Brexit Referendum Superthread

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and yet the UK government are getting grief for not having laid out a fully worded plan, detailed down to the nth degree.

But the thing is that the EU has published it's position papers and the U.K. has not. We're a year on and all we are hearing from the U.K. is the same old sound bites. It is hard to negotiate with someone if you don't know what they want.

partyguinness

Well it's fair to say the UK gov has been backed into an impossible position of it's own making and the position is very very weak.

No matter what way they turn the EU (without even having to try very hard) has all the angles covered.

When you cut through the bluster and bravado of the Brexiters, it seems that the UK really has no bargaining chips at all and has brought a knife to a gun fight.

The real shame is the sheer amount to time and resources that this process is going to suck up when there are bigger issues facing the UK.

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

But the thing is that the EU has published it's position papers and the U.K. has not. We're a year on and all we are hearing from the U.K. is the same old sound bites. It is hard to negotiate with someone if you don't know what they want.

the eu having an army of civil servants available to write this kind of thing would be a big help I guess, but seeing as this is basically a cut and paste job from the existing treaties, it couldn't have taken that long to write.

Water John

The ECJ overseeing it, is a big difference.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

The ECJ overseeing it, is a big difference.

But there is no way the EU could accept any other arbiter. They also will insist on the ECHR to be in place.

There is no discussing this further from the British side as it is a sine qua non for the EU. This is a deal/no deal issue.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the eu having an army of civil servants available to write this kind of thing would be a big help I guess, but seeing as this is basically a cut and paste job from the existing treaties, it couldn't have taken that long to write.

The UK employs far, far more civil servants than the EU does. There are roughly 20 civil servants working for the UK government for every 1 working for the EU Commission.

Water John

Yes, that myth that the EU is a large beauracracy with a very large staff, has been on the go a long time.

Fratton Fred

View wrote: »

The UK employs far, far more civil servants than the EU does. There are roughly 20 civil servants working for the UK government for every 1 working for the EU Commission.

not quite true. The eu employs around 40,000 people, the UK civil service around 400,000, so more like ten to one. but the eu has 27 countries' worth of civil servants to call on, that's what I meant.

That and the fact it is pretty much the current position, so it must have taken all of ten minutes to draft.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but the eu has 27 countries' worth of civil servants to call on, that's what I meant.

It most certainly cannot!

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the eu having an army of civil servants available to write this kind of thing would be a big help I guess, but seeing as this is basically a cut and paste job from the existing treaties, it couldn't have taken that long to write.

It is the agreed position of the 27 member states, so it took a lot more than just writing it up as you seem to think.

Jim2007

partyguinness wrote: »

The real shame is the sheer amount to time and resources that this process is going to suck up when there are bigger issues facing the UK.

There are also a lot of reform issues that the EU needs to work on as well. And as this drags on I suspect two things will happen, the importance of having a deal will drop down the list and the freedom of working on the issues without continually have to deal with a certain member continuously trying to veto things will be seen.... That open door that Leo mentioned will end being only slightly ajar...

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is the agreed position of the 27 member states, so it took a lot more than just writing it up as you seem to think.

It's the position of the eu commission, not the member states, is it not?

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

not quite true. The eu employs around 40,000 people, the UK civil service around 400,000, so more like ten to one. but the eu has 27 countries' worth of civil servants to call on, that's what I meant.

That and the fact it is pretty much the current position, so it must have taken all of ten minutes to draft.

I'd be interested to know if you ever worked in the public service of any description. There is no way it only took all of ten minutes to draft. Even the basest policy document in an Irish government department will take days and weeks. Something like this, however, will require a lot of verification, is dotted and ts crossed etc.

Jim2007 wrote: »

It most certainly cannot!

Strictly speaking, it can. Sort of. But to my uncertain knowledge, it didn't, and for the most part, for this, most of the expertise lies within the Commission and not with the member states. However, the European institutions can make open calls for national delegated experts. There are two things here a) they cannot really specify the particular expert in question and b) they aren't guaranteed to get applicants because the experts in question need to be paid by their state employer and the release is at the will of the state employer, rather than the employee looking for the secondment. I know at least one person who has been blocked. OTOH, they do not necessarily have to come from the civil service - academia is also a possible source. But again, in this case, most of the expertise lies within the Commission staff and iirc, I can't remember the last time I saw a call for national delegated experts. Could be I just don't get them anymore. I definitely don't remember seeing one "Needed to negotiate Brexit" anyway. I used to get them from publicjobs.ie iirc.

That being said, the UK currently has three departments and three ministers working in the area, with David Davis being a bit more focused. I do not know if it is still the case, but certainly at the outset, there were difficulties in getting civil servants to move to the Davis department because it was perceived as being somewhat career limiting as a place to work. They have also lost trade negotiator hires because they have not been willing to pay market clearing rates, which, interestingly, are above 160K sterling. Nice job if you can get it it might seem, but the hell that goes with working on behalf of the UK public and the cost of living in London has made it unattractive. If you look at the vitriol levelled by the UK press at Mark Carney at the Bank of England, then the trade negotiators are likely to be the target of even more abuse when reality starts to bite. I don't blame a Canadian trade negotiator for turning that down. Carney is paid 480K sterling btw. 160K for a competent trade negotiator is definitely trying to do it on the cheap.

So in summary, I think Fred is underestimating the work involved here and overestimating the number of public servants Barnier has access to. At the same time, a mechanism for loaning public servants from home to EU does actually exist but in this case, it may not bring very much given the expertise which the Commission already has in this respect in terms of international negotiations - they will have negotiated a bunch of accessions in the last 20 years as well. Remember, the lack of negotiators is one of the UK's key issues at the moment. Although possibly a bigger issue is their senior politicians having estranged themselves from the senior civil servants over the last 7 or 8 years.

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's the position of the eu commission, not the member states, is it not?

It is the position of the member states who have delegated the negotiating duties to the European Commission and agreed on the framework within which Barnier has to operate.

partyguinness

Jim2007 wrote: »

There are also a lot of reform issues that the EU needs to work on as well. And as this drags on I suspect two things will happen, the importance of having a deal will drop down the list and the freedom of working on the issues without continually have to deal with a certain member continuously trying to veto things will be seen.... That open door that Leo mentioned will end being only slightly ajar...

Big difference is that the EU reforms will not distract the other EU countries internally anywhere near the same degree that Brexit will cause the UK. It has become all consuming to the point of suffocation in the UK- perhaps this will mellow out as time goes by.

BlitzKrieg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but the eu has 27 countries' worth of civil servants to call on, that's what I meant.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's the position of the eu commission, not the member states, is it not?

If its not the position of the 27 countries and just the commission then the civil servants of the 27 countries were not involved in drafting it.

If the civil servants of the 27 countries were involved in drafting it then the 27 member states had to have agreed on the position of it.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

I'd be interested to know if you ever worked in the public service of any description. There is no way it only took all of ten minutes to draft. Even the basest policy document in an Irish government department will take days and weeks. Something like this, however, will require a lot of verification, is dotted and ts crossed etc.

No, I have never had the pleasure.

I was being obviously facetious, but it isn't as if this is a completely new piece of legislation that needs to be tried and tested, it is simply saying that all citizens should have the exact same rights they have now. If I asked my contracts team to put something like this together, i would expect a paralegal to put it together in two days max and that is with it being proof read by a lawyer.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

So far as I understaand it, Fred, May's proposals relate to EU citizens already living in the UK, plus those who may migrate to the UK between now and Brexit-day (or some date sooner than Brexit-day).

The devil is in the detail.

No cut-off dates mentioned. could it even be retrospective ?


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40378913

And Joseph Muscat, the prime minister of Malta - who currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU - warned of people being "treated differently" depending on when they arrived in the UK.

EU nationals in the UK currently have a right to permanent residence, granted after they have lived in the UK, legally and continuously, for five years.

So the offer of better rights to those who have five years is not an offer, just something already existing in UK law.


Also the permanent residency application has 85 pages to fill in.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505032/EEA_PR__03-16.pdf

A Little Pony

partyguinness wrote: »

Jim2007 wrote: »

There are also a lot of reform issues that the EU needs to work on as well.  And as this drags on I suspect two things will happen, the importance of having a deal will drop down the list and the freedom of working on the issues without continually have to deal with a certain member continuously trying to veto things will be seen.... That open door that Leo mentioned will end being only slightly ajar...

Big difference is that the EU reforms will not distract the other EU countries internally anywhere near the same degree that Brexit will cause the UK. It has become all consuming to the point of suffocation in the UK- perhaps this will mellow out as time goes by.

The American revolutionary war fall out wasn't plain sailing either. The Constitution wasn't ratified until 1788, the war ended in 1783. People who are against Brexit or skeptical of it are forgetting it is a generations issue, you are talking about something that will stand for the next 100 years.

One year to the day and still consider it one of the best days.

An Ciarraioch

A Little Pony wrote: »

The American revolutionary war fall out wasn't plain sailing either. The Constitution wasn't ratified until 1788, the war ended in 1783. People who are against Brexit or skeptical of it are forgetting it is a generations issue, you are talking about something that will stand for the next 100 years.

One year to the day and still consider it one of the best days.

Key difference here is that the "war" here is only being fought by one side - the EU are certainly keen to offer the UK a mutually amicable deal.

FrancieBrady

<snip>

Brexit will be seen as a symptom of the breakup of the UK rather than the cause.

murphaph

<snip>

Once the living standards really start to fall the Scots will again question whether or not they'd be better off independent and back in the single market.

steddyeddy

The European medicines agency will decide which EU stwte to relocate to in October. That will mean the UK will either get medications later than the rest of the UK or they comply with the EMA regulations. Regulations they'll no longer have input into. Will all UK nations tolerate this.

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/ema-prepares-brexit-ahead-key/

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

The European medicines agency will decide which EU stwte to relocate to in October. That will mean the UK will either get medications later than the rest of the UK or they comply with the EMA regulations. Regulations they'll no longer have input into. Will all UK nations tolerate this.

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/ema-prepares-brexit-ahead-key/

Well it is actually the council that will decide not the agency. It is up to the U.K. to decide if they allow the sale of medicines in the U.K. without local certification, if they do then the people will see no difference. In fact they could accept certification by both the FDA and EMA if they wanted to. But requiring local certification would definitely slow down access to new medicines.

The big issue is export sales as they will no longer have automatic certification. Indeed even the qualifications of the people doing the certification will no longer be recognized! They will either need to set up an agency acceptable to their export partners or negotiate some kind of access to EMA. Which is what we did here in Switzerland because both Novartis and Roche are headquartered here.

Nody

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well it is actually the council that will decide not the agency. It is up to the U.K. to decide if they allow the sale of medicines in the U.K. without local certification, if they do then the people will see no difference. In fact they could accept certification by both the FDA and EMA if they wanted to. But requiring local certification would definitely slow down access to new medicines.

The big issue is export sales as they will no longer have automatic certification. Indeed even the qualifications of the people doing the certification will no longer be recognized! They will either need to set up an agency acceptable to their export partners or negotiate some kind of access to EMA. Which is what we did here in Switzerland because both Novartis and Roche are headquartered here.

That one may be bad in the long term but how about having to shut down all nuclear plants due to lack of uranium to power them? Yea, "minor" side issue of Brexit which I'm sure May will overlook to make sure UK is a true sovereign nation and not under ECJ law...

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Brexit. The topic is Brexit.

Scotland and Northern Ireland can be discussed, only insofar as it is relevant to Brexit. If you want to talk about another issue regarding Scottish Independence or Northern Ireland, start a new topic if it is worth doing so.

The philosophy of ancient Sparta and Athens is a matter for the philosophy forum.

Lemming

Ahhhhh, Andrea Loathsome .. sorry, Leadsom, has reared her mouth once more and uttered forth absolute sh1te before engaging her alleged brain, spewing forth condescending comments about how broadcasters should be a "bit more patriotic" and follow blindly rather than asking questions. It is both gob-smacking in its absolute incredulity and cringe-inducing at the same time. That a senior politician would come out with this sort of thing is just .. well .. you couldn't have made it up a year ago.

Andrea, dahhhling, put down your George Orwel novel.

Guardian article

Here's the full video edit from the BBC: bbc

Careful. Don't be talking down the Leader of the House of Commons.

She's making a success of it.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you'll have to explain. Other than the the eu document being more fleshed out and the ECJ having the jurisdiction, what's the difference?

EU, 12 June proposal = one in the hand, for EU immigrants in UK and UK immigrants in EU.

UK, 22 June proposal = two in the bush, for EU immigrants in UK, with a UK request to the EU for reciprocity for UK immigrants in EU (:pac:)

Clear enough?

An Ciarraioch

Plus, the EU offer has no time limit attached.