Brexit discussion thread II

steddyeddy · 26-09-2017 01:52PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I had an interesting conversation with an American over the weekend. He spoke of differing principles between the British and EU negotiators which is causing an impasse.

In the UK, this principle of "Fair Play" is strong. The people voted to leave the eu and that must be respected and therefore the government is acting on it. The British government expects the eu to understand this and behave in a similar way. The eu doesn't get this and just sees the UK as being unreasonable. They also can't understand (as do a lot of posters on here) why the government is doing something that is not in the best interests of its people.

The eu negotiators also believe that the eu is everything and simply can't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to leave. This is why they insist that their principles are right and is sticking to them, because they simply can't see any alternative due to their entrenched belief that the eu is perfect.

Fred the EU might have good reason to doubt this. During the campaign prominent politicians, the media, tabloids and broadsheet made up damaging lies about the EU. People were sad to see the UK go, but what was much worse was the fact that the public bought these lies and seen the EU as the bad guy.

The EU have a responsibility to protect EU citizens. This includes the divorce bill so the EU 27 don't have to take up the slack, the Irish border as the GFA has to be respected and the status of EU citizens. The EU isn't being unreasonable.

Fratton Fred · 26-09-2017 01:55PM

murphaph wrote: »

Even if the decision was made before Brexit, Brexit makes it compulsory.

It was compulsory anyway, because Ryanair was more than 50% owned by non eu shareholders pre Brexit. Brexit is completely irrelevant to this, ergo, your post was misleading.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's not it at all. The question of how the UK makes a decision - whether it's made by the government, the Parliament, the people in a referendum, or in some other way, is absolutely no business of the EU's. It's an internal constitutional matter for the UK. The UK doesn't get some kind of pass on reasonableness or fairness on the basis that a particular decision was made by referendum rather than by Parliament or vice versa. The UK wants to leave the EU, which is its right, but they don't have any claim to special treatment because they made that decision by referendum rather than by parliamentary vote or executive decision. Nobody but themselves cares how they make this decision. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it's a decision by the UK, with exactly the same status as any other decision by the UK.

it doesn't mean it requires anything different, just that the two parties are approaching the negotiations from a different perspective. The British from a pragmatic "This has to be done" perspective, the eu team from a "Why are you breaking up with me" perspective.

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is nonsense on stilts. Nobody on the EU side has said anything remotely like this. You should stop listening to your US friend because his views are clearly not informed by reality.

The 27 members of the EU who have not decided to leave do not believe that it is perfect, but they do think it is a good thing and they wish to keep it and defend it. They will not wish to see its principles undermined or its structures weakened, and they do not think that "fairness" to the UK requires this

I didn't say the 27 member states did I, I said the negotiators. Barnier and Verhofstadt are more or less federalists. They believe in more and more integration, Brexit doesn't fit in with their beliefs. It's like asking a Loyalist to understand a Republican.

to think otherwise is just stupidity, or nonsense on stilts.

And I'll keep listening to him thanks, because he isn't a patronising, self righteous prick.

Fratton Fred · 26-09-2017 02:07PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Is there a reason this American's opinion carries more weight than the man on the street?

He lives in Dublin, I presume on a street.

johnnyskeleton · 26-09-2017 02:34PM

Mod note:

Fratton Fred banned for uncivil posting. Please dont reply to any of his posts until a week has passed.

The Rape of Lucretia · 26-09-2017 03:16PM

The people voted to leave the eu and that must be respected.

I dont think one could respect it as such - acknowledge sure, their right to implement it, but respect, no.
What tge result shows is the British immaturity and inability to hold such a referendum. Whether Cameron should have held one, in a country whose voters, political leaders, and media were unable to examine, evaluate, and debate the issue as rational adults, is itself debatable. But that people were given a choice to make on a topic that was beyond their grasp is clear. And a serious collective failure from a supposed modern democracy. In this we pity rather than respect their decision. It does raise questions on the responsibilities of leaders to only allow people democracy if they are fit to handle it - or, their responsibilities as genuine leaders and providers of answers, rather than as potentially reckless enablers of self harm - however 'democratic' that self harm seem.

solodeogloria · 26-09-2017 03:27PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I dont think one could respect it as such - acknowledge sure, their right to implement it, but respect, no.
What tge result shows is the British immaturity and inability to hold such a referendum. Whether Cameron should have held one, in a country whose voters, political leaders, and media were unable to examine, evaluate, and debate the issue as rational adults, is itself debatable. But that people were given a choice to make on a topic that was beyond their grasp is clear. And a serious collective failure from a supposed modern democracy. In this we pity rather than respect their decision. It does raise questions on the responsibilities of leaders to only allow people democracy if they are fit to handle it - or, their responsibilities as genuine leaders and providers of answers, rather than as potentially reckless enablers of self harm - however 'democratic' that self harm seem.

Good afternoon!

So let's get this straight - when people don't vote the way you want it shows that they are unable to have a referendum?

Come on - surely you know this is just silly nonsense?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jm08 · 26-09-2017 03:48PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So let's get this straight - when people don't vote the way you want it shows that they are unable to have a referendum?

Come on - surely you know this is just silly nonsense?

It was silly nonsense how that referendum was conducted. The people should have been presented with the likely consequences of their votes whether it was to leave or remain.

swampgas · 26-09-2017 03:51PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So let's get this straight - when people don't vote the way you want it shows that they are unable to have a referendum?

Come on - surely you know this is just silly nonsense?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Regardless of the result, the referendum was poorly defined, poorly managed and occurred in an environment with huge amounts of disinformation and outright lies. It's silly nonsense (IMO) to give undue respect to the outcome when the process that created it was so very flawed.

ambro25 · 26-09-2017 03:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So let's get this straight - when people don't vote the way you want it shows that they are unable to have a referendum?

Come on - surely you know this is just silly nonsense?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The Rape of Lucretia raises important and valid points to at least ponder, but better still discuss. Your strawman tactics in the above are really poor form. Have you no shame?

The Rape of Lucretia: I actually think that yes, it does need respecting.

Not because people voted in a non-binding referendum on 24 June 2016.

But because the people's duly elected and convened delegates, its Members of Parliament, effectively repeated that decision, with a far larger majority, in the binding context of a Parliamentary vote after debate on 13 March 2017.

And accessorily because the people then again returned a Parliamentary majority(-ish) in June 2017, on a campaign of implementing those 2 earlier votes.

Whether that decision is worthy of respect (in a moral sense) or not: quite clearly, it's what they as a people want, under all British constitutional checks and balances. So it has to be 'respected' (in an obligatory sense now).

EDIT: all the same, with this being the sovereign expression of the British people, naturally only their government and State apparatus is obligated to respect and carry out these wishes; UK votes create no obligations nor liabilities whatsoever upon third parties, including upon the EU27 people.

Water John · 26-09-2017 04:31PM

Thought the 'common man' was on the Clapham bus?

Professor Moriarty · 26-09-2017 04:33PM

jm08 wrote: »

It was silly nonsense how that referendum was conducted. The people should have been presented with the likely consequences of their votes whether it was to leave or remain.

Exactly. An utterly meaningless question. For all its relevance, they might as well have been asked whether they were for or against unicorns.

Akrasia · 26-09-2017 04:54PM

ambro25 wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia: I actually think that yes, it does need respecting.

Not because people voted in a non-binding referendum on 24 June 2016.

But because the people's duly elected and convened delegates, its Members of Parliament, effectively repeated that decision, with a far larger majority, in the binding context of a Parliamentary vote after debate on 13 March 2017.
And accessorily because the people then again returned a Parliamentary majority(-ish) in June 2017, on a campaign of implementing those 2 earlier votes.

Given that acts of parliament can be repealed by parliament, the decision by the elected representatives is still open to debate as long as there are important matters at stake.

The opposition in terms of the parliament, as well as civil society who oppose brexit have a very important role to play in order to shape the version of brexit that will ultimately occur.

If the elected representatives are unable to negotiate a reasonable brexit, they should be prepared to do whatever it takes to negotiate more time, or a softer transition or whatever is deemed in the best interest of all parties without being encumbered by the 'will of the people' whatever that meant.

The Brexit referendum was akin to a referendum calling for Britain to go to war. The will of the people is that the British should declare war but if the war goes badly and there is no hope of victory, the vote to wage war should not get in the way of an armistice or even a negotiated surrender if the alternative is to be totally defeated.

Zubeneschamali · 26-09-2017 04:58PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The Brexit referendum was akin to a referendum calling for Britain to go to war.

Or perhaps to bring back hanging.

Polls have always shown that Brits would vote to bring back hanging if anyone let them, which is why nobody lets them vote on this.

ambro25 · 26-09-2017 05:25PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Given that acts of parliament can be repealed by parliament, the decision by the elected representatives is still open to debate as long as there are important matters at stake.

The opposition in terms of the parliament, as well as civil society who oppose brexit have a very important role to play in order to shape the version of brexit that will ultimately occur.

If the elected representatives are unable to negotiate a reasonable brexit, they should be prepared to do whatever it takes to negotiate more time, or a softer transition or whatever is deemed in the best interest of all parties without being encumbered by the 'will of the people' whatever that meant.

I do not disagree with your points and sentiments, but remark that they hinge on 'ifs' that are all conditional outcomes of [attempting to] 'respecting' that vote in the first place, which was my only point (in the context of TRoL and solo's preceding posts).

That MPs "should be prepared to do whatever it takes to negotiate more time, or a softer transition or whatever is deemed in the best interest of all parties" if they are "unable to negotiate a reasonable brexit", or not, is still fully on the people who elected them: it's the component of personal responsibility, inherent to the choice of MP at the ballot box, still carried thereafter.

Akrasia wrote: »

The Brexit referendum was akin to a referendum calling for Britain to go to war. The will of the people is that the British should declare war but if the war goes badly and there is no hope of victory, the vote to wage war should not get in the way of an armistice or even a negotiated surrender if the alternative is to be totally defeated.

The analogy is somewhat sensationalist, which does not help: let's be clear here, calamitous as it would be, crashing out would not "kill" the UK to the extent of a total (military) defeat. It would just leave the UK very severely impaired in socio-economic terms.

I daresay the UK needs to take that medicine, to cure its political ills durably. Hopefully to the extent of addressing the FPTP system.

I'm confident the EU(27) will vigil by the bedside all along, and be the first to lend a hand when the UK gets better.

solodeogloria · 26-09-2017 05:48PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's nothing unreasonable or unfair about the EU's position that aspects of
EU membership cannot be cherry-picked. This has been extraordinarily difficult for the UK to grasp, and there are some in the UK (and, apparently, in the US) who haven't quite got there yet. The UK-EU Brexit discourse started after the referendum with loud voices on the UK side insisting that the UK could participate in the single market but not accept free movement of labour, apparently unable to see that this was a fairly basic contradiction in terms, and saying that those who pointed this out were being unfair and unreasonable. At the official level the UK has moved on from this and May now confirms that a rejection of free movement does indeed require withdrawal from the single market, and this is not some unreasonable and arbitrary decree of an EU that considers itself perfect. But the fact is that there are still Brexiters like solo who lay down a series of rigid sweeping red lines that have been adopted without any thought as to their effect or any attempt to calculate what they will cost the UK, and in the same breath denounce the EU as unreasonable and inflexible.

Good evening!

The EU are being unreasonable. The best evidence is in the EU's insistence that the UK should remain under its jurisdiction despite voting to leave. More evidence can be seen in respect to its stance on payments despite the willingness of the UK to compromise in this area.

The UK have been extremely flexible so far within the red lines that have arisen since the referendum. The speech in Florence showed the same. If the EU's position is to rigidly insist that the UK bend to its will or else I think the UK should start planning for no deal.

The UK needs to deliver on the results of the referendum and the priorities by which it was won. Irrespective of whether or not the EU are willing to give the UK an alternative arrangement with consideration of the UK Government's position in respect to the single market and the customs union. (I.E a free trade agreement). The UK isn't looking for single market membership and therefore it is unreasonable to insist that it should be subject to the conditions of it.

If the EU aren't willing to move from their position and make similar compromises to the UK then I would suggest that the negotiations are a waste of time and money.

I support delivering the result of the referendum and taking back control. I'm not supportive of ending up in a state of EU membership in all but name. The UK must genuinely be out.

I think the assessment of Fratton Fred's friend is rather perceptive.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 26-09-2017 05:54PM

For god's sake..."flexible within the red lines". You can just as easily say the EU is being flexible within its red lines.

solodeogloria · 26-09-2017 06:06PM

murphaph wrote: »

For god's sake..."flexible within the red lines". You can just as easily say the EU is being flexible within its red lines.

Good evening!

I can't see that in respect to the EU but I can in respect to the UK.

Moreover, I think the British red lines are a heck of a lot more reasonable. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be subject to its court. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be considering prolonged payments to it. A county leaving the EU certainly shouldn't be considering allowing free movement carte blanche.

The UK recognise this means that the UK will not enjoy the same benefits in respect to the EU as were had previously.

The UK have made clear movements in all three areas stopping short of being directly subject to EU jurisdiction. The EU are the inflexible party.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152 · 26-09-2017 06:10PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The EU are being unreasonable. The best evidence is in the EU's insistence that the UK should remain under its jurisdiction despite voting to leave.

The EU is not insisting on this. If the UK want to leave and acquire the status of a third country, they are free to do so and stay outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and if that is what the UK wants, they should have the balls to say so. We can then get down to negotiating a free trade deal or opt for WTO rules.

If the UK wants to keep aspects of the EU, it must keep aspects of the ECJ. So a simple choice for the UK, nobody on the EU is being unreasonable or insisting on anything. If you want to go, just go, stop looking for friends with benefits.

solodeogloria wrote: »

More evidence can be seen in respect to its stance on payments despite the willingness of the UK to compromise in this area.

The EU is being absolutely fair on this one. Let us agree what you owe based on the UK's previous promises and commitments and pay up as a sign of trust. Of course, as the UK wishes to welch on its commitments, it refuses to do this, instead making offers of derisory sums. The amount is unknown until the UK admits to its promises.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have been extremely flexible so far within the red lines that have arisen since the referendum. The speech in Florence showed the same. If the EU's position is to rigidly insist that the UK bend to its will or else I think the UK should start planning for no deal.

Red lines are not flexible. End of.

There are options for the UK - EEA, EFTA, Norway, Canada, Turkey etc. Pick one off the shelf.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK needs to deliver on the results of the referendum and the priorities by which it was won. Irrespective of whether or not the EU are willing to give the UK an alternative arrangement with consideration of the UK Government's position in respect to the single market and the customs union. (I.E a free trade agreement). The UK isn't looking for single market membership and therefore it is unreasonable to insist that it should be subject to the conditions of it.

The US needs North Korea to disarm, don't see it happening myself.

What one country needs to deliver is completely irrelevant in international diplomacy. The art of the possible, i.e. making the best of what is available, is the essence of diplomacy. So far, the UK negotiators have shown zero indication that they understand what is possible.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU aren't willing to move from their position and make similar compromises to the UK then I would suggest that the negotiations are a waste of time and money.

I support delivering the result of the referendum and taking back control. I'm not supportive of ending up in a state of EU membership in all but name. The UK must genuinely be out.

I think the assessment of Fratton Fred's friend is rather perceptive.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well then, we know your position then. Hard Brexit with WTO tariffs is your preferred outcome as you are not willing to compromise on the so-called UK redline issues.

blanch152 · 26-09-2017 06:12PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I can't see that in respect to the EU but I can in respect to the UK.

Moreover, I think the British red lines are a heck of a lot more reasonable. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be subject to its court. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be considering prolonged payments to it. A county leaving the EU certainly shouldn't be considering allowing free movement carte blanche.

The UK recognise this means that the UK will not enjoy the same benefits in respect to the EU as were had previously.

The UK have made clear movements in all three areas stopping short of being directly subject to EU jurisdiction. The EU are the inflexible party.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Then leave the EU, but don't ask for a soft border in Ireland, don't ask for preferential access to the markets, don't ask for financial passporting to continue, don't ask for your elderly pensioners to be allowed access health care in Spain, just leave and close the door behind you.

Jaggo · 26-09-2017 06:31PM

Funny enough it is the wisdom of Liam Fox that we should all bow too.
The man was right when he said that this should be the easiest negotiations of all time.

The UK had people working in and with the EU, observing all the EU's intentions, objectives and reasoning behind the creation of the single market. They could see why regulations were necessary, why customs were standardized, why borders were important etc. The UK had the rule book for the EU and all the EU laws.
They had the entire bargaining position of the EU mapped out in front of them. All they had to do was match up the UKs objectives with what was possible with the EU's needed to protect the single market. It should have been easy.

And then instead of dealing with anything common sense... it comes up a manual on how to eat cake. They are still living on a different planet.

A summary of the UK Plan
"Why don't we have a 'Single market' with two markets. Why not have two jurisdictions governing the two markets in the single market with a third market where we both have jurisdiction. Then we can let third countries export into our part of the single market but don't worry they won't trade into your market unless of course, they meet our rules."

murphaph · 26-09-2017 06:44PM

And let's not forget...the UK initiated a lot of these rules!

Zubeneschamali · 26-09-2017 07:23PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be subject to its court. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be considering prolonged payments to it. A county leaving the EU certainly shouldn't be considering allowing free movement carte blanche.

All of those things are entirely within the UKs control. The EU cannot force any of them on the UK.

Of course, they are not trying to. The negotiations are in the context of a country leaving the EU but still wanting something better than the Canadian free trade agreement in respect of access to the market, simpler than the Swiss system and cheaper than the Norwegian one.

You leave the golf club, you don't have to pay membership anymore. But if you still want to play, you pay green fees and you abide by the rules.

Or go join another club. Bye now.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-09-2017 09:06PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK has a very clear position. When Barnier asks for "clarity" what he means is "submit to our position or else".

When it comes to these sort of things the Devil is in the detail. . Remember the day one picture when the EU team had their document folders with bookmarks and pens ? I'm not even sure the UK have gotten that far yet.

It's still talks about talks http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41389498

European Council president Donald Tusk has said not enough progress has been made to move to the next phase of Brexit talks in Brussels.

He said Theresa May's "realistic" speech on Friday showed the UK's "philosophy of having a cake and eating it is finally coming to an end".

But he said "there is not sufficient progress yet".

Thargor · 26-09-2017 09:07PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well there was a sort of logic there. You need to remember that in the UK the people who own the land and the people who farm the land are not one and the same thing, as in Ireland. Many land owners collect sizeable subsidies without even undertaking any farming activities.

Pro BREXIT farmers saw it as an opportunity to discourage further landowner investing in the hope that land prices would fall to a level where they could buy their own farms.

I never even thought of that tbh.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-09-2017 09:11PM

The EU and US have been involved in the multi-billion Airbus vs Boeing wars for ages now.

The UK will getting involved in this game too Bombardier vs. Boeing.
yes I know NI is in EU now but these things can go for years and years.

It will be interesting to see what sort of influence, if any the special relationship can bring. And May needs to keep the DUP on side. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41392518

Enzokk · 26-09-2017 10:13PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are being unreasonable. The best evidence is in the EU's insistence that the UK should remain under its jurisdiction despite voting to leave. More evidence can be seen in respect to its stance on payments despite the willingness of the UK to compromise in this area.

Just remind me who wants to trade with the market they will not be part of again? If the EU was initiating talks of trade with the UK that is outside of the EU then I would agree that the EU would be seen as unreasonable if they didn't want to accept some compromise. But the UK will be looking to trade with the EU single market. They will be the ones that will want to "join" the trade and market of the other 27 nations in the EU, therefore you would expect the UK to have the weaker hand in the negotiations and will have to give up more to trade with the EU.

Do you accept that?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have been extremely flexible so far within the red lines that have arisen since the referendum. The speech in Florence showed the same. If the EU's position is to rigidly insist that the UK bend to its will or else I think the UK should start planning for no deal.

They have talked big but we will only know if they are serious about their speeches when they actually start being serious at the negotiations. How hard is to keep to the timetable that the UK agreed to? You do understand the UK agreed to start the negotiations like this? The UK is the ones not keeping to the schedule and playing a game of chicken with the EU hoping they will blink and break with the timetable that has been agreed. This is not building trust but it is setting the tone for the upcoming negotiations and the tone being set is not desired for a positive outcome.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK needs to deliver on the results of the referendum and the priorities by which it was won. Irrespective of whether or not the EU are willing to give the UK an alternative arrangement with consideration of the UK Government's position in respect to the single market and the customs union. (I.E a free trade agreement). The UK isn't looking for single market membership and therefore it is unreasonable to insist that it should be subject to the conditions of it.

If the EU aren't willing to move from their position and make similar compromises to the UK then I would suggest that the negotiations are a waste of time and money.

I support delivering the result of the referendum and taking back control. I'm not supportive of ending up in a state of EU membership in all but name. The UK must genuinely be out.

I think the assessment of Fratton Fred's friend is rather perceptive.

As others have pointed out if the UK wants to deliver on leaving the EU it needs to stop asking for a trade deal that will allow it as "frictionless" as possible trade. There is no such thing if the UK leaves the EU without any traces of the EU being in the UK.

There will be no custom union and there will be custom checks. There will be no single market access but a trade deal that will have a negative impact for all involved. And finally there will be consequences so severe for the UK in areas where you didn't even think anything could happen, like aviation or cancer treatments for patients as the UK is so integrated in the EU they have not even thought of how this would effect them.

solodeogloria · 26-09-2017 10:48PM

Good evening!

Quick and short because I've been through this all before and I'm starting to see there's little point posting much further.

Enzokk wrote: »

Just remind me who wants to trade with the market they will not be part of again? If the EU was initiating talks of trade with the UK that is outside of the EU then I would agree that the EU would be seen as unreasonable if they didn't want to accept some compromise. But the UK will be looking to trade with the EU single market. They will be the ones that will want to "join" the trade and market of the other 27 nations in the EU, therefore you would expect the UK to have the weaker hand in the negotiations and will have to give up more to trade with the EU.

Do you accept that?

I don't accept that. Many countries trade into the EU on good terms without paying contributions or accepting freedom of movement.

Enzokk wrote: »

They have talked big but we will only know if they are serious about their speeches when they actually start being serious at the negotiations. How hard is to keep to the timetable that the UK agreed to? You do understand the UK agreed to start the negotiations like this? The UK is the ones not keeping to the schedule and playing a game of chicken with the EU hoping they will blink and break with the timetable that has been agreed. This is not building trust but it is setting the tone for the upcoming negotiations and the tone being set is not desired for a positive outcome.

The UK are serious about the negotiations. They are serious on delivering the Brexit people voted for.

The EU aren't interested in being reasonable. I've explained how and why I believe that to be in previous posts.

Enzokk wrote: »

As others have pointed out if the UK wants to deliver on leaving the EU it needs to stop asking for a trade deal that will allow it as "frictionless" as possible trade. There is no such thing if the UK leaves the EU without any traces of the EU being in the UK.

Read what I said about other countries and trade terms into the EU again.

Enzokk wrote: »

There will be no custom union and there will be custom checks. There will be no single market access but a trade deal that will have a negative impact for all involved. And finally there will be consequences so severe for the UK in areas where you didn't even think anything could happen, like aviation or cancer treatments for patients as the UK is so integrated in the EU they have not even thought of how this would effect them.

I don't believe there's a realistic prospect of the UK not being able to land flights. This is fearmongering. Third countries have landing arrangements with the EU.

I suspect third countries also have nuclear agreements with the EU. I could be wrong though.

As for access to the single market this is again the point about third countries and trade access.

In a worst case scenario the average WTO tariff is quite low.

If the EU don't want to be reasonable I think the UK needs to plan for no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Gerry T · 26-09-2017 10:48PM

solodeogloria wrote:

The EU are being unreasonable. The best evidence is in the EU's insistence that the UK should remain under its jurisdiction despite voting to leave. More evidence can be seen in respect to its stance on payments despite the willingness of the UK to compromise in this area.

Solo your running a parallel universe. In the one I'm in the EU is trying to figure out how to allocate responsibilities between the EU and UK. Nothing else at the moment, their not looking for the UK to stay, they have zero opinion on future trade or people's movement. It's just about the split.
In universe UK, they make up figures, 100bn, 30bn, 60bn and the latest 20bn. The UK like numbers. Then the UK declare that all other countries are minos, and as such the EU should be lucky to have a deal with super power UK, now they think the EU is unreasonable for not engaging trade negioations.
When universe UK aligns with reality and acknowledges that the first order of business is the breakup, then the split won't go well for the UK or Europe.

Nate--IRL-- · 26-09-2017 11:02PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't accept that. Many countries trade into the EU on good terms without paying contributions or accepting freedom of movement.

If the UK seeks to trade with the EU on the same terms as some other 3rd countries do, then all is well, an agreement can be reached.

Nate

Sand · 26-09-2017 11:05PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I can't see that in respect to the EU but I can in respect to the UK.

Moreover, I think the British red lines are a heck of a lot more reasonable. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be subject to its court. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be considering prolonged payments to it. A county leaving the EU certainly shouldn't be considering allowing free movement carte blanche.

The UK recognise this means that the UK will not enjoy the same benefits in respect to the EU as were had previously.

The UK have made clear movements in all three areas stopping short of being directly subject to EU jurisdiction. The EU are the inflexible party.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU is not being unreasonable. It is a rules based organisation, and it has a clear requirement to uphold those rules. Its been extremely clear and consistent that the UK must present practical solutions to the Irish border/GFA, the protection of the rights of EU and UK citizens post-Brexit, and the calculation of the total UK liabilities to the EU which have already been agreed. It has been telling the UK this for at least 5 months. Its not the task of the EU to save the UK from Brexit, only to represent the interests of the EU27.

The UK position by contrast has been highly unreasonable. The UK has created this Brexit problem, and then abdicated responsibility for proposing any practical solution to the very clear problems that it causes. The UK has refused to listen to the EU, and refuses to acknowledge or take seriously the EU's positions. The UK particularly refuses to accept that the EU could have any interests other than economic ones.

The UK is hopelessly divided over Brexit - it has no clear plan of how to achieve its objective of becoming a third country, and absolutely no idea of how to solve all the problems that arise. Brexit policy-making continues to be a internal Tory feud, where party definitely takes priority over country and no one in that particular feud is prepared to be honest with themselves or the British people about the very real costs of Brexit. All of the UK so-called 'red lines' are just arbitrarily and wilfully imposed interpretations of a a simple answer ('Leave the EU') to imply very precise policies on the authority of the ECJ or freedom of movement which simply weren't on the voting slips. These are political red lines that the Tories chose for the reasons of internal Tory politics. They have no value or purpose beyond any other pronouncement by a politician. They can and should be reversed by a further reinterpretation of the Brexit result to resolve the contradictions in the UK positions.

A reckoning is coming. Come March 2019, the UK will be out of the EU, the single market, the customs union and will be trading under WTO terms. There will be no transitional or implementation agreement without prior settlement of the EU's initial three priorities. And the UK government has simply no practical solutions for any of the problems it has caused. Its very possible May may try to resolve this impasse by staging a walkout in October, demonstrating yet again that the UK is completely misreading the EU and its interests. And its own interests to boot.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments