Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007 · 06-10-2017 10:53PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The more anti-democratic types hoping and praying for staying in the European Union will be sorely disappointed

The fact that you make a statement like that shows your complete failure to understand how democracy works!

Positions in a country only change because people campaign to get those positions changed. And the idea that people who campaign for change are somehow undemocratic is total nonsense. It is fundamentally to democracy that everyone plays by the agreed rules - and those people who continue to campaign have an absolute right to do so. The fact that you object clearly indicates that you are the one who is being undemocratic.

If we were to follow your logic then we'd have to conclude that those who support the repeal of article 8 of the Irish constitution are also undemocratic sine we already decided on that issue. But they are not because the Irish constitution makes no provision to prevent the people from considering or reconsidering an issue as often as they want.

Your idea of making up the rules as you go along to suit your position is the exact opposite to democracy!

Nody · 06-10-2017 11:09PM

On a slight different topic but James O'Brien who's against Brexit and is a radio show host has been taking calls by pro brexiteers asking them to explain why they voted and challenging them to actually name for example what economics where said it would be a good idea, what laws from Brussels do you not like etc. It's staggering to see how the people who voted pro brexit still can't actually articulate any facts behind it "Oh but there were lies on both sides, "Oh but there were economics saying things would be good as well", "Well I'll survive the cost increase" etc. It's long so more something to listen to in the background but it's always good to get the view of people outside of boards as well

Jim2007 · 06-10-2017 11:27PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think there either has to be a new attitude in Brussels or the UK has to say sod off and work towards WTO terms.

The logical conclusion of walking away is that you will not get WTO terms, even Davis gets that. You are going to have to deal with the exact same states and expecting them to agree your full membership status, while failing to comply with the agreements you have already made with them, is kindergarten behaviour. It is just not going to happen.

Even the countries that the UK were expecting to sign quick trade agreements with are not objecting to the trade schedules: US, Canada, New Zealand etc. There is no way that say Trump for instance is going go around claiming he is making America great again by giving up part of its trade quota to the UK. It is just not going to happen.

I gather one of New Zealand's concern about splitting the EU trade quotas is that if the UK is unable use up the quota because of the weak pound for instance they will loose out because they will be unable use it up in the EU as is currently the case.

These are the realities of international trade, a reality that the UK seems very unprepared for.

Gerry T · 06-10-2017 11:38PM

solodeogloria wrote:

The more anti-democratic types hoping and praying for staying in the European Union will be sorely disappointed.

despite all the problems brexit is bringing to IRL and the EU, I'm glad the UK is leaving. Your right to say the UK isn't suited to such a union. Now I wouldn't let the UK stay and I'd bet my opinion isn't alone.
The agreement the UK made was first to agree how the breakup bill would be settled, then maybe move to a trade negioation. So over a yr and a half since the vote and over 6 mths since triggering A50, has the UK given a position paper on how they see the separation bill being calculated. Have they even indicated when they might issue, say the first paragraph...the introduction and index maybe?

Without this first step the UK is blocking the EU from starting negioations on trade, not very fair of the UK.

Water John · 06-10-2017 11:49PM

Oddly, the UK Govn't only see the present plays as skirmishes. The word at the Tory party con was that serious talks would start in the new year.
Nothing like, taking your time.

Gerry T · 07-10-2017 02:08AM

Water John wrote:

Oddly, the UK Govn't only see the present plays as skirmishes. The word at the Tory party con was that serious talks would start in the new year. Nothing like, taking your time.

I think your right, problem is they think their a big player, maybe 100 yrs ago but not today. Most Europeans don't think about brexit, it's not on their radar. It will affect IRL which affects me, so I wish they would get the finger out and engage.

Enzokk · 07-10-2017 08:49AM

Water John wrote: »

Oddly, the UK Govn't only see the present plays as skirmishes. The word at the Tory party con was that serious talks would start in the new year.
Nothing like, taking your time.

Seeing that if they were taking it seriously up to now it would be extremely worrying it makes sense to put this narrative forward. As you allude to, they have to start taking it seriously as time is running out. This is what happens when you have people making decisions when it will not affect them either way, there is no sense of urgency. All these ministers will be fine in the event of a hard Brexit so their not that worried either way.

Samaris · 07-10-2017 09:14AM

Water John wrote: »

Oddly, the UK Govn't only see the present plays as skirmishes. The word at the Tory party con was that serious talks would start in the new year.
Nothing like, taking your time.

Great, so they're openly admitting they're just wasting time - their own and other peoples', while the economy starts to shudder under the weight of uncertainty.

And people are still arguing that this particular lot are competent or able to make the biggest change in British life since 1973. Actually, probably longer, their joining was at least organised.

steddyeddy · 07-10-2017 11:01AM

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the best solution from a political point of view to appease some republicans, but it is not in the economic interest of Northern Ireland.

So leaving the single market is economically better than a sea border?

steddyeddy · 07-10-2017 12:27PM

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/news.sky.com/story/amp/france-and-germany-deal-blow-to-theresa-mays-brexit-transition-deal-plans-11070500

France and Germany block the UK's attempts at a transition deal until the other issues like the bill and border are sorted first.

ancapailldorcha · 07-10-2017 12:32PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

So leaving the single market is economically better than a sea border?

The sea border is unfeasible. A central party of the DUP-Conservative confidence-and-supply deal is that Northern Ireland must be treated in exactly the same manner as the rest of the UK.

mickoneill31 · 07-10-2017 12:39PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/news.sky.com/story/amp/france-and-germany-deal-blow-to-theresa-mays-brexit-transition-deal-plans-11070500

France and Germany block the UK's attempts at a transition deal until the other issues like the bill and border are sorted first.

Its expected.
I've heard people talking about the transition extending the time for negotiations and I have a feeling that's what the UK is looking for.
If it was me I'd say negotiations will be finished by Brexit day and then the transition period will have a hard end date. It seems obvious to me but I've spoken to a couple of people that disagree.
And that's if a transition is allowed. The EU don't have to agree to it, so if it's not in our best interest why bother. Although from Ireland's point of view a transition period will be beneficial.
It'd give us a couple of extra years to bigger against whatever shock Brexit is bringing.

steddyeddy · 07-10-2017 12:47PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The sea border is unfeasible. A central party of the DUP-Conservative confidence-and-supply deal is that Northern Ireland must be treated in exactly the same manner as the rest of the UK.

It's only unfeasible because the Tories have a deal with fanatics. Leaving the single market is unfeasible for Northern Ireland.

Samaris · 07-10-2017 01:20PM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Its expected.
I've heard people talking about the transition extending the time for negotiations and I have a feeling that's what the UK is looking for.
If it was me I'd say negotiations will be finished by Brexit day and then the transition period will have a hard end date. It seems obvious to me but I've spoken to a couple of people that disagree.
And that's if a transition is allowed. The EU don't have to agree to it, so if it's not in our best interest why bother. Although from Ireland's point of view a transition period will be beneficial.
It'd give us a couple of extra years to bigger against whatever shock Brexit is bringing.

Ireland and to a reasonable extent France. It's not as important to them as it is to Ireland, but it's a concern.

Calina · 07-10-2017 02:00PM

Article 50 provides for an extension to Article 50 exit negotiating period - the infamous 2 years. I find it fascinating that the UK is more interested in what they call a transition or implementation period which isn't provided for anywhere in legislation AFAIK - and not for an extension to the Article 50 negotiation period.

That extension requires a unanimous yes from the remaining 27 members - I wonder if there is some idea that a transition period might get through on QMV? It would be interesting to understand the rationale if there is any indepth rationale there.

As an interesting point there's a quote from an unnamed EU ambassador knocking around Twitter which is interesting in one respect:

We are not here to save the Tory party.

which apparently is from the FT here.

This leads me to wonder how things would look if the UK side of the negotiating table changed away from the Tories.

Nody · 07-10-2017 02:03PM

Calina wrote: »

This leads me to wonder how things would look if the UK side of the negotiating table changed away from the Tories.

Assuming a Labour government as that's the only current alternative they might get an extension through to negotiate longer but since Labour are about as split as Tories and have no idea on what they want (nor what EU actually allows; see limited freedom of movement to "avoid salary dumping" while being in EU) they would most likely end up in a similar state shortly there after.

Water John · 07-10-2017 02:06PM

That might be one reason for the EU to agree to the extension. The Tories are only going one way, downhill. Play the waiting game.
Agree the sea being the border is probably only feasible once the DUP don't have the Tories by the short and curlies. Everyone plays for time.

Calina · 07-10-2017 02:41PM

Water John wrote: »

That might be one reason for the EU to agree to the extension. The Tories are only going one way, downhill. Play the waiting game.
Agree the sea being the border is probably only feasible once the DUP don't have the Tories by the short and curlies. Everyone plays for time.

For me, the problem is many individual human beings don't have the time to play for. That gets forgotten. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK in particular who are massively uncertain given HO behaviour. For those in the EU, they are tending for the most part to go through the motions to get paperwork where dual citizenship is allowed (NL is an exception) if they fulfill the remit.

solodeogloria · 07-10-2017 03:42PM

Gerry T wrote: »

despite all the problems brexit is bringing to IRL and the EU, I'm glad the UK is leaving. Your right to say the UK isn't suited to such a union. Now I wouldn't let the UK stay and I'd bet my opinion isn't alone.
The agreement the UK made was first to agree how the breakup bill would be settled, then maybe move to a trade negioation. So over a yr and a half since the vote and over 6 mths since triggering A50, has the UK given a position paper on how they see the separation bill being calculated. Have they even indicated when they might issue, say the first paragraph...the introduction and index maybe?

Without this first step the UK is blocking the EU from starting negioations on trade, not very fair of the UK.

Good afternoon!

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

There are paths to progression here but the EU are refusing to move forward. That's on them.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Gerry T · 07-10-2017 03:43PM

ancapailldorcha wrote:

The sea border is unfeasible. A central party of the DUP-Conservative confidence-and-supply deal is that Northern Ireland must be treated in exactly the same manner as the rest of the UK.

They could put it to a vote in the north. Stay in the common market with border controls at the coast. Ignoring if it were accepted, is it workable

Sam Russell · 07-10-2017 03:57PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

There are paths to progression here but the EU are refusing to move forward. That's on them.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU are not looking for payments from the UK for 'transition' but for what the UK has committed to already. If the UK wish to extend their membership of the EU, then there should be additional payments.

Also, transition suggests and end point. No such suggestion of an end point has been made by the UK - so no transition agreement yet.

solodeogloria · 07-10-2017 04:05PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU are not looking for payments from the UK for 'transition' but for what the UK has committed to already. If the UK wish to extend their membership of the EU, then there should be additional payments.

Also, transition suggests and end point. No such suggestion of an end point has been made by the UK - so no transition agreement yet.

Good afternoon!

My point is simple. The likelihood of getting agreement on payment with nothing in return from the UK is zero in the current political climate.

There are two things that could get movement if the EU were able to see it:
1) acknowledge the need for an alternative arbitration mechanism for upholding the agreement.
2) acknowledge that the best way to get the funds for continued obligations is to tie it to transitional terms.

Both would be reasonable moves. I genuinely think the only other option is no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha · 07-10-2017 04:12PM

Gerry T wrote: »

They could put it to a vote in the north. Stay in the common market with border controls at the coast. Ignoring if it were accepted, is it workable

They can't. It's party of the DUP's agreement with the Tories. Why would they support it? Why would Westminster?

Capt'n Midnight · 07-10-2017 04:24PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41534552

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has urged colleagues to "get behind" the PM because "people are fed up with this malarkey".

The problem is that some of the people behind the PM suffer from chronic backstabbing disorder.

A week is a long time in politics and there are lots of weeks to go before the Brexit deadline.

Enzokk · 07-10-2017 05:31PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

There are paths to progression here but the EU are refusing to move forward. That's on them.

The UK have agreed on the sequence of negotiations.

Brexit: UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks

But the two later published agreed “terms of reference” that made no mention of trade. Davis put a brave face on their relative lack of progress during a joint press conference where he sought to channel historic moments of national adversity.

There is nothing else for the EU to do but wait for the UK to stick to their word. If they cannot keep their word at the start of the negotiations then what trust is there for the future?

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is simple. The likelihood of getting agreement on payment with nothing in return from the UK is zero in the current political climate.

There are two things that could get movement if the EU were able to see it:
1) acknowledge the need for an alternative arbitration mechanism for upholding the agreement.
2) acknowledge that the best way to get the funds for continued obligations is to tie it to transitional terms.

Both would be reasonable moves. I genuinely think the only other option is no deal.

Where has the EU demanded money from the EU for nothing? Please supply quotes for this as you keep mentioning it. The EU wants the UK to make a list of what they have agreed to pay. Its not the EU wanting money from the UK for nothing, but what the UK thinks they have committed to pay for.

The UK has said they want to pay for a transitional period, the EU hasn't asked for any funds from the UK other than what the UK has agreed to. Why it takes the UK so long to confirm this makes no sense to me. Do you think you know why it will take the UK so long to confirm what agreements they have made?

Zerbini Blewitt · 07-10-2017 05:36PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is simple. The likelihood of getting agreement on payment with nothing in return from the UK is zero in the current political climate.

Translated:- the likelihood of the UK paying what it owes is zero.

Er, ok!

There are two things that could get movement if the EU were able to see it:
1) acknowledge the need for an alternative arbitration mechanism for upholding the agreement.
2) acknowledge that the best way to get the funds for continued obligations is to tie it to transitional terms.

Both would be reasonable moves. I genuinely think the only other option is no deal.

That would not be remotely reasonable.

It (or any similar spoiling tactics) would be seen as a deliberate calculated effort to derail the agreed exit negotiation sequencing (and subsequently the trade/potential transition talks).

In any case, that would appear to be at least 5 negotiation steps ahead of where even Davis & May are now.

They promised in late August to come up with the UK calculation methodology for the exit bill sometime in October (as somebody linked to the other day on this thread).

This macho ‘walk out/no deal’ drumbeat holds absolutely no fear for the EU. Barnier will simply shrug his shoulders (with mostly indifference plus a little communal well-being concern) and bid Davis et al Au Revoir (but I’d agree that it is probably the UK’s strongest negotiating card).

jm08 · 07-10-2017 05:42PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They can't. It's party of the DUP's agreement with the Tories. Why would they support it? Why would Westminster?

It has to be approved by Westminister first of all and I don't think the Tories would have any problem pulling the plug on it if it suited them. The Tories didn't need the DUP - they had their support anyway.

steddyeddy · 07-10-2017 06:20PM

Germany's biggest industry body tells German businesses to prepare for a very hard Brexit. Collectively German industry in the UK employs 400 thousand people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41509198

flutered · 07-10-2017 07:02PM

Nody wrote: »

Assuming a Labour government as that's the only current alternative they might get an extension through to negotiate longer but since Labour are about as split as Tories and have no idea on what they want (nor what EU actually allows; see limited freedom of movement to "avoid salary dumping" while being in EU) they would most likely end up in a similar state shortly there after.

how about this, false news or not The EU's holding Brexit talks with Jeremy Corbyn amid fears Theresa May's government could crumble

flutered · 07-10-2017 07:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

There are paths to progression here but the EU are refusing to move forward. That's on them.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

https://www.thelocal.de/20171005/prepare-for

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments