Brexit discussion thread II

kingchess · 22-09-2017 02:00PM

mrs May will soon be giving her long awaited speech to clarify her "Brexit means Brexit" cliche, and to clear up what kind of deal that the UK actually wants,so we should have all the answers very soon,about the invisible border,freedom of movement,citizens rights etc.I expect that she will lay her cards on the table and use words like "imaginative","creative" and "flexible", And those pesky Europeans who have no sense of Humour whatsoever,I wonder will they be happy?

Nody · 22-09-2017 02:08PM

kingchess wrote: »

mrs May will soon be giving her long awaited speech to clarify her "Brexit means Brexit" cliche, and to clear up what kind of deal that the UK actually wants,so we should have all the answers very soon,about the invisible border,freedom of movement,citizens rights etc.I expect that she will lay her cards on the table and use words like "imaginative","creative" and "flexible", And those pesky Europeans who have no sense of Humour whatsoever,I wonder will they be happy?

Don't forget "legacy", "responsibility", "unique" and my personal favourite "fair deal" where the definition of fair means do what UK wants and ignore the legal and red lines of EU.

Zubeneschamali · 22-09-2017 02:19PM

Nody wrote: »

Don't forget "legacy", "responsibility", "unique" and my personal favourite "fair deal" where the definition of fair means do what UK wants and ignore the legal and red lines of EU.

I'll nominate:

ambition, aspiration, balance, challenge, opportunity, principles, reform, values, vision.

Contra-indicated:

Depression, devaluation, emigration, inflation, isolation, recession, unemployment.

ancapailldorcha · 22-09-2017 02:34PM

Post deleted. Raise the standard of posting please.

breatheme · 22-09-2017 02:48PM

Anyone following the speech? Theresa May just stated that no existing model (Norway, Switzerland OR Canada) is a viable option for the UK.

murphaph · 22-09-2017 03:02PM

breatheme wrote: »

Anyone following the speech? Theresa May just stated that no existing model (Norway, Switzerland OR Canada) is a viable option for the UK.

So the UK is asking the EU to create a special case for the UK. Too many years of being given opt out after opt out lead to this sort of mentality.

Perhaps the UK should have put more thought into what is viable for it before pulling the A50 trigger. Of course it'll all be the Europeans fault.

listermint · 22-09-2017 03:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

No, I don't deny cooperation with other countries. I deny that being bound to a heavily restrictive bloc is the right way to deal with it.

Again, Brexit is a result of a desire to deal with the world, not to be chained to EU specific policy.

solodeogloria

This particular point has been exposed over and over again as false with factual survey information.

Why do you keep putting forward your opinion as fact ?

Just because you subscribe to the view that most voters for brexit wanted to free themselves from some economic shackles and rules so they could reach out to the wider world does not make it true.

It may be true for your immediate circle which appears to be echo chamber in terms of its source material but the fact remains.

Immigration was top of the list for brexiters.

Then a avid dislike for the EU as supposedly it took all of the UKs money and gave nothing back in return....

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 03:07PM

breatheme wrote: »

Anyone following the speech? Theresa May just stated that no existing model (Norway, Switzerland OR Canada) is a viable option for the UK.

We know what they don't want. Any chance they could say what exactly they do want? I'll answer my own question. No. Not one member of May's cabinet is in agreement with another member on a vision for Brexit. Is that a clock I hear ticking?

solodeogloria · 22-09-2017 03:15PM

murphaph wrote: »

So the UK is asking the EU to create a special case for the UK. Too many years of being given opt out after opt out lead to this sort of mentality.

Perhaps the UK should have put more thought into what is viable for it before pulling the A50 trigger. Of course it'll all be the Europeans fault.

Good afternoon!

Obviously. The transition however, is going to be under EU law for 2 years. I'm not opposed to that. I agree some harder line Brexiteers will be raging though.

I'm happy with the consideration of ECJ judgements in British courts after Brexit. British judges will interpret laws that apply in Britain.

I'm also pretty happy with what she said about a separate arbitration mechanism and how the ECJ ruling directly isn't going to work.

I'm thankful that she's made movements where she can within the red lines set out in the referendum. I understand some might want her to push harder, but I think the tone was ideal and helpful.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody · 22-09-2017 03:16PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We know what they don't want. Any chance they could say what exactly they do want? I'll answer my own question. No. Not one member of May's cabinet is in agreement with another member on a vision for Brexit. Is that a clock I hear ticking?

I'll disagree to a point; I think they very much know what they want which is all benefits of being in EU without having to pay or follow the legislation of EU such as freedom of movement etc. The problem is they know, and we know, that it's simply not going to happen no matter how they try to twist it. That leads to the second part of the problem if the dream scenario is vetoed (it is) then what to go for instead and that's where the whole range from EEA to "hard brexit" opinions come into play inc. how to "sell it" to the population in general as being better then being pat of EU.

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 03:17PM

From the Guardian feed on her press conference:

Q: You have ruled out things in this negotiation only to have to concede them. Can you point to any areas where you have won concessions?

May says there are UK demands that have been agreed by Europe.

This is a negotiation, she says.

She says this is an opportunity for both sides to agree a new partnership.

This could provide a great future for both sides, she says

Yup. That just about sums it up.

Zubeneschamali · 22-09-2017 03:17PM

Transcript is up here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-florence-speech-a-new-era-of-cooperation-and-partnership-between-the-uk-and-the-eu

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 03:21PM

Nody wrote: »

I'll disagree to a point; I think they very much know what they want which is all benefits of being in EU without having to pay or follow the legislation of EU such as freedom of movement etc. The problem is they know, and we know, that it's simply not going to happen no matter how they try to twist it. That leads to the second part of the problem if the dream scenario is vetoed (it is) then what to go for instead and that's where the whole range from EEA to "hard brexit" opinions come into play inc. how to "sell it" to the population in general as being better then being pat of EU.

Well, yes, they know what they want. I want a bright red Ferrari. I'm not going to get it. So I need to live in the real world and deal with reality. In doing that, I must decide what I want within the realms of possibility. They haven't done that either because they can't even agree amongst themselves.

An Ciarraioch · 22-09-2017 03:21PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From the Guardian feed on her press conference:

Q: You have ruled out things in this negotiation only to have to concede them. Can you point to any areas where you have won concessions?

May says there are UK demands that have been agreed by Europe.

This is a negotiation, she says.

She says this is an opportunity for both sides to agree a new partnership.

This could provide a great future for both sides, she says

Yup. That just about sums it up.

Indeed - if you're Varadkar, or an EU politician, you didn't hear much new today.

demfad · 22-09-2017 03:35PM

Re Barnier's speech she said she would honour UK's commitments which uses the language he used. (pay what they have agreed/signed u to pay)
She has requested a transition deal for 2 years accepting EU rules accepting ECJ, FOM etc (her proposal to register EU citizens is actually under EU rules).

Barnier said yesterday that a transition deal MUST be part of the A50 negotiation. So Citizens, Divorce Bill, Ireland would have to be sorted before transition.

He is due to respond around now....

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 03:39PM

Again from the Guardian:

But, on the transition, May was specific. The UK will continue to pay into the EU budget, and it will continue to be bound by EU rules. It was telling that May refused to answer the question about whether this would amount to continued EEA (European economic area) membership, or whether this would involve having to obey new EU regulations passed by the EU27. Further briefing this afternoon from Number 10 may clarify the position, but from what May said it sounded very much as if the answer to both question is yes and yes. The government has always insisted that in March 2019 we will leave the single market and the customs union. Now that sounds like a semantic evasion. On the basis of what May said, it sounds as if we are staying in until March 2021.

Farage will go bananas. On the upside, if Boris accepts this without a whimper then he's yesterday's man.

blanch152 · 22-09-2017 03:40PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Transcript is up here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-florence-speech-a-new-era-of-cooperation-and-partnership-between-the-uk-and-the-eu

Did she just criticise Brexit without realising it?

"the loss of popular support for the forces of liberalism and free trade that is driving moves towards protectionism."

The irony.

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 03:41PM

A Tweet from Bojo:

PM speech was positive, optimistic & dynamic - and rightly disposes of the Norway option! Forwards!

He's nothing but a coward considering his bluff and bluster last weekend.

Zubeneschamali · 22-09-2017 03:44PM

Some awful stuff in there. On EU citizens rights:

I am clear that the guarantee I am giving on your rights is real. And I doubt anyone with real experience of the UK would doubt the independence of our courts or of the rigour with which they will uphold people’s legal rights.

In other words, f*ck you and your foreign Courts.

On the EEA: Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people.

So, no cake.

But on Canada: As for a Canadian style free trade agreement, we should recognise that this is the most advanced free trade agreement the EU has yet concluded and a breakthrough in trade between Canada and the EU. But compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies.
Not only that, it would start from the false premise that there is no pre-existing regulatory relationship between us. And precedent suggests that it could take years to negotiate.
We can do so much better than this.

Not just cake, but new, better, UK-only cake, by special delivery!

And on the transition: How long the period is should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems that will underpin that future partnership.

As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.

As I predicted, start out with a goal to finish in 2 years, but the real time limit is how long it takes to do the job, which will be a lot longer.

Jim2007 · 22-09-2017 03:45PM

Nody wrote: »

That leads to the second part of the problem if the dream scenario is vetoed (it is) then what to go for instead and that's where the whole range from EEA to "hard brexit" opinions come into play inc. how to "sell it" to the population in general as being better then being pat of EU.

But are there any other options at the moment? EEA requires either EU/EFTA membership and in that respect Norway has at least some reservations about that. The EU have said that there will never be another Swiss style bilateral agreement because it is too complex and in fact would need to be renegotiated and voted on by the Swiss people before it could go ahead as the UK would need to be added to the mix.

If fact the only sure option that could be proposed in a referendum would be reapplication for membership...

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 03:54PM

The Torygraph headline:

Brexit delayed until 2021 as the PM commits UK to two year transition period.

Let the games begin.

Huexotzingo · 22-09-2017 03:57PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Torygraph headline:

Brexit delayed until 2021 as the PM commits UK to two year transition period.

Let the games begin.

She won't be PM by then so it'll be someone else sweeping up the mess.

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 04:06PM

Huexotzingo wrote: »

She won't be PM by then so it'll be someone else sweeping up the mess.

To be honest, I don't think she'll last until Christmas. It's in the EU's interest to continue stonewalling the negotiations. Not least because stonewalling will sow further discontent within an already divided cabinet and a crumbling Tory party will suit the EU's agenda just fine.

A few weeks of the EU refusing to negotiate meaningfully (because the CTA, the exit bill and EU citizens' rights haven't been sorted) will see a heave by Brexiteers against her. Boris is the stalking horse but Davies is the bookies' favourite.

Nody · 22-09-2017 04:10PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

But are there any other options at the moment? EEA requires either EU/EFTA membership and in that respect Norway has at least some reservations about that. The EU have said that there will never be another Swiss style bilateral agreement because it is too complex and in fact would need to be renegotiated and voted on by the Swiss people before it could go ahead as the UK would need to be added to the mix.

If fact the only sure option that could be proposed in a referendum would be reapplication for membership...

The smart option would be to go for an Canadian deal with services and pay EU to run certification verification to allow UK goods to continue be certified by UK bodies but EU runs quality checks to allow them to maintain the standards. It would basically be an EEA in practice but not name and would come with a cost to keep paying for those services.

The other option which UK wanted but is highly unlikely to happen is that EU simply signs off all UK law and institutions as being strong enough to match EU law without EU oversight. There's still trade tariffs and quotas in play but on a limited level.

Third option is true third country status where there are approval for certain products/categories to be approved by UK and reduced spot check but not on all. It would be tied in to some form of FTA obviously.

Fourth forward simply goes down the list with less and less in the FTA, pre approved to the point of no FTA at all.

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 04:15PM

Nody wrote: »

The smart option would be to go for an Canadian deal with services and pay EU to run certification verification to allow UK goods to continue be certified by UK bodies but EU runs quality checks to allow them to maintain the standards. It would basically be an EEA in practice but not name and would come with a cost to keep paying for those services.

The other option which UK wanted but is highly unlikely to happen is that EU simply signs off all UK law and institutions as being strong enough to match EU law without EU oversight. There's still trade tariffs and quotas in play but on a limited level.

Third option is true third country status where there are approval for certain products/categories to be approved by UK and reduced spot check but not on all. It would be tied in to some form of FTA obviously.

Fourth forward simply goes down the list with less and less in the FTA, pre approved to the point of no FTA at all.

Why would the EU agree to any of those options (other than no FTA)? They allow Britain to have it's cake and eat it by trading relatively freely with the EU while simultaneously forging new trade agreements with other countries. Remember, the EU is adamant that Britain's trading position with the EU post Brexit must be less advantageous than their current status.

ancapailldorcha · 22-09-2017 04:16PM

I'm not really sure how Theresa May will be able to get any Brexit deal through Parliament. Her majority (including the DUP MP's) is paper thin. UKIP have no MP's to support any kind of deal while the Lib Dems will vote against anything less than full single market membership as will certain Tories like Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry. Labour know they have a solid chance in the next election and will do everything they can to sink May's government.

Chips Lovell · 22-09-2017 04:16PM

I don't know. Who'd want to be PM at the moment? Whoever signs off on the Brexit deal is going to get it in the neck, from their party and from the electorate. Why be the patsy when there's already one sitting in Downing St?

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 04:20PM

Unsurprisingly, Manfred Weber is unimpressed. Two tweets:

The clock is ticking and time is running faster than the government believes in London

In substance PM May is bringing no more clarity to London's positions. I am even more concerned now

Weber is leader of the European People's Party in the European Parliament.

Professor Moriarty · 22-09-2017 04:22PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not really sure how Theresa May will be able to get any Brexit deal through Parliament. Her majority (including the DUP MP's) is paper thin. UKIP have no MP's to support any kind of deal while the Lib Dems will vote against anything less than full single market membership as will certain Tories like Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry. Labour know they have a solid chance in the next election and will do everything they can to sink May's government.

If I was a Labour strategist, I would wait a while longer before trying to force an election. The Tories are beginning to turn on each other like rats in a barrel. They could implode in a very permanent way.

Snickers Man · 22-09-2017 04:23PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Transcript is up here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-florence-speech-a-new-era-of-cooperation-and-partnership-between-the-uk-and-the-eu

Hmm. No mention of NATO. Despite a section on security co-operation.

A new "NATO-light" organisation within five years or less: Britain, US, possibly Norway and Turkey with a tentative arms-length alliance with Russia. And the rest of Europe in a new alliance which we might call a "Euro army" for convenience.

Which side will Ireland join? Or will it try to stay neutral again?

And from whom will the bigger threat come?

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments