Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
-
Yes - there is obviously no guarantee these exploratory talks will happen, but appointing a chief negotiator is a gesture of good will.
And to clarify what I meant, of course if these talks happen no-one will commit to anything. But all parties (EC, UK, other member states) might find it a good idea to probe what is hoped for / acceptable to others, so that they already have common grounds and a target model when article 50 is invoked (of course this doesn't mean they target model will be achieved, but it would at least be useful as a guideline to get started).
Also and as raised by Calina the position taken by the European Comission will be interesting. Member states have already entrusted it with quite an important mandate in terms of international negotiations when they give it authority to negotiate the transatlantic treaty (though I am sure they are having a lot of background talks to requests their national interests are preserved). They might or might not do the same with Brexit and will have to clarify that position in the next few weeks/months (I also think there will be a tendency to give priority to the European council so that each member state is directly represented).
Cmon miaow!
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/brexit-eu-negotiator-michael-barnier-david-davis-meet-match-theresa-may-angela-merkel-berlin-paris-a7158781.htmlThe appointment of Michel Barnier to lead the EU side in the talks is liable to make a difficult situation even more fractious.
Mr Barnier is routinely described as “no friend of Britain” and has displayed particular hostility to the City of London in his previous incarnation as an internal market commissioner. He has been appointed by Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, who has also made little secret of his irritation and resentment at the Brexit vote. So the auguries are poor.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/07/michel-barnier-eu-brexit-chief-david-davis/“The negotiations regarding Britain’s future relationship with the EU are going to be long and difficult. We are therefore pleased that president Juncker has chosen someone with a strong background in EU politics to lead the negotiations from the commission’s side. Mr Barnier is not from our political family, but he showed in his role as internal market commissioner that he is a tough negotiator and someone prepared to work in the interest of all Europeans,” he said.
“We will not allow a deal where the UK can pick and choose which parts of EU law it wants to abide by. If the UK wants to retain full access to the single market then this means accepting the responsibilities that come with it, including free movement of people.”
I doubt I could find a single other person who could agree with this being a 'gesture of goodwill'!
And regarding there being a EU/UK consensus prior to Article 50 (arstechnica article)“In line with the principle of no negotiation without notification, the task of the chief negotiator in the coming months will be to prepare the ground internally for the work ahead. Once the Article 50 process is triggered, he will take the necessary contacts with the UK authorities and all other EU and member state interlocutors,
The EU is getting its house in order, to ensure that it is ready for when the UK press the big red button. They are not trying to offer olive branches to the UK parliament or anything like that.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I doubt I could find a single other person who could agree with this being a 'gesture of goodwill'!
Mind you, goodwill in terms of being ready to talk ... but yeah certainly not in terms being ready to compromise (at this stage it would be a very poor negotiation tactic).0 -
There have been some very public announcements that talks won't commence until the UK trigger Article 50. Now I know that doesn't preclude sidebars or informal discussions, but there would be a grave danger of the likes of Boris (I only open my mouth to change feet) Johnson talking out of school; especially if there were some differences between informal 'talks' and formal negotiations.Mind you, goodwill in terms of being ready to talk ... but yeah certainly not in terms being ready to compromise (at this stage it would be a very poor negotiation tactic).
The EU have nothing to gain and everything to lose by getting involved in pre Article 50 talks. Having said all along that there wouldn't be such talks, the UK could have them over a barrel if they went against that.0 -
Yes - there is obviously no guarantee these exploratory talks will happen, but appointing a chief negotiator is a gesture of good will.
And to clarify what I meant, of course if these talks happen no-one will commit to anything. But all parties (EC, UK, other member states) might find it a good idea to probe what is hoped for / acceptable to others, so that they already have common grounds and a target model when article 50 is invoked (of course this doesn't mean they target model will be achieved, but it would at least be useful as a guideline to get started).
Also and as raised by Calina the position taken by the European Comission will be interesting. Member states have already entrusted it with quite an important mandate in terms of international negotiations when they give it authority to negotiate the transatlantic treaty (though I am sure they are having a lot of background talks to requests their national interests are preserved). They might or might not do the same with Brexit and will have to clarify that position in the next few weeks/months (I also think there will be a tendency to give priority to the European council so that each member state is directly represented).
Appointing a chief negotiator is not a gesture of good will. It is a demonstration of competence. Nothing more and nothing less.
Direction will most likely result from discussions between the remaining countries at national head of government level which is council of the European Union. Commission will probably be delegated to negotiate the details.0 -
Advertisement
-
For sure before the UK government has to have a decent idea of what it is looking for before even informal talks can start, and defining this should be one of their top priorities for the coming weeks. But it can be an iterative process: they can have a quiet meeting suggesting ideas, the EC negotiation team come back with some feedback, and so on...
It won't be an iterative process. The negotiations are EXIT negotiations - ones about "cutting the ties" - not negotiations for a post-exit EU-UK arrangement - those will be seperate negotiations.
Obviously, the exit negotiations can take into account the desire of the UK (& other member states) for a particular post-exit arrangement as there is not much point in having work/residence visas for all on Jan 1 next year if the intention is to have an EU/EFTA/EEA FoM deal from Jan 1 the year after. Clearly though an expressed preference for a particular arrangement does not guarantee it would be acheived, merely that negotiations on it could start.
The UK's position is akin to a footballer who announces he is leaving his football team. No matter how nice a person the remaining players think he is, once he has left the team then when they meet as opposing sides next season, the job of the EU football team will be to resoundingly defeat the UK football player, not to "reach a consensus" on what the score line of the match should be in advance of the match starting.0 -
I don't think your analogy stacks up. The departing football player will have no relationship with his erstwhile team other than as an opposition player. The UK will have a role as a partner of some kind with the EU post Brexit.The UK's position is akin to a footballer who announces he is leaving his football team. No matter how nice a person the remaining players think he is, once he has left the team then when they meet as opposing sides next season, the job of the EU football team will be to resoundingly defeat the UK football player, not to "reach a consensus" on what the score line of the match should be in advance of the match starting.
A better analogy would be a staff member going to work for a client. There would be a post departure relationship, but it would also be at arms length.0 -
CMOTDibbler wrote: »I don't think your analogy stacks up. The departing football player will have no relationship with his erstwhile team other than as an opposition player. The UK will have a role as a partner of some kind with the EU post Brexit.
A better analogy would be a staff member going to work for a client. There would be a post departure relationship, but it would also be at arms length.
In both cases, the departed individual would play/sit on opposing sides to the remaining players/staff. Thus, they are, by definition, an opponent.
Just as the remaining players are not going to "pass the ball" to the departed player, neither are the remaining staff going to give "sweetheart deals" to the departed staff member. Equally, the same applies vice versa.
In both cases, it would be highly improper for them to do so as it would involve them engaging in breeches of "fiduciary duty" (for want of a better phrase). It would clearly be outrageous of EU officials to sacrifice the vital national interests of a remaining member state (eg Ireland) in order to give a sweetheart deal to a post-exit UK. More to the point, it would completely undermine the confidence of the member states that their EU negotiating team can be trusted to act to secure their "national interest" - be that a member state one or a collective EU one.0 -
I think that is a bit of a mad analogy. How do you explain countries that split up (such as the former Czechoslovakia) but nevertheless cooperate on matters of common interest. Plenty of other examples. Ireland fought a war of independence but today we cooperate with the UK. The UK is not trying to "roundly defeat" us.the job of the EU football team will be to resoundingly defeat the UK football player, not to "reach a consensus" on what the score line of the match should be in advance of the match starting.0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »I think that is a bit of a mad analogy. How do you explain countries that split up (such as the former Czechoslovakia) but nevertheless cooperate on matters of common interest. Plenty of other examples. Ireland fought a war of independence but today we cooperate with the UK. The UK is not trying to "roundly defeat" us.
Just as footballers have a common interest in the advancement of football overall but have differing interests in the results of a given football match. Equally countries have common interests overall but differing interests in the detail of a negotiation. That apples even when they share a common vision - eg that of the EU - but obviously much less so when they fundamentally disagree.
The US, for instance, is of major geopolitical importance to EU countries - more so than the UK - but that doesn't mean that when "Team USA" sit down opposite "Team EU" for negotiations on TTIP, " Team EU" (or "Team USA") don"t have major disagreements on many points in the negotiations. They don't just go "Oh, we must cooperate" & concede all before them but rather they will strenuously advance their side's interests and thus seek to "resoundingly defeat" - to use the football analogy - the positions advanced by their opponents.
Such is the reality of negotiations and the UK has choosen to place itself in opposition to the EU. Once they leave, their interests are not our interests and our negotiatiors are there to advance our interests, not theirs.0 -
Advertisement
-
If the point you are trying to make is that there will be tough negotiations on both sides then, yes, I don't think anyone will have issue with that.Just as footballers have a common interest in the advancement of football overall but have differing interests in the results of a given football match. Equally countries have common interests overall but differing interests in the detail of a negotiation. That apples even when they share a common vision - eg that of the EU - but obviously much less so when they fundamentally disagree.
But in negotiations of this sort where indeed we can expect both sides to be robustly trying to maximise the interests they represent, there will nevertheless be areas of common ground where agreement will be reached. It is not a zero-sum game in the way that football is.0 -
In the EU post Brexit there will still be a reliance on exports to Britain and imports from there as well. Whatever form it takes, it will involve an ongoing trade deal. That's a goal that both 'sides' have said they want. Therefore there will be a continuing, mutually beneficial relationship post Brexit. That's clearly not the case with a departing footballer.In both cases, the departed individual would play/sit on opposing sides to the remaining players/staff. Thus, they are, by definition, an opponent.
Just as the remaining players are not going to "pass the ball" to the departed player, neither are the remaining staff going to give "sweetheart deals" to the departed staff member. Equally, the same applies vice versa.
In both cases, it would be highly improper for them to do so as it would involve them engaging in breeches of "fiduciary duty" (for want of a better phrase). It would clearly be outrageous of EU officials to sacrifice the vital national interests of a remaining member state (eg Ireland) in order to give a sweetheart deal to a post-exit UK. More to the point, it would completely undermine the confidence of the member states that their EU negotiating team can be trusted to act to secure their "national interest" - be that a member state one or a collective EU one.0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »If the point you are trying to make is that there will be tough negotiations on both sides then, yes, I don't think anyone will have issue with that.
Yes, that is the primary point.Bit cynical wrote: »But in negotiations of this sort where indeed we can expect both sides to be robustly trying to maximise the interests they represent, there will nevertheless be areas of common ground where agreement will be reached. It is not a zero-sum game in the way that football is.
Football isn't a zero-sum game as all football players have a collective interest in the success of football as well as conflicting interests in maximising the benefits for their team/themselves.
The UK, however, seems set on adopting the position that their relationship with the EU is to be on a zero-sum basis in future. According to this Brexit fantasy, they will scapegoat and penalise EU citizens for the huge amount of non-EU immigration that the UK has had while, simultaneously, businesses such as those in the City of London will continue to access the single market and make vast profits doing so thus benefiting the UK economy. In other words, they win, we lose.
It is not in the interest of the remaining EU states to facilitate this. Our negotiatiors will have no obligation to dance to this tune and every reason to robustly reject any proposals unless they are to our benefit even if that means puncturing the fantasies of many Brexiters.0 -
CMOTDibbler wrote: »In the EU post Brexit there will still be a reliance on exports to Britain and imports from there as well.
That there will be trade is certainly true, that there will be a reliance is questionable.CMOTDibbler wrote: »Whatever form it takes, it will involve an ongoing trade deal.
Prior to UK accession to the then ECs, there was no trade deal between the then much smaller ECs and the UK. It is by no means certain that the now much larger EU needs one with the UK post-exit.CMOTDibbler wrote: »That's a goal that both 'sides' have said they want. Therefore there will be a continuing, mutually beneficial relationship post Brexit. That's clearly not the case with a departing footballer.
I haven't seen the UK or the EU state they want or need this. Indeed much of the UK Brexit argument is based on the idea that they don't need (and in many cases want) a mutually beneficial relationship with us.
Why is it in the interest of the remaining EU states to give the City of London access to our markets? If the UK insists on ripping up EU membership - the basis for the current visa-free travel arrangements between EU member states - why should we waive the requirement for them to get visas as "third country nationals"? What UK exports are so critical to our economies that we couldn't source them from elsewhere in the EU? How much extra market share could our exporters gain in other member states when UK exporters, facing tariffs, find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in those markets? Why should we tolerate a situation where it is our citizens that were scapegoated for UK immigration levels when they constituted less than a quarter of the total number of immigrants to the UK in the last twenty five years?0 -
This is an interesting read which may or may not match the eventual reality but it lays out 6 deals which the UK will have to make courtesy of the Brexit vote.
https://www.cer.org.uk/insights/theresa-may-and-her-six-pack-difficult-deals0 -
Britain imports over £100 billion a year from just Germany, France and The Netherlands. Do you think either side of that trade doesn't need it?That there will be trade is certainly true, that there will be a reliance is questionable.
That's about as relevant as the balance of trade in Elizabethan times.Prior to UK accession to the then ECs, there was no trade deal between the then much smaller ECs and the UK. It is by no means certain that the now much larger EU needs one with the UK post-exit.
Really? The only thing they say they don't want is open borders with the EU. Pretty much every British politician has stated the need to have some kind of EEA or other trade agreement. The Germans have stated the desire to continue trading with Britain. Hardly surprising since they export £5 billion a month to the UK.I haven't seen the UK or the EU state they want or need this. Indeed much of the UK Brexit argument is based on the idea that they don't need (and in many cases want) a mutually beneficial relationship with us.0 -
I think the fans of Brexit consistently overestimate the EUs interest in reaching an accommodation with the UK, and consistently underestimate the UKs interest in reaching an accommodation with the EU. Brexit is *a* problem of the EU and its member states. Brexit is *the* problem of the UK.
Its just amusing that Brexiteers who viewed the EU as a conspiracy of 27 states to do things *to* the UK are suddenly reading the entrails for signs of friendship, goodwill and camaraderie. This evil monster is suddenly the UKs BFF? When it comes down to it, the same EU team that screwed Greece and Ireland will screw the UK. Cameron toured European capitals 12 months ago with a threat that was basically "Give me what I want or the UK gets it!" and the EU largely shrugged. Suddenly now they are going to give the UK all the privileges and none of the responsibilities?
The Brexiteers need to grow up. I wholly respect a Brexit position that acknowledges the costs and thinks its a cost worth paying for 'independence'. I cant respect the all too common Brexit position which is pure Little Englander fantasy.0 -
CMOTDibbler wrote: »Really? The only thing they say they don't want is open borders with the EU
They don't have open borders with the EU - the epic carpark to Dover last weekend and the migrant camp at Calais are clear signs that you just cant waltz across the border between the UK and the rest of the EU.0 -
So apparently the old British tactic of 'divide and rule' is back in action with Theresa May going on a 'charm offensive' to influence the EU Council and sideline the Commission.
Jean-Claude will not be pleased.0 -
CMOTDibbler wrote: »So apparently the old British tactic of 'divide and rule' is back in action with Theresa May going on a 'charm offensive' to influence the EU Council and sideline the Commission.
Jean-Claude will not be pleased.
Probably the best strategy from the UKs perspective. It will allow her to play 27 conflicting national interests again each other if needs be. Clearly the EU27 would be stronger if they could speak with one single voice (which would probably be the EC). It will never fully be the case but it will be interesting to see how far they are ready to go in terms of delegating their sovereignty.0 -
Advertisement
-
You may be right but your perspective is interesting and different. The general pro-EU narrative is that the EU was beneficial towards Greece and Ireland - particularly Ireland - during the financial crisls, that the EU came to our aid with a bailout during our time of need.When it comes down to it, the same EU team that screwed Greece and Ireland will screw the UK.0 -
This is an interesting read which may or may not match the eventual reality but it lays out 6 deals which the UK will have to make courtesy of the Brexit vote.
https://www.cer.org.uk/insights/theresa-may-and-her-six-pack-difficult-deals
Great read. Spot on in almost every regard I would say. An awful lot of work to be done, many opportunities for people in many countries!0 -
Anyone here currently working in the UK or (like me) do you want to work there? If so, I found this analysis and I think it's worth a read: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/brexit-briefing-impact-on-common-travel-area-and-the-irish/
I'm probably wasting my time even considering it (let alone applying for a job) until our status is more certain.0 -
I'm probably wasting my time even considering it (let alone applying for a job) until our status is more certain.
I would just go there. It will be at least another 2 years (probably more) before the UK effectively leaves, and until then everything will remain the same.
Once it happens and even if the UK opts-out from full freedom of movement (which isn't a given), in all likelihood there will be special clauses for EU citizens already in the UK to be able to remain (the UK will need that type of reciprocal agreement if they don't want their citizens all across the EU to suddenly be told to leave and be angry at their government). Irish people also have a special status in UK national law which gives more rights than EU citizenship, and even if the CTA had to be amended/removed, it is unlikely that status will be changed in terms of rights to live and work in the UK.
If you were thinking of making a large commitment such as getting a big mortgage to buy a house there, then yes you could wait a bit and see how things look in a year's time. But if it is just to go work there and gain some experience, worst case (and unlikely) scenario is that you will have to leave after 2 years - and while not guaranteed the most probably scenario is that you will be able to stay even after the UK leaves.0 -
I would just go there. It will be at least another 2 years (probably more) before the UK effectively leaves, and until then everything will remain the same.
Once it happens and even if the UK opts-out from full freedom of movement (which isn't a given), in all likelihood there will be special clauses for EU citizens already in the UK to be able to remain (the UK will need that type of reciprocal agreement if they don't want their citizens all across the EU to suddenly be told to leave and be angry at their government). Irish people also have a special status in UK national law which gives more rights than EU citizenship, and even if the CTA had to be amended/removed, it is unlikely that status will be changed in terms of rights to live and work in the UK.
If you were thinking of making a large commitment such as getting a big mortgage to buy a house there, then yes you could wait a bit and see how things look in a year's time. But if it is just to go work there and gain some experience, worst case (and unlikely) scenario is that you will have to leave after 2 years - and while not guaranteed the most probably scenario is that you will be able to stay even after the UK leaves.
Yeh I just think it might be a waste of time because I think you're now far less attractive as a candidate if you're Irish. I've been applying on and off since January but I've only had 1 interview in all that time, and from reading the link I posted above I wonder if there's any point.0 -
Yeh I just think it might be a waste of time because I think you're now far less attractive as a candidate if you're Irish. I've been applying on and off since January but I've only had 1 interview in all that time, and from reading the link I posted above I wonder if there's any point.
You are not. Why would you be?0 -
Because you're competing against UK citizens. From an employer's perspective it's riskier to hire you if there's a question mark over your legal status, or if there might be within the next year or 2.0
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »You are not. Why would you be?
The future possibility that any applicant may require a working permission to remain in the job.0 -
Because you're competing against UK citizens. From an employer's perspective it's riskier to hire you if there's a question mark over your legal status, or if there might be within the next year or 2.
You always are, and always have been competing against UK citizens.
It is impossible to be certain about the legal status of people who will be in situ at the time that Brexit actually takes place and the UK leaves the EU, but it would think it enormously, and I mean enormously unlikely that any legally employed workers of EU origin at the time would be refused visa / visa waivers.
That's EU origin, not Irish origin. We are a far more considered people under UK law. We are entitled to far more than 'just EU' member citizens that come and work here.Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »The future possibility that any applicant may require a working permission to remain in the job.
The practical ramifications of that are what make it enormously unlikely that anyone that is in situ at the actual Brexit epoch will be required to have permissions.
Could the UK even manage to grant enough individual working visas if they started today just to keep the people who are already working?
And once you consider that that's regarding the EU persons and not Irish persons (which has a stronger relationship than the EU) then it becomes even more unlikely that an Irish person would be at any significant disadvantage for a position than a UK person .0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,835 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 36690
Anyone here currently working in the UK or (like me) do you want to work there? If so, I found this analysis and I think it's worth a read: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/brexit-briefing-impact-on-common-travel-area-and-the-irish/
I'm probably wasting my time even considering it (let alone applying for a job) until our status is more certain.
I really wouldn't worry about it tbh. I've just secured a job in London and I asked about this and they basically shrugged. The only way to retain access to the vital single market is to accept free movement. Apply sure and see what happens.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement