Brexit discussion thread II

Samaris wrote: »

I don't see anyone actively voting against it, although I could well see countries firmly insisting that Britain doesn't get all its sweetheart deals back. It joins at the same level of everyone else or no dice. Ireland might cave on that, we have most to lose after Britain itself, but I don't see all 26 spontaneously agreeing to let Britain back in at exactly the same privileged place it had before after all this.

There would be a few differences for the UK if they rejoined - they would have to join the Euro and Schengen as their exemptions would have lapsed when they left.

They would also lose the special UK rebate as it would also have lapsed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Admittedly I'd much much rather just leave if it was a case of extending Article 50.

Transitional terms to arrange a good deal would be helpful best outcome. I'm not 100% convinced that leaving without would be the apocalypse that some describe on this thread.

Status quo forever is what the hard remainers want. It would be much better to leave and to begin making the adjustments necessary to thrive outside the EU rather than uncertain limbo for years and years.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Why do you keep talking about the apocalypse some describe on this thread.

The down turn in the UK is already in full swing just as was outlined before the vote.

The only person describing falsehoods is you. The UK is heading into a recession of its own making. It's kinda laudable but equally saddening that you would stick with cheer leading it on. Even many brexiters don't agree with your current sentiment

Jim2007 wrote: »

It does not matter what the politicians say. It is a legal matter, there is no provision in the treaties to allow it to be revoked. You can't continue the relationship on that basis only for the ECJ to toss it out at a later stage.

BREXIT is going to have to happen from a legal point of view, it's a given. The question is what happens on 01.04.2019, reapply for EU membership, apply for EFTA/EEA membership, ???

Brexit will probably happen because the Brits will decide they have to go through with it for a variety of reasons.

Regarding it being a legal matter. . . Of course it matters what senior politicians say. They're the ones controlling Barnier. Politicians can amend the Lisbon treaty or even come out with a separate treaty involving an amendment to article 50 to preventing UK from leaving if they decided to change their minds.

There's a year of this left. By then we'll all know as it all must be wrapped up by this time next year.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I'm believing what Apple's head of tax stated to a US senate committee under oath.

I'm also believing that there was a deal between Apple and the Irish government over taxation in 1991, which there was.

Well then you should be able to provide links to back all of that up.

I would suggest you go to Seamus Coffey's blog though for the real information.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think that the UK will become a vassal state of the US who will want a presence on the border of a competing world power. In many ways, an Israel Lite.

No. The rest of the world won't stand still while the EU develops into a superstate stretching from the Maghreb to the Urals; other geopolitical trends will also be continuing.

It won't be the US that will be front-runner to adopt the UK as a vassal state on the border of a competing world power; it will be China.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think before being too hasty to write off the negotiations we need to see Theresa May's speech and the negotiations that follow.

I'm still hopeful of some transitional arrangement once the money issue begins to be resolved. It might be a quick and dirty solution but I'm sure it will be done.

Sure, but seems the strategy at the moment is for David Davis to go to the smaller regions and plead with them about how much WTO trade terms will hurt them if there is no deal, you would expect a more conciliatory attitude to try and get a deal done.

But you already have the blame game taking place from all the actors of Brexit. Vote Leave is blaming David Davis for triggering article 50 too early. Boris Johnson has laid down his own red line, in an effort to probably get fired so he isn't tied to the sinking ship as he is now. I feel confident this will continue to be a mess for everyone.

None of this pussyfooting around would be necessary if actual Brexit was a good idea. The fact that the UK is trying to negotiate the benefits of being in the EU without being in the EU tells you that in fact Brexit is a stupid idea. You wouldn't need a transitional arrangement. And someone who works in IT should not be suggesting a need for a quick and dirty solution. They are almost always a response to bad planning.

We have had 15 months of waiting for this or that.

I don't write off the negotiations. UK skills in the negotiations on the other hand can be safely criticised.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The rest of the world won't stand still while the EU develops into a superstate stretching from the Maghreb to the Urals; other geopolitical trends will also be continuing.

It won't be the US that will be front-runner to adopt the UK as a vassal state on the border of a competing world power; it will be China.

China? Absolutely not. Assuming that the EU progresses towards deeper integration and thus becomes a world power, and that Britain finds itself strategically, politically and economically isolated after Brexit, it is to its old ally, the US, that it will turn for support.

Historically, linguistically, militarily and culturally they are extremely close. There is no realistic scenario imaginable where a British government would spurn the 'special relationship' to become an outpost for China. Nor would the West, the US and EU, stand idly by.

The UK and it's dependencies and overseas territories are amongst the most prolific of all tax havens! Or do people really think the Cayman Islands and Bermuda are that industrious?!

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm expecting she will hold the British position on citizens rights. There's room for further discussion on Northern Ireland but this isn't for the speech this is for the negotiations in Brussels.

The big issue that will begin to get resolved is on the money. She will commit to giving what she had budgeted for the transition (it's clearly in the Treasury calculations until 2021) to the EU for single market access. This would cover the EU's budgetary commitments until 2020 and potentially a lot of the pension liability.

This is just my bet. There will be movement but not without Britain getting the clarity it requires in return.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So essentially. 3 months after negotiations have begun the UK will have a realistic opening position on their liabilities. I'm sure the EU will be happy to negotiate the UKs calculations. Will the UK? I would expect them to try the this is our one and only offer line. No progress on the North. The UK current position is described as 'dreamland' stuff by those in the EU and continuing to hold a position on citizens rights that was rejected outright by the EU?

That about sum it up?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm expecting she will hold the British position on citizens rights. There's room for further discussion on Northern Ireland but this isn't for the speech this is for the negotiations in Brussels.

The big issue that will begin to get resolved is on the money. She will commit to giving what she had budgeted for the transition (it's clearly in the Treasury calculations until 2021) to the EU for single market access. This would cover the EU's budgetary commitments until 2020 and potentially a lot of the pension liability.

This is just my bet. There will be movement but not without Britain getting the clarity it requires in return.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Mmm. Let’s think this through.

In theory, there’s two feasible models for transition. Under one model, the UK continues in substance to participate in the single market and its associated obligations (probably including free movement and certainly including financial contributions) during the transition period. Relatively little changes at the outset; the big change comes at the end when the UK moves into whatever new long-term relationship has been negotiated.

The other model is the opposite; the big changes are mostly front-loaded to the start of the transition, with some residual aspects of EU participation continuing for the transition period.

I think we can discount a model in which there’s a large difference between full membership and the transitional relationship, and another large difference between the transitional relationship and the long-term relationship. That puts both sides through two major, and quite disruptive, changes in a short period of years; I don’t think that’s a good idea from anybody’s perspective.

But I think we can also dismiss the second model, under which most of the big changes happen in in 2019, with a relatively small group of matters deferred for a couple of years. The whole reason that a transitional period is necessary it that it’s clear that the long-term relationship won’t be fully negotiated and ready in practice to roll out in March 2019. And if they aren’t a position to roll out 100% of the new relationship, they’re not likely to be in a position to roll out 80% of it.

So, while the UK will formally cease to be a member in 2019, much of the day-to-day experience of membership will continue during the transitional period. There will be changes, but a lot will stay the same. In some ways a the transitional period might look a bit like EEA membership, but temporary, and with some features tailored to the UK’s circumstances.

In some respects that’ll be unpopular on the Brexity side, but (a) it will probably be acceptable to the majority as long as there’s a definite, and not too-long-deferred, termination date, and (b) it has the advantage that it makes it easy to justify significant payments to the EU during the transition period, and that facilitates agreement on the financial settlement.

On citizens, though, May does need to offer the EU some reassurance now. The issues of deportation letters to long-settled EU citizens in the UK this month was probably just an administrative cock-up, but it was an extraordinarily badly-timed one, really focussing EU attention on a matter that is of genuine concern to them. One of the things that was considered most shocking in Europe about the Brexit debate and the way it played out in Britain was the attitude to migrants that it revealed, and I think that has created a climate of mistrust on this point that May needs to provide some solid reassurance on.

The other thing that’s necessary to achieve in the speech is that May needs to build confidence that there will be a final deal. What the transition period does, to some extent, is kick a lot of difficult questions to touch - we don’t have to solve them right now; we have till 2021 (or whenever). It’s one thing to kick questions to touch because they’re difficult and detailed and they need time to work through; it’s another to kick them to touch because they’re too difficult and we’ll never be able to answer them at all.

In other words, May needs to convince people that the UK will stop engaging in wishful thinking in which it can have its cake and eat it - take back control of its borders, and have a Common Travel Area that includes part of the EU; pursue an independent trade and customs policy, but have an open border with the EU in Ireland; etc. A Brexit deal will require objectives to be prioritised, choices to be made, and I think the EU needs to see that May recognises this (and that she has the political and practical ability to make and implement choices, despite her weak parliamentary situation). If the judgment is that she can't or won't do this, a transitional period is not going to solve anything.