Brexit discussion thread II

Nody · 22-10-2017 10:51PM

I think that many Tories still think a last minute deal will happen because EU comes begging for it and hence British wit has outsmarted them again by this talk of a "no deal" Brexit. That's also why I'm looking forward to with morbid curiosity how the tone will change during second half of next year when the coin that they are not going to get any deal and the British "wit" turns out to have been utter incompetence from day 1 and there is no plan to save it all after all.

FrancieBrady · 23-10-2017 07:31AM

Looks like business leaders are about to ramp up the pressure and believe the opposite to Davis.
Who would be a business leader in the UK at the moment.

Britain's five biggest business lobby groups are calling for an urgent Brexit transition deal, or they warn the UK risks losing jobs and investment.
In a joint letter being sent to Brexit Secretary David Davis, the groups, including the Institute of Directors and CBI, will say time is running out.
Sources told the BBC the letter is still in draft form, but will be sent in the next day or two.
A government spokesman said the talks were "making real, tangible progress".
The other lobby groups backing the letter are the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, and the EEF manufacturing body.
Together they represent companies employing millions of workers.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41716284

Samaris · 23-10-2017 08:15AM

They really don't seem to see how long they have - or more to the point, don't have. Major decisions will need to be being made by businesses in the first couple of months of next year, probably -by- March 2018, since being able to plan more than a year once we're into March becomes impossible. March is just over five months away.

I think this is largely down to just plain incompetence rather than a Plan. The UK was desperately short of experienced negotiators before it began (it needed to ask for spares from Canada, who had just finished a 7-year negotiation with the EU, and I think Australia chipped in some as well). And the people are watching very closely but with rather limited understanding - hardly surprising, given the government is suppressing reports that aren't favourable to Brexit (what the hell, people?) and then you have a couple of complete idiots like Johnson, buffered against the worst effects of Brexit by personal wealth, who are apparently going to see how much damage they can do to their country before the people revolt.

This is not down to the EU. This is purely British, and has been all the way. The EU have made their position clear and it's not an unreasonable one. We know that Britain is being a bit cagey about paying anything at all and there will be pressure to not pay if the country can possibly get away with it (which it can't), being useless over the border and being extremely cheeky over EU nationals. No kidding that the EU negotiators are sitting on their points until Britain gets its act together. To progress to the lovely trade talks that Britain wants without nailing the negotiating team to the wall on the three sticking points would be rash stupidity.

gimli2112 · 23-10-2017 08:18AM

one thing I'm getting from all this is just how unlikeable to Tory party is.

murphaph · 23-10-2017 08:44AM

We'll according to the FAZ May has essentially begged Merkel, Macron and Juncker for help.

According to the article the British are also prepared to concede ECJ jurisdiction on EU citizens rights after Brexit:

"Die britischen Unterhändler zeigen sich nun dafür offen, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof auch nach dem Brexit Streitfragen schlichtet."

The article goes on to say what many of us have also said, that Northern Ireland is very difficult to solve completely without knowing the future trading relationship with the UK as a whole. It states that the EU knows this and would not prevent the negotiations progressing to trade if NI remained the only issue.

It states also that the biggest problem remains the exit bill. It will be somewhere between 60 and 90 billion Euro apparently.

http://m.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/brexit-verhandlungen-ohne-qualen-geht-es-nicht-15257859.html

LuckyLloyd · 23-10-2017 08:53AM

Sand wrote: »

The EU may not want to undermine May, but she is already teetering and seems to lack the authority or conviction to face down the Tory lunatic fringe. I don't see how it ends other than May resigning, or going for a ultra hard Brexit to try buy a few more months in power. Tory brexit policy is under a terrible inertia.

I think the only way for May to get out of the corner she has painted herself into is by seeking some form of cross-party support with Labour and the LibDems to get enough moderate, soft brexit MPs to secure a parliamentary majority on brexit terms. It could also offer her political cover for abandoning stupid red lines. The Tory lunatic fringe would be livid, but would they topple the government to invite in Corbyn instead?

I don't think May will go for it though, I don't think she has the charisma to pull it off and I don't think Labour would respond positively. They would likely see it as an opportunity to kick the chair out from under May, hoping for an early election. But its the only way I see the British position breaking free of its current trajectory.

Ultimately though, attempts by the EU to go easy on May only delay the inevitable. She is getting weaker and weaker, not stronger. There's no advantage to giving her time.

And to think that she was being labelled a tough savvy political force when she called the election. I would agree with your analysis - for me the EU should be asking themselves who is likely to be in power in the UK come the second half of the process through to the end and start negotiating as if they were already there.

Enzokk · 23-10-2017 09:08AM

murphaph wrote: »

We'll according to the FAZ May has essentially begged Merkel, Macron and Juncker for help.

According to the article the British are also prepared to concede ECJ jurisdiction on EU citizens rights after Brexit:

"Die britischen Unterhändler zeigen sich nun dafür offen, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof auch nach dem Brexit Streitfragen schlichtet."

The article goes on to say what many of us have also said, that Northern Ireland is very difficult to solve completely without knowing the future trading relationship with the UK as a whole. It states that the EU knows this and would not prevent the negotiations progressing to trade if NI remained the only issue.

It states also that the biggest problem remains the exit bill. It will be somewhere between 60 and 90 billion Euro apparently.

http://m.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/brexit-verhandlungen-ohne-qualen-geht-es-nicht-15257859.html

Those are two points that solo have been arguing against here for some time. That the ECJ should have no more say in the UK and that the UK shouldn't pay more than X amount (did he mention £30b?) or the EU can go and whistle. It seems that the negotiations are moving towards a point that most seemed to recognise. The EU has the upper hand. ("John Doe has the upper hand")

murphaph · 23-10-2017 09:31AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Those are two points that solo have been arguing against here for some time. That the ECJ should have no more say in the UK and that the UK shouldn't pay more than X amount (did he mention £30b?) or the EU can go and whistle. It seems that the negotiations are moving towards a point that most seemed to recognise. The EU has the upper hand. ("John Doe has the upper hand")

If the article is true in its entirety then it shows the UK position to be as weak as most sensible people recognised all along.

They desperately need a deal on trade that goes well beyond the FTA with Canada or the UK economy will be severely damaged. Such a FTA has never been signed anywhere as far as I know. Only the EU can gift them this. Even if they can get on to talking trade (assuming the Tories don't implode when May admits the ECJ will be the arbiter on citizens' rights) I expect they'll quickly recognise that a very long transitional phase of perhaps 5 years will be required before the UK could conceivably leave the single market and customs union, giving both sides time to build customs infrastructure and to actually negotiate the details. Personally I think if they can sell ECJ jurisdiction in citizens' rights they'll try to sell it in respect to continued access to the SM and CU. I mean if you're prepared to cross your own red line then you may as well cross it with both feet and extract maximum benefit.

A long transitional phase could kill Brexit better than anything else.

carrickbally · 23-10-2017 10:16AM

murphaph wrote: »

We'll according to the FAZ May has essentially begged Merkel, Macron and Juncker for help.

According to the article the British are also prepared to concede ECJ jurisdiction on EU citizens rights after Brexit:

"Die britischen Unterhändler zeigen sich nun dafür offen, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof auch nach dem Brexit Streitfragen schlichtet."

The article goes on to say what many of us have also said, that Northern Ireland is very difficult to solve completely without knowing the future trading relationship with the UK as a whole. It states that the EU knows this and would not prevent the negotiations progressing to trade if NI remained the only issue.

It states also that the biggest problem remains the exit bill. It will be somewhere between 60 and 90 billion Euro apparently.

http://m.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/brexit-verhandlungen-ohne-qualen-geht-es-nicht-15257859.html

There is an article in the Irish Times today about the 'hard/soft' border.

When is everyone going to accept the fact that Brexit means a hard border and any talk of it being otherwise is rubbish?

Nody · 23-10-2017 10:22AM

carrickbally wrote: »

There is an article in the Irish Times today about the 'hard/soft' border.

When is everyone going to accept the fact that Brexit means a hard border and any talk of it being otherwise is rubbish?

The question is where the hard border will be though...

demfad · 23-10-2017 10:36AM

carrickbally wrote: »

Fox says in relation to the UK that in 'the European Union trading agreement we are already at the point where we have no tariffs and we have complete regulatory equivalence'.

If that is the case why does the UK want to change it?

If that is the case why does the UK want to blame the EU for the consequences of changing it?

(The European Union Trading agreement as he calls it, is actually the EU!) What he doesn't say is that all the regulatory bodies are EU bodies and that all would have to be set up from scratch in the UK at massive cost if the EU leaves the SM. He is using the fact that UK exporters conform to EU regulations now to mislead people into believing that the UK State has the regulatory infrastructure to manage Brexit now. The 'already at the point where we have no tariffs and we have complete regulatory equivalence' argument is only relavant for an EEA solution (Norway option).

demfad · 23-10-2017 10:42AM

murphaph wrote: »

If the article is true in its entirety then it shows the UK position to be as weak as most sensible people recognised all along.

They desperately need a deal on trade that goes well beyond the FTA with Canada or the UK economy will be severely damaged. Such a FTA has never been signed anywhere as far as I know. Only the EU can gift them this. Even if they can get on to talking trade (assuming the Tories don't implode when May admits the ECJ will be the arbiter on citizens' rights) I expect they'll quickly recognise that a very long transitional phase of perhaps 5 years will be required before the UK could conceivably leave the single market and customs union, giving both sides time to build customs infrastructure and to actually negotiate the details. Personally I think if they can sell ECJ jurisdiction in citizens' rights they'll try to sell it in respect to continued access to the SM and CU. I mean if you're prepared to cross your own red line then you may as well cross it with both feet and extract maximum benefit.

A long transitional phase could kill Brexit better than anything else.

A transitional phase could take as long to negotiate as the Brexit divorce. As the UK would be out of the EU before this phase started then they would have to deal with ALL non EU countries on WTO terms. They will try and copy and paste existing EU deals but this takes time and negotiators are tied up with EU.

What they really need is an extension of A50. They could do this as part of an alternate leave deal in the deal (requires majority of EU27 and EU parlaiment to pass), or best option extension of A50 (unanimous agreement EU27).
https://www.ft.com/content/29476034-abab-3b61-9d75-75dc88eb76b0

LeinsterDub · 23-10-2017 10:48AM

carrickbally wrote: »

There is an article in the Irish Times today about the 'hard/soft' border.

When is everyone going to accept the fact that Brexit means a hard border and any talk of it being otherwise is rubbish?

Ireland will retain the common travel area (CTA) with the UK in the first landmark agreement to be hammered out under the Brexit talks.
The impending CTA agreement, being hailed as a major victory for Ireland in the Brexit negotiations, will not include Border issues but will resolve a huge number of the Anglo-Irish concerns first raised by Brexit.

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/first-big-win-of-brexit-as-common-travel-area-to-be-retained-coveney-36251191.html

Will be very interested in hearing the details of this. Mainly where will the customs border be?

steddyeddy · 23-10-2017 11:23AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/first-big-win-of-brexit-as-common-travel-area-to-be-retained-coveney-36251191.html

Will be very interested in hearing the details of this. Mainly where will the customs border be?

Indeed. This wil mean someone landing in Dublin from another EU country can cross the border and freely enter the UK. How do they sqaure that with the Brexiters who voted to reduce immigration?

Sam Russell · 23-10-2017 11:35AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed. This wil mean someone landing in Dublin from another EU country can cross the border and freely enter the UK. How do they sqaure that with the Brexiters who voted to reduce immigration?

Simple - they introduce mandatory ID cards for all those with residency in the UK and for all UK and Irish citizens that wish to avail of the CTA.

Of course we would need to introduce a similar ID card, but we are getting there.

CrabRevolution · 23-10-2017 11:57AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Simple - they introduce mandatory ID cards for all those with residency in the UK and for all UK and Irish citizens that wish to avail of the CTA.

Of course we would need to introduce a similar ID card, but we are getting there.

Wouldn't that card be useless if they weren't checking for it at the border?

murphaph · 23-10-2017 12:01PM

carrickbally wrote: »

There is an article in the Irish Times today about the 'hard/soft' border.

When is everyone going to accept the fact that Brexit means a hard border and any talk of it being otherwise is rubbish?

A hard Brexit means a hard border but I'm not sure a hard Brexit is still where we're heading. If May concedes on ECJ supremacy at all then the question can be legitimately asked "why not for the SM?". If the UK somehow slipped into an EEA type arrangement under the ECJ then a hard border is not a given. It's still a long way off and anything could still happen of course. The UK is in political chaos really.

blanch152 · 23-10-2017 12:23PM

murphaph wrote: »

A hard Brexit means a hard border but I'm not sure a hard Brexit is still where we're heading. If May concedes on ECJ supremacy at all then the question can be legitimately asked "why not for the SM?". If the UK somehow slipped into an EEA type arrangement under the ECJ then a hard border is not a given. It's still a long way off and anything could still happen of course. The UK is in political chaos really.

There really are only two options, a hard Brexit and all of the fallout from that, most dramatic being the economic effect on the UK, or an EEA arrangement with the UK accepting the ECJ, SM etc. Cameron knew this, but May has been trying to pursue an impossible middle path that nobody on either side would be satisfied with.

Sam Russell · 23-10-2017 12:29PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Wouldn't that card be useless if they weren't checking for it at the border?

No, because anyone from the EU can enter the UK by Heathrow without a visa. It would only require employers and landlords to show they have checked ID from their employees or tenants. The police would also be able to check ID. There ae plenty of illegals in the UK at present, and no proper database of legal immigrants or even of British citizens.

They could start now if they want to prepare for Brexit.

Mitch Connor · 23-10-2017 12:34PM

blanch152 wrote: »

There really are only two options, a hard Brexit and all of the fallout from that, most dramatic being the economic effect on the UK, or an EEA arrangement with the UK accepting the ECJ, SM etc. Cameron knew this, but May has been trying to pursue an impossible middle path that nobody on either side would be satisfied with.

That middle path, that doesn't exist, is really what the leave campaigners promised to people who were to lazy, stubborn and foolish to educate themselves about.

May is trying to implement what was voted for.

The entire thing is a farce.

Shelga · 23-10-2017 12:56PM

I lived in England for 5+ years, voted Remain, moved home to Ireland shortly afterwards.

The collective stupidity of the British electorate is something I still think about nearly every day. The whole thing is a huge, sorry mess and it's impossible to think otherwise.

Zubeneschamali · 23-10-2017 01:04PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

How do they sqaure that with the Brexiters who voted to reduce immigration?

If I recall correctly, they would "control" immigration by blaming landlords and employers for failing to control immigration, not via a Schengen style border.

Mezcita · 23-10-2017 01:18PM

demfad wrote: »

What they really need is an extension of A50. They could do this as part of an alternate leave deal in the deal (requires majority of EU27 and EU parlaiment to pass), or best option extension of A50 (unanimous agreement EU27).
https://www.ft.com/content/29476034-abab-3b61-9d75-75dc88eb76b0

Thing is though, would the EU27 want this to be dragged out for even longer? It would essentially be doing the UK a favour despite the fact that they are the ones who don't seem to be taking their responsibilities and the inevitable outcome of a hard Brexit seriously.

Activating Article 50 early was a huge mistake as it puts a deadline on negotiations. That plays into the EU hands because while the UK team can bluster about being not being given concessions, the EU can just wait.

Zubeneschamali · 23-10-2017 01:26PM

Mezcita wrote: »

Thing is though, would the EU27 want this to be dragged out for even longer? It would essentially be doing the UK a favour despite the fact that they are the ones who don't seem to be taking their responsibilities and the inevitable outcome of a hard Brexit seriously.

If a coworker is out on the windowsill dancing around, telling the office that he can safely jump 5 storeys down into the carpark, I am in one sense doing him a favour by talking him out of it.

But even if he is very rude about it, I am also helping myself and the office. He would make some mess, everyone would be traumatized, and the office would probably close for a day or two.

No-one forced the UK to invoke A50 without a plan, but now that they did, it would be good for everyone to stall for time to get plans in place.

Sam Russell · 23-10-2017 01:42PM

Mezcita wrote: »

Thing is though, would the EU27 want this to be dragged out for even longer? It would essentially be doing the UK a favour despite the fact that they are the ones who don't seem to be taking their responsibilities and the inevitable outcome of a hard Brexit seriously.

Activating Article 50 early was a huge mistake as it puts a deadline on negotiations. That plays into the EU hands because while the UK team can bluster about being not being given concessions, the EU can just wait.

The problem faced by the Bexiteers was that they could not start any negotiations until A50 had be activated first. The EU27 were determined that there would be no negotiations of any sort before the A50 was triggered. The Brexiteers were terified that any back sliding would result in dropping of the whole project if there was any real investigations of the result of a poor outcome of the planning for leaving the EU. The fact that the UK Gov will not publish the reports that show the future of the British Economy after Brexit of any hue shows a dreadful prognosis.

An extension of A50 could only occur if the UK Gov reaches a settlement on the exit costs, the status of EU migrants, and an understanding of the Irish question and the need for no border on the island of Ireland. If they agree all of that, then an extension is likely, but otherwise ......

Mezcita · 23-10-2017 01:46PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If a coworker is out on the windowsill dancing around, telling the office that he can safely jump 5 storeys down into the carpark, I am in one sense doing him a favour by talking him out of it.

But even if he is very rude about it, I am also helping myself and the office. He would make some mess, everyone would be traumatized, and the office would probably close for a day or two.

No-one forced the UK to invoke A50 without a plan, but now that they did, it would be good for everyone to stall for time to get plans in place.

This isn't a suicide attempt though. It's a negotiation where the UK clearly thinks they are in a position to make demands from the side which has the better bargaining position. That's a situation which has not changed (on both sides) ever since A50 was activated. Therefore another two years of messing about seems kind of pointless to me.

The deadline here forces the UK to take this decision (and the inevitable catastrophe) seriously. To me extending it just kicks the can down the road.

carrickbally · 23-10-2017 04:03PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

An extension of A50 could only occur if the UK Gov reaches a settlement on the exit costs, the status of EU migrants, and an understanding of the Irish question and the need for no border on the island of Ireland. If they agree all of that, then an extension is likely, but otherwise ......

What is the point of Brexit at all if it is better to leave things more or less as they are?

Why was that not explained by Johnson?

Sorry do not answer that.

flatty · 23-10-2017 04:58PM

Mezcita wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If a coworker is out on the windowsill dancing around, telling the office that he can safely jump 5 storeys down into the carpark, I am in one sense doing him a favour by talking him out of it.

But even if he is very rude about it, I am also helping myself and the office. He would make some mess, everyone would be traumatized, and the office would probably close for a day or two.

No-one forced the UK to invoke A50 without a plan, but now that they did, it would be good for everyone to stall for time to get plans in place.

This isn't a suicide attempt though. It's a negotiation where the UK clearly thinks they are in a position to make demands from the side which has the better bargaining position. That's a situation which has not changed (on both sides) ever since A50 was activated. Therefore another two years of messing about seems kind of pointless to me.

The deadline here forces the UK to take this decision (and the inevitable catastrophe) seriously. To me extending it just kicks the can down the road.

It does, but for once it'd be no bad thing. Might give an opportunity for a more honest debate and a rowback by the younger generation.
I'd also remind folk that 48% of people voted against this xenophobic madness, despite the lies, downright lies and spin.

The Rape of Lucretia · 23-10-2017 06:14PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed. This wil mean someone landing in Dublin from another EU country can cross the border and freely enter the UK. How do they sqaure that with the Brexiters who voted to reduce immigration?

Yes, freely into the NI part of the UK. But can go no further. Hard to see much interest from migrants to go to a depressed part of the UK, and people on the mainland will probably accept that whatever few are there, are safely contained there.

carrickbally · 23-10-2017 06:51PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes, freely into the NI part of the UK. But can go no further. Hard to see much interest from migrants to go to a depressed part of the UK, and people on the mainland will probably accept that whatever few are there, are safely contained there.

Of course he can go further.

He is supposed to be in the UK and according to Brexit outside the EU remember.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments