I thought you might respond like this. As I said: it's a strawman argument to suggest that the position is “give me what I want or I’ll kneecap myself". It's more "negotiate fairly or we'll both suffer". As I also said, the threat is against them, just how from their side, the threat is against us.Darlogramps wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:35 pmOh I fully understand the logic of keeping no deal on the table. But it is monumentally stupid logic.
Firstly, stop pretending this is some kind of ordinary negotiation. It isn’t. It is about how our country functions post-Brexit. It is about the economy, security, trade and so on.
You’re going on like it’s some kind of business deal. It’s not. These are people’s lives and jobs you’d be messing with.
Your argument that it is a threat to other nations’ economies is beyond idiotic. Because if it’s a threat to other nations’ economies, then it damages our own substantially. If the threat is against them, it is also against us. To say otherwise is incorrect. And we know No Deal is damaging to the UK economy because of the impact assessments published by the UK Government.
And what a negotiating tactic you’re advocating: “Give me what I want or I’ll kneecap myself.” There is no sanity in that position at all.
You can prepare all you like, it’s still not going to prevent economic damage. By definition, exiting on a no deal basis and presumably WTO terms, is the least desirable and least preferential outcome. Nor does it resolve the issues around the Irish border, EU citizen’s rights (remember the principle of ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’), trade terms, movement of people and so on.
There is no point keeping no deal on the table if you don’t want it to happen. And if you want no deal to happen, then I’d recommend reading the Government’s impact assessments. You’ll rapidly change your mind.
And there's a line to be drawn where No Deal is better than the deal offered. In my opinion, this line has been crossed.
You need to keep No Deal on the table, otherwise the other side will take advantage of you. Our side are s*** scared of No Deal, and the EU know this, hence they can take advantage of this fact and make any demands they want.
If you want a good deal, then you need to be genuinely willing to walk away with No Deal. And if No Deal is on the table, then it's a definite possibility. If you rule out No Deal, then you have no bargaining chip.
I don't know how many different ways I can word this.
This part I completely agree with, some excellent points made here.Darlogramps wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:35 pmThe biggest issue is the entire sequencing of the talks. Theresa May caved into the EU’s demands of notification before negotiations (I.E. triggering Article 50 before beginning Withdrawal Agreement negotiations with the EU). This had the effect of putting the UK against the clock, particularly as it hadn’t established what exactly it wanted, or established what Leave looked like.
This was compounded by agreeing to take the Withdrawal negotiations first, followed by the Future Relationship talks. Had these run concurrently, it would have reduced issues around the Irish Border, for example as it wouldn’t have required a backstop, because that issue would be sorted by deciding your permanent trading relationship (remember, the backstop and interim customs arrangements were/are only there in case an permanent agreement couldn’t be made). Make the agreement and the issue is no longer a major one.
Hindsight is wonderful, but the failure to decide what Leave meant and provide a mandate for that, is what’s led to this mess. Having secured an exit vote in 2016, the next step should have been to secure a mandate on the terms of departure, either through a referendum or General Election.