Tuesday, 19 September 2017

Attempts to negotiate with the EU are bound to fail - Yanis Varoufakis

Yanis has been there and been given the run around by the EU and its 5 Presidents. The EU demands clarity from us but it never gives clarity. Who is responsible for what is a quicksand of ambiguity in the EU. The EU does not want to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal with us. It wants us to surrender unconditionally as if we had been defeated in a major war. It wants us to pay them huge financial reparations. That number keeps changing as well. It is the EU way but when one asks what are we paying for there are no answers just bluster and Gallic shrugs.

We obviously cannot accept this so I ask why bother? We have a perfectly good alternative, WTO rules that 93% of World trade is conducted under. What is happening is a meaningless dance to cover.
HMG's back from accusations, that the Lib Dems, have already made that we did not try to negotiate. We have a very active 6th column in our country from our own government officials Sir Humphrey et al to the CBI, TUC, Labour party, thespians over paid VCs,  the BBC,the list is endless. but they all have one thing in common, they are all on the EU payroll and EU promises of preferment..

John Redwood hit the nail on the head in his blog,


The Remainer's tactics are delay, delay and yet more delay. At the same time there will be a constant drip of EU propaganda via EU sympathetic journalists. Most insidious is the Lib Dem scandalous  policy that there should be a  second Referendum on the results of the government's so called negotiations. There can be no better bargaining chip for the EU and no better way of betraying our country.

May was right to say no deal is better than a bad deal. We  must stick to this and wait.

Sooner or later the other peoples of the EU will realise they are simply the slaves of the Fourth Reich. The so called European Court of Justice is no such thing. It is a political court designed to advance the EU's political objectives. EU economic arguments are always subservient to EU political objectives. I made this argument in 1972 when I was in the Civil Service and I was vilified. Most politicians had not even bothered to read the Treaty of Rome and in particular the clause on ever closer union.

In the EU we are dealing with an aggressive expansionist empire every bit as bad as the Third Reich and Napoleon's Continental system. The crunch will come in the Ukraine where Napoleon and Hitler came to grief but not before many millions of innocents had died. If the EU takes on Russia it will be history repeating itself for the third time.

Listen to Yanis and get out of the EU right now..

Boris is also  right


Niall Warry said...

Eric, you always tell me to deal in FACTS - well without negotiations 32 countries would not have been able to create the EEA which just happens to be the most sophisticated and successful trading bloc in the world.

Eric Edmond said...

Facts, figures needed' What about US, Japanese trade. Trade went on a long time before EEA

Niall Warry said...

Of course it did it started with the likes of tobacco and potatoes and progressed over the centuries to the sophisticated,complex and comprehensive EEA which did require NEGOTIATIONS.

NAFTA is a physically bigger market but is not so detailed.

My point is simple Yanis and you are wrong to suggest the EU won't negotiate.

Eric Edmond said...

Yanis has been there you have not. You, North and Booker are obsessed by trade deals. Trade is driven by economic fundamentals and competitive advantage.

Niall Warry said...

And you seem to continually forget rules, regulations, costs and a system of adjudication.

Eric Edmond said...

I repeat Yanis has been there you have not.

Niall Warry said...

The self publicist Yanis may well have dealt with the EU but he is hardly an ideal candidate to quote as the font of all wisdom.

Stephen Harness said...

History tells us that negotiations will The book by Booker and North - The Great Deception - does give an insight into their system and how difficult they can be. We are heading fo 'no deal'. My first preference was EEA/EFTA but I do not see that being available for all sorts of reasons. Somebody has to very quickly explain the WTO option to the electorate. It is being identified as 'cliff edge'. Now is the time to spell out that is a perfectly rational exit.

Blind stoat said...

^ Stephen, I tend to agree with your comment. The likely impact and practical implications of 'no deal' - i.e. the WTO option by default, should be presented and discussed.

As I see it, the big potential unknown - if we go down the WTO route - is the likely impact on the City. In extremis, we could end up in a situation where BMW, Renault et al somehow manage to carry on selling us their cars but all the major Swiss, US, German and French banks pull stumps and shift to Paris/Amsterdam/Frankfurt.

Niall Warry said...

To Stephen and Stoat as Eurosceptics are you not familiar with Dr North's monographs - trying reading number two on the WTO for starters linked from the top of his website.

Blind stoat said...

^ Niall - as a Eurosceptic, I am very familiar with Dr North's views - as indeed I am with yours.

Stephen Harness said...

I am familiar with Dr North. I have followed the monographs and read his books. As Eric will be aware of, I was of the opinion that EEA/EFTA was the route to follow and then look for a bespoke arrangement.
That would be fine if we were allowed to join EFTA and if we did not have elections here. Richard puts forward a long term plan. That is fine but we have general elections and this rules out a protracted exit from the EU. It would be possible for a sea change of opinion to keep us in the EU and we know a 5th Column will want to do this.
Therefore I reckon the break must be clean and not easy to overturn.