Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread II

1…108109111113114…305

Comments

  • #3302
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,917 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    oh please, it isn't defensive at all, it is merely stating facts. This debate is being treated as if it were a football match, which I guess is to be expected on an Irish board. England are playing someone, so we'll cheer for the other side regardless of who they are.

    The eu is being elevated to god like levels where it apparently can do no wrong. It is a deeply flawed organisation and needs reform and more accountability. It suffers from the exact same problems as all "Big" government does, it is too far detached from the people for them to make any difference and this leaves them open to influence from those who have the means to do so, ie big corporations and those with the ability to lobby at a high level.
    Nah it's more like watching a match and needing a team (The UK) to get a result for us to qualify. If they won (Remain) we're straight through. Unfortunately they lost (Leave) by having 3 players sent off for headbutting bystanders in the crowd. However in the next game (the negotiations) a draw for the UK will leave us in the qualifying positions. It's hard to cheer for a team that self-destructed in the last match but it's best for us. Unfortunately in this match they're playing a team much better than them (The EU, in power terms) and who haven't had a yellow card all season. The UK begin the game by kicking the ball out of play. They constantly get 4 players at a time caught offisde. It's like they don't know or care or understand the rules. While it's best for us for them to somehow scrape a draw it's hard to see how they'll do it and wait a second, ****, one of them just picked up the ball and is running towards his own goal with it.
    The opposition are bemused and this bemusement has stopped them progressing as they should against such an inept team, if they knew they were playing such an inept team.


  • #3303
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    That's exactly it, as I have stated several times already.



    oh please, it isn't defensive at all, it is merely stating facts. This debate is being treated as if it were a football match, which I guess is to be expected on an Irish board. England are playing someone, so we'll cheer for the other side regardless of who they are.

    The eu is being elevated to god like levels where it apparently can do no wrong. It is a deeply flawed organisation and needs reform and more accountability. It suffers from the exact same problems as all "Big" government does, it is too far detached from the people for them to make any difference and this leaves them open to influence from those who have the means to do so, ie big corporations and those with the ability to lobby at a high level.


    Ireland is opposing the UK though, seeing as we are in the EU and our fate is much more tied to them than the UK. So its not just as you want to claim some profound anti-UK sentiment, it is that we have tied our boat to the EU and not the UK. This whataboutery that you are engaged in is just to show that everyone is as bad as the UK, doesn't do much though. If it makes you feel better I guess it works for you.


  • #3304
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Enzokk wrote: »
    Ireland is opposing the UK though, seeing as we are in the EU and our fate is much more tied to them than the UK. So its not just as you want to claim some profound anti-UK sentiment, it is that we have tied our boat to the EU and not the UK. This whataboutery that you are engaged in is just to show that everyone is as bad as the UK, doesn't do much though. If it makes you feel better I guess it works for you.

    Good afternoon!

    Perhaps I'm just a huge West Brit but I don't perceive Ireland as being "against" Britain and I don't perceive the EU as being more tied to Ireland than the UK is. You'd need to explain in what sense. I personally as someone who was born and raised in Ireland and who lived there for 22 years consider Britain to be much much closer to Ireland on many fronts.

    Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me when you speak of my home country.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3305
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,986 ✭✭✭ambro25


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Those are questions for the Cameron government and the Blair government and the Major government. I can't answer them because I don't know why they didn't do it. The May government is addressing Brexit.

    These controls aren't sufficient post-Brexit to satisfy the referendum result. I think at a minimum there needs to be quotas on low skilled and low wage labour.
    That is a fairly inelegant dodging of the issues raised.

    Do you want to try again, or can we consider my point conceded?


  • #3306
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Enzokk wrote: »
    Ireland is opposing the UK though, seeing as we are in the EU and our fate is much more tied to them than the UK. So its not just as you want to claim some profound anti-UK sentiment, it is that we have tied our boat to the EU and not the UK. This whataboutery that you are engaged in is just to show that everyone is as bad as the UK, doesn't do much though. If it makes you feel better I guess it works for you.

    it isn't whataboutery, I was challenging an assertion that was made. I know it doesn't fit in well with the echo chamber, but actually the whataboutery came from posters who decided that the UK is just as bad or whatever. It really is as simple as that.

    so, because Ireland "Is" the eu, they can do no wrong?

    The fact you personally have tied your boat to the eu is obvious, I just hope the eu isn't prepared to cast that particular paddle boat adrift if it suits them.


  • Advertisement
  • #3307
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,966 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    I think you know the answer to that. The terms aren't acceptable so something else needs to be negotiated.

    The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)
    • Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
    • Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
    • Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and its interpretation)
    • Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with its non-EU trade partners)

    Within these lines nearly anything else can be proposed. The Government must deliver a true Brexit though.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    Well if the terms aren't acceptable, what are the UK proposing?

    You see, if the UK don't want the standard terms available, it is up to them to propose something both different and workable. Otherwise, goodbye.


  • #3308
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    it isn't whataboutery, I was challenging an assertion that was made. I know it doesn't fit in well with the echo chamber, but actually the whataboutery came from posters who decided that the UK is just as bad or whatever. It really is as simple as that.

    so, because Ireland "Is" the eu, they can do no wrong?

    The fact you personally have tied your boat to the eu is obvious, I just hope the eu isn't prepared to cast that particular paddle boat adrift if it suits them.


    You were challenging the assertion by saying, but there are lobbyist in Brussels as well. That doesn't really do anything but prove all governments are at the mercy of the lobbyists as all institutions will have people trying to influence it.

    Hence why I don't know what your point is. The EU is just as bad as the UK, great. Both will be played by those that have money and what to influence policy, individuals and corporations. Do I have that right?

    So what is your point other than to point out there is problems in the EU as well? Your second point is also a nice little dig at Ireland. Its our problem if the EU wants to enact policies that will hurt Ireland. Your concern is neither here nor there, seeing that if you want the UK government to follow through on Brexit that will hurt us in any case. Maybe opposition to Brexit is more appropriate if you are concerned about Ireland's well being in the EU.


  • #3309
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon!

    Perhaps I'm just a huge West Brit but I don't perceive Ireland as being "against" Britain and I don't perceive the EU as being more tied to Ireland than the UK is. You'd need to explain in what sense. I personally as someone who was born and raised in Ireland and who lived there for 22 years consider Britain to be much much closer to Ireland on many fronts.

    Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me when you speak of my home country.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    Well considering you'll be campaigning for a hard Brexit in Britain I don't find that credible on the home country front. I personally wouldn't label you an anglophile (I don't like west Brit) as very few anglophiles are actively campaigning to see Britain fall upon the worst possible terms of Brexit.

    If I did believe you're an Irish person campaigning for a British Brexit then I'd state that you have very little knowledge of history if you think the EU hasn't benefited Ireland more in the last few decades in terms of our economy. Under British rule we were in abject poverty. The part of Ireland under British rule is the poorest part of the island and the poorest part of the UK too.


  • #3310
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Well if the terms aren't acceptable, what are the UK proposing?

    You see, if the UK don't want the standard terms available, it is up to them to propose something both different and workable. Otherwise, goodbye.

    Good afternoon!

    It depends on how you understand the word negotiation.

    If the word negotiation means as it does traditionally two parties with some differing views sitting to hammer out a common solution then of course it's worth doing.

    If the EU have decided that a negotiation is trying to make the other party agree with their aims without compromise then I agree with you. The UK should walk away.

    steddyeddy:
    So you don't believe me when I say I'm Irish? (Do you want me to PM you my passport :pac:)

    Or you don't believe I'm living in Britain? (Do you want to see my UK drivers licence with address on it? :pac:)

    I think this is getting a bit silly don't you?

    We need to respect what we're saying about ourselves at face value.

    Also Wales is the poorest nation of the United Kingdom.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3311
    mountaintop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭mountaintop


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well considering you'll be campaigning for a hard Brexit in Britain I don't find that credible on the home country front. I personally wouldn't label you an anglophile (I don't like west Brit) as very few anglophiles are actively campaigning to see Britain fall upon the worst possible terms of Brexit.

    If I did believe you're an Irish person campaigning for a British Brexit then I'd state that you have very little knowledge of history if you think the EU hasn't benefited Ireland more in the last few decades in terms of our economy. Under British rule we were in abject poverty. The part of Ireland under British rule is the poorest part of the island and the poorest part of the UK too.

    I fully agree. He's in the same boat as Liam Fox MP who forever tells us about his British heritage and culture but everyone belonging to him is Irish. What is it? The Stockholm affect? On the other hand, the Irish in America wear their Irishness on their hearts. The Irish in Britain, once they adopt the mannerisms, are a completely different case. I was at a wedding recently and cousins of mine living in the UK all admitted voting for Brexit because of immigration. They are all the children of immigrants themselves. I can only shake my head. The EU took Ireland out of the post colonial darkness and allowed Irish people to hold their heads up and make something of their country. Shame on anyone of Irish descent that voted for it, that's my view. And let's not forget the great sleeping dog that is the Northern Irish issue. God, the thoughts of going back to that again...


  • Advertisement
  • #3312
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,998 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon!

    Perhaps I'm just a huge West Brit but I don't perceive Ireland as being "against" Britain and I don't perceive the EU as being more tied to Ireland than the UK is. You'd need to explain in what sense. I personally as someone who was born and raised in Ireland and who lived there for 22 years consider Britain to be much much closer to Ireland on many fronts.

    Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me when you speak of my home country.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria
    You accept that Brexit is however very damaging to Ireland?


  • #3313
    demfad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon!

    It depends on how you understand the word negotiation.


    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    I don't think you understand this particular 'negotiation'.

    The UK cannot walk away with what it brought into this negotiation. When the negotiation ends it is OUT of the EU. So the minimum deal has already being negotiated and will kick in in March 2017.

    If the UK does not improve on this minimum deal what will happen?
    • The UK will try and go under WTO rules
    • First container arriving in Calais is stopped, and pulled aside for testing. Same with second.
    • At some point that day Calais will announce that they wont accept any more UK trucks till backlog cleared.
    • TRucks park in Dover etc. That fills. Now trucks start to fill up the slow lane on all motorways between London and Ports
    • UK asks WTO to accept same rates as it had under EU
    • EU immediately starts a trade dispute
    • THis starts a landslide of trade disputes as states smell blood, some genuine, some like Argentina with other aims (Falklands).
    • THe live food agrisector cannot export at all as no port exists for the necessary testing. This is a 12 billion industry.
    • Testing: Country of origin rules mean that there must be paperwork showing country of origin for every component in a product.
    • Any product who do not lose their export business due to delays will ofcourse be hit by WTO rates.
    • This isnt just into Europe. But UK loses all its agreements with other countries. Same delays for exports to US, Russia, India etc all of the trade deals and mutual recognition agreements that it enjoyed with the EU are vansished.
    • The UK must immediately replace 32 regulatory bodies. EU might agree to keep control of the open skies, after that...
    • Qualifications, divorces, any legal UK position dissapears in EU overnight. A vast swath of British legal work gone.
    • UK approaches the US for a deal. All the UK trade negotiators are tied up in WTO talks. These are novice UK civil servants facing US career trade negotiators. The US says they want to help and maybe something could be managed in two years. But they point out that the UK is in an historically weak position, unlike anything since WW2. They push across a list of demands: they are horrendous. The UK has wrestled control from the EU only to hand over sovereignty to the first bidder. They capitulate and sign with no other choice.....
    • This list is not exhaustive.......
    (more or less from Ian Dunts book)


    This is what walking away actually means. Do you really think that this is something that the UK can threaten the EU with?


  • #3314
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    murphaph wrote: »
    You accept that Brexit is however very damaging to Ireland?

    At least the EU are making all the right noises
    "What we will never allow is that Ireland will suffer from the British decision to leave the EU," he said.

    "That is a commitment that has been made by the European parliament and by the EU as a whole."
    https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/0921/906424-brexit-verhofstadt/

    And his/or the EU's view of the border is very interesting
    Mr Verhofstadt added that the Northern Ireland border was not a natural one, it was not a river, or a mountain range, and was an illogical divide which should remain invisible as it is today.


  • #3315
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,633 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    There's a reason Juncker is laughing at May in public. demfad's post is an excellent summation of the realities of the situation and explains which side holds all the leverage.


  • #3316
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,438 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    it isn't whataboutery, I was challenging an assertion that was made. I know it doesn't fit in well with the echo chamber, but actually the whataboutery came from posters who decided that the UK is just as bad or whatever. It really is as simple as that.

    so, because Ireland "Is" the eu, they can do no wrong?

    The fact you personally have tied your boat to the eu is obvious, I just hope the eu isn't prepared to cast that particular paddle boat adrift if it suits them.

    Northern Ireland is going to be one of the worst off regions in Britain after all this.

    Tell me again why you think this is a good idea?

    Honestly. Because the entire region is going to be first up on the hurt train or are you hoping the dup fill all the empty EU money with London money? Because I can't see this flying for the rest of the UK


  • #3317
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,631 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon!

    It depends on how you understand the word negotiation.

    If the word negotiation means as it does traditionally two parties with some differing views sitting to hammer out a common solution then of course it's worth doing.

    If the EU have decided that a negotiation is trying to make the other party agree with their aims without compromise then I agree with you. The UK should walk away.
    But this is a two-way thing, solo. Both sides have been setting red lines. The UK has set a few of its own, and you have generally agreed with them.

    Are you now saying that if the UK has decided that the negotiations consist of trying to make the EU agree with its red lines without compromise then the EU should walk away?


  • #3318
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,881 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    demfad wrote: »
    I don't think you understand this particular 'negotiation'.

    The UK cannot walk away with what it brought into this negotiation. When the negotiation ends it is OUT of the EU. So the minimum deal has already being negotiated and will kick in in March 2017.

    If the UK does not improve on this minimum deal what will happen?
    • The UK will try and go under WTO rules
    • First container arriving in Calais is stopped, and pulled aside for testing. Same with second.
    • At some point that day Calais will announce that they wont accept any more UK trucks till backlog cleared.
    • TRucks park in Dover etc. That fills. Now trucks start to fill up the slow lane on all motorways between London and Ports
    • UK asks WTO to accept same rates as it had under EU
    • EU immediately starts a trade dispute
    • THis starts a landslide of trade disputes as states smell blood, some genuine, some like Argentina with other aims (Falklands).
    • THe live food agrisector cannot export at all as no port exists for the necessary testing. This is a 12 billion industry.
    • Testing: Country of origin rules mean that there must be paperwork showing country of origin for every component in a product.
    • Any product who do not lose their export business due to delays will ofcourse be hit by WTO rates.
    • This isnt just into Europe. But UK loses all its agreements with other countries. Same delays for exports to US, Russia, India etc all of the trade deals and mutual recognition agreements that it enjoyed with the EU are vansished.
    • The UK must immediately replace 32 regulatory bodies. EU might agree to keep control of the open skies, after that...
    • Qualifications, divorces, any legal UK position dissapears in EU overnight. A vast swath of British legal work gone.
    • UK approaches the US for a deal. All the UK trade negotiators are tied up in WTO talks. These are novice UK civil servants facing US career trade negotiators. The US says they want to help and maybe something could be managed in two years. But they point out that the UK is in an historically weak position, unlike anything since WW2. They push across a list of demands: they are horrendous. The UK has wrestled control from the EU only to hand over sovereignty to the first bidder. They capitulate and sign with no other choice.....
    • This list is not exhaustive.......
    (more or less from Ian Dunts book)


    This is what walking away actually means. Do you really think that this is something that the UK can threaten the EU with?

    Without an agreement, you'll see the impact as early as next autumn:

    - The issues around the open skies agreement will kick in around October
    - UK academics and students will find their Erasmus programs etc applications blocked
    - Switzerland will begin to reject U.K. 12 month+ work permit applications on the basis that the U.K. will be a third country in 2019. At present it is just a formality to get such permits.
    - The use of U.K. products and services in tendering for long term government contracts will become problematic


  • #3319
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But this is a two-way thing, solo. Both sides have been setting red lines. The UK has set a few of its own, and you have generally agreed with them.

    Are you now saying that if the UK has decided that the negotiations consist of trying to make the EU agree with its red lines without compromise then the EU should walk away?

    Good morning!

    Yes, I agree, but from my impression, I think the UK's position is very reasonable. "We're leaving, but let's have a mutually beneficial partnership in respect to security and trade issues". There's no reason why this shouldn't be compatible with the red lines of the referendum.

    The EU's position isn't reasonable from my perspective. "You must fit into a pre-existing box and obey all rules that an EU member has to follow and be subject to our court on every dispute without representation" even though you are leaving whilst ignoring that there are different kinds of boxes for interacting with third countries such as Canada.

    Yes, the EU can refuse to consider any other arrangement apart from the Swiss or Norwegian box, but I don't think that's actually reasonable. In fact, it's inherently unreasonable.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3320
    breatheme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 382 ✭✭breatheme


    Did the UK ever say before the referendum, or even afterwards, that they want the Canadian model? Before the referendum, Garage said he wanted either the Norwegian or Swiss models. There has been zero clarity on this issue.


  • #3321
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    breatheme wrote: »
    Did the UK ever say before the referendum, or even afterwards, that they want the Canadian model? Before the referendum, Garage said he wanted either the Norwegian or Swiss models. There has been zero clarity on this issue.

    Good morning!

    You can see why I believe the Norwegian and Swiss results are incompatible with the referendum result here. We don't need to repeat ourselves again, and again and again.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • #3322
    breatheme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 382 ✭✭breatheme


    I actually agree with you on that. I wasn't bringing that up. I asked: Has the UK said they want the Canadian deal? Yes or no. Have they?


  • #3323
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    The UK wants single market membership with three of the four freedoms.

    The faffing about is a attempt to square that circle. The EU is dead from telling them they cannot have it.

    The reason CETA is being tossed up as a solution is because a lot of people in the UK cannot see that there are core functional differences between single market membership and signing a FTA.


  • #3324
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Yes, I agree, but from my impression, I think the UK's position is very reasonable. "We're leaving, but let's have a mutually beneficial partnership in respect to security and trade issues". There's no reason why this shouldn't be compatible with the red lines of the referendum.

    The EU's position isn't reasonable from my perspective. "You must fit into a pre-existing box and obey all rules that an EU member has to follow and be subject to our court on every dispute without representation" even though you are leaving whilst ignoring that there are different kinds of boxes for interacting with third countries such as Canada.

    Yes, the EU can refuse to consider any other arrangement apart from the Swiss or Norwegian box, but I don't think that's actually reasonable. In fact, it's inherently unreasonable.


    If it only was that easy though. You make it sound as easy as David Davis thought it would be. But what about the border? How do you control immigration and have a open border with the EU? How does that affect trade?

    The solutions can seem easy, just have a trade deal that is mutually beneficial. Its when you look at the limits imposed that you run into problems.

    In any case, it seems as though Theresa May will give an amount as a divorce bill and single market access fee. I don't know what is so difficult in talking about the commitments owed instead about amounts. If you agree where you owe money it will be easy to get to the amount. Talking amounts just throws out more red lines for people.


  • #3325
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    One liners like this aren't helpful to a constructive discussion or to anyone.

    It's obvious that Northern Ireland depends on what trade terms the EU are willing to give the UK and on what customs terms are on the border.

    This is the most complex issue so I don't know why you think it can be settled in 3 months. If the EU give clarity on the future relationship this can be resolved.

    Even the EU understands that this issue will take longer to resolve than the months before the European Council.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    It's almost like Michel Barnier is reading your posts
    “I am asking myself questions. I’m wondering why – beyond the progress we’ve made on certain points – there is still today major uncertainty on each of the key issues of the first phase.

    “To make progress, we are waiting for clear commitments from the UK on these precise issues. We will listen attentively and constructively to Theresa May’s important speech tomorrow in Florence.”

    Barnier warned that May would have to make a substantive offer on citizens’ rights and the financial settlement to break the deadlock.

    Everyone knows what it required why some in the UK are burying their heads in the sand is beyond me.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/21/eu-tells-britain-to-settle-the-accounts-and-speed-up-brexit-progress


  • #3326
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,631 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    Yes, I agree, but from my impression, I think the UK's position is very reasonable. "We're leaving, but let's have a mutually beneficial partnership in respect to security and trade issues". There's no reason why this shouldn't be compatible with the red lines of the referendum.

    The EU's position isn't reasonable from my perspective. "You must fit into a pre-existing box and obey all rules that an EU member has to follow and be subject to our court on every dispute without representation" even though you are leaving whilst ignoring that there are different kinds of boxes for interacting with third countries such as Canada.

    Yes, the EU can refuse to consider any other arrangement apart from the Swiss or Norwegian box, but I don't think that's actually reasonable. In fact, it's inherently unreasonable.
    But it is not, and never has been, the EU's position. At no point has the EU said that the UK can have the Norwegian deal or the Swiss deal or nothing. At no point have they said that the UK can't have the Canadian deal, or something like it.

    What they have said is that the UK can't cherry-pick the features of EU membership/single market participation which appeal to it, and be excused from the features that don't. For example, if the EU wants to participate in the European Common Aviation Area, a market regulated by European law as interpreted and applied by the ECJ, then in respect of participation in the CAA it has to be subject to the relevant European laws and the jurisdiction of the court.

    The EU is emphatically not saying that the UK can have no deal that doesn't involve ECJ jurisdiction. All it's saying is that, if it wants the kind of deal that involves ECJ jurisdiction, well, that involves ECJ jurisdiction. Which, in your own phrase, is a "very reasonable" stance for the EU to take.

    Overall, your post confirms my impression that you consider it reasonable for the UK to set red lines from which it will not move, but unreasonable for the EU to do so. You can believe one of these things or the other, but not both.


  • #3327
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,881 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    The EU's position isn't reasonable from my perspective. "You must fit into a pre-existing box and obey all rules that an EU member has to follow and be subject to our court on every dispute without representation" even though you are leaving whilst ignoring that there are different kinds of boxes for interacting with third countries such as Canada.

    So being reasonable in your little world is asking for a whole array of things that are not in any trade deal signed by the EU and expecting to get them because they have trade deals with other nations.... just the usual nonsense we've come to expect!


  • #3328
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    listermint wrote: »
    Northern Ireland is going to be one of the worst off regions in Britain after all this.

    Tell me again why you think this is a good idea?

    Honestly. Because the entire region is going to be first up on the hurt train or are you hoping the dup fill all the empty EU money with London money? Because I can't see this flying for the rest of the UK

    err, that's a bit random.

    I've never said this is a good idea:confused:


  • #3329
    demfad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    You can see why I believe the Norwegian and Swiss results are incompatible with the referendum result here. We don't need to repeat ourselves again, and again and again.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    With respect, what you are saying is those models are incompatible with your interpretation of the result.
    Your interpretation is incompatible with the question asked and any polls since on why people voted as they did.


  • #3330
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    There's a reason Juncker is laughing at May in public. demfad's post is an excellent summation of the realities of the situation and explains which side holds all the leverage.

    The reason Juncker is laughing is that the UK were the biggest objectors to his somewhat baffling rise to power in the eu.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted


  • Advertisement
  • #3331
    demfad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    This is an excerpt Michel Barnier's speech from yesterday which is essential for evaluating May's speech today: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3404_en.htm#_ftn1
    To make progress, we are waiting for clear commitments from the UK on these precise issues.
    We will listen attentively and constructively to Theresa May's important speech tomorrow in Florence.

    1/ On citizens' rights, our priority in this negotiation:
    The issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom has not been solved.
    It is absolutely necessary that all these citizens, hundreds of thousands of whom are Italian citizens living and working in the United Kingdom, can continue to live as they did before, with the same rights and safeguards.
    This is a human and social question, which the European Parliament and its president, Antonio Tajani, are vigilantly watching, and rightly so.
    Citizens should be able to enforce their rights directly from the withdrawal agreement. This would prevent any possible dilution of these rights, if the rules implementing them in the UK were to change.
    In the same way, we want these rights to be valid in national courts and that national courts have the possibility – or even the obligation – to refer questions related to the interpretation of rights deriving from European law to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Justice would remain the ultimate guarantor of the agreement.
    This is for a simple reason: rights need to be effectively guaranteed.
    Our citizens have real concerns today – which we share – when the Home Office sends deportation letters or appears to defy High Court orders, as we read in the press.
    Our position on this point has been clear since the beginning. We want to provide the strongest safeguards for the rights of citizens on both sides of the Channel. We are waiting for the United Kingdom to express the same wish.

    2/ On the financial settlement:
    All that is necessary in this negotiation is that everyone honours the commitments that they have made to each other. To settle the accounts. No more, no less.
    To settle the accounts in an objective manner, on the basis of all commitments made at 28.
    We want to provide – and we must provide – certainty for project managers working in Europe, such as in Italy and its regions, and in other continents, such as Africa, on the basis of the commitment of the 28.
    But beyond money, this is a question of trust between the 27 and the United Kingdom, based on the respect of one's signature. And everyone knows that we will need this trust to create a solid relationship in the future.

    3/ Finally, on Ireland, and the Border in particular, we must act responsibly to respect both the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and the integrity of the Single Market. We are advancing, but there is still more political work to be done.
    As I was saying, I am asking myself questions. These questions, as far as I see it, should not be controversial because this is about protecting our citizens, our businesses, our partners, and the credibility of our promises.

    If May is serious she will address these points during her Florence speech in a few hours. If it's more cakeism then they are not serious.
    Or as Barnier put it: "will UK leave in an orderly fashion with an agreement, or not?"

    Apparently Barnier will reply within 15 minutes of the speech.
    Very clear on citizens rights above and the other red lines.

    The whole speech is well worth a read. May will ask for a two year transition deal. Barnier addresses this:
    An important point: this short transition period will be part of the Article 50 withdrawal agreement.
    Without a withdrawal agreement, there is no transition. This is a point of law.
    I would like to be very clear: if we are to extend for a limited period the acquis of the EU, with all its benefits, then logically "this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply" – as recalled in the mandate I received from the European Council, under the authority of President Donald Tusk.

    In other words the transition deal will be under full EU rules.

    He also says:
    An important point: this short transition period will be part of the Article 50 withdrawal agreement.
    Without a withdrawal agreement, there is no transition. This is a point of law.

    This rules out the UK trying to use a transition deal as a cushion against a no-deal. No-deal will mean the UK leaves the EU in 2019 with no deal.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement