Brexit discussion thread II

wes · 24-08-2017 03:44PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't the same as membership, it looks like cooperation with a third country.

Once there out, they would have the same status as the US, they clearly expect more, which isn't on the cards, based on what they want.

solodeogloria · 24-08-2017 03:47PM

wes wrote: »

Once there out, they would have the same status as the US, they clearly expect more, which isn't on the cards, based on what they want.

Good afternoon!

With all due respect, we need to hear the European Commission respond to these position papers in the negotiation rather than you on an internet discussion forum.

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational, but as an opening position you wouldn't go for anything less. The UK naturally wants the best outcome.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody · 24-08-2017 03:47PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

That isn't quite right, and it shows that The Independent is very biased on Brexit. Have a look at The Guardian instead.

It is in reference to the data protection paper that has been published by the UK Government.

It is a transition:

until more permanent measures are in place.

Do you even bother to read the actual papers?

24. After the UK’s withdrawal, regulatory cooperation between the UK and the EU on arrange of issues will be essential, including data protection – not least because the GDPR will continue to apply to UK businesses offering goods or services to individuals in the EEA. A new relationship could therefore enable an ongoing role for the UK’s ICO in EU regulatory fora, preserving existing, valuable regulatory cooperation and building a productive partnership to tackle future challenges

26. The UK would be open to exploring a model which allows the ICO to be fully involved in future EU regulatory dialogue.

That is clearly outlined in the paper that UK wants a seat at the table to steer EU law after Brexit is over and is not related to some limited time period.

Zubeneschamali · 24-08-2017 03:59PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational

in the sense that they have moved on from having their cake and eating it, to the new position of having magic invisible cake and eating it.

Blowfish · 24-08-2017 04:07PM

Nody wrote: »

Do you even bother to read the actual papers?
That is clearly outlined in the paper that UK wants a seat at the table to steer EU law after Brexit is over and is not related to some limited time period.

Indeed. The bodies that are involved in Data Protection for the EU are:

The EU Commission - No chance the UK gets a say here after leaving.
The ECJ - The UK doesn't seem to want to have anything to do here.
The European Data Protection Board (replaces the Article 29 WP) - Not likely to get a seat here either as it's an official EU body, plus it would be a conflict as the EDPB are the ones who advise the Commission on the level of protection countries have for Adequacy.

I'm not sure where the UK think they can realistically fit in to have a say.

Jaggo · 24-08-2017 04:21PM

I don't see that working.

The EU/US data agreement "Safe Harbour" was struck down by the ECJ due to concerns with US intelligence interference, hence, the very limited US agreement.

The UK are already in breach of the ECJ data protection rulings with the snoopers charter and there are a further 5 regulations in the charter that have not yet been implemented nor challenged in court.

The EU in accepting the UK as a data partner nation would be breaching its own rules never mind anything further that might be brought in.

ambro25 · 24-08-2017 04:43PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect, we need to hear the European Commission respond to these position papers in the negotiation rather than you on an internet discussion forum.

Debate-suppressing, much?

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational, but as an opening position you wouldn't go for anything less.

'Highly aspirational' without a healthy dose of implementing pragmatism is hardly conducive of progress within the time-constrained context of these negotiations.

The UK is out of time to continue playing silly bugger continually asking for the pipe-dreamt moon on a stick.

Through its own doing and none other, and certainly not the EU's under any stretches of meaning.

blanch152 · 24-08-2017 04:50PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

On a country by country basis [Ireland] remains [NI's] key export partner. In 2016, goods exports to the RoI were valued at £2.4 billion, equivalent to 31% of total goods exports value and approximately 56% of the value of goods exported to the EU.

assemblyresearchmatters.org

_____________________________________________________________________________

What the SDLP and SF need to do now is work towards having a border poll to get the UI gears in motion.

However bad a hard border between North and South would be for Northern Ireland, a hard border between the islands is insanity. Northern Ireland's biggest trade partner is the rest of the UK.

wes · 24-08-2017 04:56PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

With all due respect, we need to hear the European Commission respond to these position papers in the negotiation rather than you on an internet discussion forum.

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational, but as an opening position you wouldn't go for anything less. The UK naturally wants the best outcome.

There is wanting the best, and asking for things that they know they can't have. Over promising knowing full well you won't get what your asking for is simply lieing, which has been a feature of this Brexit mess from the beginning.

Jim2007 · 24-08-2017 05:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect, we need to hear the European Commission respond to these position papers in the negotiation rather than you on an internet discussion forum.

Until the UK addresses the three items that must be addressed in respect of the exit talks, there is no obligation on the EU to do anything with these papers, other than file them in the round filling cabinet. The agenda has been set and Davis agreed to it - now they will be held to it.

LeinsterDub · 24-08-2017 05:12PM

Is it just me or is the UK moving further and further away from reality?

The UK wants to continue to influence the writing of parts of EU regulation after Brexit despite leaving the bloc, according to the latest plan by Whitehall officials.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regulation-position-paper-data-protection-david-davis-a7910196.html

This is quite frankly mental. What happened to Brexit means brexit?

blanch152 · 24-08-2017 05:24PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational, but as an opening position you wouldn't go for anything less. The UK naturally wants the best outcome.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think we should send those Brexit negotiators to North Korea, they will persuade Kim to give up his nuclear weapons in no time.

Nody · 24-08-2017 05:26PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Is it just me or is the UK moving further and further away from reality?

Not really; the facts are simply catching up with them.

This quite frankly mental. What happened to Brexit means brexit?

Brexit means Brexit which means UK gets all the benefits of EU while not paying anything for it (in fact EU should pay them for the privilege!), get to opt out of any pesky rules or laws they can't be bothered with while doing their own trade deals as well and get to set their own standards for EU to follow. Which is all in line with what the Brexit leader Boris "Eat cake and have it" Johnson stated in public.

The fun part is as they have repeated it so often they even appear to believe that's reasonable and will happen as well. Oh well reality is now knocking on the door and sooner or later they will have to answer and find out the rest of the world has moved on from WW2 era and are no longer enthralled with the shrunken plum that's left of the great British empire. To bad that the UK's young are the once who'll pay the price for living in a nostalgic dream but the rest of EU can be thankful that UK was kind enough to pull a Trump move and show the rest of us exactly how stupid it was.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-08-2017 06:04PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where is the evidence that the ECHR is partisan, political or unfair?

Jim2007 wrote: »

BREXIT supporters have a tendency to confuse the ECHR and ECJ.....

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK won't agree to this. If the court is to oversee an arrangement with the EU and the UK then it has to have equal representation and a third party to ensure that it isn't biased towards the EU.

All answers here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40630322

It is the ECtHR not the ECJ that has often upset British politicians by making it harder, for example, to deport terrorist suspects.

The ECJ has tended to support British efforts to extend the remit of the single market.
...
David Davis has made the sporting argument that if you're Manchester United and you go to play Real Madrid, you don't let Madrid nominate the referee.

But the EU sees the footballing metaphor rather differently: the UK is choosing to leave a league of 28 teams. If it wants to come back to play the odd friendly, the EU would argue, it has to accept that the panel of referees will remain the same.

It can't be said often enough, any company that wants to sell into the EU has to follow the rules and that means the ECJ.

solodeogloria · 24-08-2017 06:11PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

All answers here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40630322

It can't be said often enough, any company that wants to sell into the EU has to follow the rules and that means the ECJ.

Good evening!

Again. In CETA there is a court of joint arbitration. The same is true of the EU - South Korea Free Trade Agreement. In both of these scenarios there is equal representation.

Your suggestion of the UK joining an arbitration mechanism in a bilateral agreement without equal say will be rejected by the UK Government. No other third country does this.

Now, as Dominic Raab pointed out, there are lots of very good options for arbitration in bilateral disputes. This will require consideration of ECJ law in British rulings and vice versa where there is a dispute between both jurisdictions. This would apply in the case of citizens rights all the way through to trade. This is a perfectly reasonable way of handling issues between both countries, and as Raab says it is the EU's practice with international partners.

It's amazing how the concept of joint arbitration (which I had been proposing on this thread a number of times) is perceived as being a "climb down" domestically. Apparently a lot of people in Britain are more hard core than I am!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu61VQ7gebs

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight · 24-08-2017 06:14PM

Oh yeah the UK is diverging from the EU on Data Protection.
Good luck getting the same access for the electronic service industry,

With all the UK talk of an invisible border they might get to see one very soon.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41036551

In fact, the UK has the largest internet economy as a percentage of GDP out of all the G20 countries, according to the Boston Consulting Group - and much of that relies on data flowing freely.

A House of Lords report recently found that if data transfers were hindered, "the UK could be put at a competitive disadvantage and the police could lose access to information and intelligence mechanisms".

...
"Unless the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended, it is highly likely that the UK will not be granted an adequacy decision and data flows will be blocked," says Dr Mc Cullagh.

Plus, once out of the EU, the UK will also depart the EU-US Privacy Shield - meaning that the EU could raise concerns about data it passes to the UK.

Nody · 24-08-2017 06:33PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41036551

Some good quotes in the comment section from that article actually:

Brits always love a Monty Python sketch... "What's the EU ever done for us?"

Labour said government is publishing "bland, non-committal papers as a smokescreen to mask their failure to make any meaningful progress".
Amazing! That's exactly what I think every time one of these papers appears!

We don't want freedom of movement, or ECJ involvement or coughing up membership fees (of course, we'll be OUT) but ....
We want tariff free trade - including financial services (nice one!) and to stay part of the satellite program and university research and data transfer and .... ad infinitum.

When will May and Co get it in to their thick heads that Junkers and Co will agree nothing unless its on their terms. Shut the door flood the tunnel and lets be gone and rid of them.

It's esp. amusing to read the Brexiteers comments of "Shut up remoaners and support our government" while in the next breath complaining about the "EU dictatorship". The final quote is a nice summary of the attitude in general.

Peregrinus · 25-08-2017 06:42AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again. In CETA there is a court of joint arbitration. The same is true of the EU - South Korea Free Trade Agreement. In both of these scenarios there is equal representation.

Your suggestion of the UK joining an arbitration mechanism in a bilateral agreement without equal say will be rejected by the UK Government. No other third country does this.

They certainly do. Norway, for example.

May's mistake has been to make this a red line issue. The truth is that whether submission to ECJ jurisdiction is a necessary or appropriate feature of the Brexit deal will depend on what's in the Brexit deal.

If the Brexit deal looks like CETA or the South Korean free trade deal then, yeah, submission to the ECJ is not an essential element. But if it goes further than those and involves, e.g., UK participation in the European Aviation Area, the energy market, security co-operation or a whole host of other market sectors that are regulated by European law, authoritatively interpreted and applied ultimately by the ECJ, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ would be an absolute sine qua non.

For the UK to look for market participation but not to be subject to the same regulatory regime as other participants would be analogous to the stance the UK took in China in the nineteenth century, insisting that British subjects in China were not answerable to the Chinese courts but only to consular courts run by the British themselves. China's acceptance of those terms was a national humiliation and an indication of the decadence and decay of the Chinese state at that time. The EU is not Manchu China, and the UK has hopefully developed in its attitudes since the Boxer rebellion.

"No ECJ jurisdiction" is as big a limitation on what the UK can hope to achieve in a Brexit deal as "no EEA", "no customs union" or "no free movement". If you adopt it as a red line you should do so with your eyes open. It's fine if someone is an advocate of a hard Brexit and is willing to pay the price associated with that, but drawing all those red lines and still saying that the UK wants a close, co-operative, flexible, etc relationship with the EU with participation in European markets or policies where this is mutually beneficial, is either delusional or dishonest.

On reflection, if it would save face, the UK could participate in aspects of the single market by submitting to the jursidiction of the EFTA Court rather than the ECJ. (Assuming EFTA were willing, which it might not be.) But it's hard to see how May could simultaneously justify a refusal to submit to the ECJ and a willingness to submit to the EFTA Court.

solodeogloria · 25-08-2017 07:14AM

Good morning!

Again, there's no reason why broader cooperation on a number of subjects couldn't happen through a process of bilateral arbitration. This is how Switzerland has been implementing the areas of EU law that it wants to participate in.

Britain isn't seeking single market membership or membership of the EU customs union. This means that it's connection will be looser than either Norway or Switzerland.

The Government needs to commit to delivering on the referendum outcome for its people. Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ is definitely off the table. EU-lite membership also has to be off the table.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 25-08-2017 07:35AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, there's no reason why broader cooperation on a number of subjects couldn't happen through a process of bilateral arbitration. This is how Switzerland has been implementing the areas of EU law that it wants to participate in.

Britain isn't seeking single market membership or membership of the EU customs union. This means that it's connection will be looser than either Norway or Switzerland.

The Government needs to commit to delivering on the referendum outcome for its people. Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ is definitely off the table. EU-lite membership also has to be off the table.

I don't know many that will have a problem with your comment that the UK government needs to commit to a Brexit strategy, but your post itself points to a hard Brexit. Can you please stop claiming that the UK wants close co-operation with the EU and Ireland when in reality it wants nothing of the sort.

How can you have a close relationship with the EU and not want to have anything to do with any EU departments? That is what Brexit is, right? Leaving all EU jurisdictions and departments that have a say in anything British. So please stop pretending that the UK is looking for a close relationship when in reality if they want to leave everything EU that simply isn't possible.

Peregrinus · 25-08-2017 07:36AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again, there's no reason why broader cooperation on a number of subjects couldn't happen through a process of bilateral arbitration. This is how Switzerland has been implementing the areas of EU law that it wants to participate in.

But the EU isn't keen on that arrangement, doesn't think it's working well, and doesn't want to replicate it. A deal's a deal, and they're committed to Switzerland. But, having put a toe in that water, they're not going to make the same deals with other third countries.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain isn't seeking single market membership or membership of the EU customs union. This means that it's connection will be looser than either Norway or Switzerland.

Sure. But I think what we're shaping up for is something like "selective Norway" - the UK doesn't want the kind of broad participation in the single market that Norway enjoys, but it may want participation in selected areas - e.g. it may wish to participate in the European Aviation Area. I think the corollary of that would be that, while the UK won't have a general submission to ECJ jurisdiction, it may have to submit to supranational jurisdiction in relation to its participation in the Aviation Area, etc, just as all the other particpants do.

Obviously, there's a trade-off here; the more areas where it seeks to participate in the existing European structures, the greater degree of jurisdiction it must accept.

That's why I say it's a mistake to make this a red-line item. If you do this, you're effectively saying "we won't participate in supranationally-regulated markets, sectors, etc, regardless of how beneficial it would be for us to do so". You're deciding not to participate in the Aviation Area, to forego financial services passporting, etc, etc, without necessarily even knowing that that's what you're doing.

A more flexible approach, and one that I think would better serve the UK, would be to identify the supranationally regulated areas that you want to participate in, bargain over the terms of participation, and then make a decision about whether the best terms that can be got are good enough. If accepting supranational jurisdiction is part of the terms, well, that's something you factor into your decision.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Government needs to commit to delivering on the referendum outcome for its people. Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ is definitely off the table. EU-lite membership also has to be off the table.

You keep saying this, solo, but you're wrong. There was no concrete exit proposal put to the people in the referendum, so the referendum result does not confer a mandate either to reject ECJ jurisdiction or to accept it, to leave the EEA or to remain in it, etc. Whether to accept or reject ECJ jursisdicstion is a political decision, for which Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and Parliament is ultimately accountable to the nation. It is not something dictated by the referendum result, and for Ministers to pretend that it is is an evasion of responsibility.

solodeogloria · 25-08-2017 07:50AM

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know many that will have a problem with your comment that the UK government needs to commit to a Brexit strategy, but your post itself points to a hard Brexit. Can you please stop claiming that the UK wants close co-operation with the EU and Ireland when in reality it wants nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry, but I won't lie for you. You can read the UK Government position papers, it's clear that it wants a good relationship with the EU and to cooperate with it as a third country.

Enzokk wrote: »

How can you have a close relationship with the EU and not want to have anything to do with any EU departments? That is what Brexit is, right? Leaving all EU jurisdictions and departments that have a say in anything British. So please stop pretending that the UK is looking for a close relationship when in reality if they want to leave everything EU that simply isn't possible.

This isn't the British position. The British position is that it wants to engage with the EU through a process of arbitration. This means in cases of dispute that both parties will be represented with a third party in order to iron out those disputes.

Again, I see no reason why joint arbitration isn't possible. It's how the EU deals with a lot of third countries at present.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the EU isn't keen on that arrangement, doesn't think it's working well, and doesn't want to replicate it. A deal's a deal, and they're committed to Switzerland. But, having put a toe in that water, they're not going to make the same deals with other third countries.

Joint arbitration as we've discussed is used already with a lot of countries outside the European Union. This point still stands. Norway and Switzerland involve membership of the single market.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But I think what we're shaping up for is something like "selective Norway" - the UK doesn't want the kind of broad participation in the single market that Norway enjoys, but it may want participation in selected areas - e.g. it may wish to participate in the European Aviation Area. I think the corollary of that would be that, while the UK won't have a general submission to ECJ jurisdiction, it may have to submit to supranational jurisdiction in relation to its participation in the Aviation Area, etc, just as all the other particpants do.

I would call it much much looser than Norway. On aviation, again, I don't see why a bilateral agreement can't be struck. For example there's the Euro Mediterranean Aviation Agreement. I'm fairly sure that Israel isn't directly subject to ECJ rulings. Or indeed the EU-US Open Skies Agreement. Joint arbitration is perfectly acceptable to the UK.

Also I'd argue not all forms of supranational jurisdiction are unacceptable to the UK. It's perfectly happy to be subject to the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, there's a trade-off here; the more areas where it seeks to participate in the existing European structures, the greater degree of jurisdiction it must accept.

That's why I say it's a mistake to make this a red-line item. If you do this, you're effectively saying "we won't participate in supranationally-regulated markets, sectors, etc, regardless of how beneficial it would be for us to do so". You're deciding not to participate in the Aviation Area, to forego financial services passporting, etc, etc, without necessarily even knowing that that's what you're doing.

See above for aviation. Equivalence is also a real option for trade in financial services from third countries.

Peregrinus wrote: »

A more flexible approach, and one that I think would better serve the UK, would be to identify the supranationally regulated areas that you want to participate in, bargain over the terms of participation, and then make a decision about whether the best terms that can be got are good enough. If accepting supranational jurisdiction is part of the terms, well, that's something you factor into your decision.

If by supranational jurisdiction you mean the ECJ, then that is obviously off the table. The ECJ is a court that deals directly with members of the European Union and indirectly with the EEA through the EFTA court.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You keep saying this, solo, but you're wrong. There was no concrete exit proposal put to the people in the referendum, so the referendum result does not confer a mandate either to reject ECJ jurisdiction or to accept it, to leave the EEA or to remain in it, etc. Whether to accept or reject ECJ jursisdicstion is a political decision, for which Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and Parliament is ultimately accountable to the nation. It is not something dictated by the referendum result, and for Ministers to pretend that it is is an evasion of responsibility.

I think you're wrong. The referendum was won because it was about taking back control. The UK Government are clear that the UK is leaving the single market and the customs union and is looking for a third country agreement. Direct ECJ oversight won't be agreed to.

The Government agreed to implement the results of the referendum. Therefore to weasel out of that and to say that they didn't agree to do this is wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 25-08-2017 08:03AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think you're wrong. The referendum was won because it was about taking back control. The UK Government are clear that the UK is leaving the single market and the customs union and is looking for a third country agreement.

The UK government are clear about this after the referendum result. It's not something they said before the vote.

Meaning, this is an interpretation they are placing on the referendum result. That's a choice they are making; they don't have to interpret it that way.
It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.

This "we are forced by the referendum result!" claim is an attempt to position themselves, when hard Brexit proves painful and/or expensive and/or disadvantageous to the UK, to avoid accepting responsibility for what is, in reality, a choice they made. It's totally gutless behaviour.

solodeogloria · 25-08-2017 08:08AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK government are clear about this after the referendum result. It's not something they said before the vote.

Meaning, this is an interpretation they are placing on the referendum result. That's a choice they are making; they don't have to interpret it that way.
It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.

This "we are forced by the referendum result!" claim is an attempt to position themselves, when hard Brexit proves painful and/or expensive and/or disadvantageous to the UK, to avoid accepting responsibility for what is, in reality, a choice they made. It's totally gutless behaviour.

Good morning!

There's probably no point repeating our respective positions on this ad-nauseum. I disagree with you. The referendum was clearly won on the basis of taking back control from Brussels. Remaining a member of both the single market and the customs union doesn't do that.

The British Government and indeed parliament, agreed to respect the result of the referendum and implement it in 2013. That is what is must do and people will be watching.

Hard Brexit is only a term used by those who want to remain in the European Union. I don't personally recognise the terms soft or hard Brexit. Leaving the European Union in a genuine sense requires Britain to be able to take control of its laws, its borders, its money and its trade policy. The last one in that list is the main reason why I personally want to see Britain get on with leaving.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub · 25-08-2017 08:17AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There's probably no point repeating our respective positions on this ad-nauseum. I disagree with you. The referendum was clearly won on the basis of taking back control from Brussels.

Taking back control, while simultaneously having "regulatory cooperation between the UK and the EU on a range of issues will be essential"?

Square that circle please.

And of course the irony is by leaving to "take back control" what ever that means the UK will have less control as previously they would of had an input into the formation of these laws and could of vetoed them if they didn't like them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regulation-position-paper-data-protection-david-davis-a7910196.html

steddyeddy · 25-08-2017 08:28AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There's probably no point repeating our respective positions on this ad-nauseum. I disagree with you. The referendum was clearly won on the basis of taking back control from Brussels. Remaining a member of both the single market and the customs union doesn't do that.

The British Government and indeed parliament, agreed to respect the result of the referendum and implement it in 2013. That is what is must do and people will be watching.

Hard Brexit is only a term used by those who want to remain in the European Union. I don't personally recognise the terms soft or hard Brexit. Leaving the European Union in a genuine sense requires Britain to be able to take control of its laws, its borders, its money and its trade policy. The last one in that list is the main reason why I personally want to see Britain get on with leaving.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well on that basis the referendum was a failure. Now the UK has far less control over its economic future than before. It's relying on good will from Brussels. Ireland is thought by many in the UK to be a close ally, yet the Irish government have shot down pretty much all of their trade and border proposals. Currently Ireland has more power over the UK's immediate economic future than the UK.

Peregrinus · 25-08-2017 08:39AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The referendum was clearly won on the basis of taking back control from Brussels. Remaining a member of both the single market and the customs union doesn't do that.

The British Government and indeed parliament, agreed to respect the result of the referendum and implement it in 2013. That is what is must do and people will be watching.

Hard Brexit is only a term used by those who want to remain in the European Union. I don't personally recognise the terms soft or hard Brexit. Leaving the European Union in a genuine sense requires Britain to be able to take control of its laws, its borders, its money and its trade policy. The last one in that list is the main reason why I personally want to see Britain get on with leaving.

Whether or not to participate in the single market, in the customs union, in the European Aviation Area, etc, are policies. If the government had wished to seek a mandate for any or all of these policies in the referendum it could have done so by framing the appropriate questions. It did not do so. It cannot now pretend that it did. "Taking back control" is not a policy; it's a slogan - and not even a slogan which the government adopted, or on which it campaigned.

Pretending that a vote not to be a member of the EU is a vote not to participate in the Single Market is patently absurd. Noway has twice voted not to join the EU and yet participates in the single market, a fact which was much discussed in the referendum campaign. Not even an idiot in a hurry who lived through the referendum campaign could possibly be under the impression that a decision not to be in the EU is necessarily a decision not to participate in the single market.

I've said before - and nobody has disagreed with me - that the referendum was a complete dog's breakfast, which will be held up for years to come as an Awful Example of how not to do things. Still, it was what it was, and the government now has to live with it. But pretending that it conferred an imperative mandate for a range of policies which were never put to the people is not an honest way to live with it.

An honest way to live with it would be for the UK government to acknowledge that not being a member of the EU leaves a range of possible relationships that the UK might have with the EU as a non-member and that the government and parliament, not having sought or obtained a mandate for any particular one, are now responsible for choosing policies from that range which they consider to be in the UK's best interests.

If they don't want that responsibility, they don't have to stand for parliament or accept ministerial office. But if they do take office, they can't point to the Leave campaign's slogan from last year and say it absolves them from discharging their duty to the country. As I say, that's gutless.

murphaph · 25-08-2017 08:43AM

The Swiss "model" (mess) has taken decades to develop to its current state. There is no time (nor desire from the EU side) to replicate anything like this for the UK, and rightly so.

The aviation sector alone is a huge problem. It can't be compared to the EU US deal as currently exists because American airlines have no access to the internal EU market (eg I'm on a week's break on lake Balaton. I flew here with a British airline from Berlin. This is not possible for any airlines from outside the single market)

Blowfish · 25-08-2017 10:36AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Government needs to commit to delivering on the referendum outcome for its people. Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ is definitely off the table. EU-lite membership also has to be off the table.

You keep saying that, but then the position papers say that the UK want to partake in areas which the ECJ is the sole arbitrator of and that the UK wants a 'special relationship' with the EU.

That's the principle issue and why Varadkar mentioned the 'puzzlement' from the EU side. The political end ('brexit is brexit', 'no ECJ' etc.) is contradictory to the position papers ('lets be special friends').

solodeogloria · 25-08-2017 11:13AM

Blowfish wrote: »

You keep saying that, but then the position papers say that the UK want to partake in areas which the ECJ is the sole arbitrator of and that the UK wants a 'special relationship' with the EU.

That's the principle issue and why Varadkar mentioned the 'puzzlement' from the EU side. The political end ('brexit is brexit', 'no ECJ' etc.) is contradictory to the position papers ('lets be special friends').

Good morning!

The confusion only comes if you see the UK as being a member of the single market, EU or other agencies directly. It doesn't seem that this is the model that the UK is proposing.

The UK is proposing a new bilateral partnership with the EU as a third country. This doesn't require direct oversight by the ECJ. The UK obviously are asking for a lot. This is what you do in an opening position. Now we need to hear what the European Commission will accept.

There will be a lot of back and forth over the coming months until a final conclusion is reached. It probably won't look like what either side opened with exactly. This is fine, and is what negotiating looks like. The nitty gritty of what Brexit will look like is being discussed. Concessions will be made but the idea that Britain is going to roll over to whatever they ask for is absurd.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments