I think this nicely sums up the way the EU has acted: Sir Ivan Rogers, former UK permanent representative to Brussels, the most acute observer of the Brexit process in the UK and one of the most knowledgeable officials on how the EU functions, is highly critical of the UK’s management of Brexit negotiations, but has also taken issue with the EU’s approach. At an event hosted in London by the Institute of Government, Sir Ivan claimed the EU adopted a technocratic, process-driven approach from the outset managed by Brussels theologians and did not think strategically about the future relationship with the UK. Essentially Sir Ivan portrayed a union driven by tactics rather than strategy. A position he is not alone in holding. The EU has hard power and deploys it to pursue its interests and safeguard itself when faced with an existential threat. Once the Leave side won the referendum, the remaining 27 states and the EU institutions pursued three strategic goals, all related to protecting the EU as a polity or political community. The first was to demonstrate the centrality of the EU in governing transnational relations in Europe. This was particularly important given the depiction of the EU during the UK referendum as weak and on the verge of collapse. European non-member states, including the departing UK, must reach an accommodation with the union. Hence, the Brexit process unfolds on the union’s terms. The second strategic goal was that membership must matter. Demonstrating the difference between being in the club and outside was essential. Put simply, there could be no privileged status for a former member state. The EU’s third strategic goal was to safeguard the union as a rules-based system held together by treaties, laws and institutions. Across all EU institutions, Brexit was insulated from the day-to-day functioning of the union with task forces in the council and commission and a Brexit steering group in the European Parliament. The withdrawal of the UK was not going to permeate everything the EU was doing. Our mistake was to accept their terms of negotiation. It meant we'd already made them Chairman with final say. A decent negotiator would never have created such a bad scenario to negotiate within. The trading arrangement was an essential part of achieving a satisfactory outcome and it was off the table from day 1.
I think the eu has acted all the way through in the mindset that if they were to make it awkward then we wouldn't leave, which is weird as they have dealt with us for over 40 years and the one thing they know is that we do not react well to bullies. Now we are in the home straight, their strategy has failed and many of the big eu business's are openly saying to the eu, you might have gotten this wrong, read outside the U.K. media and there is plenty of information there. They rather have the bigger issue of trying to find a compromise without making the eu look weak. If as some German meps and government minsiters have said that it is better to go no deal, take the hit once and then rebuild, then this is perfect cannon fodder for the smaller countries to say hey where is this we are all in this together and equally? and perfect cannon fodder for the populists just right in front of the european mep elections to say, the eu is finished, it would rather cut it's own nose off, than change and change is what they keep promising but never provide.
I agree except that our MP's are shooting the UK in the foot. If we were looking serious about no deal Brexit, I'm sure they would now be pragmatic and reach agreement. Instead they see the MP's likely to vote for an extension and a good chance of Brexit failing. A good example of the German view: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...ded-and-unprepared-for-brexit-risks-1.3818277
They don’t need an alternative, it’s the British Government that does need an alternative. If Carlsberg made fuck ups, then the UK Governments handling of Brexit......... Ultimately the two options will be May’s deal or no Brexit at all.
Problem is the UK was never ever in a strong bargaining position from the start as there are very few major global British owned companies manufacturing in the UK. There is not one of the top 20 European manufacturing business with its main HQ in the UK.
Thankfully you are a doom and gloomer duke and only see one side. If there are many multinational U.K. companies manufacturing in the eu, then we could, should we chose, to follow the eu route of pulling U.K. production back to the U.K. and removing income and employment from european people and countries. Unlike european countries and the commission, we have not chosen to use that blackmail route of but it does rather highlight that we have far more options than the usual remoaner candidates want to admit too and this is the eu's biggest fear. It's been said all along, only about 5 countries could leave the eu and succeed and succeed well of which the U.K. is one, the last thing the eu want is for that to work.
and like trump ect they will ensure they get the best deal for them that protects their markets. seems fair
All countries want the best for their people fin, trouble is the eu isn't a country, it's a project where those at the top are taken care of very very well thank you very much.
Isn't that beyond the EU elections Rumour has it Dukey is daft as fook and has voices in his head, only it's no rumour
It’s a secret - like the MEPS expenses Nearer 3 years now, can’t be easy planning your ‘we can’t leave because’ speech.
The top ones are in Germany I believe. glaxosmithkline Can’t be far from the top 20 surely - haven’t they said they are prepared ?
The EU know that agreeing to any changes is a waste of time as May couldn't persuade a crackhead to smoke another bowl, she has no chance of passing any agreements through parliament. Wait for the extension, then Mays resignation, a new PM with a new cabinet and we will try again.
Think you will find you have your flags the wrong way round there - just shows how deluded the whole Brexit process has become.
