Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007 · 15-07-2017 8:54pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK could do similar and wants to do similar.

We don't actually know what the UK wants to do. Various members of the cabinet don't even seem to have the same song book let alone be on the same page.

One thing is for certain though, a FTA would be of little benefit to the UK as a whole as it would exclude financial services. Without ECJ acceptance the loss of Euro clearing services are a give, but to be unable to offer full client services out of London without the need to visit a subsidiary office, will in the long term lead to London becoming a backwater.

You can't expect to continue to be a major player, while at the same time being excluded from one of the richest markets.

Korat · 15-07-2017 8:55pm

By the way the DUP should be hand-cuffed to Brexit consequences too.

The Tories will get the majority of blame and rightly but the DUP have a major and possibly corrupt hand in it also.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-07-2017 9:11pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

The inverse is true. It is precisely in Ireland's interests to ensure a good deal for Britain.

Haven't you heard ?
Trickle down economics doesn't work.

It would be politically and financially cheaper for the EU to provide support for us than to let the UK get a better deal than countries that stay in.

And the UK still hasn't made any meaningful compromises on EU citizens rights other than offer rights already available to others resident in the UK for the same time period.

And besides without the ECJ oversight then technically the UK parliament could reverse any new laws.

solodeogloria · 15-07-2017 9:33pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Haven't you heard ?
Trickle down economics doesn't work.

It would be politically and financially cheaper for the EU to provide support for us than to let the UK get a better deal than countries that stay in.

And the UK still hasn't made any meaningful compromises on EU citizens rights other than offer rights already available to others resident in the UK for the same time period.

And besides without the ECJ oversight then technically the UK parliament could reverse any new laws.

Good evening!

I don't know why you repeat something that clearly isn't true.

If there's a joint court of arbitration and an agreement under international law then the UK can't change the law unless they withdrew from all provisions in the agreement.

Canada isn't subject to the ECJ for CETA - yet the provisions in it are obviously legally binding on both parties through the joint court of arbitration.

It makes zero sense for a third country to be subject to a court that is biased towards one party.

A joint court with an equal number of British and European judges is the obvious way forward. This is similar to the Canadian trade deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty · 15-07-2017 9:36pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I don't know why you repeat something that clearly isn't true.

If there's a joint court of arbitration and an agreement under international law then the UK can't change the law unless they withdrew from all provisions in the agreement.

Canada isn't subject to the ECJ for CETA - yet the provisions in it are obviously legally binding on both parties through the joint court of arbitration.

It makes zero sense for a third country to be subject to a court that is biased towards one party.

A joint court with an equal number of British and European judges is the obvious way forward. This is similar to the Canadian trade deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Seven years. Nearly scuppered by the Walloons. No nasty divorce going on the background. No history of friction.

solodeogloria · 15-07-2017 9:39pm

Good evening!

If it takes 7 years with a transitional agreement so be it.

Others have responded that due to a high level of regulatory equivalence at present in law that it shouldn't take this long but if it does so be it.

Brexit is what the people voted for and that's what they need to get.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty · 15-07-2017 9:45pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If it takes 7 years with a transitional agreement so be it.

Others have responded that due to a high level of regulatory equivalence at present in law that it shouldn't take this long but if it does so be it.

Brexit is what the people voted for and that's what they need to get.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I'm a bit slow so please humour me . No matter how hard I search I can't find what exactly 'Brexit' means.

You seem very positive about 'Brexit'. Maybe you know. Can you explain exactly what they voted for? The 'Brexit' that they voted for, what is it? Are they going to get it? You know, the 'Brexit' they voted for?

solodeogloria · 15-07-2017 9:51pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm a bit slow so please humour me . No matter how hard I search I can't find what exactly 'Brexit' means.

You seem very positive about 'Brexit'. Maybe you know. Can you explain exactly what they voted for? The 'Brexit' that they voted for, what is it? Are they going to get it? You know, the 'Brexit' they voted for?

Good evening!

I think it broadly comes down to what is in the government's white paper and the article 50 letter.

Or more briefly - control of borders, laws and an end to continued membership fees to the European Union after Brexit. (A final settlement doesn't count as continued membership fees but simply a settling of the books) Much like most other countries have outside of the European Union.

I'm thankful that the Labour party are in broad agreement with most of the objectives laid out.

The reality is that functionally staying in the EU through the back door isn't going to cut it. Any watering down by hard remainers won't fool people.

The reality is also that Britain doesn't need to be a member of the EU to be a successful country. There are numerous countries outside of the EU who are successful. I'm sure you're aware of that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty · 15-07-2017 9:56pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I think it broadly comes down to what is in the government's white paper and the article 50 letter.

Or more briefly - control of borders, laws and an end to continued membership fees to the European Union after Brexit. (A final settlement doesn't count as continued membership fees but simply a settling of the books) Much like most other countries have outside of the European Union.

I'm thankful that the Labour party are in broad agreement with most of the objectives laid out.

The reality is that functionally staying in the EU through the back door isn't going to cut it.

The reality is also that Britain doesn't need to be a member of the EU to be a successful country. There are numerous countries outside of the EU who are successful. I'm sure you're aware of that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Right. Looks like it'll be a doddle so. Probably no need for negotiations. The EU will just turn up and say yes to everything. That's what they voted for and that's what they'll get.

solodeogloria · 15-07-2017 10:02pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Right. Looks like it'll be a doddle so. Probably no need for negotiations. The EU will just turn up and say yes to everything. That's what they voted for and that's what they'll get.

Good evening!

That's what we'll find out in the negotiations.

I don't agree with your position that the UK government doesn't have a hand or indeed won't get any concessions from them.

The UK government have made some already.

Again - sarcastic nonsense is just rude - particularly when it is baseless.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

View · 15-07-2017 10:08pm

First the UK has not expressed any interest in a CETA style arrangement.

Second why on earth should the EU suddenly agree to a system where there would be an equal number of judges (5 to use CETA) from the UK as from the other 27 EU member states? Why should we give up the judge from Ireland and 21 other member states and allow the non-EU UK 4 additional judges to what it has as an EU member?

View · 15-07-2017 10:15pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK government have made some already.

The UK government has made no concessions whatsoever.

The entire negotiations so far consist of two proposals on methodologies - one for citizens and one for a financial settlement - which were presented by the EU. The UK has to date presented no proposals during the negotiations.

PeadarCo · 15-07-2017 10:20pm

solodeogloria wrote:

Again - sarcastic nonsense is just rude - particularly when it is baseless.

The reason for people being sarcastic is that the UK have already climbed down with barely a wimper already. The UK promised the row of the summer over how the trade deal and divorce would be negotiated in parallel. Instead of a summer to resolve the UK backed down within hours.

Anytime so far the more hardline rhetoric has been tried in practice the UK has u turned pretty much immediately. Added to the fact that the new UK can't implement its strategy it planned earlier in the year. You even have the governments own civil service giving out the lack of direction coming from its government. It'd be funny if it weren't so serious.

Professor Moriarty · 15-07-2017 10:33pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

That's what we'll find out in the negotiations.

I don't agree with your position that the UK government doesn't have a hand or indeed won't get any concessions from them.

The UK government have made some already.

Again - sarcastic nonsense is just rude - particularly when it is baseless.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Apologies for the sarcasm - unnecessary. My essential point is this. The electorate voted for the Leavers vision of Brexit. That won't be happening. Even the leavers admit that.

An Ciarraioch · 15-07-2017 10:47pm

Seems even the UK public remain split down the middle:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/886334288710512640

Capt'n Midnight · 15-07-2017 10:48pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

The UK promised the row of the summer over how the trade deal and divorce would be negotiated in parallel. Instead of a summer to resolve the UK backed down within hours.

Also the UK was also counting on internal conflict within the EU27.

Instead they all agreed a common negotiating stance within 60 seconds.

murphaph · 15-07-2017 11:03pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also the UK was also counting on internal conflict within the EU27.

Instead they all agreed a common negotiating stance within 60 seconds.

The unprecedented unity of the EU must have taken the British team completely by surprise. I think this was the point where it all started going wrong for them. For me personally I am delighted that the EU is capable of such unity and that some countries are indeed prepared to lose more than others for the greater good of (to shamelessly quote Mrs. May) our precious union.

Brexit needs to happen and fail though before enough British understand that the UK is a medium sized country.

solodeogloria · 15-07-2017 11:03pm

View wrote: »

First the UK has not expressed any interest in a CETA style arrangement.

Second why on earth should the EU suddenly agree to a system where there would be an equal number of judges (5 to use CETA) from the UK as from the other 27 EU member states? Why should we give up the judge from Ireland and 21 other member states and allow the non-EU UK 4 additional judges to what it has as an EU member?

Good evening!

There are five judges from Canada, 5 judges from the EU and 5 judges from third countries in the CETA arbitration court.

That's reasonable because there are two parties to the agreement - the European Union and Canada.

Britain shouldn't accept any less.

I don't know why people think it is so outrageous that the UK should have a similar dispute mechanism to other countries in bilateral deals. It's absurd to suggest that all judgement should be handed to the ECJ or that an uneven amount of judges should be allocated to one side.

The UK isn't looking for membership of the EU but a third country deal. They have been very clear about that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

An Ciarraioch · 15-07-2017 11:04pm

So, the great Tory hope begins his rise to No 10 by tweeting in Latin:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/886208542667046912

Water John · 15-07-2017 11:04pm

UK always would try the divide and conquer option. David revealed that with his phone call to Finland. He doesn't seemed to have known the Finnish dial code.

Fratton Fred · 15-07-2017 11:23pm

Water John wrote: »

Culturally, Dublin is closest. That would be very important for workers and their families, moving.

That article is a load of sensationalist bollocks. Tens of thousands of jobs aren't relocating out if London and they certainly aren't going to be moving to Dublin.

Hundreds, maybe and most of those will be locally recruited back office staff.

You have to remember, the Guardian is not much better than the Mail when it comes to hype.

Water John · 15-07-2017 11:35pm

The back office staff, in many cases are already in Dublin. That is why the London staff would be familiar with it.

This comes from The Observer, I think, as you think The Guardian is not a trusted news source.
Gus O'Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary is a voice that should be heeded. He's very worried about, lack of realistic direction.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/15/brexit-disaster-theresa-may-gus-o-donnell-civil-service

Korat · 15-07-2017 11:38pm

Good evening!

Brexit

and Goodnight

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Farrage

Enzokk · 16-07-2017 12:06am

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm Irish, living in the UK, working in the City albeit in technology.

If Dublin benefited from partial movement I would be pleased but I'm not praying for armageddon for Britain and neither should you. It would be horrific for Ireland despite what some claim here.

No-one I have seen is praying for armageddon, I think some have been frustrated by a selfish decision from the UK though. Then to have people tell us we should give the UK what they want, even though they are not only gambling with their own futures but ours as well? Do you see why people here are upset? Do you see why there is very little patience or goodwill for the UK?

Capt'n Midnight · 16-07-2017 12:07am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

There are five judges from Canada, 5 judges from the EU and 5 judges from third countries in the CETA arbitration court.

That's reasonable because there are two parties to the agreement - the European Union and Canada.

Britain shouldn't accept any less.

Christopher Vajda is the current UK judge on the ECJ which the UK have been a member for bleedin' ages.

The UK wants to tear down the existing arrangement that's been working and replace it with one where it can stonewall ?
Look at how the DUP have abused the petition of concern in the past.

This is a "cake and eat it" thing wanting special treatment , just because.

View · 16-07-2017 12:50am

solodeogloria wrote: »

]

Good evening!

There are five judges from Canada, 5 judges from the EU and 5 judges from third countries in the CETA arbitration court.

That's reasonable because there are two parties to the agreement - the European Union and Canada.

Britain shouldn't accept any less.

Britain isn't Canada in case you missed it. The EU is if anything being generous to Canada. It is ridiculous to suggest that the EU should give the same deal to the UK.

solodeogloria wrote: »

]
I don't know why people think it is so outrageous that the UK should have a similar dispute mechanism to other countries in bilateral deals.

The EU does NOT operate such dispute mechanisms for most of its trade deals (and may not in the case of CETA since it is being referred to the CJEU).

It is absurd to suggest that the UK should have an arbitration court if it just wants a "standard" FTA. If it wants more that then it can join the other EEA countries and accept the rulings of the EFTA court - another "foreign court" - which just accepts the judgments of the CJEU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

]
The UK isn't looking for membership of the EU but a third country deal. They have been very clear about that.

No they haven't been very clear about it. They haven't expressed any desire for one other than in a vague sense and indeed they are far clearer about "no deal is better than a bad deal". Consequently, the EU is NOT negotiating a trade deal with the UK at the moment.

As it is your suggestion amounts to little more than a claim for special treatment for the UK. If there is to be any "special treatment" in the future it should be for EU members, not non-EU countries. The rest of the EU have given the UK special treatment for decades and doing so has never made them happy, so it is stupid to suggest we tie ourselves in knots in order to facilitate a non-member.

Bushmanpm · 16-07-2017 1:09am

LeinsterDub wrote:

What concessions? List them.

How about this for starters: Britain offered a reciprocal deal for foreign nationals in Britain if the EU offered the same for British nationals in the EU and the EU said they wasn't satisfied. Quite some negotiating tactic right there from the EU.

Calina wrote:

It is in Ireland's interests to ensure a good deal for Ireland. If the UK, idiotic and all as they have been, happen to benefit, then they are just lucky.

idiotic? In your opinion perhaps but there's seventeen million in Britain who would disagree with you

An Claidheamh wrote:

The new found concern British people have about Irish housing and trains just shows how desperate they are.

To be honest, the average Brit has absolutely no idea about the Irish housing crisis nor the poor infrastructure (despite all the tax paid in Ireland)

An Claidheamh wrote:

Don't worry your City banks will happy here. Can't wait.

Really? Why do you think they would chose Ireland over all the other choices in the EU? See above re housing, trains, infrastructure etc etc.

LeinsterDub wrote:

They had no choice but to agree to the EU timeline they are the ones on the clock. Do they really want to waste time arguing over the timeline?

Britain could quite easily say fcuk you to the EU and just walk away. And do you REALLY think the Brits are going to cough up one hundred billion? That's their NHS budget for approximately eleven months! Think again!

LeinsterDub wrote:

The difference is now we've 27 other countries to trade with. Over half a billion people.

...as opposed to 6.5 billion others around the globe? 85% of would trade is OUTSIDE the EU. Britain leaving will hurt the EU 27 far more than the EU 27 will hurt Britain. Oh, and its 26 other countries, you're the 27th. And you've been free to trade with them all along.

Junkyard Tom · 16-07-2017 1:13am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The just over half of people who voted to leave the EU did so for many reasons, some of them barefaced lies, but not one of them had any clue what leaving the EU would entail because no plan was presented.

Good morning solodeogloria!

I'd appreciate if you'd address the points I make in the post above.

If a slim majority of a group of people voted to leave a ship surely all of them (the minority too) would agree on some sort of plan on how, and where, to disembark.

Many thanks,
JYT.

oppenheimer1 · 16-07-2017 3:08am

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Britain could quite easily say fcuk you to the EU and just walk away. And do you REALLY think the Brits are going to cough up one hundred billion? That's their NHS budget for approximately eleven months! Think again!

...as opposed to 6.5 billion others around the globe? 85% of would trade is OUTSIDE the EU. Britain leaving will hurt the EU 27 far more than the EU 27 will hurt Britain. Oh, and its 26 other countries, you're the 27th. And you've been free to trade with them all along.

Britain could walk away of course ignoring it's obligations and not paying a penny. There's a reason that countries honour judgements made against them in international courts and treaties and that is fear of retribution. If the UK walks on it's obligations or will essentially make it a pariah state, one not to be trusted when it comes to international negotiation. Essentially it means the UK will be further sidelined when it comes to big international agreements.

Britain could of course reorientate it's economy for a more global focus. How many years would that take though, with no guarantee of success? Let's be clear, in that intervening period of readjustment there would be higher unemployment and lower living standards.

It's important to talk about what the UK is facing in real terms, not economic euphanisms. Perhaps the population might understand the enormity of the challenge ahead and if it is a worthwhile project.

solodeogloria · 16-07-2017 8:04am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Christopher Vajda is the current UK judge on the ECJ which the UK have been a member for bleedin' ages.

The UK wants to tear down the existing arrangement that's been working and replace it with one where it can stonewall ?
Look at how the DUP have abused the petition of concern in the past.

This is a "cake and eat it" thing wanting special treatment , just because.

Good morning,

No - it isn't, it really isn't.

If Britain leaves the European Union, there is no reason at all why it should be subject to European Union law after Brexit. The only exception I can think of is in respect to ensuring that goods traded into the EU conform to EU standards.

You don't seem to understand that Britain voted to leave the European Union. That means not being subject to it's court or allowing it supremacy over Britain's laws. Britain as a third country of course should look for a similar arrangement to what others have. Britain needs equal representation on any new body. 1 judge isn't enough to ensure Britain is represented well after Brexit. It is a bilateral deal therefore there should be bilateral representation.

To the other poster - there's not much to reply to your post about the referendum. It certainly wasn't narrow (1 million votes difference isn't narrow) and there were some porkies on both sides. Overall I think both sides set out their stall quite well.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments