Interesting negotiating technique

The reason that the EU27 are willing to accept this negative outcome is that greater goods are at stake: the unity of the EU27, the integrity of the Single Market and the future of European integration. While there is willingness to find a compromise with the UK, a country leaving the EU cannot be better off than a remaining member. Allowing cherry picking of benefits would act as a signal to others inside the EU that a Europe à la carte is obtainable, opening the Pandora’s box of disintegration.

But this hard line is also based on the nature of the Union: in the end, the EU is a community of law, underpinned by the EU Treaties and safeguarded by the European Court of Justice. The notion that the EU could somehow concede on fundamental aspects of the treaties, such as freedom of movement or the oversight of the ECJ, is not only unlikely but would be struck down by the Court when challenged, making the Tony Blair suggestion unworkable. A deal, including a transition arrangement, will only be possible if the UK accepts the EU’s red lines while, at least temporarily, breaking the promises made to the UK electorate,

European integration is so important that sod the bloody voters……

21 thoughts on “Interesting negotiating technique”

  1. The EU is free to insist on binding decisions of its own courts on its own members. But it can’t insist on them when dealing with third parties. Every international treaty needs (in practice) some kind of dispute resolution procedure*. But a treaty that requires all disputes to be resolved by the courts of one party alone, isn’t a treaty, it’s an instrument of surrender.

    * This is the main remaining sticking point with the EU-Japan trade agreement

  2. The EU purports to represent the interests of its member states. It doesn’t. The main interest of the EU is to keep and acquire as much power for itself as possible. If it actually does anything to benefit a member that is merely a trade for more power.
    I suspect that many of the people’s of Europe are starting to wake up to that.
    The EU will only start to sound reasonable on Brexit when member states baulk at the cost of EU power.

  3. Bloke in North Dorset

    Pat,

    Indeed. And if the a EU does follow through with its threats then a lot more people are going to realise they are hanging on to a Tiger’s tail.

  4. This is where it’s going to get interesting. To expand on Pat, the “EU27” is actually a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels with no skin in the game, apart from their own jobs. The cost is going to be borne by producers & consumers across Europe. And there’ll be a lot of asymmetry.. National governments are going to be driven by the reaction of their own electorates & businesses & the effects on their own economies.
    There’s a helluva catfight in the making.

  5. “The Brexit negotiations continued this week with the UK government STILL INSISTING that the endpoint be an exit from the EU, including its Customs Union and the Single Market. ”

    What a glorious view of a free, fair and democratic decision of the demos. Once you realise this is the wroter’s (and many others’) mindset, you can happily stop reading.

  6. “in the end, the EU is a community of law”: not, I think, in a sense that Hayek would recognise.

  7. If an exiting country is better off outside the union without some kind of punishment arrangement being out in place, what does that tell us about the structure of the European Union?

  8. Well said Fabian. You hit the nail on the head. Euro integration is the name of the game. You need the goodies of trade to sweeten the pains of giving up control to the EU. They aren’t intrinsically linked but we’ll act as if they are. You’ll not find too many EUphile Brits articulate that. The EU position is dependent on ever closer union, and even economic prosperity will be forgone to further that aim. But if EU is not about getting the optimum economic prosperity for its members , you’re left with it getting power for powers sake.

  9. Piss on the EU. Full stop.

    What concerns me is that that cunt Hammond is spewing the same sort of shite.

    As for Zeluug –how much UK taxpayer cash funds the lying twats “think-tank”?

  10. “a country leaving the EU cannot be better off than a remaining member”

    Leaving the EU allows us to set import tariffs to zero. So, to ensure the UK is worse off than the EU the EU must set import tariffs to a negative amount.

  11. “Piss on the EU. Full stop.”

    It’s more likely to be the EU pissing on us. Without end.

    Enough of the UK electorate thought that Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott were more appealing than a strong Brexit stance, and elections have consequences as much as referenda do.

    The consequence is that the UK has an incredibly weak, divided government with a weak, divided negotiating position. You can hardly blame the EU for taking every advantage, and they are going to fuck us over royally.

  12. @jgh

    “Leaving the EU allows us to set import tariffs to zero.”

    This is something a lot of the”economists for Brexit” seem to have hoped would happen. But is it politically feasible?

    Too many jobs and industries will require, or so they demand, “protection”. Politicians will claim that abolishing tariffs deprives us of negotiating leverage. The voting public will think it unfair that the Chinese and Indians and Americans can now dump their cheap rubbish on us, and that it was stupid for the government to agree to this when good solid British industries are not allowed the same access to those countries with their high quality manufacturing wares.

  13. I think I saw this movie:

    “These people got no respect.”
    “Don’t worry godfather, I’ll take care of it.”
    “You’re a good boy, Michele, your uncle would be proud.”

  14. “While there is willingness to find a compromise with the UK, a country leaving the EU cannot be better off than a remaining member. Allowing cherry picking of benefits would act as a signal to others inside the EU that a Europe à la carte is obtainable, opening the Pandora’s box of disintegration.”

    This doesn’t make any sense to me in the context of the article talking about relaxing the rules *to keep us in*. It is obvious that the EU would not do that.

    What more than a few EU supporters are actually warning about is rules no longer applying to us once we have left. At first this sounds strange. Once we’re out we’re out. If EU membership means everything is awesome we’ll be ‘worse off’ having left. Simple.

    But what appears to matter here is the point of view you are looking from. The negotiations are state to state and at that level freedom of movement, for example, isn’t a benefit but an obligation on states to not discriminate in favour of their own people. Leaving sets your state free and they don’t want the public to notice.

  15. PJF–That is all bullshit.

    80% of election parties supported out including out of the single market circus.

    The vile fish-faced cow and her gang are Brexits only problem.

    Were I Prime Minister all remainiac tory MPs would have it made very clear that the slightest sign of disloyalty would lead to not merely a penniless end to their careers but instant arrest on treason/sedition charges. As in the HoC lobby. Fuck whether the law allows that or not. The Civil Contingencies Act doubtlessly has a way to do so. And it would be made clear to any ringleaders or instigators –male or female–that they would suffer in police custody under the pretext of “assaulting an officer while trying to escape” or some such bullshit.

    I have really had a gutful of remainiacs and traitors. I would regret the need for the above–and once the danger was passed the CCA would be buried at sea laden with concrete.

    But before freedom comes both survival and victory. We are engaged in a war frankly for survival. Against middle-class cultural Marxist scum, against EU tyranny and its vile treasonous agents and supporters and against imported takeover.

    If we lose –we lose all. What I propose to enable the victory of good would be a minor sideshow compared to life after an enemy victory. Horrific years and maybe decades would follow that dreadful eventuality.

  16. “The notion that the EU could somehow concede on fundamental aspects of the treaties, such as freedom of movement or the oversight of the ECJ, is not only unlikely but would be struck down by the Court when challenge”

    You mean in the way that the concessions to the Danes and French (over freedom of movement of capital) and the Germans (over free trade in services) have been struck down by the ECJ?

  17. While there is willingness to find a compromise with the UK, a country leaving the EU cannot be better off than a remaining member. Allowing cherry picking of benefits would act as a signal to others inside the EU that a Europe à la carte is obtainable, opening the Pandora’s box of disintegration.”

    The EU is so great for its members that it has to threaten to break the legs of anyone thinking of leaving. Strange club to want to belong to.

  18. “The EU is so great for its members that it has to threaten to break the legs of anyone thinking of leaving. Strange club to want to belong to.”

    Bit like the Mafia – you leava my family, I breaka your legs……..now give me the money……

    The odd thing is, many of the countries that wanted independence from the British Empire had virtually the same position regarding the UK that the UK does with the EU today. A single currency (or local currencies tied to sterling pretty tightly), free movement of people (from the UK to colonies at least), a supranational control structure with limited self governance, a sort of free trade area via Imperial Preference. One wonders why the break up of Empire was seen as ‘A Good Thing’, as they seem to be all in favour of the current EU Empire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *