Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph wrote: »

Come on Fred. The UK bid for these agencies and they were located in London at great expense to the EU's taxpayers. London office space is not exactly cheap.

The UK knew that leaving the EU would cause these agencies to require new homes. Brexit is the reason they have to move and Brexit is the UK's decision. Therefore the costs of moving these agencies are at least morally the UK's responsibility.

But we're talking about peanuts here compared to the value of a FTA to the UK. The UK simply needs the goodwill of the EU or it's in huge trouble come March 2019. Without a deal and a transitional phase, the UK will have to prostitute itself in the four corners of the world and even that won't be enough to prevent massive (possibly irreparable) damage to the UK economy.

The problem is the average Brit still seems to think the UK and EU are equal partners in all this, including it would seem government ministers.

exactly.

Which is why these things would be far simpler to sort out if the end game were defined early doors.

I have already stated that i think the UK should contribute and Ambro already suggested that part of the bidding process will be for the host countries to shoulder part of the costs as well. So it seems like a deal should be easy to achieve.

All we need now is for the eu to show a bit of this goodwill you mention, rather than to ring fence this as a stand alone issue.

ambro25 wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

That is an interesting point, but I am not sure whether there is any legal regulation that would back up your claim. Normally, a company who moves out by her own decision is to pay for the move by herself and can´t bring it up to the (former) host country to pay for it. They haven´t been "kicked out", they leave while there is time to leave in orderly manners and without too much haste and get things settled for "Day-X" which is within March 2019.

I'll not bore you to tears with legalese (so as to avoid another expression of Fred's aversion for long words and lengthy sentences ), but there is ample legal basis to contend that EU agencies must be based within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Not least the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies, and the extension of the provisions of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (Protocol 7 to the TFEU, which necessarily 'requires' location within the ECJ jurisdiction) to all EU agencies (with or without headquarters agreement), more recently coalesced into the (2013) Guidelines with standard provisions for headquarters agreements of EU decentralised agencies.

EU agencies are being kicked out of the UK. But as an automatic consequence/operation of law, not by an executive order expressly telling them to clear out or somesuch.

Now, pragmatically, they can either move early of their own initiative, to maintain continuity of operation. Or let the systems and services which they respectively provide fall off a cliff on March 2019. Which do you think is the more responsible approach, noting that it is the UK's decision to exit the EU which has placed them in that position in the first place?

There will be umpteen similar 'kicking out' automatically taking place come March 2019, due to the UK exiting the EU (-jurisdiction of the ECJ). It's not like I haven't already brought attention to UK trademark attorneys getting automatically 'kicked out' of the EUIPO come March 2019: same difference, with EU agencies in the UK. There's tons more.

Personally, I can't hardly wait to see what they cook up with OpenSkies, and to Michael O'Leary's more colourful PR to come

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or penalties?

Lest we forget: self-imposed.

Well, thanks for explaining me your point of view. Mine is different to yours and I see it - besides the randomly cited legal points - in a way that EU agencies are about to "withdraw" from the UK in a way of preparation for the time after the UK has exited the EU. From my pov and understanding of just solution, I regard it as unfair and not sustainable to impose the costs for a move of EU agencies to other EU countries on the UK. That smells of punishment and this should be avoided in the light of the economical connections some EU member states have with the UK.

Somehow and in some ways a deal has to be reached between the UK and the EU, not at all costs but on a fair Basis which has the least negative Impacts on the EU, but will leave the UK to deal with it the way she sees fit and if they´ll suffer from it, well, that´s the consequence of the Brexit itself. But deliberately making it more harder for them by imposing "moving costs" for EU agencies doesn´t bring about any progress in negotiations and is rather good for strenghtening the prejudices of the Brexiteers and disappoint some other people who are still pro-EU.  

In general saying, the EU has to develope more flexibility and that not for the sake of the UK in the first place, but for herself. On the other hand, the UK needs to have a negotiation team that works like professional and adults and not like those who are currently in charge on her side.

I wonder, by all the shunning of the Brexiteers and my deep dislike towards them, what is there to gain from a failed Brexit negotiation? One might be "glad" that the arrogant Brexit Brits got their punsh in the face, but that´s a rather short living "joy". The Brits will be out of the EU, but they won´t be out of this world.

I´d insist on the Brits meeting their obligations they´ve committed themselves to while an EU member state, but no, I wouldn´t impose them anything beyond that, by all means, cos this would lead to no good.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I can see where the UK is coming from on this. They badly need to get a network of trade deals up and running ASAP after Brexit, but even for someone with the resources and the experience to negotiate trade deals - like the EU or the US - the process takes years. And the UK has neither resources nor experience here, and can't afford to wait years.

So, their thinking is, countries which already have a trade deal with the EU are already trading with the UK on the terms of that deal, and it's not completely unrealistic to hope that in the majority of cases they might be willing to continue doing so. So the UK aims to put in place a network of trade deals which is, basically, a mirror of [some of] the deals they currently participate in as Union members.

But, while there's a certain sense here, it highlights how threadbare the Brexit case is. Basically, the UK will use its new-found freedom to conclude trade deals to try and conclude a network of trade deals that will be as much as possible like par of the network they'll be abandoning through Brexit.

I say "part of", because only about 15% of the UK's foreign trade is conducted under EU trade deals with third countries. About 45% is conducted with other member states of the EU, and here the British are targetting much worse trade terms than the ones they currently enjoy.

So, overall, the Brexit plan seems to be to leave the EU's network of trade deals and try to replace it ASAP with a smaller network of, on the whole, lousier deals.

Good afternoon!

This post helpfully identifies the crux.

I don't think there's anything wrong about interim copy and paste deals to maintain as much of the 15% as possible. This is definitely the easier objective to fulfil.

The second objective is to maintain as much trade with the EU as possible. I agree that there will be an impact here, but the aim should be to keep this to a minimum.

The third objective is to sign additional trade deals. The first port of call should be the United States followed by China. Significant increases in exports to both of these destinations should insulate against the shortfall in EU trade that will arise.

Subsequently there's options to expand trade further with other countries.

Nobody is saying there won't be a short to medium term impact from Brexit. Most of the benefits of having control over trade policy are only going to be realised fully after the first three steps are completed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're forgetting two things. Firstly, TTIP was sunk because of significant opposition, much of which came from the UK over things like the NHS, steroids in meat, lower standards of regulation in the US, etc. Secondly, Donald Trump is explicitly opposed to free trade and will lose support if he pursues such a policy when he made promises to bring back dead industries like coal mining in an attempt to court the working classes in America's rustbelt.

Good afternoon!

Both aren't really true.

Most opposition to TTIP wasn't really in the UK. It was in mainland Europe. There's a lot of scope for discussing things like food. Private contracts are a reality today in the NHS. I don't see why the Americans are any more sinister than anyone else. They aren't going to require free movement or restricting trade policy.

Secondly, Donald Trump is protectionist in respect to free trade deals that lead to undercutting. The US isn't really going to be undercut by Britain in the same way as it would be undercut by Mexico. He's also said that he's interested.

Other countries including much smaller countries than the UK have free trade with the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The priority of the French and the Germans is to secure the future of the EU. The Greek crisis threatened the whole Eurozone whereas Brexit will just result in moderate economic damage at worst to the EU. Barnier is in charge so that he can represent the EU27 rather than just France and Germany.

that's my point. moderate economic damage to the eu, but it could be devastating for parts of Ireland, but hey, that's fine because as a whole, the eu will still be grand.

When Fine Gael lose all their seats in Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Donegal and Sinn Fein are knocking on the door of power, the Irish government may start to take a slightly different approach. Meanwhile, Junckers will still pick up his huge pay check and expense allowance.

jm08 wrote: »

Barnier is in touch though. Unlike Davis, he has actually visited the border between NI & ROI. Simon Coveney met with Barnier (and other Eurocrats) yesterday presumably to hear what Ireland think of the UK's offer.

they aren't though, really. Barnier will never lose his job because the border economy in Ireland goes down the swanny.

jm08 wrote: »

Also, worth noting that Germany exports 1 out of 7 cars manufactured to the UK (which suggests 6 out of 7 are imported elsewhere such as EU 26, Japan, China, etc.)

so the UK is the German car industry's largest export market. Thanks for clearing that up for us.