Brexit discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha · 07-10-2017 07:09PM

flutered wrote: »

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

If you're going to post a link, please provide a comment on its content instead of just pasting it.

Jim2007 · 07-10-2017 07:21PM

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.

Is not about getting something for nothing, it is about honouring your commitments. And I doubt that anyone on the EU side is too concerned about the political climate in a third country, it is there issue.

Davis is not going to get any kind of face saving deal from the EU, despite what he may think. The whole point of the EU's refusal to conduct the talks in secret was to ensure he wouldn't be in a position to spin something at home and the EU would have to remain silent on it.

Water John · 07-10-2017 08:38PM

It seems the UK Govn't was given legal advice, that it could withdraw Article 50 notification, anytime before March 2019.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/07/theresa-may-secret-advice-brexit-eu

This is very diff from what people have been told. They actually have the option of staying in the EU, with their present arrangements.

solodeogloria · 07-10-2017 08:38PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

Is not about getting something for nothing, it is about honouring your commitments. And I doubt that anyone on the EU side is too concerned about the political climate in a third country, it is there issue.

Davis is not going to get any kind of face saving deal from the EU, despite what he may think. The whole point of the EU's refusal to conduct the talks in secret was to ensure he wouldn't be in a position to spin something at home and the EU would have to remain silent on it.

Good evening!

This is how the EU have chosen to spin it.

However, the payments for the 2020 programme are what Britain would have paid if they were still a member. On that basis it seems entirely reasonable to tie it to transition. It's also worth pointing out that the language of "owing" is wrong. It isn't that Britain "owes" anything. It's that Britain has committed to contribute to the European Union budget. I think they should follow that through but not without transitional terms.

My point is simple, there are ways out of the impasse if the EU are willing, but they aren't willing to compromise.

In which case, if the EU aren't willing to be reasonable, I'd much much rather that that UK used the additional funds to prepare for no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris · 07-10-2017 10:05PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/spilt-milk-how-brexit-threatens-bailey-s-and-dubliner-cheese-1.3242752

We probably need to get ourselves in gear for a hard Brexit too, and of all European countries, it's going to hit Ireland worst (UK itself aside). Varadkar has made noises about a fallback plan, but no clarification as to what it is.

Water John · 07-10-2017 10:10PM

Yeah, saw that piece by Tony Conneely, good read and research. Seems to part of a larger piece or book by him
Both Dairygold and Carbery are very worried at it. I think it's Dairygold export the 20KG cheese blocks to the UK.
Agriculture could get a fair wollop, from a hard Brexit.

Leonard Hofstadter · 07-10-2017 10:22PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This is how the EU have chosen to spin it.

However, the payments for the 2020 programme are what Britain would have paid if they were still a member. On that basis it seems entirely reasonable to tie it to transition. It's also worth pointing out that the language of "owing" is wrong. It isn't that Britain "owes" anything. It's that Britain has committed to contribute to the European Union budget. I think they should follow that through but not without transitional terms.

My point is simple, there are ways out of the impasse if the EU are willing, but they aren't willing to compromise.

In which case, if the EU aren't willing to be reasonable, I'd much much rather that that UK used the additional funds to prepare for no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Britain is only offering to pay what it had previously agreed to pay.

What you/Britain thinks is "reasonable" is what I consider merely to be honouring something they previously agreed.

The reason the EU haven't been what you think is 'reasonable' is because of the arrogance and delusion of the UK - nothing more and nothing less. The UK is still busy trying to have its cake and eat it, the Government really doesn't get it at all. What they've offered is nowhere near enough - sure what Mrs May offered in Italy is a significant leap forward, but then we saw what BoJo was up to and then we've had the Tory party conference. How can we possibly know if what May offered Europe is what the British Government actually intends on doing - she may not even be PM in a few weeks time?

The EU have consistently said they're not trying to 'punish' the UK but they (rightly) want every last penny off the UK that they are legally entitled to. It is telling that despite the UK's insistence that the EU's figures are somehow 'wrong' that they have failed to provide an alternative.

If the UK can't get even the basics right then what hope is there for other countries wanting to do trade deals, when they don't even know if they can trust the UK to deliver on legal agreements?

Those wanting a hard Brexit seem to think it's perfectly OK to not pay a penny more to the EU and yet somehow everyone else is going to queue up and do deals with a law breaking country.

We already saw the reality that awaits Britain with the WTO tariffs fiasco during the week - and that was somewhere that (for once) the UK and the EU had come to an agreement on. The first people to say 'we don't like this' were the UK's supposed 'friends' in the US, Canada and other English speaking former British colonies.

Also I'm beyond curious how you've chosen not to comment on the antics of the US towards Northern Ireland with the tariffs on Bombardier (which were only the other day increased another 80% to 300%) and how this augers for a UK-US trade deal (one of the many supposed 'benefits' of Brexit, which, like everything else about Brexit, is complete and utter garbage) despite being asked to by other boardsies on numerous occasions.

So perhaps you might finally address this?

carrickbally · 07-10-2017 10:29PM

What are the chances of a complete breakdown in Brexit negotiations sooner rather than later?

Is that not what many Brexiteers want?

Consequences?

According to the quotes from many of them the attitude is what consequences.

Leonard Hofstadter · 07-10-2017 10:47PM

carrickbally wrote: »

What are the chances of a complete breakdown in Brexit negotiations sooner rather than later?

Is that not what many Brexiteers want?

Consequences?

According to the quotes from many of them the attitude is what consequences.

That's pretty much it in my view. Nothing but the hardest of hard Brexits will satisfy them along with having their cake and eating it with regards to Europe. Everyone knows that the EU is going to be blamed by these clowns no matter what goes wrong, we will see the right wing press say absolute bolderdash like 'it's the EU's fault that the UK got such a bad deal' and 'this proves why we (the UK) were right to leave the EU'. Now that may be great for selling newspapers and stirring the soul of the hard Brexiters but whatabout the average British person who is going to suffer big time, the fall in the value of sterling means we have higher inflation and holidays abroad are more expensive and yet despite this theoretical advantage to the UK's competitiveness we find that the UK's growth is the slowest of all the G20 nations and far behind the EU (which we were assured before the referendum by the Brexit serial liars was dying a death and holding Britain back), so all the evidence shows that Brexit is an act of economic suicide by Britain.

They've no interest in what's good for the long term future of the UK or trying to soften the blow of Brexit to business (which is what I find the most surprising, and disturbing, thing of all, since we all know the Tories are the party in the lapdogs of business - this is one of the times where I wish they'd pay more attention to what the majority of British businesses want).

The whole thing is complete infighting at the top levels of the Conservative party.

Ironically one of the reasons Mrs May has lasted this long (and despite everything, is likely to last a bit longer I think) is because the leavers are terrified that someone who wants a softer Brexit will replace her while the remainers are terrified of the exact opposite.

Gerry T · 07-10-2017 11:38PM

ancapailldorcha wrote:

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

If you mean "they" as in the DUP, yes they wouldn't like a change. I was thinking put a vote to all in the North. Let them as a group decide their faith. If they want to align with the UK then that prob means a hard border with south, but the majority might decide a sea border with EU lite membership is best for them.
The north is a special case, I would think UE lite is available to them, I don't think the Scots or Welsh would have the same opportunity.

Gerry T · 07-10-2017 11:49PM

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.

This is where we differ, I don't see the monies as a negioation, I see the payment as a totally separate issue. A payment that has to be made, close that chapter and then move onto trade discussions.
My take on it is the UK wants to separate from the UK. To do this there are commitments and legal contracts they are a party to. Once these are honoured or even agreed to be honoured, the EU will move to trade talks.
The EU won't move to trade talks until the UK agree the measuring system of those liabilities, and when I say liabilities I mean commitments the UK has made.
So it's not nonsense, the path forward is totally in the UKs hands. If they choose to ignore the settlement bill that's their choice, but by doing so they are blocking the EU from moving toward trade talks. If the UK do this then they can only blame themselves.
What your intimating is, the settlement of existing commitment payments is contingent on trade discussions. Can't you see that that is totally dishonest.

Gerry T · 07-10-2017 11:52PM

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.

As per my last post, your suggesting payment for existing commitments is to now be tied to future trade discussions.
I guess your not party to the actual brexit discussions, but your sentiment is what I would expect from an english man.

flatty · 08-10-2017 12:09AM

I was in the pub this evening with four others for a while. One was vehemently pro brexit. When pressed , he had no reason for this, other than that "the EU is fcuked". I pointed out the relatively miniscule size of the EU budget. He didn't believe this,and was quite taken aback when shown, but remained adamant.
A second voted brexit for no good reason, wishes he hadn't, and would vote remain if given another choice. His partner didn't "get round to voting", but was horrified, and was passionately anti brexit.
Another joined us who was very pro European. Her company, an American one, has just started the relocation if 2500 jobs to France. This is fact. Soldeogloria can argue abstracts all he/she wants. The fact is, that good, stable, well paid middle class jobs are bleeding with increasing pace. The UK , or whatever is left of it, is in for a hard few years.

ArthurDayne · 08-10-2017 12:11AM

Gerry T wrote: »

If you mean "they" as in the DUP, yes they wouldn't like a change. I was thinking put a vote to all in the North. Let them as a group decide their faith. If they want to align with the UK then that prob means a hard border with south, but the majority might decide a sea border with EU lite membership is best for them.
The north is a special case, I would think UE lite is available to them, I don't think the Scots or Welsh would have the same opportunity.

It would be a bit of a constitutional conundrum though. Firstly, there is absolutely no doubt that the DUP would make this a question of a step towards a United Ireland. Cue a digging up of the old hatchet and a vote on EU special status becoming just another Orange vs Green polemic. The British would also have to accept the complete and utter humiliation of their great crusade to 'take back control' ultimately ending in the EU having jurisdiction (limited perhaps but jurisdiction nonetheless) within its sovereign territory. Finally, they would have the Scots to answer to, who were even more emphatic in wishing to remain than Northern Ireland.

Of course, all of this should have been carefully thought of before the the Tally-Ho-Old-Chaps across the Irish Sea pushed the big red Brexit button. But hey, what do the Brexiteers care about 2 million British(ish) citizens across the Irish Sea?

Joking aside, as potentially sensible a solution it is, there are deep constitutional questions it would raise. Having said that -- I have thought from the moment the referendum passed that the UK would be forced to accept humiliations of some sort, maybe this will be one of them.

ilovesmybrick · 08-10-2017 12:33AM

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, but what you fail to realise solo is that this just isn't a case off the EU as a block being intransigent, you're dealing with twenty plus countries that have very little interest in the Tory parties infighting. I live in an EU country (Austria) that sees Brexit as an irritant that will dominate their EU presidency as they hold it when the UK leaves. The last major article about Brexit in the national papers here was debating how they might be able to get the UK out cleanly without it reflecting badly on their six month presidency. They have no trading relationship with the UK that cannot be sacrificed, they have no understanding or patience for the pointless slogans thrown out by the UK, and the general consensus is best be rid of them as quickly as possible.

The British media focus on what might impact Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands-they forget that there's a large swath of Europe that has nowhere near the same trading relationship with the UK and devotes barely any media time to Brexit, but if it's in their short or medium term political interests they can scupper any deal made, because in fairness that is the same Tory rationale that led to this mess. It just takes one European parliament, and sitting in a landlocked European country there is no reason I can see why they would go out of their way to accommodate the UK. As an Irish person with lots of British relations it would be a bit sad to see them go, but their "compromises" are frankly delusional.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-10-2017 01:00AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If this was true, it might be helpful, but it isn't true.

The UK's proposals for "settled status" for EU citizens is significantly better than the visa regime for third countries. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

The UK and the EU have together agreed that EU citizens who remain under the settled status criteria can have access to public funds, welfare, and healthcare. This isn't true of third country nationals. The EU and UK have been clear that they will continue to recognise the EHIC of British or EU citizens who live in their respective countries. This was one of the lesser shouted about pieces of progress from the August discussions.

The UK has made a lot of concessions to the EU on the status of those who are already there. To claim otherwise is being dishonest.

You know the thing about Dutch passports is because of the law in the Netherlands about dual nationality and not the law in the UK right? UK citizenship won't be required to accept "settled status" in any case.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Actually you are being disingenuous.

As you link says

Reality Check verdict: If you are already living in another EU country on the day the UK leaves the bloc, that is correct, your EHIC will continue to work.

After that date, for EU citizens wishing to travel to the UK or UK citizens wishing to travel to the EU, it is unclear about what will happen because no deal has yet been reached.

So no certainty there.

No indication of how long the EHIC will last, nothing to do with your rights to remain.

And besides EHIC is very , very different to residency rights.

I might add that since the NHS is basically free it's not like they've an easy way to charge

Jim2007 · 08-10-2017 02:42AM

carrickbally wrote: »

What are the chances of a complete breakdown in Brexit negotiations sooner rather than later?

Is that not what many Brexiteers want?

Consequences?

According to the quotes from many of them the attitude is what consequences.

Even if there is no breakdown and they continue as is, it starts to fall apart next October, not March 2029 and for some UK citizens resident in the EEA/CH block it will be as early as next March!

From next March, the standard 12 month permit that EU citizens have a right to in the EEA/CH block will not longer apply to UK citizens, next in October comes the open skies scheduling and the 6 month work permits for the EEA/CH block fall out as well. Through the winter, they will have holiday booking issues for summer 2019 because they need Schengen visas if there is not travel agreements.

In a way you'd think a couple of stories in the papers next March on families that have had to return to the UK because their work permits were not renewed etc... would bring it home to them. But I would not count on it.

Nody · 08-10-2017 02:52AM

carrickbally wrote: »

What are the chances of a complete breakdown in Brexit negotiations sooner rather than later?

Is that not what many Brexiteers want?

Consequences?

According to the quotes from many of them the attitude is what consequences.

They don't expect to leave on the harshest of terms; they think that if threatened far enough EU will give in on all their red lines because UK is so important in the grand scheme of things and that their money can't be replaced in the budget. Hence I expect somewhere around December/January May to announce a stop to the negotiations (as the three basic issues still are not resolved) as the new way to push EU to give in on everything (here's a fun fact as a side note; unless approved in this upcoming October Council meeting on 27th Oct and if no emergency meeting is called for December and somehow accepted the next Council meeting would be 22nd to 23rd of March to confirm that phase 1 has made sufficient progress to start trade talks which would give EU/UK less than 9 months to strike a trade deal somehow (what UK claims takes normally 2 years).

The real panic in the UK I expect to start around the summer times 2018 when companies are well into up their emergency hard brexit plans (most kicking off Jan. 2018 due to the announcement and lack of progress) and the impacts starts to show. First the companies will be called out to be unpatriotic and foolish; it will be new car lines not coming as expected, investments in expansions not happening and of course banks relocating ever more staff to EU. Around here the politicians will start to panic and expect to see a lot of moral hand wringing and calling out how unfair the companies are, how unpatriotic and how the public should boycott them etc. and of course calls for the central government to "do something" and give them more money to compensate for the job losses in their respective regions.

Now come autumn travel agencies will start reporting on the price increases for the 2019 summer vacations and how there is a last chance for good deals for Christmas holidays this year. The British airlines who've not split up their business will quietly drop certain flights or outsourced them to a fully European partner instead. I'd expect the Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris hubs to become the main destinations from UK. I'd also expect farmers to start making some noise when their applications for funds for 2019 are coming back rejected on how the government should compensate them instead. The government will of course make noises about how they are going to cover it all but new legislation needs to be put in place and bungle the whole thing something horribly.

Come end of 2018 and still no deal in sight nor an extension the doom headlines will start to appear in the news papers. First the likes of Guardian and the Independent but let's be real here and recognise that the Sun will have a field day with the headlines as well. The Sun will call out for example cream and the 55% WTO tariff on it or pick other high tariff items and make a news piece about it. They of course completely miss / ignore the real elephant in the room which is the export queues and issues that will come April 1st.

solodeogloria · 08-10-2017 08:35AM

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, but what you fail to realise solo is that this just isn't a case off the EU as a block being intransigent, you're dealing with twenty plus countries that have very little interest in the Tory parties infighting. I live in an EU country (Austria) that sees Brexit as an irritant that will dominate their EU presidency as they hold it when the UK leaves. The last major article about Brexit in the national papers here was debating how they might be able to get the UK out cleanly without it reflecting badly on their six month presidency. They have no trading relationship with the UK that cannot be sacrificed, they have no understanding or patience for the pointless slogans thrown out by the UK, and the general consensus is best be rid of them as quickly as possible.

The British media focus on what might impact Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands-they forget that there's a large swath of Europe that has nowhere near the same trading relationship with the UK and devotes barely any media time to Brexit, but if it's in their short or medium term political interests they can scupper any deal made, because in fairness that is the same Tory rationale that led to this mess. It just takes one European parliament, and sitting in a landlocked European country there is no reason I can see why they would go out of their way to accommodate the UK. As an Irish person with lots of British relations it would be a bit sad to see them go, but their "compromises" are frankly delusional.

Good morning!

They are going irrespective. I don't know why you speak of British membership as being a possibility. It isn't.

Brexit isn't primarily about countries like Austria. It's about the UK realising that EU membership wasn't working and charting a different course. Charles de Gaulle was right about the UK in the 60's. Brexit is a result of prime ministers from John Major persistently not listening to the electorate on the EU. Unwinding this will be painful but once it's done there's a lot of opportunity. That's irrespective of whether a deal is done. Taking back control is in the long term interest of the UK.

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

I don't think leaving the EU is a "mess". I'm certain that in 10 - 15 years that Britain will benefit from the flexibility of being outside. Come 2019 Britain should leave come what may. If there's no deal there's no need for ratification either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

dixiefly · 08-10-2017 08:46AM

Not good reading in this.....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1008/910662-brexit-customs/

listermint · 08-10-2017 08:47AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

They are going irrespective. I don't know why you speak of British membership as being a possibility. It isn't.

Brexit isn't primarily about countries like Austria. It's about the UK realising that EU membership wasn't working and charting a different course. Charles de Gaulle was right about the UK in the 60's. Brexit is a result of prime ministers from John Major persistently not listening to the electorate on the EU. Unwinding this will be painful but once it's done there's a lot of opportunity. That's irrespective of whether a deal is done. Taking back control is in the long term interest of the UK.

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

I don't think leaving the EU is a "mess". I'm certain that in 10 - 15 years that Britain will benefit from the flexibility of being outside. Come 2019 Britain should leave come what may. If there's no deal there's no need for ratification either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

10-15 years. Jesus's wept that's a generation of job losses depressesion and recesison

Its actually quite a disgusting attitude to agree with tbh.

Its as if people who are ok with that have no moral compass or are either quite well off or have a back up to exit the UK of needed.

That just leaves all the ordinary workers out in the cold with either no jobs or far less money in their pocket than before, a devalued currency and heavy consumer goods.

All sounds super, where do I sign up

ilovesmybrick · 08-10-2017 08:51AM

I'm not speaking about British membership as a possibility at all. What I'm saying to you is that there it only takes one EU parliament to end any deal with the UK, including the offer of transitional status. Any deal that the UK gets is going to be worse than the situation now. Yo will not get more favourable trading terms with the EU, your regions will lose their subsidies, the UK is already losing funding through EU programs such as Horizon 2020, WTO members are already saying that the potential splitting of WTO tariffs between the EU and UK is unacceptable.

Frankly, if you think that the current state of Brexit negotiations isn't a mess from the UK side you are patently watching a very different series of negotiations to the rest of us. The UK needs to get it's head around the fact that it is no longer a global, powerful empire, it is a medium sized trading island in the Atlantic with no major manufacturing industries anymore.

carrickbally · 08-10-2017 08:56AM

The Brexit decision by the British declares economic war on the rest of the EU and especially on this former colony.

That is threatening to cause serious trouble not alone in relation to the peace process through border controls within this country but to trade with the rest of the EU.

Consequently in the negotiations there is no other option for this country, backed up by the rest of the EU, but to support the not an inch policy of insisting on free movement of people and trade.

The British have shown the ill will and thrown down the challenge to all concerned. That has to be confronted and faced down.

Nody · 08-10-2017 09:00AM

dixiefly wrote: »

Not good reading in this.....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1008/910662-brexit-customs/

Nothing new there except showing how bad the UK paper on the NI border is when faced with reality. The only glaring issue is of course it's based on assuming trade will continue at the same volume as it does today which is not going to be the case. A lot of the volume will now not enter Ireland due to customs/trade regulations and hence the actual staff increase etc. will not be in the 800% but more likely closer to the 400 to 600%.

Enzokk · 08-10-2017 10:05AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

Seeing as there has been no trade talks yet, how do you see the deal as a bad one? You are pre-judging the outcome of talks that hasn't even begun yet.

dixiefly wrote: »

Not good reading in this.....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1008/910662-brexit-customs/

This from the article,

The unpublished report, seen by RTÉ News, sets out in stark detail the vast increase in paperwork, human resources and physical space requirements at ports and airports.

The report also declares that an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will be impossible from a customs perspective.

If I read this correctly, there will be a border unless the UK stays in the customs union. If they decide to control their own trade deals they will force a border upon Northern Ireland and Ireland, whether they decide to man the border on their side or not.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-10-2017 10:34AM

Enzokk wrote: »

If I read this correctly, there will be a border unless the UK stays in the customs union. If they decide to control their own trade deals they will force a border upon Northern Ireland and Ireland, whether they decide to man the border on their side or not.

There will be a border with inspections if the UK
- is outside the customs union
- has different food and agri standards
- continues to have issues with things "mis-labelled" Chinese imports
- the merest suggestion of BSE

Or
- Ireland joins Schengen , because if we have to go through all the hassle we might as well get some benefit and besides there's screening and passport control on sea and air transport already

Capt'n Midnight · 08-10-2017 10:34AM

carrickbally wrote: »

The Brexit decision by the British declares economic war on the rest of the EU and especially on this former colony.

Back to the 1930's then.

Leonard Hofstadter · 08-10-2017 11:10AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

Interesting that you've skipped over my post asking for your views about the tariffs being imposed by the UK's supposed 'best friend' in this new post Brexit era on Bombardier and what this means not only for Northern Irish/UK jobs not to mention how this augers for any trade deal with the US.

I wonder why that might be?

carrickbally · 08-10-2017 11:20AM

Brexit is a disastrous decision motivated by racist contempt for the citizens of the rest of Europe and especially for the citizens of this former colony.

fash · 08-10-2017 11:50AM

Considering 48% voted to remain in the EU, it is reasonably clear that a majority of Britons want to remain within the single market (I.e. Norway style EFTA membership) - since of the remaining 52%, there will certainly be 3% who support single market access.
That solution would resolve many of the current impasses.
There really isn't a democratic mandate for what the Tory party is currently forcing on everyone.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments