Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 19-11-2017 10:50PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I would love to know where solo sees the UK in that picture.

Good evening!

In the Council of Europe which would include the ECHR and continuing the Common Travel Area. Outside the EU, Schengen Area, Customs Union, Eurozone, and the EEA. I've been pretty clear on that.

If you redrew the diagram it would mean the UK part of the CTA circle would be in the red Council of Europe area and not in the blue EU / purple EEA area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152 · 19-11-2017 10:52PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

In the Council of Europe which would include the ECHR and continuing the Common Travel Area. Outside the EU, Schengen Area, Customs Union, Eurozone, and the EEA. I've been pretty clear on that.

If you redrew the diagram it would mean the UK part of the CTA circle would be in the red Council of Europe area and not in the blue EU / purple EEA area.

I would envision the UK continuing in Europol and contributing towards it. There's no direct ECJ jurisdiction over it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Pretty much out on their own then.

Inquitus · 19-11-2017 10:53PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

In the Council of Europe which would include the ECHR and continuing the Common Travel Area. Outside the EU, Schengen Area, Customs Union, Eurozone, and the EEA. I've been pretty clear on that.

If you redrew the diagram it would mean the UK part of the CTA circle would be in the red Council of Europe area and not in the blue EU / purple EEA area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thing is you'll be alone in your own CTA without Ireland.....

solodeogloria · 19-11-2017 11:00PM

Inquitus wrote: »

Thing is you'll be alone in your own CTA without Ireland.....

Good evening!

Read my post properly - I didn't say the CTA wouldn't include Ireland. I said that the UK would continue the CTA outside the EU and EEA. This is currently in advanced discussion in phase 1 of the Brexit negotiation.

The CTA includes Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands as crown dependencies with their own legislatures and the UK. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not in the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thargor · 19-11-2017 11:08PM

No matter what happens or how much hot air Boris and the rest blow or what lies their media tell the UK will end up towing the line when it comes to EU regulations if they want to have any kind of export economy left after Brexit, the "Brussels Effect" rules internationally in any sector that matters and gets stronger every year:

Why the whole world feels the ‘Brussels effect’ - Some international businesses adhere to EU regulation even in their operations outside Europe

Even more galling for US policymakers is that because companies find it much cheaper to run one compliance system than two, some multinationals adhere to EU regulation even when their operations are outside Europe and the US.

Except now the UK will just have to do what its told and have zero say in anything.

More interesting observations in the Reddit thread.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-11-2017 11:11PM

How could the Hong Kong system of One Country Two Systems apply to NI ?

embraer170 · 19-11-2017 11:41PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I said it participates in the customs union. Solo says that only 2% of goods need to be checked.

But Switzerland does not participate in the customs union.

breatheme · 20-11-2017 12:12AM

It basically does with its many bilateral agreements. Is that what the UK wants? The Swiss model? With freedom of movement?

MPFGLB · 20-11-2017 01:09AM

One of the best arguments from not leaving EU from a top British civil servant

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/19/wishful-brexit-thinking-will-not-create-jobs-or-fund-public-services

The Telegraph may be writing about D Davies demise as Brexit Minister but I know first hand that civil servants have little faith in him...I worked for years in GB central government and every civil servant I know is a remainer

Peregrinus · 20-11-2017 02:32AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Read my post properly - I didn't say the CTA wouldn't include Ireland. I said that the UK would continue the CTA outside the EU and EEA. This is currently in advanced discussion in phase 1 of the Brexit negotiation.

The CTA includes Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands as crown dependencies with their own legislatures and the UK. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not in the EU.

But they are in the single market and the customs union. That's going to change, of course, with Brexit, since their participation in these structures is effectively piggy-backed on the UK's.

It remains to be seen how a Common Travel area including an EU member state is compatible with the UK's red line of "no free movement". I take the claim that discussions about this are at "an advanced stage" with a pinch of salt. Nothing in the public statements offered by either the UK or Ireland suggests they are anywhere close to a credible agreement which can square this particular circle. I don't get the impression that the discussion on the CTA are very far advanced at all.

It should be noted that the issue identified as a phase 1 issue in the Brexit talks is not the CTA; it's just the Irish border. The two issues are obviously linked, but neverhtheless they are not the same issue.

solodeogloria · 20-11-2017 08:18AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they are in the single market and the customs union. That's going to change, of course, with Brexit, since their participation in these structures is effectively piggy-backed on the UK's.

It remains to be seen how a Common Travel area including an EU member state is compatible with the UK's red line of "no free movement". I take the claim that discussions about this are at "an advanced stage" with a pinch of salt. Nothing in the public statements offered by either the UK or Ireland suggests they are anywhere close to a credible agreement which can square this particular circle. I don't get the impression that the discussion on the CTA are very far advanced at all.

It should be noted that the issue identified as a phase 1 issue in the Brexit talks is not the CTA; it's just the Irish border. The two issues are obviously linked, but neverhtheless they are not the same issue.

Good morning!

If the Government hadn't been pretty clear about their intentions here but they have been.

Firstly - it's important to note that there is no free movement on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands today.

Secondly - the Government have been clear that there will be free travel to the UK for EU citizens after Brexit. Rights to employment will end however. This can be enforced by different means as it is today by the UK Border Force.

Thargor wrote: »

No matter what happens or how much hot air Boris and the rest blow or what lies their media tell the UK will end up towing the line when it comes to EU regulations if they want to have any kind of export economy left after Brexit, the "Brussels Effect" rules internationally in any sector that matters and gets stronger every year:

Why the whole world feels the ‘Brussels effect’ - Some international businesses adhere to EU regulation even in their operations outside Europe

Except now the UK will just have to do what its told and have zero say in anything.

More interesting observations in the Reddit thread.

Of course the UK will have to comply to EU regulations when exporting to the EU. The UK have to comply to US regulations when exporting to America or the regulations of other countries when they export to them. The EU and America have every right to hold foreign firms who participate in their markets to the full weight of their domestic laws if they don't comply.

Brexit isn't about what laws apply in other countries. Brexit is about what laws apply in the United Kingdom. Exiting the EU will give the UK the authority to decide what happens in the UK. There will be no supremacy of EU law in the UK after Brexit.

To be fair - I think it's only confused remainers who think this is a good argument. This isn't even what Johnson and Gove amongst others argued in the referendum.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 20-11-2017 08:58AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the Government hadn't been pretty clear about their intentions here but they have been.

Firstly - it's important to note that there is no free movement on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands today.

Secondly - the Government have been clear that there will be free travel to the UK for EU citizens after Brexit. Rights to employment will end however. This can be enforced by different means as it is today by the UK Border Force.

They have been clear that they want to leave the single market and the customs union. They have also said they want the CTA to continue and they don't want a physical border in Ireland. More and more people are saying this cannot be done properly and it is up to the UK to propose their solution that is practical and workable. The UK has asked that the EU must be more creative and solve their problems for them. I think that is where we are at the moment...that and the blame of the Irish have started.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Of course the UK will have to comply to EU regulations when exporting to the EU. The UK have to comply to US regulations when exporting to America or the regulations of other countries when they export to them. The EU and America have every right to hold foreign firms who participate in their markets to the full weight of their domestic laws if they don't comply.

Brexit isn't about what laws apply in other countries. Brexit is about what laws apply in the United Kingdom. Exiting the EU will give the UK the authority to decide what happens in the UK. There will be no supremacy of EU law in the UK after Brexit.

To be fair - I think it's only confused remainers who think this is a good argument. This isn't even what Johnson and Gove amongst others argued in the referendum.

Those EU laws that no-one can name that openly contradicts UK law, right? I know it has been asked of you before and will be everytime you mention the UK taking back control of their laws. Which laws limits the UK in what they want/need to do to prosper even further?

Also, the UK is part of the EU so they had a say in the laws and regulations through their representatives in the EU. The way the argument is being shaped is that the UK was forced into the EU without a say in any choices or the way the EU was being run.

Reading the link posted that you quoted the choice facing UK businesses that export to the world will be what rules they will follow. If they decide to forgo EU exports they can follow the US regulations. The question is will those exports be bought in the US and will it make up for the lost trade to the countries only a few hours away?

Vronsky · 20-11-2017 09:08AM

Enzokk wrote: »

They have been clear that they want to leave the single market and the customs union. They have also said they want the CTA to continue and they don't want a physical border in Ireland. More and more people are saying this cannot be done properly and it is up to the UK to propose their solution that is practical and workable. The UK has asked that the EU must be more creative and solve their problems for them. I think that is where we are at the moment...that and the blame of the Irish have started.

Those EU laws that no-one can name that openly contradicts UK law, right? I know it has been asked of you before and will be everytime you mention the UK taking back control of their laws. Which laws limits the UK in what they want/need to do to prosper even further?

Also, the UK is part of the EU so they had a say in the laws and regulations through their representatives in the EU. The way the argument is being shaped is that the UK was forced into the EU without a say in any choices or the way the EU was being run.

Reading the link posted that you quoted the choice facing UK businesses that export to the world will be what rules they will follow. If they decide to forgo EU exports they can follow the US regulations. The question is will those exports be bought in the US and will it make up for the lost trade to the countries only a few hours away?

It was the working-time directive that the UK has the most problem with.

I mean, not being able to force employees to work in excess of 48 hrs a week was truly awful. I did think they won a concession on it eventually, where individuals could opt out, but then what you had happening was people were essentially forced to volunteer to opt out, exactly what the directive was meant to prevent.

Samaris · 20-11-2017 09:18AM

Vronsky wrote: »

It was the working-time directive that the UK has the most problem with.

I mean, not being able to force employees to work in excess of 48 hrs a week was truly awful. I did think they won a concession on it eventually, where individuals could opt out, but then what you had happening was people were essentially forced to volunteer to opt out, exactly what the directive was meant to prevent.

I'm a bit confused by that. I know of the working time directive, but why is the idea of not being allowed to -force- people to work more than 48hrs so bad? I get that employers of dubious regard for their people got around it and were able to force people to exempt themselves, but ...

Wait, was that sarcasm? Sorry, it's early and I'm very literal first thing in the morning!

20-11-2017 09:23AM

Well as one of the 7 laws they plan to repeal straightaway I saw The Sun's take on it which was something about hardworking Brits being allowed to work more hours.

solodeogloria · 20-11-2017 09:36AM

Enzokk wrote: »

They have been clear that they want to leave the single market and the customs union. They have also said they want the CTA to continue and they don't want a physical border in Ireland. More and more people are saying this cannot be done properly and it is up to the UK to propose their solution that is practical and workable. The UK has asked that the EU must be more creative and solve their problems for them. I think that is where we are at the moment...that and the blame of the Irish have started.

Those EU laws that no-one can name that openly contradicts UK law, right? I know it has been asked of you before and will be everytime you mention the UK taking back control of their laws. Which laws limits the UK in what they want/need to do to prosper even further?

Also, the UK is part of the EU so they had a say in the laws and regulations through their representatives in the EU. The way the argument is being shaped is that the UK was forced into the EU without a say in any choices or the way the EU was being run.

Reading the link posted that you quoted the choice facing UK businesses that export to the world will be what rules they will follow. If they decide to forgo EU exports they can follow the US regulations. The question is will those exports be bought in the US and will it make up for the lost trade to the countries only a few hours away?

Good morning!

The more and more this thread goes on people invent things I never said.

For example - I never said anything from the EU contradicted UK law. What I did say is that the UK would regain the ability to legislate for itself. British courts would be the ultimate authority in Britain.

I didn't say that the UK want the EU to solve any issue for them. What I did say is that the negotiations need to deal with customs and trade to fully deal with the shape of the border. Now of course the EU want the UK to commit to it being open to shoehorn them into the customs union but this won't work because the UK will see through this.

As for forgoing standards - those aren't about exports. Even today the UK can produce goods and services for the American market according to American standards and the EU according to EU standards. The problems could be in terms of imports into the UK and the domestic standards in the UK. The sensible approach is tie up whatever agreement can be reached with the EU and see the direction of travel from there. The Brexit process needs to be taken step by step and be done properly.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 20-11-2017 09:47AM

It's not just the Working Time Directive, Vronsky. The Drinking Water Directives have for years allowed faceless unaccountable German bureaucrats to decree that ordinary Britons no longer enjoy their God-given right to experience dysentery. For years now the Business Transfer Directive has cruelly laughed in the face of British employers who wish to escape their accrued obligations as respects pensions, leave, seniority etc by selling their business to a purchaser who will hire all the staff as new employees with no accrued rights. And the Data Protection Directive prevents honest British businesses from selling their customers' personal data to the highest bidder, no questions asked, just leave the cash in a brown envelope under the bootscraper, thanks. Is there no end to the British liberties that are trampled upon by the EU?

Joking aside, in any FTA discussions with the US, the UK is going to come under significant pressure to weaken its data protection standards. This is not something that I think has attracted as much concern as it should.

Peregrinus · 20-11-2017 09:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well as one of the 7 laws they plan to repeal straightaway I saw The Sun's take on it which was something about hardworking Brits being allowed to work more hours.

They intend to offset the huge reduction in the number of NHS staff that Brexit will occasion by requiring the remaining staff to work much longer hours, presumably.

Vronsky · 20-11-2017 11:12AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

They intend to offset the huge reduction in the number of NHS staff that Brexit will occasion by requiring the remaining staff to work much longer hours, presumably.

While it was business interests that no doubt drove opposition to the working time directive the line pushed in the media was that it was adversely affecting the NHS.

It was awful that they couldn't make junior doctors work double or triple shifts apparently. If I recall correctly the opt out was then won, making the directive worthless.

Nody · 20-11-2017 11:15AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Joking aside, in any FTA discussions with the US, the UK is going to come under significant pressure to weaken its data protection standards. This is not something that I think has attracted as much concern as it should.

Seeing how UK's government want more spying power domestically than US after 9/11 that's not really going to be a big thing for a FTA. The only thing holding them back today is EU and they just "happened" to leave those protections out in their great repel bill going into UK law; pure coincidence I'm sure...

LeinsterDub · 20-11-2017 11:16AM

Theresa May will come under pressure from Brexit supporters in the cabinet to spell out what she hopes the UK will gain from paying the EU a higher divorce bill of about £40bn, as her most senior ministers meet to discuss an improved offer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/19/theresa-may-under-pressure-justify-higher-brexit-divorce-bill-cabinet-meeting

What a bunch on amateurs.

Imagine you were selling your car.

Me : Car for sale
Buyer : How much is it?
Me : I'll need to ask my other half
Buyer : Surely you should know this before you decided to sell your car
Me : So me and the OH had a big fight but we agreed to accept 3,000 euro
Buyer : Hmm looks like there a few scrapes on it .Will you accept 2,000.
Me : I'll have to ask my other half
Me : So we had another fight but she said we will take 2,800
Buyer :Will you accept 2,200.
Me : I'll have to ask my other half
And so on

FreudianSlippers · 20-11-2017 11:20AM

Vronsky wrote: »

It was the working-time directive that the UK has the most problem with.

I mean, not being able to force employees to work in excess of 48 hrs a week was truly awful. I did think they won a concession on it eventually, where individuals could opt out, but then what you had happening was people were essentially forced to volunteer to opt out, exactly what the directive was meant to prevent.

Samaris wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by that. I know of the working time directive, but why is the idea of not being allowed to -force- people to work more than 48hrs so bad? I get that employers of dubious regard for their people got around it and were able to force people to exempt themselves, but ...

Wait, was that sarcasm? Sorry, it's early and I'm very literal first thing in the morning!

Just to point out as well it's 48 hours average over (IIRC) 4 months.

Nody · 20-11-2017 11:27AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/19/theresa-may-under-pressure-justify-higher-brexit-divorce-bill-cabinet-meeting

What a bunch on amateurs.

Imagine you were selling your car.

Me : Car for sale
Buyer : How much is it?
Me : I'll need to ask my other half
Buyer : Surely you should know this before you decided to sell your car
Me : So me and the OH had a big fight but we agreed to accept 3,000 euro
Buyer : Hmm looks like there a few scrapes on it .Will you accept 2,000.
Me : I'll have to ask my other half
Me : So we had another fight but she said we will take 2,800
Buyer :Will you accept 2,200.
Me : I'll have to ask my other half
And so on

Much worse:
EU: So we want you to agree on how to calculate what you should pay
UK: We'll give you 10 billion
EU: We want to agree how to calculate the amount before we come to a number
UK: We're not paying anything more than 10 billion
EU: Ok, and how did you come to that number?
UK: Oh and we don't want to pay this, this and that in your calculation, 10 billion is on the table
EU: We're still waiting on your calculation
UK: Ok then in the interest in getting the ball rolling 20 billion
EU: Ok, since you won't give us your own method to calculate we calculate this to be 60 to 100 billion
UK: We're paying 20 billion and we want access to the single market
EU: Well as we agreed we need to settle the outstanding three questions first inc. your bill of leaving as you agreed at the start and you said you'd honour your cost, that's 60 billion minimum.
UK: We're only going to pay 20 billion so let's talk FTA now.
EU: Sod off.
UK: Ok, we will pay up to 40 billion.
EU: ... *goes off preparing for a crash out*
UK: Hey guys, were are ya, what about our FTA?

steddyeddy · 20-11-2017 11:47AM

flatty wrote: »

Actually it isn't. Iirc, it has more boots on the ground foreign correspondents than most other papers. It's actually not as bad as you'd be led to believe. I'm surprised at this shoite it's published. Maybe I'm just too infrequent a reader of it or any other paper.

Well We'll agree to disagree. Fox News also qualifies as a good source of journalism by the metric of boots on the ground. The danger people make is associating the wealth of the Telegraph's readership with integrity or a form of class more impeccable than the average Sun reader. The Telegraph's article can be unashamedly racist and crass.

For instance here's an excerpt from a article about Blair's trip to Africa " flag-waving piccaninnies". A regular commentator, Charles Moore's article describe Irish independence as a catalyst for "70 years of economic backwardness and narrow priest-domination – and the North to terrorist guerrilla warfare ." He also posted plenty of sexist, homophobic and xenophobic articles.

It's basically the Sun for richer middle class little Englanders.

steddyeddy · 20-11-2017 11:49AM

The Tories might increase their bill offer from 20 billion to 40 billion. They're holding cabinet talks about it as we speak.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42049472

Water John · 20-11-2017 11:52AM

Even that BBC article is incorrect. The three issues, don't have to be settled, the EU has asked for, 'sufficient progress' to be made on them. Quite different.

demfad · 20-11-2017 12:01PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Needless to say - the logical approach for Ireland should be seeking to get the best trading terms possible with the UK by urging the European Commission to discuss trade and customs terms in phase 2 to find a resolution.

....

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Customs terms are not up for discussion as the UK has ruled out membership of the customs Union. It has ruled out membership of the single market and any governence of the ECJ.

However it has so far refused to give any credible proposal for a frictionless border: not even one. That is because there is no credible solution given the red lines imposed by the UK.

It looks like the UK is trying to use the Irish border to blackmail the EU and Ireland into giving them concessions on the single market and customs Union while not being under the juristiction of the ECJ or pay into the single market like everyone else.

In other words the strategy is to have their cake and eat it.
The UK could ofcourse dispel this by outlining ANY practical solution to the border that can exist with their red lines. They can't because it doesn't exist.

If the the talks get to stage 2, they know there will be a hard border and they care little.

demfad · 20-11-2017 12:10PM

Samaris wrote: »

......
Edit; just to add. Both groups ran on division of the population. The old divide and conquer technique. The UK fights to divide Britain from its neighbours and has consequently imposed deep and bitter divisions on its own population. The divisions egged along by Trump especially, but also his minions is also noticeable. Lies are employed regularly by both groups to ensure that their own people stay in line (with a good dose of paranoia). Anyone who disagrees with the Cult of Brexit or the Cult of Trump is an enemy rather than a fellow citizen. "We won, shut up, traitor."

Just to add: The exacerbating and hardening of divisions in the UK were imposed and carried out by mainly external actors.
Cambridge Analytica, Rupert Murdoch, Goddard Gunster (leave.eu campaign management), Breitbart, Legatum, Russian State.
Similar actors in US and other countries.
Same rhetoric on nationalism, traitors etc. Same user manual.
After the goal has been achieved divisions are maintained so that reversal is more difficult. That is why the propaganda onslaught has continued in US and UK since.

Nody · 20-11-2017 12:45PM

And now it's on black and white for all Financial business in London:

“The legal consequence of Brexit is that the UK financial service providers lose their EU passport. This passport allows them to offer their services to a market of 500 million consumers and 22 million business."

The chief negotiator said the EU might judge some UK rules as “equivalent” to EU passporting rights but ruled out the City of London having access to EU financial markets under the same passporting deal as now. Mr Barnier told the audience at the Centre for European Reform: “Those who claim that the UK should pick parts of the single market must stop this contradiction. The single market is a package, with four indivisible freedoms, common rules, institutions, and enforcement structures.

That should also help speed up any FTA talks and settle the question once and for all.

Harika · 20-11-2017 12:54PM

Didn't see it in the last pages, but this picture describes the problem of the irish border very well. All obvious solutions are not working, so there has to be a very clever solution to solve that paradox.

Obvious:
Stop Brexit -> Not gonna happen
NI stays in custom union and border between Ireland and UK then -> Not going to happen
Irexit -> Not gonna happen either
Hard Border -> Unwanted but maybe the solution, with a lot of implications down the line
No border -> Great idea, just pretend UK is not in the CU anymore, might be workable when UK plays nice in the other open points

I think the British side suggested a fast tracking border control, where companies can register and are getting fast tracked at the physical border between NI and IRE. What is as strange as having drones controlling the border.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments