Brexit Referendum Superthread

323

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, that is true, but it is not the citizens who will negotiate this deal.

What, for example, does Germany get? Loads of young UK citizens ready to travel and work. What does the UK get? Loads of young UK citizens shagging off elsewhere to travel and work.

The EU needs citizens.

Yes but even though many technology industries in Europe are literally screaming out for English speaking graduates at the moment, no more than Ireland, young UK citizens in general do not go to Europe.
Like just about every 20 something graduate with 20 km of me, they go to the Canada, Australia, the USA and New Zealand. No free travel but still an easier transition than going to the continent.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

As has been explained a few times. Canada argued for a deal that was bespoke to Canada. Britain will argue for a deal that is bespoke to Britain. Britain isn't looking for a deal that suits Canada or Norway or Switzerland but a deal that will be bespoke to Britain's specific needs and interests.

That's what countries do when they argue for trade deals. The idea that Britain has to ask for what another country has asked for is absurd.

Except I haven't said this. The EEA option is the only real precedent. There is nothing else to compare to. It's impossible to know what this bespoke British deal will look like as the government clearly has no idea what it is doing.

Deals involve agreement and compromise and we've seen nothing of either what the government wants to achieve nor what it would be prepared to give up, aside from Davis comment about paying for single market access.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: As for the point about German banks not competing with British banks, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean in terms of retail banking? Because as far as I can tell in Investment Banking and in Wealth Management German banks (and for that matter Swiss and American and others) are competing very fiercely with British banks (at least I know that Deutsche Bank have a huge presence with several office buildings in the City).

If they're currently competing fiercely, then there is every incentive for EU banks to lobby for protectionism. This is a growing global trend which is likely to catch on in the US as well. If Britain is outside the single market then it will be vulnerable to such measures.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, that is true, but it is not the citizens who will negotiate this deal.

What, for example, does Germany get? Loads of young UK citizens ready to travel and work. What does the UK get? Loads of young UK citizens shagging off elsewhere to travel and work.

The EU needs citizens.

Germany gets to avoid a contraction by over 10% in the size of the single market, keep a key contributor coughing up cash and good relations with a global hub of finance, STEM, etc...

The UK doesn't decide what it will get, the other 27 states do. This is why the triggering of article 50 is so important. Once that button is pushed, there is no return and power shifts to the other 27.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Germany gets to avoid a contraction by over 10% in the size of the single market, keep a key contributor coughing up cash and good relations with a global hub of finance, STEM, etc...

The UK doesn't decide what it will get, the other 27 states do. This is why the triggering of article 50 is so important. Once that button is pushed, there is no return and power shifts to the other 27.

I am talking about the unilateral offer from the EU of citizenship for Brits, not about Brexit in general.

This makes sense for the EU even if the Brits do not reciprocate.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am talking about the unilateral offer from the EU of citizenship for Brits, bit about Brexit in general.

This makes sense for the EU even if the Brits do not reciprocate.

Why should British citizens get benefits that EU citizens don't, exactly? This is exactly the kind of deal the EU needs to avoid or other nations will pull out seeking the same.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why should British citizens get benefits that EU citizens don't, exactly?

Because it is win-win: UK citizens get to work in the EU, the EU gets more citizens to work.

EU citizens don't get to work in the UK, which is bad for EU citizens, but not bad for the EU, which doesn't lose them.

And all this is bad for the UK which stands to lose workers and gain nothing, but the EU don't have to care anymore.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because it is win-win: UK citizens get to work in the EU, the EU gets more citizens to work.

EU citizens don't get to work in the UK, which is bad for EU citizens, but not bad for the EU, which doesn't lose them.

And all this is bad for the UK which stands to lose workers and gain nothing, but the EU don't have to care anymore.

What about EU citizens who want to work in the UK? Why is this good? There's a reason why poorer countries joined and free movement is a big part of that.

First Up

Just mischief making to de-stabilise the Brits. Divide and conquer etc

Legally, technically and administratively impossible.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because it is win-win: UK citizens get to work in the EU, the EU gets more citizens to work.

EU citizens don't get to work in the UK, which is bad for EU citizens, but not bad for the EU, which doesn't lose them.

And all this is bad for the UK which stands to lose workers and gain nothing, but the EU don't have to care anymore.

But the Brexit negotiations will not revolve around what is good for the UK; they will revolve around what is good for the UK government.

(The same is of course true on the other side, except that "what is good for the EU-27 governments" could be quite diverse.)

The availability of associate citizenship would be good for the UK government. Bearing in mind the fairly slim majority in favour of Brexit and the, um, somewhat incoherent set of hopes and expectations that sustains Brexitty opinion, the biggest political risk for the UK government is that, when they finally get down to brass tacks and start putting together a real-world Brexit plan, enough Brexiters will be disappointed at elements of the reality that the pro-Brexit majority will be eroded. They could end up committed to implementing Brexit on terms that a majority of the electorate opposes.

Given this risk, it's important that the Brexit plan contain some elements designed to placate, and secure the assent of, some of the pro-Remainers. If Brexit preserves the right of UK citizens, or those who want to, to move, live, work etc within the EU as EU citizens, there'll be at least some remainers who will feel yeah, OK, this puts to rest at least one of my worries about Brexit, I can live with this. And that will help the UK government enormously.

But, precisely because the offer of associate citizenship is potentially politically advantageous to the UK government, it's not going to be handed to them on a plate. What is being signalled so far (by some, but not all, of the players on the EU side) is that this is available; it's on the table; it's in play. Well, Mrs May, now that you know this is available, and you realise how helpful to you it might be, what are you willing to offer in order to get this? What will you put on the table in return?

Brexit negotiations can't officially begin until Art. 50 notice is served. But that doesn't stop either side musing in public about what might happen when Brexit negotiations do begin. There's always a point to such musings.

323

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What about EU citizens who want to work in the UK? Why is this good? There's a reason why poorer countries joined and free movement is a big part of that.

F*%* em. Catering, building industry and social welfare is already overrun with them.

There already is a (surprisingly) fast efficient streamlined visa system for anyone with more than 3 brain cells.

ancapailldorcha

323 wrote: »

F*%* em. Catering, building industry and social welfare is already overrun with them.

There already is a (surprisingly) fast efficient streamlined visa system for anyone with more than 3 brain cells.

Can you prove any of this?

I also fail to see how a adopting "F**k 'em" attitude towards countries who must agree to an EU=UK trade deal helps secure a good deal for the UK.

Enzokk

323 wrote: »

F*%* em. Catering, building industry and social welfare is already overrun with them.

There already is a (surprisingly) fast efficient streamlined visa system for anyone with more than 3 brain cells.

Too bad there isn't a exit system for locals with less than 3 brain cells, would really shrink the timeline for putting the GREAT back into Brittain...:rolleyes:

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except I haven't said this. The EEA option is the only real precedent. There is nothing else to compare to. It's impossible to know what this bespoke British deal will look like as the government clearly has no idea what it is doing.

This isn't true though. The EU has lots of different trade deals with different countries.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Deals involve agreement and compromise and we've seen nothing of either what the government wants to achieve nor what it would be prepared to give up, aside from Davis comment about paying for single market access.

This is because the EU are insisting that there should be no conversation until the invocation of Article 50. The negotiation hasn't started.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If they're currently competing fiercely, then there is every incentive for EU banks to lobby for protectionism. This is a growing global trend which is likely to catch on in the US as well. If Britain is outside the single market then it will be vulnerable to such measures.

Obviously protectionist measures won't apply to the City of London as a financial centre. I would say that the vast majority of banks in the City are already foreign. Most investment banking and wealth management in Europe takes place in London. Unless German banks are going to take themselves out of the world's leading financial centre I don't quite get what you mean.

London is the only European city (Edit: correction, Zurich is number 9) in the top 10 global financial centres, and according to the latest rankings I can find, it's the top with New York being a close second.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What about EU citizens who want to work in the UK? Why is this good?

Again, it is not good for individual EU citizens who want to work in the UK. I did not say it was.

It is good for EU nations - they get some UK workers, they keep all EU workers.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't true though. The EU has lots of different trade deals with different countries.

But are those trade deals in any way as beneficial for those countries as being part of the EU has been for the UK? Has their deal approached anything close to where free movement of people were to be considered as part of the deal?

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is because the EU are insisting that there should be no conversation until the invocation of Article 50. The negotiation hasn't started.

The EU cannot negotiate a deal where the UK leaves until they have started the process. Otherwise its as useful as negotiating with Ireland to leave the EU. Until the UK actually invokes Article 50 they are still part of the EU. You cannot start negotiations to leave and negotiate for 2 years, find you don't like what you can get and decide to reverse the decision. That will be a massive waste of time for the UK and the EU. If you want to leave you leave.

First Up

Interesting new angle being floated concerning the UK's forthcoming application to join the WTO. Spain (Gibraltar) and Argentine (Falklands) have leverage over this, as unanimity is needed from all 160 WTO members to admit them.

Scope for mischief making it nothing else.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't true though. The EU has lots of different trade deals with different countries.

Which are very limited and inferior to EEA status save for qualms about free movement.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is because the EU are insisting that there should be no conversation until the invocation of Article 50. The negotiation hasn't started.

This is the established protocol. The UK chose to leave. This is how it's going to happen. There is no incentive to talk prior to the triggering of Article 50.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously protectionist measures won't apply to the City of London as a financial centre. I would say that the vast majority of banks in the City are already foreign. Most investment banking and wealth management in Europe takes place in London. Unless German banks are going to take themselves out of the world's leading financial centre I don't quite get what you mean.

London is the only European city (Edit: correction, Zurich is number 9) in the top 10 global financial centres, and according to the latest rankings I can find, it's the top with New York being a close second.

How is this obvious? If banks are based in London, they will be vulnerable to tariffs. The EU will be keen to encourage as much banking as possible to move to the mainland and away from the UK.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Again, it is not good for individual EU citizens who want to work in the UK. I did not say it was.

It is good for EU nations - they get some UK workers, they keep all EU workers.

So why would the EU agree to this then? It must be expecting a big concession if it's willing to put this on the table.

House of Lords EU committee report on Brexit re UK/Irish relations now available that was being commented on in the media this morning. Urges a bilateral agreement between the 2 countries. If the UK leaves the single market and the customs union, it finds it hard to imagine that there won't be some kinds of checks returning to the border concerning the movement of goods.

Web version: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/76/7602.htm

PDF: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/76/76.pdf

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So why would the EU agree to this then? It must be expecting a big concession if it's willing to put this on the table

I repeat (for about the fifth time), this is good for EU nations even if the UK does not reciprocate.

Now Peregrinus makes a good point upthread, that this would also help out the British government with their Remainer population who are at least offered a bone, so maybe the UK will be prepared to offer something in return, but from the perspective of e.g. Germany, it is a good idea anyhow.

It is also a good idea simply from a PR perspective: the UK said early on that the EU citizens currently in the UK are "bargaining chips" - now the EU comes out and says "Sorry UK folks that you are leaving, but here, you can each individually join the EU if you want!". It looks generous and inclusive vs. the UKs hard and calculating position.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Which are very limited and inferior to EEA status save for qualms about free movement.

It is premature to say what will or won't be considered in the negotiation.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is the established protocol. The UK chose to leave. This is how it's going to happen. There is no incentive to talk prior to the triggering of Article 50.

Not really. The Lisbon Treaty doesn't say that discussions can only start after the invocation of Article 50. Claiming that something is an "established protocol" when it is unprecedented is somewhat illogical.

I love the double-think that seems to exist. The UK Government is somehow in the wrong for not divulging their full negotiating strategy, but the EU is totally in the right for not doing this.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How is this obvious? If banks are based in London, they will be vulnerable to tariffs. The EU will be keen to encourage as much banking as possible to move to the mainland and away from the UK.

If for example, Deutsche Bank are operating in London they will be operating under UK financial regulation and they will be operating as a UK legal entity. Withdrawing yourself from the only major financial centre (bar Zurich) isn't really a good corporate strategy.

Nowhere in the European Union can compete with London. The reason is that London is a global financial centre rather than just a European one. I think that people who argue that Britain's financial services industry will be significantly harmed by Brexit, or that London won't be a global financial centre any more don't really understand how much further ahead London is than Paris or Frankfurt in the area of financial services.

The reason why banks establish themselves in London is because it is a meeting place for global financial trade in the same way that New York is. The same isn't true for other European cities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

recedite

recedite wrote: »

See, that's the difference between stone and say, plasticine...

Yep, but its been dead for a while. Have you not noticed the smell?
Temporary (ahem) Reintroduction of Border Controls

recedite wrote: »

Just noticed that all those border controls become illegal in two days time.
I must check back on the website to see if they will sneakily change the border control dates. Either that, or Schengen gets resurrected and all the checkpoints get dismantled. Or the rules somehow get changed again.

Just checked back and yes, they did sneakily change the dates again. Up until 12th of February this time. And it looks like this constant moving forward of the dates will be an ongoing process because the German voters have been getting very uppity recently, much to Merkel's concern, especially coming into an election year.

The BND, Germany's foreign intelligence agency, said that ISIS was training its agents how to apply for asylum and answer questions from officials that did not betray their true intentions.
Intelligence officials estimate hundreds of Isis Jihadists have infiltrated into the country in the refugee wave, waiting for orders from the middle east to carry out attacks.
With Germany struggling to cope with around 17,500 new asylum seekers each month, the government is adamant that the border controls must stay in place.

source

demfad

First Up wrote: »

Interesting new angle being floated concerning the UK's forthcoming application to join the WTO. Spain (Gibraltar) and Argentine (Falklands) have leverage over this, as unanimity is needed from all 160 WTO members to admit them.

Scope for mischief making it nothing else.

For all 160 countries to agree there is an underlayer also:


Liam Fox's UK application under WTO rules says it will try to replicate as exactly as possible the single market tariffs.
To do otherwise would trigger a tsunami of WTO trade disputes against the UK. It must also work out the quotas from each country and it will have to err on the 'bad for UK' side. The UK will have the same (or most likely worse) WTO rules as it had inside the EU just after leaving the EU.
Any negotiations from this point must comply with most favoured rules. You give a concession to one country you must give it to all.
This is not what the Brexiters promised.

[URL="Check this article out. Fox has admitted that even if the UK goes under WTO rules it will try and replicate as exactly as possible the single market tariffs and regulations!!!!!! To so otherwise would trigger a tsunami of WTO trade disputes against the UK. There is officially no point to Brexit! http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie"]http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie[/URL]


And it gets much worse:

Hard Brexiters advocating the WTO option often site countries like the US, Australia and China as countries which have no FTA with the EU but have relatively fast cross border access. Brexiters miss that although there is no FTAs, goods from these countries comply with the EUs preferential regulatory framework.
"One of the most important types of trade agreement is the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on conformity assessment. This gets round the problem of border checks, as the EU will then recognise the paperwork on product testing and conformity certification. Throw in an agreement on Customs cooperation — to ensure that official paperwork and systems mesh — and you are on your way to trouble-free border crossings." USA, China and Australia have this type of agreement. Switzerland have very extensive ones."

Otherwise:

And, for all that, the fundamentals are quite simple. The point about the Single Market is that border checks have been eliminated. The common rules are monitored by relevant national authorities and there is mutual recognition of standards. Thus, if you so desire, you can load a truck with grommets in Glasgow and ship them all the way to Alexandroupoli on the Turkish border, with just the occasional document check.

But the moment we leave the EU, this stops. Your component manufacturer may still comply with exactly the same standards, but the testing houses and the regulatory agencies are no longer recognised. The consignment has no valid paperwork. And, without it, it must be subject to border checks, visual inspection and physical testing.

What that means in practice is that the customs inspector detains your shipment and takes samples to send to an approved testing house (one for the inspector, one for the office pool, one for the stevedores and one for the lab is often the case). Your container inspection is typically about £700 and detention costs about £80 a day for the ten days or so it will take to get your results back. Add the testing fee and you’re paying an extra £2,000 to deliver a container into the EU.

Apart from the costs, the delays are highly damaging. Many European industries have highly integrated supply chains, relying on components shipped from multiple countries right across Europe, working to a “just in time” regime. If even a small number of consignments are delayed, the whole system starts to snarl up.

Then, as European ports start having to deal with the unexpected burden of thousands of inspections, and a backlog of testing as a huge range of products sit at the ports awaiting results, the system will grind to a halt. It won’t just slow down. It will stop. Trucks waiting to cross the Channel at Dover will be backed up the motorway all the way to London.

For animal products exported to the EU, the situation is even worse — if that is possible. Products from third countries (which is now the UK) are permitted entry only through designated border inspection posts (BIPs). Only at these can they be inspected and, if necessary, detained for testing. But, for trade between the UK and EU member states, there are no designated BIPs. Until one (or more) has been nominated and equipped trade in these products stops dead — say goodbye to a £12 billion export trade.

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128[/QUOTE]

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I repeat (for about the fifth time), this is good for EU nations even if the UK does not reciprocate.

You made some vague point about the EU needing citizens and didn't back that up when asked.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is premature to say what will or won't be considered in the negotiation.

We're speculating. I thought that was obvious.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Not really. The Lisbon Treaty doesn't say that discussions can only start after the invocation of Article 50. Claiming that something is an "established protocol" when it is unprecedented is somewhat illogical.

Nope but there's no reason for the Commission to engage in talks pre-Article 50 when their hand is strengthened.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I love the double-think that seems to exist. The UK Government is somehow in the wrong for not divulging their full negotiating strategy, but the EU is totally in the right for not doing this.

There is no doublethink. The British electorate elected its current government and opted for Brexit. They have a right to know what their elected and unelected officials have planned for the country as it will determine the course of British history for decades if not longer.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If for example, Deutsche Bank are operating in London they will be operating under UK financial regulation and they will be operating as a UK legal entity. Withdrawing yourself from the only major financial centre (bar Zurich) isn't really a good corporate strategy.

Nowhere in the European Union can compete with London. The reason is that London is a global financial centre rather than just a European one. I think that people who argue that Britain's financial services industry will be significantly harmed by Brexit, or that London won't be a global financial centre any more don't really understand how much further ahead London is than Paris or Frankfurt in the area of financial services.

The reason why banks establish themselves in London is because it is a meeting place for global financial trade in the same way that New York is. The same isn't true for other European cities.

It's already happening. You're describing the situation at present. The UK is still in the EU and has strong input into the direction of the single market. If it leaves, there is a risk that it will lose this access and a guarantee that it will lose its influence. London is in it's current state because the banks are still there. Were they to relocate to Frankfurt or Milan, they could attain the same status easily.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We're speculating. I thought that was obvious.

My point is I'm not. We'll see what the outcome will be.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nope but there's no reason for the Commission to engage in talks pre-Article 50 when their hand is strengthened.

I never said there is or there was. But you're suggesting that the British government are under an obligation to make their negotiating strategy clear when the European Union haven't done the same.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There is no doublethink. The British electorate elected its current government and opted for Brexit. They have a right to know what their elected and unelected officials have planned for the country as it will determine the course of British history for decades if not longer.

There is a double-think in your posts though. Somehow the UK don't have a clue because they haven't revealed their hand, but the EU are right for not doing the same. It seems like the EU can genuinely do no wrong in your sight. Surely by your logic, the citizens of the European Union deserve to have the EU's negotiating strategy laid out before Article 50 also?

I agree with you, that's not how negotiations work, but to claim that this is something that makes the British Government any worse than the European Union is silly.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's already happening. You're describing the situation at present. The UK is still in the EU and has strong input into the direction of the single market. If it leaves, there is a risk that it will lose this access and a guarantee that it will lose its influence. London is in it's current state because the banks are still there. Were they to relocate to Frankfurt or Milan, they could attain the same status easily.

A huge amount of non-EU related financial trading activity happens through London also. That's my point, to be a global financial services centre you need to be undertaking a substantial amount of trading activity with the rest of the world.

To claim that Frankfurt or Milan could "attain the same status" of London easily, would be to misunderstand how much further ahead London actually is to other European cities in this area. Even if some of London's business moves, it will still be the largest financial centre in Europe.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

marienbad

solodeogloria wrote: »

To claim that Frankfurt or Milan could "attain the same status" of London easily, would be to misunderstand how much further ahead London actually is to other European cities in this area. Even if some of London's business moves, it will still be the largest financial centre in Europe.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So what ? Who cares if Frankfurt or Milan don't attain the same status as London ? This isn't the Premier League . The point is London could forfeit a substantial portion of its business to Frankfurt Milan Dublin and still be bigger than all combined but still strike a catastrophic blow to the British economy .

Why do you see everything in binary terms ?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is a double-think in your posts though. Somehow the UK don't have a clue because they haven't revealed their hand, but the EU are right for not doing the same. It seems like the EU can genuinely do no wrong in your sight. Surely by your logic, the citizens of the European Union deserve to have the EU's negotiating strategy laid out before Article 50 also?

Because there isn't a hand by the look of things. This has been a shambles from the outset. The only people with a plan were Mark Carney and the lads and ladies making the next Football Manager game. The balance of power shifts to the EU once Article 50 is triggered. This is why they're waiting until then.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree with you, that's not how negotiations work, but to claim that this is something that makes the British Government any worse than the European Union is silly.

The EU is a geopolitical union of sovereign nations. It doesn't have a united agenda on a lot of things. Comparing it to the UK is illogical. Currently, the ball is in Theresa May's corner. Nothing will happen until she triggers Article 50.

solodeogloria wrote: »

A huge amount of non-EU related financial trading activity happens through London also. That's my point, to be a global financial services centre you need to be undertaking a substantial amount of trading activity with the rest of the world.

To claim that Frankfurt or Milan could "attain the same status" of London easily, would be to misunderstand how much further ahead London actually is to other European cities in this area. Even if some of London's business moves, it will still be the largest financial centre in Europe.

At present, yes. But if banks can't get the staff because of bureaucracy? If the EU decides on tariffs? London is a global hub because of the people and businesses that work there now. If they move, it will lose status.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I never said there is or there was. But you're suggesting that the British government are under an obligation to make their negotiating strategy clear when the European Union haven't done the same.



There is a double-think in your posts though. Somehow the UK don't have a clue because they haven't revealed their hand, but the EU are right for not doing the same. It seems like the EU can genuinely do no wrong in your sight. Surely by your logic, the citizens of the European Union deserve to have the EU's negotiating strategy laid out before Article 50 also?

The ball is in the UK court though. The UK has to trigger Article 50, there really is no reason for the EU to start negotiations before then because the UK is still part of the EU until they trigger Article 50. Until that happens it is business as usual for all parties.

How can the EU negotiate when they don't know if the UK want to leave the EU. Remember it is only after Article 50 is triggered that they have signaled their intention to leave the EU. Also, it would be up to the UK to tell the EU what relationship they want from the EU. They could always just tell the EU they are happy with WTO rules and no free trade at all but it seems that almost everyone agrees this would be economical suicide.

So the UK will have to start by telling the EU negotiation team how they see a UK exit from the EU. It would then be up to the EU side to come back with proposals on how this could be achieved. If, as an example, the UK wants access to the single market and want free movement of goods, the EU will come back and propose that this could happen with free movement of people. It is not the EU going to the UK telling them they have to accept free movement of people from the start. It would be the EU responding to the UK proposals on how they see the deal once they have left.

I don't know why this is difficult to understand. When you go to a car dealership you don't expect the dealer to come running out to you in the car park and offering you a discount and extras on a model even before you have asked about which model you want to buy. The ball is in the UK court, they have to act and then tell the EU what they want after they leave the EU. It isn't up to the EU to do the job for the UK Government. The EU have been blamed enough for almost all the ills of the UK, they do not need to actually be to blame for Brexit as well.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

The ball is in the UK court though. The UK has to trigger Article 50, there really is no reason for the EU to start negotiations before then because the UK is still part of the EU until they trigger Article 50. Until that happens it is business as usual for all parties.

How can the EU negotiate when they don't know if the UK want to leave the EU. Remember it is only after Article 50 is triggered that they have signaled their intention to leave the EU. Also, it would be up to the UK to tell the EU what relationship they want from the EU. They could always just tell the EU they are happy with WTO rules and no free trade at all but it seems that almost everyone agrees this would be economical suicide.

So the UK will have to start by telling the EU negotiation team how they see a UK exit from the EU. It would then be up to the EU side to come back with proposals on how this could be achieved. If, as an example, the UK wants access to the single market and want free movement of goods, the EU will come back and propose that this could happen with free movement of people. It is not the EU going to the UK telling them they have to accept free movement of people from the start. It would be the EU responding to the UK proposals on how they see the deal once they have left.

I don't know why this is difficult to understand. When you go to a car dealership you don't expect the dealer to come running out to you in the car park and offering you a discount and extras on a model even before you have asked about which model you want to buy. The ball is in the UK court, they have to act and then tell the EU what they want after they leave the EU. It isn't up to the EU to do the job for the UK Government. The EU have been blamed enough for almost all the ills of the UK, they do not need to actually be to blame for Brexit as well.

Good evening!

I'd encourage you to read the context of my post in the thread. I agree that neither side is obliged to show their full hand in negotiations. My response was to ancapailldorcha complaining that the UK didn't have a clue about what they were doing because they haven't divulged their full hand. That's an absurdity.

ancapailldorcha: It's just not true that Britain doesn't have a hand in these negotiations. There's a lot that they can offer the EU in a new relationship including trade, intelligence sharing, banking functions amongst other things. You mention Mark Carney who clearly said a few weeks ago that the EU handling Brexit wrongly in the area of financial services would also hurt European economies significantly.

Again, the idea that banks won't be able to hire people because of "bureaucracy". What bureaucracy are we talking about? If you're referring to immigration, there's no reason to believe that skilled migration will be any more difficult than it is today, and if you're referring to domestic UK staff I don't have a foggies where you're coming from at all. I would love some clarity.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'd encourage you to read the context of my post in the thread. I agree that neither side is obliged to show their full hand in negotiations. My response was to ancapailldorcha complaining that the UK didn't have a clue about what they were doing because they haven't divulged their full hand. That's an absurdity.

Why is it an absurdity? I've provided a link. You've provided nothing.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, the idea that banks won't be able to hire people because of "bureaucracy". What bureaucracy are we talking about? If you're referring to immigration, there's no reason to believe that skilled migration will be any more difficult than it is today, and if you're referring to domestic UK staff I don't have a foggies where you're coming from at all. I would love some clarity.

Points-based systems take a long time to clear someone and award them a visa if they score enough points. This kind of delay can make the difference between whether a small company or a startup thrives or dies.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why is it an absurdity? I've provided a link. You've provided nothing.

A link with a spurious memo from an external consultant who more than likely wasn't in any ministerial meeting. To claim that Britain has "empty hand" in terms of negotiations is as absurd as people like Nigel Farage believing that Britannia still rules the waves as the old ditty goes.

The reality is that Britain is a hugely significant country and a net contributor to European security and intelligence gathering, a leading member of NATO, a member of the five eyes intelligence sharing network, world leader in financial services with key institutions and clearing houses that provide a gateway to the world, world leading universities. I don't need a link to show that Britain's hand isn't empty.

If you've got such a low view of Britain - why have you staked your future in continuing to live there? I'm still here because I believe it's a great country.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Points-based systems take a long time to clear someone and award them a visa if they score enough points. This kind of delay can make the difference between whether a small company or a startup thrives or dies.

From what I've seen personally - most of my colleagues are from outside of the European Union because we work in a sector that is in huge demand in Britain. People still enter and leave the UK relatively freely on a tier 2 visa. Our work doesn't benefit hugely from EU freedom of movement. I don't think that a check on qualifications would be a huge hindrance to people entering the UK.

The idea that businesses will grind to a halt because Theresa May is going to yank up the drawbridge isn't grounded in reality. She's fully aware that we need skilled immigration. As are others in the cabinet.

EDIT. This report by British Future looking into maintaining free movement for skilled workers and a quota for unskilled workers is interesting and probably all that's required to satisfy British concerns.

Instead of getting terrified for the future - calmly assessing the facts and seeing that nothing erratic is really going to happen is the best course of action. Britain won't be any different to other sovereign nations outside of the EU.

I'm also thankful for the announcement that Hammond seems to be in favour of a slower transitional deal leading to a gradual breaking away from the European functions that the UK doesn't want to be a part of as being best. It also allows the 2020 election to be a grounds for defining the substantive direction that the UK will go in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

A link with a spurious memo from an external consultant who more than likely wasn't in any ministerial meeting. To claim that Britain has "empty hand" in terms of negotiations is as absurd as people like Nigel Farage believing that Britannia still rules the waves as the old ditty goes.

There you are again. Anything you disagree with is "absurd".

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reality is that Britain is a hugely significant country and a net contributor to European security and intelligence gathering, a leading member of NATO, a member of the five eyes intelligence sharing network, world leader in financial services with key institutions and clearing houses that provide a gateway to the world, world leading universities. I don't need a link to show that Britain's hand isn't empty.

I'm not talking about Britain. I'm talking about the British government.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you've got such a low view of Britain - why have you staked your future in continuing to live there? I'm still here because I believe it's a great country.

Except I don't. That's just another of your lazy strawmen.

solodeogloria wrote: »

From what I've seen personally - most of my colleagues are from outside of the European Union because we work in a sector that is in huge demand in Britain. People still enter and leave the UK relatively freely on a tier 2 visa. Our work doesn't benefit hugely from EU freedom of movement. I don't think that a check on qualifications would be a huge hindrance to people entering the UK.

Mine does. Enormously.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The idea that businesses will grind to a halt because Theresa May is going to yank up the drawbridge isn't grounded in reality. She's fully aware that we need skilled immigration. As are others in the cabinet.

Another strawman.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm also thankful for the announcement that Hammond seems to be in favour of a slower transitional deal leading to a gradual breaking away from the European functions that the UK doesn't want to be a part of as being best. It also allows the 2020 election to be a grounds for defining the substantive direction that the UK will go in.

A gradual departure might be best. However, people's main concerns seem to be why Article 50 hasn't been triggered yet and how the UK-EU relationship might look in 2020 and beyond.