Brexit discussion thread II

demfad · 20-11-2017 01:49PM

Harika wrote: »

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.

UK stays in EEA with NI staying in Single market to account for agriculture?

Harika · 20-11-2017 01:51PM

demfad wrote: »

UK stays in EEA with NI staying in Single market to account for agriculture?

That would require a border between UK and NI or?

ambro25 · 20-11-2017 03:00PM

Nody wrote: »

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

Well, after broadcasting that one loud and in the clear, I'd expect Theresa to magic an extra €30bn to €40bn before end week 49

solodeogloria · 20-11-2017 03:19PM

ambro25 wrote: »

Well, after broadcasting that one loud and in the clear, I'd expect Theresa to magic an extra €30bn to €40bn before end week 49

Good afternoon!

I can't imagine much more than €20bn extra being offered. She won't sell it to the British public otherwise. I agree it will be higher than what she's offered at Florence and should be higher than that but the UK would need to see significant movement from the EU for this.

There is an interesting chart in the FT. Screen is on this live blog at 10:38 in the Guardian. It shows the range of values we're talking about.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Vronsky · 20-11-2017 03:36PM

I don't understand why the UK keep bidding values. They were asked to set out a methodology on working what they thought their liability was.

It's not pay for access, it's paying to settle the accounts.

The initial 20bn was a non offer anyway, since that was just the net contributions for the proposed 2 yr transition period. The UK has offered nought so far.

ambro25 · 20-11-2017 03:39PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I can't imagine much more than €20bn extra being offered. She won't sell it to the British public otherwise. I agree it will be higher than what she's offered at Florence and should be higher than that but the UK would need to see significant movement from the EU for this.

There is an interesting chart in the FT. Screen is on this live blog at 10:38 in the Guardian. It shows the range of values we're talking about.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Is that "much more than €20bn" on top of the earlier €20bn? Or total?

I ask, because I distinctly remember you fixating on €36bn, and neither of the 2 positions above correlates with that figure.

Incidentally -and irrespective- do you mind sharing your calculation basis and method (or linking me to it)?

In the alternative, I say €65bn. Because, and here's my calculation basis and method (:D), it's-

(i) less than the EU's top end figure of €100bn; but

(ii) more than half of it;

(iii) at least triple May/Davis' opening gamble, for the political and numerical education of their masters and supporters;

(iv) wherein the extra €5bn is levied as late fees for wasting everyone's time (feel free to call it the stupidity uplift clause) ; and

(v) we want to avoid a re-run of 'Germany post-WW1' (that was a really s***tty playbook) and they'll have to pay a chunk of my state pension in a few decades, so we don't want to bankrupt them.

Harika · 20-11-2017 03:41PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I can't imagine much more than €20bn extra being offered. She won't sell it to the British public otherwise. I agree it will be higher than what she's offered at Florence and should be higher than that but the UK would need to see significant movement from the EU for this.

There is an interesting chart in the FT. Screen is on this live blog at 10:38 in the Guardian. It shows the range of values we're talking about.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This graph also shows that the financial settlement is relatively easy to solve, everyone moves when needed and you settle. Easy, TM just needs to sell it somehow at home, with the hardliners already starting to get ready to fight any number above 0.
On the other hand, you have the border question, and can Ireland be proud to be in the middle of it the question now?

solodeogloria · 20-11-2017 03:47PM

ambro25 wrote: »

Is that "much more than €20bn" on top of the earlier €20bn? Or total?

I ask, because I distinctly remember you fixating on €36bn, and neither of the 2 positions above correlates with that figure.

Incidentally -and irrespective- do you mind sharing your calculation basis and method (or linking me to it)?

In the alternative, I say €65bn. Because, and here's my calculation basis and method (:D), it's-

(i) less than the EU's top end figure of €100bn; but

(ii) more than half of it;

(iii) at least triple May/Davis' opening gamble, for the political and numerical education of their masters and supporters;

(iv) wherein the extra €5bn is levied as late fees for wasting everyone's time (feel free to call it the stupidity uplift clause) ; and

(v) we want to avoid a re-run of 'Germany post-WW1' (that was a really s***tty playbook) and they'll have to pay a chunk of my state pension in a few decades, so we don't want to bankrupt them.

Good afternoon!

£36bn is what I said which is roughly €40bn. I also said that this should be net and not gross. That allows for more scope for assets to be taken into account.

Anything north of that isn't sellable to the British public. They have no appetite for being set as an "example" for making a democratic decision.

Comparing that to a war is a touch silly to say the least.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25 · 20-11-2017 03:53PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

£36bn is what I said which is roughly €40bn. I also said that this should be net and not gross. That allows for more scope for assets to be taken into account.

Anything north of that isn't sellable to the British public. They have no appetite for being set as an "example" for making a democratic decision.

What is "sellable" to the UK public or not, and what their appetite is for <whatever>, are both wholly irrelevant to the computation of the actual figure, which can be arrived at objectively on the basis of (i) ledger entries, (ii) written commitments and (iii) statements of intents of both parties on the topic (notably Davis' to the effect that the UK honours its engagements and May's to the effect that Brexit shall be cost-neutral to the EU27).

It is 100% May's job to profile that appetite (by informing her charges that their vote has consequences, of which this bill is but one) and to sell whatever the figure ends up being after objective calculation. Not the EU's.

So, do I take it that these 2 factors are your counter-joke to my fanciful rethoric, or that they represent the sum total of your basis and method?

Because if that's you basis and method, it's no better nor worse in the objectivity stakes, than my fanciful rethoric. And so €65bn it still is.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Comparing that to a war is a touch silly to say the least.

So is misrepresenting that I compared it to a war :rolleyes:

The socio-economic (and, later, -political) effects of the Versailles treaty-imposed reparations (the war bill, if you will), however...

Enzokk · 20-11-2017 04:35PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

£36bn is what I said which is roughly €40bn. I also said that this should be net and not gross. That allows for more scope for assets to be taken into account.

Anything north of that isn't sellable to the British public. They have no appetite for being set as an "example" for making a democratic decision.

Comparing that to a war is a touch silly to say the least.

I would assume that this is a reason why the EU wants to come to an agreement on what the outstanding liabilities are, not the amounts. If the UK agrees to pay all of its outstanding liabilities they signed up to and it amounts to £80b then so be it. Whether you agree with the amount or not is not relevant, it is whether the UK agreed to paying the amount.

People will get stuck on an amount and whether it seems too big without thinking if it is what should be paid. If the outstanding liabilities comes down to £5b then so be it, but work out what is owed before talking about the amounts. I think you could explain this to a 12 year old, but Brexiteers seem to have a problem with this.

solodeogloria · 20-11-2017 04:59PM

Enzokk wrote: »

I would assume that this is a reason why the EU wants to come to an agreement on what the outstanding liabilities are, not the amounts. If the UK agrees to pay all of its outstanding liabilities they signed up to and it amounts to £80b then so be it. Whether you agree with the amount or not is not relevant, it is whether the UK agreed to paying the amount.

People will get stuck on an amount and whether it seems too big without thinking if it is what should be paid. If the outstanding liabilities comes down to £5b then so be it, but work out what is owed before talking about the amounts. I think you could explain this to a 12 year old, but Brexiteers seem to have a problem with this.

Good afternoon!

Firstly - it isn't a debt. It's a sum that Britain has agreed to give. That's very different. A commitment isn't the same as a debt.

Secondly - there is a figure beyond which is unreasonable. Going much beyond 3 years of commitments plus assets is going to be beyond the pale and will more likely lead to no deal. There's no appetite in the UK for a punitive deal or to be made an example of for a democratic decision.

I'm hoping for reasonable heads over the next few weeks. £80bn is go whistle territory.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad · 20-11-2017 05:17PM

Harika wrote: »

That would require a border between UK and NI or?

Only for agricultural produce and only de facto in the direction GB to NI/ROI.
NI would have regulatory equivalence with EU in agriculture British agricultural 'imports' to NI would have to be processed. High standard NI produce would require less processing at border. This is the way the vast amount of the agricultural trade goes anyway.

Nody · 20-11-2017 05:28PM

I pity cancer patients in the UK now; Barnier has shut down yet another door on the UK in his speech last night:

"The same people who argue for setting the UK free also argue that the UK should remain in some EU agencies", Barnier notes. "But freedom implies responsibility for building new UK administrative capacity". He declares:

On our side, the 27 will continue to deepen the work of those agencies, together. They will share the costs for running those agencies. Our businesses will benefit from their expertise. All of their work is firmly based on the EU Treaties which the UK decided to leave. Those who claim that the UK should "cherry-pick" parts of the Single Market must stop this contradiction.

That means no EURATOM membership, no access to the medical board etc. And that will have huge consequences on 30th March...

flatty · 20-11-2017 05:39PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

You can pick pieces out of any news outlet to be honest.
I don't read the Telegraph, bar the business section, which seems balanced and fair by and large, or if there's nothing else to do. I suspect that I had such a deep suspicion of it, given what I'd read, that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I'd expected.
There are awful articles in every single paper. The Times is as bad as any, and far worse than the Telegraph Imo.
Anyhow, it's a side issue. Citing fox news, well, hmm.

steddyeddy · 20-11-2017 05:42PM

Here's an article from the Guardian which gets a range of opinions, north and south of the Irish border on Brexit. It's good that these voices are heard because no Brexiters actually care about the effect this has on Ireland.

Ireland has said it will block progress of Brexit negotiations in December, unless the UK give a formal written guarantee there will be no hard border with Northern Ireland.

The Guardian view on Brexit and the Irish border: Britain’s shameful dereliction
Editorial: From the referendum campaign onwards, Brexiters have ignored the dire implications for Ireland. The neglect is a political and moral failure alike
Read more
In frank remarks before a breakfast meeting with British PM Theresa May, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said Brexit-backing politicians had not “thought all this through” in the years they had been pushing for a British departure from the EU.

We asked our readers living in Northern Ireland and the Republic what they made of the state of Brexit negotiations, how concerned they are about the lack of progress, and what they thought should be done about the border question.

‘Britain is dragging us with them’
Britain is heading towards a hard Brexit and dragging us with them. Only two solutions possible to avoid a hard border: the north stays in the customs union and single market, or a united Ireland. If Britain frustrates our appeal on the former, then they must give us a vote on the latter.
Conor Heaney, 37, Derry

‘A lot of people my age are ready to protest if any visible border is erected’
I can’t really believe there won’t be a visible frictionless border, as much as I want it. I want the situation to be resolved peacefully. The emotion it creates, the thought of a check point: I don’t want there to be violence, but there will be protest. We are still suffering a hangover from The Troubles and that physical border will be a heartbreaking reminder of the past.

I have noticed an increase in the price of food over recent months. This can be quite difficult because I am paid in euros. A lot of people my age are ready to protest if any visible border is erected - we will set up camp on the border and you will have to drive over us.

Noelle, 28, Northern Irish citizen working in the Republic Of Ireland

‘No thought was given to what leaving the EU actually means’

It’s an absolute shambles. No thought was given to what leaving the EU actually means for trade and movement of people. The actions of the DUP in propping up the Tory government will do them and their supporters harm in the long run.

The border has to be moved to the Irish Sea. NI should remain part of the customs union and the single market no matter what the island of Britain does. It is the only practical solution for trade and the only one that preserves the Good Friday Agreement. The unionists will hate this but they have brought it on themselves by backing and campaigning for leave.

There are opportunities in any crisis. I think NI has the opportunity to serve as a bridge between Britain and the EU - a kind of free trade zone half in, half out of the UK.

John McAuley, 40, Belfast

‘The English are winging it’
The English are “winging it” with no idea of what they are doing. The fact that a small group of people headed by Theresa May can make such far-reaching decisions affecting my children and grandchildren’s future is almost surreal.

It is as if we are an afterthought and confirms what many have believed for a long time; we are truly second-class citizens.

Martin, 68, Belfast

‘Remain MPs must find their courage’

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Unless Remain MPs get their act together and find their courage, there will be a hard Brexit with no border deal. Then Johnson and Gove - by now PM and chancellor - will blame the EU.

They have no solution to the border issue because they know there can only be a hard border, like before.

Mick Collier, 58, Galway

‘I feel angry our hard-won peace is being jeopardised’
I have no idea how the border question can be resolved and I doubt anybody does including the British ministers negotiating it. The only people I now trust to put our case are the Irish government.

I feel very angry that our hard won peace is being jeopardised by people who have no real understanding of our delicately balanced political arrangements here.

Janet Rice, 63, Belfast

‘It’s mind-boggling that the British establishment don’t get this’

The British government seem to trade in generalities, that “progress” is being made, when it is clearly evident that there was no foresight and no appreciation of what this exit process would entail. Or indeed, the real implications of such isolation.

For peace, stability and economic progress the North must remain in the Customs Union or something similar. Otherwise, chaos. If we go back to a border we potentially open up wounds that have barely healed. It is mind-boggling that the British establishment don’t get this.

Michael Harnett, Dublin

‘The British don’t want us and the Republic can’t afford us’
The British haven’t a clue about Brexit even after all this time Their complete lack of concern for and knowledge of Northern Ireland (which, we are constantly told is as British as Yorkshire) and its unique circumstances is jaw dropping. A second British-imposed border on the island of Ireland is totally unacceptable. It can only be resolved with the North having full membership of the EU as before: in short, a united Ireland.

As I work on the border, I buy my car fuel in the Republic because it’s cheaper. After Brexit, am I going to be stopped, have my car searched and made to show receipts or be accused of smuggling? And if so, who will stop me? The British army? British Customs and Excise?

The Irish authorities should refuse to pay for any border controls: after all, it’s Britain who is leaving. They must pay the full amount for any new border controls if these are ever reinstalled. The British don’t want us and the Republic can’t afford us, so accept with extreme caution any honeyed words from Boris and his Irish counterpart.

John Austin, 52, Northern Ireland

Water John · 20-11-2017 05:42PM

I think the the UK, for all sorts of reasons, esp internal, set out to prevaracte and ramp up pressure and find a fissure between the 27. However, it seems it's the EU are ramping up the pressure and the UK are caught, naked of any idea.

ancapailldorcha · 20-11-2017 05:53PM

It looks like Vote Leave is now under investigation. I'm not sure what happens if they're guilty. I can't imagine that Article 50 can just be revoked because the official Leave campaign was breaking the rules.

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/932641277845344257

FrancieBrady · 20-11-2017 06:05PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Firstly - it isn't a debt. It's a sum that Britain has agreed to give. That's very different. A commitment isn't the same as a debt.

Secondly - there is a figure beyond which is unreasonable. Going much beyond 3 years of commitments plus assets is going to be beyond the pale and will more likely lead to no deal. There's no appetite in the UK for a punitive deal or to be made an example of for a democratic decision.

I'm hoping for reasonable heads over the next few weeks. £80bn is go whistle territory.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Philip Hammond was referring to it as very much a debt on ITV last night. 'Britain is that kinda of country, we pay our debts' was more or less what he said.

Nody · 20-11-2017 06:12PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It looks like Vote Leave is now under investigation. I'm not sure what happens if they're guilty. I can't imagine that Article 50 can just be revoked because the official Leave campaign was breaking the rules.

Fines and possible prison sentences, perhaps not allowed to work politically or similar limitations but that is about as far as it would go.

Water John · 20-11-2017 06:59PM

Where their really caught is, that the diff campaigns were linked an thus, will be considered the one org for the purposes of accessing funding and said limits.

Calina · 20-11-2017 07:03PM

Medicines Agency to Amsterdam.

Enzokk · 20-11-2017 07:03PM

Amsterdam has been chosen as the new location for the EMA.

Medicine regulator begins the Great Brexit Experiment

European health ministers today voted for Amsterdam to replace London as the new headquarters of the agency, which regulates the development and sale of medicines to 500 million Europeans and a £200 billion industry.

Its 900 staff now at least know where they are going, assuming they are willing to stay with the agency and take part in a 17-month transition they think needs at least two years, and probably three, to complete.

Water John · 20-11-2017 07:05PM

Ireland withdrew from that competition earlier today, to conc on the banking one.

steddyeddy · 20-11-2017 07:09PM

A friend of mine works in the EMA. Amsterdam is a great city to work in. So this essentially means that new medicines will be delayed in getting to the UK as they'll need a whole new regulatory system. They could also adapt the EU legislation word for word but this would mean they have to follow a system that they have zero input into.

ancapailldorcha · 20-11-2017 07:14PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

A friend of mine works in the EMA. Amsterdam is a great city to work in. So this essentially means that new medicines will be delayed in getting to the UK as they'll need a whole new regulatory system. They could also adapt the EU legislation word for word but this would mean they have to follow a system that they have zero input into.

Hmm... I saw a Trainee Patent Attorney opportunity at The Hague I almost went for. The Netherlands has a good history as a free-trading nation, almost as good as the UK's so it's an excellent choice. Fingers crossed Dublin gets the EBA headquarters. Be something of a consolation over the whole border fiasco.

The husband of a pretty vile Greek woman I used to work for worked for the EMA so I can finally point to some good coming from Brexit.

blanch152 · 20-11-2017 07:17PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

£36bn is what I said which is roughly €40bn. I also said that this should be net and not gross. That allows for more scope for assets to be taken into account.

Anything north of that isn't sellable to the British public. They have no appetite for being set as an "example" for making a democratic decision.

Comparing that to a war is a touch silly to say the least.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Your language is wrong on this.

Whether the bill is set at €5bn or €100bn, it has nothing to do with rewarding or setting an example of the British public for making a democratic decision. It is simply implementing that democratic decision, hence the EU view that the methodology should be first agreed and then the figure should be calculated. T

steddyeddy · 20-11-2017 07:17PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hmm... I saw a Trainee Patent Attorney opportunity at The Hague I almost went for. The Netherlands has a good history as a free-trading nation, almost as good as the UK's so it's an excellent choice. Fingers crossed Dublin gets the EBA headquarters. Be something of a consolation over the whole border fiasco.

The husband of a pretty vile Greek woman I used to work for worked for the EMA so I can finally point to some good coming from Brexit.

Ha ha you're safe now A. I would have liked to have the EMA in Dublin but it's not a big deal really. You should go for the patent attorney job if you can. It's a ton of money for a very stable job. I heard it can be a bit boring though.

solodeogloria · 20-11-2017 07:19PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

A friend of mine works in the EMA. Amsterdam is a great city to work in. So this essentially means that new medicines will be delayed in getting to the UK as they'll need a whole new regulatory system. They could also adapt the EU legislation word for word but this would mean they have to follow a system that they have zero input into.

Good evening!

Good for Amsterdam and hopefully Dublin gets the EBA.

This is a logical outcome of Brexit. I'm not particularly sad at the loss of these agencies it's just a part and seal of the UK moving out if the European Union. Britain will do just fine outside just like other countries do.

blanch152: tosh, if the figure is €100bn it's not worth paying. The UK's commitments won't be anywhere near that figure. The UK won't accept being made an example of. If the money comes to that I'd rather it spent on a no deal exit. If the bill is that much you know the rest of the deal will be God awful.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John · 20-11-2017 07:20PM

I'm sure he'll find plenty to amuse himself in his spare time, in Amsterdam, ha.

Calina · 20-11-2017 07:35PM

And the EBA to Paris on the turn of chance. I wonder if Czecchia abstained.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments