, they need their legs slapped.
Jethro_uk
2017-10-06 13:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:20:57 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU
as of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of
progress on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Why did the UK agree ?
I have no idea nor do I know if the UK even did but in any case -
"making sufficient progress" is an airy fairy phrase that can mean
whatever the side with the whip hand on the day wants it to mean.
sufficient progress is not the actual agreed matter. It was an attempt to
help the UK by giving DD et al something to take back home.
Post by Yellow
So if it was agreed by someone in the UK, they need their legs slapped.
Norman Wells
2017-10-06 13:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Why did the UK agree ?
To get the talking started, knowing full well, as is obvious to anyone
who has ever been involved in negotiation, that nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed, and everything is ultimately linked.

No-one ever agrees the price without knowing what he's going to get in
return.
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
When it was suggested recently that we might not pay anything at all as
a divorce settlement unless we achieved a satisfactory trade deal, the
EU rather huffily said the two could not be linked.
Huffily ? Referring one party in a negotiation to a condition the other
party agreed to is now "huffy"?
Yes, the fundamental truth is that all issues *are* linked whatever has
been said. The UK knows that, and has now pushed the EU into the
illogical and untenable position of maintaining that they're not. That
makes them look silly, and their only reaction is the childish one of
being huffy about it.
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
But, if they're not linked, they can surely be discussed in parallel.
So, why is the EU making them preconditions for talks on trade?
So why did the UK agree ? Or are the EU such super-clever negotiators
they can bamboozle the poor UK into all sorts of conditions ? If that is
the case, then perhaps the UK should have better negotiators ?
It's absurd to think that we're going to agree a huge divorce bill in
isolation without knowing what's going to happen to the house and the CD
collection.

You don't need uber-negotiators to tell you that.
tim...
2017-10-06 14:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Why did the UK agree ?
what choice did we have?

if we had said "no we don't agree with your preconditions" what do you think
would have been the EU's response?

a) OK, we'll change them for you then
b) tough titties that how it's going to work

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-06 12:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
They are agreed pre-conditions.

They are - what happens to EU citizens and their families in the UK, what happens about the Irish border and a rather mundane accounting point about how much the UK has already committed to in joint programs.
Post by Norman Wells
When it was suggested recently that we might not pay anything at all as
a divorce settlement unless we achieved a satisfactory trade deal, the
EU rather huffily said the two could not be linked.
But, if they're not linked, they can surely be discussed in parallel.
I suppose they could, but the EU wants to get the three issues sorted out first, and of course contrary to Brexiteer fantasy the EU holds the cards.
Post by Norman Wells
So, why is the EU making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Because their citizens being potentially booted out is important to them - more important than trade.

Because the Irish border is a very big issue for a remaining member (RoI).

Because their should not really be any argument over existing financial commitments, although there may be some negotiation about how it is paid (all up front, or by instalments - e.g. pensions as they fall due). Of course the UK could simply renege on payment for the first time in 800 years if it doesn't get a trade deal, but that could make government finance difficult if financiers thought it could happen again.
Post by Norman Wells
Etc etc.
James Harris
2017-10-06 13:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
They are agreed pre-conditions.
They are - what happens to EU citizens and their families in the UK, what happens about the Irish border and a rather mundane accounting point about how much the UK has already committed to in joint programs.
But with unclear qualifying criteria.

Apart from the citizens' rights, they are stupid things to try to agree
at this stage. It was basically the EU's wishlist for the things it most
wanted to get.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
When it was suggested recently that we might not pay anything at all as
a divorce settlement unless we achieved a satisfactory trade deal, the
EU rather huffily said the two could not be linked.
But, if they're not linked, they can surely be discussed in parallel.
I suppose they could, but the EU wants to get the three issues sorted out first, and of course contrary to Brexiteer fantasy the EU holds the cards.
The EU holds more of the cards, especially at this stage.

It will be interesting to see the balance change, though, if they get
agreement on stage 1. Then the EU will have a deal on the things it
wants and the only way to seal that deal will be to give the UK the
things it wants in return. The ascendant side then will be the UK!
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
So, why is the EU making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Because their citizens being potentially booted out is important to them - more important than trade.
Please, please don't claim that about the EU. They did NOT provide any
unilateral guarantees. They did NOT countenance giving reassurances
before Article 50 was triggered. And they ruled OUT allowing citizens'
rights to be agreed until right at the end.

I /suspect/ that the EU's approach is intended to try to get the talks
to fail.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Because the Irish border is a very big issue for a remaining member (RoI).
Because their should not really be any argument over existing financial commitments, although there may be some negotiation about how it is paid (all up front, or by instalments - e.g. pensions as they fall due). Of course the UK could simply renege on payment for the first time in 800 years if it doesn't get a trade deal, but that could make government finance difficult if financiers thought it could happen again.
The UK could pay the EU fee to the date of exit, 29 March 2019, and
could divide rights and responsibilities over liabilities and assets.
That's all that's actually needed. The EU wants more.
--
James Harris
Jethro_uk
2017-10-06 13:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
[quoted text muted]
But with unclear qualifying criteria.
The criteria is mind-numbingly simple.

Both sides agree. As in agree.
Yellow
2017-10-06 13:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 05:29:22 -0700 (PDT), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
Why is the EU stupidly making them preconditions for talks on trade?
They are agreed pre-conditions.
They are - what happens to EU citizens and their families in the UK, what happens about the Irish border and a rather mundane accounting point about how much the UK has already committed to in joint programs.
Is the way the Irish border is going to work not dependent on how the
trade deal, or lack there of, is going to operate?

How can this be figured out in isolation?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
When it was suggested recently that we might not pay anything at all as
a divorce settlement unless we achieved a satisfactory trade deal, the
EU rather huffily said the two could not be linked.
But, if they're not linked, they can surely be discussed in parallel.
I suppose they could, but the EU wants to get the three issues sorted out first, and of course contrary to Brexiteer fantasy the EU holds the cards.
Post by Norman Wells
So, why is the EU making them preconditions for talks on trade?
Because their citizens being potentially booted out is important to them - more important than trade.
EU citizens in the UK having protection of the ECJ is more important
than trade? I don't think so.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Because the Irish border is a very big issue for a remaining member (RoI).
The Irish border issue is no more important to Eire than it is to the
UK.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Because their should not really be any argument over existing financial commitments, although there may be some negotiation about how it is paid (all up front, or by instalments - e.g. pensions as they fall due). Of course the UK could simply renege on payment for the first time in 800 years if it doesn't get a trade deal, but that could make government finance difficult if financiers thought it could happen again.
How can the amount the UK pay to settle up be agreed until we know what
it is that needs to be settled?
Jethro_uk
2017-10-06 13:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 05:29:22 -0700 (PDT), R. Mark Clayton
[quoted text muted]
Is the way the Irish border is going to work not dependent on how the
trade deal, or lack there of, is going to operate?
It will work according to the Good Friday Agreement. And that - despite
any diversion tactics (which appear to have worked) is that.

The GFA is an international treaty the UK signed - as a sovereign nation
- with another sovereign nation. Whatever Brexit may bring, the GFA must
be honoured, or the UK will find itself below North Korea on the worlds
Christmas card list.

If all of this is opaque, mysterious, or too complicated for people to
get their heads around, then they should perhaps leave Brexit to the
experts.
Omega
2017-10-06 12:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
MM
Excellent news, surely?

Gets the Nazis off our backs for a wee while.

omega
tim...
2017-10-06 14:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
What exactly is the status of the talks between Britain and the EU as
of today? Last I heard was that the European Parliament had voted
overwhelmingly fo postpone trade negotiations due to lack of progress
on the initial three conditions.
The European Parliament don't have a dog in this fight

They are just the spectators cheering on their preferred team

Nothing more

tim
Loading...