Keir Starmer’s EU Reset: A Strategy Built on Falsehoods

[JonnyF]

6 hours ago, RayC said:

The EU and the UK are in decline but the UK will decline quicker and further outside the EU than within.

 

No it won't.

 

The UK has left, we will avoid going down with that sinking ship.

 

Unless of course, Starmer gets offered some more freebies by the likes of Von Der Leyen during these "reset" negotiations. Then he'll happily sign us down the river. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

No it won't.

 

The UK has left, we will avoid going down with that sinking ship.

 

Unless of course, Starmer gets offered some more freebies by the likes of Von Der Leyen during these "reset" negotiations. Then he'll happily sign us down the river. 

 

Combined value of the EU internal market = $14.52 trillion.

 

Value of the UK market = $3.089 trillion.

 

If you are India, China, the US or anyone else for that matter, it is pretty clear which market you would look to prioritise.

 

You give the typical Brexiter response in saying that having left the EU, the UK will avoid a decline. However, again in typical Brexiter fashion, you offer no indication about how this is to be achieved.

 

Even if your prediction about relative decline does prove to be correct, how long will it take for the size of the UK market to approach that of the EU?

 

As I previously said, the UK's role on the international stage is diminished outside of the EU. The 'special relationship' with the US hasn't been so special since we left the EU. The UK is of use to the US due to our NATO membership, but our importance to the US is diminished now that we are outside of the EU. Irrespective of whether Harris or Trump wins the election, nothing is likely to chance wrt the US's relationship with the UK.

 

The confrontational attitude towards the EU adopted by Johnson, which you appear to favour, has proven to be a dismal failure. Even the hapless Truss seemingly recognised this, as shown by her attending the first European Political Community summit and offering warm words to Macron. Sunak continued to repair the damage done by Johnson and it is to be hoped that Starmer can improve our relationship further.

[nauseus]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:21 PM, RayC said:

This article - which is almost entirely devoid of anything that might be considered a fact - was written by Lord David Frost: That's right, the very same David Frost who was Boris Johnson's Chief Brexit negotiator, and who was instrumental in negotiating the existing EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement, which almost everyone - Leaver or Remainer - agrees is a bad deal for the UK.

 

The UK had a bad hand to play during the Brexit negotiations; Frost made that hand worse by his incorrect reading - and inept playing - of the situation.

 

He now has the gall to lecture others on how to negotiate with the EU. You couldn't make this up if you tried.

 

The comment in this piece seems generally factual to me. Yes, the WA and the TCA were poor for the UK but the guts of the first one were little to do with Lord Frost, who entered the fray late on and was assigned the task of making the best job he could of  modifying May's "Chequers Agreement", which was the only way to get any agreement with the EU. Critical elements of the WA were demanded by the EU and only modified by the UK, from May's midnight flit to Germany, probably had to have Merkel's blessing. 

 

The TCA was relatively rushed but Frost was under pressure from Johnson to "get Brexit done". Negotiations with the EU were already known to be lacking in the good faith department anyway and the clock was running.

[nauseus]

 

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

You give the typical Brexiter response in saying that having left the EU, the UK will avoid a decline. However, again in typical Brexiter fashion, you offer no indication about how this is to be achieved.

 

Pretty obvious. Stay out.

[RayC]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

Pretty obvious. Stay out.

 

Yeah. That's working a treat so far.

[retarius]

Starmer is pathetic. Power doesn't take long to corrupt, does it? Labour.....still haven't got it.....the massive 2% swing to Labour from the Cornyn election should have told you something......do I have to doff my cap to SIR? Nah just tell him to <deleted>.

[retarius]

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Combined value of the EU internal market = $14.52 trillion.

 

Value of the UK market = $3.089 trillion.

 

If you are India, China, the US or anyone else for that matter, it is pretty clear which market you would look to prioritise.

 

You give the typical Brexiter response in saying that having left the EU, the UK will avoid a decline. However, again in typical Brexiter fashion, you offer no indication about how this is to be achieved.

 

Even if your prediction about relative decline does prove to be correct, how long will it take for the size of the UK market to approach that of the EU?

 

As I previously said, the UK's role on the international stage is diminished outside of the EU. The 'special relationship' with the US hasn't been so special since we left the EU. The UK is of use to the US due to our NATO membership, but our importance to the US is diminished now that we are outside of the EU. Irrespective of whether Harris or Trump wins the election, nothing is likely to chance wrt the US's relationship with the UK.

 

The confrontational attitude towards the EU adopted by Johnson, which you appear to favour, has proven to be a dismal failure. Even the hapless Truss seemingly recognised this, as shown by her attending the first European Political Community summit and offering warm words to Macron. Sunak continued to repair the damage done by Johnson and it is to be hoped that Starmer can improve our relationship further.

A totally spurious argument. When Britain was in the EU it was still only a tiny share of the EU GDP and the UK only had small share. Where it is now depends upon business performance, productivity, innovation and salesmanship. But that hasn't changed since it was in the UK. The UK is doomed as key jobs are taken by DEI candidates and companies decline because performance is no longer based on merit. 

[RayC]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The comment in this piece seems generally factual to me. Yes, the WA and the TCA were poor for the UK but the guts of the first one were little to do with Lord Frost, who entered the fray late on and was assigned the task of making the best job he could of  modifying May's "Chequers Agreement", which was the only way to get any agreement with the EU. Critical elements of the WA were demanded by the EU and only modified by the UK, from May's midnight flit to Germany, probably had to have Merkel's blessing. 

 

The TCA was relatively rushed but Frost was under pressure from Johnson to "get Brexit done". Negotiations with the EU were already known to be lacking in the good faith department anyway and the clock was running.

 

It is an opinion piece, nothing more. I've re-read the original Telegraph article and there is little hard evidence offered. For example, Frost casually states, "Similarly, it’s far from clear why we need a food and veterinary agreement." Perhaps, he should have delved a bit more deeply into the subject.

 

 https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/veterinary-agreements/#:~:text=A recent study estimates a,in 2023 was £150bn.

 

I don't doubt that there are numerous other instances where hard evidence can be supplied to oppose his view.

 

Frost also states that, "It’s crucial at the early stage of any negotiation to have a clear idea of what is really in your interest and what you might be prepared to give to get it." For once, I am in total agreement with him. Unfortunately, Teresa May and David Davis apparently had no idea of what they wanted and how to get it. Of course, Frost can't be blamed for this but it does beg the question, was the eventual TCA indicative of his clear thinking on the matter?

 

You state that, "The TCA was relatively rushed but Frost was under pressure from Johnson to "get Brexit done"." Agreed but why the rush? Johnson had rid the CPP of Remainer MPs and he had a 80-seat majority. Unlike May, Johnson was in a position to get any negotiated Agreement through Parliament. No doubt the EU would have been mighty cheesed off if Johnson had gone to Brussels and effectively said, 'Forget the past 2+ years of negotiations, let's start again'. Nevertheless, as you correctly point out, good faith was in pretty short supply at the time. What is the worse that could have happened? The EU could have refused to negotiate further and 'No Deal' would have been the outcome. While imo this would have been even more of a disaster for the UK than the current TCA, it could have been a political bonus for Johnson. He could've taken the moral high ground by blaming the EU for the breakdown in negotiations, whilst at the same time giving the Flat Earthers (ERG) exactly what they wanted.

[RayC]

17 minutes ago, retarius said:

A totally spurious argument. When Britain was in the EU it was still only a tiny share of the EU GDP and the UK only had small share. Where it is now depends upon business performance, productivity, innovation and salesmanship. But that hasn't changed since it was in the UK. The UK is doomed as key jobs are taken by DEI candidates and companies decline because performance is no longer based on merit. 

 

And you think my argument spurious😂