Brexit discussion thread II

Nate--IRL--

I find it highly unlikely that there would be the political will to accommodate the UK in this fashion, unless their overall engagement with the process improves.

Economically it might be prudent for both sides, however politically is another matter. UK politics makes agreement on the first phase difficult. If not overcome it makes the EUs ability to agree on any potential Second phase almost impossible. The end result being Brexit really does mean Brexit.

Nate

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

Can anyone explain why EU would agree to an extended grace period period or transition periods on rules (i.e. UK remaining for X years in a hybrid version)?

Money.

murphaph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Money.

Yip and the EU can expect full payment from the UK (no rebate) if the UK needs a transitional phase (ie being allowed remain in the union in some shape or form after their official exit date in 2019).

The UK has really painted itself into a corner on every respect and all because nobody had enough courage to challenge the Euromyths.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

I am not sure as I have never thought about it. I have been hoping that the damage will not be too bad, but aware that there will be damage. I think the EU negotiators have been talking this way as well, its going to be bad because its a crazy decision, but we will make the best of it. Some attitudes from the UK seem to be, it will be fine and we will be GREAT Britain again because the EU has screwed us for years.

The EU have already said they could stonewall on key issues until the clock runs out.

As a third country the UK could have access to some EU markets via various schemes but they have NO automatic right to. And besides any legal challenge would have to via the ECJ.

If there was a tit for tat expulsion of citizens then the UK would end up with a million extra pensioners, but the UK can't afford to expel three million workers without gutting their own economy.

Like I've previously said UK and EU data protection laws are diverging so would be very easy for the EU to make life very difficult for UK companies without a substantial EU presence by insisting no offshoring of EU data or data processing.

By not reciprocating safety standards things like pharma and food exports get more difficult. Pharma is production is easy to move due to the high value of the product and small production volume. And electricals, and livestock.

Yes the UK will control fishing but a lot of the existing quota is held by EU companies.


If the EU doesn't get a good deal on the UK paying for EU obligations and assets then it could get really messy if they try to collect the monies with things like import levies or freezing UK assets.

And of course the EU could lean on some of the countries it has trade deals with, which could delay or even undermine the UK's attempts to get trade deals. Nothing official because that would be illegal but lots of ways to impose soft pressure.


The EU has plenty of scope to be belligerent if it wanted to be.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

Can anyone explain why EU would agree to an extended grace period period or transition periods on rules (i.e. UK remaining for X years in a hybrid version)? . . .

For the same reason as the UK would want a transition period; to avoid the dislocation of a "cliff edge".

(Plus, a consideration that might influence the EU; if the transition period goes beyond the next election then the UK may get a new government, with different ideas about Brexit, at a time before the break is final, and this could alter the course of events. But that's extremely speculative, and I doubt that it's a hope that the EU would place too much reliance on.)

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Yip and the EU can expect full payment from the UK (no rebate) if the UK needs a transitional phase (ie being allowed remain in the union in some shape or form after their official exit date in 2019).

The UK has really painted itself into a corner on every respect and all because nobody had enough courage to challenge the Euromyths.

Good morning!

Myths or no myths - and I'm sure there were many over the years but you can't deny that a basic underlying reason why people voted to leave is because they felt that Brussels had too much a say over British affairs. They were disappointed at what David Cameron brought to the table after going to Brussels in 2016.

That's a valid objection there. And the objection hits to the core of what the European Union is. I've now come to the conclusion that the EU just wasn't right for Britain and vice versa. Maybe Charles de Gaulle was right in the 60's.

Moreover if the UK had another referendum and it meant joining Schengen and the euro to stay then I would definitely say the UK should stay out. The independent decision making of the Bank of England was a key factor behind how Britain weathered the economic crisis. Freedom of movement was also a key reason as to why Britain decided to leave.

The Prime Minister has a responsibility to address these concerns - and they are valid.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As a third country the UK could have access to some EU markets via various schemes but they have NO automatic right to. And besides any legal challnge would have to via the ECJ.

This isn't true. Again - CETA has a joint court of arbitration. The UK should not agree to any less. There are two parties to the agreement. There should be equal representation of both parties.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If there was a tit for tat expulsion of citizens then the UK would end up with a million extra pensioners, but the UK can't afford to expel three million workers without gutting their own economy.

Speaking of Euromyths. There isn't a possibility of this happening. The UK and the EU are clear that they want to give citizens the right to stay.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Like I've previously said UK and EU data protection laws are diverging so would be very easy for the EU to make life very difficult for UK companies without a substantial EU presence by insisting no offshoring of EU data or data processing.

How could UK and EU data protection laws diverge while the UK is still a member state?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

By not reciprocating safety standards things like pharma and food exports get more difficult. Pharma is production is easy to move due to the high value of the product and small production volume. And electricals, and livestock.

Why do you feel this is a risk?

The UK conforms to US safety standards when trading with the US, there is no reason why it won't do the same for trade with the EU after Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the EU doesn't get a good deal on the UK paying for EU obligations and assets then it could get really messy if they try to collect the monies with things like import levies or freezing UK assets.

WTO rules prohibit this. You have to apply NFN status to all other members. The only option is through The Hague. This is why it's in the EU's interest to negotiate a good deal.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And of course the EU could lean on some of the countries it has trade deals with, which could delay or even undermine the UK's attempts to get trade deals. Nothing official because that would be illegal but lots of ways to impose soft pressure.

Why would these countries listen to the EU?

A large number have expressed an interest in free trade arrangements with the UK. They should be fairly straight forward to agree given they are already in place. It should be simply a matter of agreeing new quotas and a new dispute mechanism.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The EU has plenty of scope to be belligerent if it wanted to be.

You are highly overstating what the EU can do. This is why we need to bring things down to earth and seek a mutually beneficial deal for both parties.

The UK has a very strong hand even if you can't see that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't true. Again - CETA has a joint court of arbitration. The UK should not agree to any less. There are two parties to the agreement. There should be equal representation of both parties.

Or EU simply tells UK to go stuff it seeing the trade balance difference.

Speaking of Euromyths. There isn't a possibility of this happening. The UK and the EU are clear that they want to give citizens the right to stay.

No; EU is clear on it but UK wants to downgrade those rights. If UK does not go up to EU standards don't be surprised if this does not happen and of course no trade deal will be put in place either.

How could UK and EU data protection laws diverge while the UK is still a member state?

Data has to be stored on EU soil; I know of multiple companies that will most likely need to move their data over to an EU server to be compliant for VAT, salaries etc.

The UK conforms to US safety standards when trading with the US, there is no reason why it won't do the same for trade with the EU after Brexit.

Except with your third party trade deals and acknowledged lack of vets to do inspections both domestically and internationally the UK are highly improbable to be able to meet the EU requirements any more.

Why would these countries listen to the EU?

10 times the market size for starters...

A large number have expressed an interest in free trade arrangements with the UK. They should be fairly straight forward to agree given they are already in place. It should be simply a matter of agreeing new quotas and a new dispute mechanism.

Except that minor part where 80% of all UK trade is already going on a FTA via EU so that needs to be recreated there's also the "minor" fact that no FTA will be signed by any country until UK's share of EU's quotas etc. are sorted out. That's the part that people seems to forget; EU negotiated WTO quotas on behalf of EU inc. UK. With UK leaving the exact split of said quotas now needs to be sorted out before UK can sign another FTA or they risk getting very high quotas unforeseen...

The UK has a very strong hand even if you can't see that.

Funny how only you seem to see this as even the UK government is bending over on every point step by step so far...

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Nody wrote: »

Or EU simply tells UK to go stuff it seeing the trade balance difference.

You mean the trade deficit the UK runs with the EU? That is an argument for good trade terms.

Edit - also Canada - 16 million, UK - 65 million. It's obviously in Europe's interests to have a good FTA.

Again - I have no idea as to why posters on this thread are so interested in being "belligerent" towards the UK. The UK is looking positively to a good relationship with the EU in the future.

Nody wrote: »

No; EU is clear on it but UK wants to downgrade those rights. If UK does not go up to EU standards don't be surprised if this does not happen and of course no trade deal will be put in place either.

By insisting that EU citizens are equal to British citizens in law? Or by insisting that criminals should be deported?

Nody wrote: »

Data has to be stored on EU soil; I know of multiple companies that will most likely need to move their data over to an EU server to be compliant for VAT, salaries etc.

That isn't what I was responding to. Capt'n Midnight claims there is a discrepancy in British data protection laws in comparison to EU protection laws today.

Nody wrote: »

Except with your third party trade deals and acknowledged lack of vets to do inspections both domestically and internationally the UK are highly improbable to be able to meet the EU requirements any more.

If this is true - it isn't an argument for EU membership but an argument against it. It is because the EU has taken this competence that the UK lacks these skills. Brexit is a good opportunity to get these competences built up again.

I have no doubt that these positions will be created. If jobs are created through these free trade deals that is good for Britain.

Nody wrote: »

10 times the market size for starters...

Are you serious? The EU would threaten to pull out of trade deals that are beneficial both to them and the other countries if they wanted to trade with the UK also?

If they would that would harm EU economies massively. If they wouldn't - why wouldn't these countries want both UK access and EU access.

Nody wrote: »

Except that minor part where 80% of all UK trade is already going on a FTA via EU so that needs to be recreated there's also the "minor" fact that no FTA will be signed by any country until UK's share of EU's quotas etc. are sorted out. That's the part that people seems to forget; EU negotiated WTO quotas on behalf of EU inc. UK. With UK leaving the exact split of said quotas now needs to be sorted out before UK can sign another FTA or they risk getting very high quotas unforeseen...

Where do you get 80% from? The US and China make up about 20% on their own without considering other countries without an FTA with the UK today.

Edit: determining the quotas shouldn't be a lengthy exercise. One can calculate the UK's share of these quotas relatively easily. My point is that the will of these countries for UK trade is there and unless the EU will pull out of trade deals with other countries there's very little the EU can do to stop this.

Nody wrote: »

Funny how only you seem to see this as even the UK government is bending over on every point step by step so far...

Not really. They are making compromise where it is reasonable to do so because they want a good deal. This is the right thing to do. The UK want a positive relationship with the EU.

The sticking points are ECJ oversight and the size of the financial settlement. There will be issues resolving the Irish border until the EU clarifies it's position on trading arrangements.

It only takes the most strident advocates of Euro-federalism to be unable to see what Britain has to bring to the table.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Roanmore

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Myths or no myths - and I'm sure there were many over the years but you can't deny that a basic underlying reason why people voted to leave is because they felt that Brussels had too much a say over British affairs. They were disappointed at what David Cameron brought to the table after going to Brussels in 2016.

This keeps being said over and over but there are never any specifics given, genuine question can you give some examples where Brussels had too much of a say in British affairs?

Water John

This is what Liam Fox wants for UK citizens. Hormone beef, chlorinated chicken, that's the reality of Brexit for the UK consumer.
This is from The Telegraph!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/23/us-trade-deal-could-hinge-chickens/

mickoneill31

Article in the Guardian about companies moving staff to alternative EU countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/dublin-first-choice-london-banks-brexit-relocation-plans?CMP=share_btn_tw

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

This is what Liam Fox wants for UK citizens. Hormone beef, chlorinated chicken, that's the reality of Brexit for the UK consumer.
This is from The Telegraph!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/23/us-trade-deal-could-hinge-chickens/

Unfortunately - a pay wall.

Remember BSE and how safe beef burgers were to eat - even if they were made from BSE infected beef?

Remember foot and mouth? - and I am not talking about inept politicians.

And the uproar about GM food being grown in Britain?

No one mentioned any of this being forced on the British public as a result of Brexit. They will need £350 million a week for the NHS just to combat all the health problems from eating dodgy foreign food they will get without EU oversight of production methods.

Just look at the US history on all of this. For example, Foster Foods, the sixth largest poultry producers, was linked to a US nationwide salmonella outbreak that lasted from March 2013 until July 2014. Mexico banned the importation of Foster Farms chicken, but the USA allowed them to continue distribution throughout the US. Foster Farms successfully sued US Dep of Ag to allow continued distribution of infected chicken saying 'normal cooking kills the salmonella bacteria'.

That is the approach to US food production - put the onus on the consumer. The EU puts the onus on the producer.

The UK has always preferred cheap food supply to good food standards.

Water John

It's in the World Section of Google News Ireland.

They are some clowns. Conservatives selling the UK consumer down the drain, with crap food. All just to provide large corporates with more profit.

ArmaniJeanss

re chlorinated chicken - here's an 'its perfectly safe' viewpoint, for impartiality purposes.

Water John

I prefer just to cook mine right to ensure it's bacteria free. Hormone beef and other farm inputs not allowed by the EU, would be a bigger worry.
Food is cheap. A €4 chicken can feed a family of four. Just getting it to €3.20 for an inferior product. Chlorinating the chicken allows for much more intensive rearing conditions. That's where the lower price comes from.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Myths or no myths - and I'm sure there were many over the years but you can't deny that a basic underlying reason why people voted to leave is because they felt that Brussels had too much a say over British affairs. They were disappointed at what David Cameron brought to the table after going to Brussels in 2016.

That's a valid objection there. And the objection hits to the core of what the European Union is. I've now come to the conclusion that the EU just wasn't right for Britain and vice versa. Maybe Charles de Gaulle was right in the 60's.

You accept that there were myths surrounding the EU but then seem to wave them away. These myths ARE the reason the UK is as Eurosceptic as it is.

The UK actually rarely lost a vote on anything. That means it got its way most of the time!

The classic myth is that the UK was somehow duped into joining an "ever closer union" despite these words being in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome!

The problem, if there is one, is that the UK completely failed to understand that the ECSB/EEC/EC/EU were never about trade but about peace in Europe, to be brought about by an interdependence on each other.

The current Foreign Secretary is on record admitting that he made stuff up for the Telegraph back when he was their man in Brussels, just to rile up the readership and sell papers. It's despicable really.

Please give me examples of some regulations "from Brussels" that you have a problem with.

Irishweather

British media is incredibly sensationalist, no doubt about that.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

You accept that there were myths surrounding the EU but then seem to wave them away. These myths ARE the reason the UK is as Eurosceptic as it is.

The UK actually rarely lost a vote on anything. That means it got its way most of the time!

The classic myth is that the UK was somehow duped into joining an "ever closer union" despite these words being in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome!

The problem, if there is one, is that the UK completely failed to understand that the ECSB/EEC/EC/EU were never about trade but about peace in Europe, to be brought about by an interdependence on each other.

The current Foreign Secretary is on record admitting that he made stuff up for the Telegraph back when he was their man in Brussels, just to rile up the readership and sell papers. It's despicable really.

Please give me examples of some regulations "from Brussels" that you have a problem with.

Good afternoon!

Let's start off with what I agree with you on and restate what I've said because you've misunderstood me.

We agree on the following:
There were frequent and hysterical stories about the EU in a number of newspapers.
I agree with you that the UK wasn't duped into signing to EEC treaties or Maastricht.
I agree with you also that the UK has had a far less sentimental view of the European Union than many of the other countries did.

However - just because one agreed to something initially doesn't mean that it is right all the time.

A fundamental problem behind the Treaty of Rome and the vague phrase "an ever closer union" is that this was never defined.

Britain was never going to get emotional about the prospect of the European project. It was primarily involved for cooperation and trade issues. This is precisely why it is better for Britain to leave the EU.

My issues also aren't with specific directives but with the overall principles. As for what areas of control Britain wants back, all you have to do is look at TFEU and all the areas of competence that Brussels currently has over member states from trade policy to fishing waters.

I'm Eurosceptic not because of some dubious article about the shape of bananas, but because I think the EU has become too big, and that member states need to cede too much control to it.

I voted remain with the hope that the EU could and should reform. I now realise that the EU is too big and too large to see that it's issues aren't because they need more integration but because they need less integration.

A common misunderstanding that the harder remainers have on this thread is that Brexit was a decision made out of bitterness. I don't think it was. I think it was because people realised that the EU doesn't work for a country like Britain and that a different relationship would be better for both parties.

This is honest and it is a mature outcome. If things aren't working as they are then something else needs to be found. You have already recognised that Britain is looking for something different to other member states. Brexit is just honesty in respect to this.

Even though I'm Irish - I tend to have the pragmatist outlook to political and economic cooperation. I won't get misty eyed over lofty talk about Euro-federalism.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Let's start off with what I agree with you on and restate what I've said because you've misunderstood me.

We agree on the following:
There were frequent and hysterical stories about the EU in a number of newspapers.
I agree with you that the UK wasn't duped into signing to EEC treaties or Maastricht.
I agree with you also that the UK has had a far less sentimental view of the European Union than many of the other countries did.

However - just because one agreed to something initially doesn't mean that it is right all the time.

A fundamental problem behind the Treaty of Rome and the vague phrase "an ever closer union" is that this was never defined.

Britain was never going to get emotional about the prospect of the European project. It was primarily involved for cooperation and trade issues. This is precisely why it is better for Britain to leave the EU.

My issues also aren't with specific directives but with the overall principles. As for what areas of control Britain wants back, all you have to do is look at TFEU and all the areas of competence that Brussels currently had over member states from trade policy to fishing waters.

I'm Eurosceptic not because of some dubious article about the shape of bananas, but because I think the EU has become too big, and that member states need to cede too much control to it.

I voted remain with the hope that the EU could and should reform. I now realise that the EU is too big and too large to see that it's issues aren't because they need more integration but because they need less integration.

A common misunderstanding that the harder remainers have on this thread is that Brexit was a decision made out of bitterness. I don't think it was. I think it was because people realised that the EU doesn't work for a country like Britain and that a different relationship would be better for both countries.

This is honest and it is a mature outcome. If things aren't working as they are then something else needs to be found. You have already recognised that Britain is looking for something different to other member states. Brexit is just honesty in respect to this.

Even though I'm Irish - I tend to have the pragmatist outlook to political and economic cooperation. I won't get misty eyed over lofty talk about Euro-federalism.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Who cares anymore why the UK voted to exit? That's history. What is becoming increasingly plain is that the UK government is utterly unprepared for meaningful negotiations and is consequently has had to cede to the EU's demands so far. They are also realising - via the likes of Moody's, the CBI, the drop in Sterling's value, the moving of jobs from Britain to the other EU countries etc. - that Brexit isn't a good idea. So, they are backpedalling furiously. It's pathetic to watch the likes of Fox continuing to peddle the same old Little Englander lies.

The fundamental mistake you consistently make is that you keep thinking that the UK can threaten the EU. No. In an negotiation when one side is ten times larger and has relatively far less to lose, the other side's position is extremely weak. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, the UK is in a weak position.

But look, all of this plays into the EU's hands. Harsh realities, disarray in Tory ranks, the pitiful appeal to sentiment etc. The UK should just take what the EU offers and go. It's embarrassing to watch at this stage.

Calina

The EU is the 27 members. Without them, the EU does not exist. It is not a separate entity to them.

When you say the EU is too big, do you mean it has too many members? If so, who do you wish had not become members since 1973? Why those countries in particular?

TBH, you call Brexit honesty. But the referendum result was on the back of misleading campaigning - the bus springs to mind. And other countries - like Ireland which has a particular risk to fall out from Brexit - might call it selfishness rather than honesty. It isn't like the impaxt on the GFA and the UK's commitments there were discussed in any detail pre-referendum.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

So I shouldn't answer questions I'm asked about?

Everyone knew that Brexit would provide some uncertainties and that the negotiations would be difficult. However a currency devaluation, increased inflation and a small number of jobs moving may be the price Britain needs to pay while negotiating for a more suitable deal with new opportunities with the wider world. Expanding trade with America and China is a huge opportunity for Britain never mind with other countries.

The British economy is faring well given the circumstances and will fare better once the details behind the deal become clear. The UK has got a strong hand. A progressive deal with the European Union will be good for both parties.

Edit: when I say the EU is too big I mean it's remit is too large and that it has competence over too many areas to the detriment of national sovereignty. I don't mean anything about the number of members.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I voted remain with the hope that the EU could and should reform. I now realise that the EU is too big and too large to see that it's issues aren't because they need more integration but because they need less integration.

A common misunderstanding that the harder remainers have on this thread is that Brexit was a decision made out of bitterness. I don't think it was. I think it was because people realised that the EU doesn't work for a country like Britain and that a different relationship would be better for both countries.

This is honest and it is a mature outcome. If things aren't working as they are then something else needs to be found. You have already recognised that Britain is looking for something different to other member states. Brexit is just honesty in respect to this.

Even though I'm Irish - I tend to have the pragmatist outlook to political and economic cooperation. I won't get misty eyed over lofty talk about Euro-federalism.

Let's see, the GFC caused problems in member states because they were allowed to make economic decisions that caused their countries to have a financial meltdown that almost caused the euro to collapse and the EU to disintegrate. You think the answer is less integration still? Are you one of those that believed that Labour caused the recession in the UK and that the Tories would have prevented it because they wanted less regulations? The same regulations that were relaxed that caused the bankers to gamble the countries prosperity away? Tell me your'e not one of those.

Secondly, one of the main reasons people give for voting leave seems to be one of two things, control of borders and control of laws. Both have been debunked. The UK could have controlled immigration like Belgium does and removed EU nationals that haven't been able to find employment after 3 months. Why didn't they do this?

So what we still have is misinformation that people believe about the EU. What I do see is Rupert Murdoch who commented he doesn't like the EU as he has no control over it. I also see the EU trying to have more restrictions on tax havens. Is it any surprise that he is against the EU? Is it any surprise his papers spread lies and you seem to still fall for it. But yes, its all still the EU's fault for Brexit, apparently.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: when I say the EU is too big I mean it's remit is too large and that it has competence over too many areas to the detriment of national sovereignty. I don't mean anything about the number of members.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What areas in particular?

Recall that remit was agreed by the member states themselves and not imposed by an outside agency. The members are the EU, not separate to it.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

Let's see, the GFC caused problems in member states because they were allowed to make economic decisions that caused their countries to have a financial meltdown that almost caused the euro to collapse and the EU to disintegrate. You think the answer is less integration still? Are you one of those that believed that Labour caused the recession in the UK and that the Tories would have prevented it because they wanted less regulations? The same regulations that were relaxed that caused the bankers to gamble the countries prosperity away? Tell me your'e not one of those.

Secondly, one of the main reasons people give for voting leave seems to be one of two things, control of borders and control of laws. Both have been debunked. The UK could have controlled immigration like Belgium does and removed EU nationals that haven't been able to find employment after 3 months. Why didn't they do this?

So what we still have is misinformation that people believe about the EU. What I do see is Rupert Murdoch who commented he doesn't like the EU as he has no control over it. I also see the EU trying to have more restrictions on tax havens. Is it any surprise that he is against the EU? Is it any surprise his papers spread lies and you seem to still fall for it. But yes, its all still the EU's fault for Brexit, apparently.

Good afternoon!

Another way that the tone can be lowered is by realising that I'm not claiming anything is anyone's fault.

The other member states are welcome to the the EU in whatever direction they want to take it in. The UK wants a strong European Union on its doorstep. Britain wanted to make reforms to the European Union prior to the Brexit vote, Cameron brought back what he could get and it wasn't enough for the electorate.

Britain has decided it wants to go a different direction. That is all. It isn't a case of fault or blame. It's about pursuing a new more appropriate relationship. This is positive not negative.

Joblessness isn't the only concern that was raised about immigration. You know that. There was concern about an oversupply of low wage labour in some sectors. The Prime Minister needs to get powers to control that. Personally I'm happy for free movement to continue provided there is sufficient demand for labour in the areas they will come into but this concern does need to be dealt with.

So no, control of borders isn't resolved until the UK can control numbers and control of laws isn't resolved until laws from Brussels stop taking precedence over EU laws.

Calina - pretty much every area of EU competence is an issue. Brussels should not have supreme competence over areas as wide reaching from agriculture to immigration, or trade policy to fishing. These should be all matters where the UK will have it's own control.

And yes, Brexit is the honest reflection that EU membership wasn't working for the UK and let's be honest vice versa. There's a good opportunity to pursue a more appropriate relationship that works and I'm keen to see it work. This is positive language as opposed to negative language.

I'm supporting the UK, it's a place that has given me huge opportunities that I'm thankful for. I'm also supporting a strong EU on it's doorstep.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Snickers Man

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

UK airports warn about crashing out of the Open Skies Agreement on Brexit Day - still, there's always Jersey and the Isle of Man for overseas travel!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/british-airports-warn-flights-to-europe-will-be-grounded-aviation/

Jaysus. Mick O'Leary told them about this months ago. :D

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

However - just because one agreed to something initially doesn't mean that it is right all the time.

There have been several EU treaties that the UK has signed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

A fundamental problem behind the Treaty of Rome and the vague phrase "an ever closer union" is that this was never defined.

David Cameron secured an exemption to this.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain was never going to get emotional about the prospect of the European project. It was primarily involved for cooperation and trade issues. This is precisely why it is better for Britain to leave the EU.

This makes absolutely no sense. The UK was already trading with both the EU and the rest of the world while being able to rely on the clout of the EU in trade deals, all 53 of them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

A common misunderstanding that the harder remainers have on this thread is that Brexit was a decision made out of bitterness. I don't think it was. I think it was because people realised that the EU doesn't work for a country like Britain and that a different relationship would be better for both parties.

Decades of scaremongering by the likes of Murdoch and Rothermere finally bore fruit.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is honest and it is a mature outcome. If things aren't working as they are then something else needs to be found. You have already recognised that Britain is looking for something different to other member states. Brexit is just honesty in respect to this.

There was nothing honest in how the leave campaign was run. Scaremongering about the refugees, false promises about funding the NHS, lies about immigration and sovereignty.. All were shamelessly deployed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Even though I'm Irish - I tend to have the pragmatist outlook to political and economic cooperation. I won't get misty eyed over lofty talk about Euro-federalism.

All Irish people are quixotic, doughy-eyed Euro-federalists?

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Calina - pretty much every area of EU competence is an issue. Brussels should not have supreme competence over areas as wide reaching from agriculture to immigration, or trade policy to fishing. These should be all matters where the UK will have it's own control.

Fishing is a particular example of why cooperation works. Do you honestly think the North Sea cod stocks would have recovered without quotas and regulations being implemented at and international level given fish do not recognise borders? The UK was massively overfishing. That they messed up the areas where they did have discretion on fishing in yerms of fleet ownership and operation is not the EU's fault. It is one area where blame for the ails of the fishing industry in the UK lies with the UK and not the EU.

As for trade policy a bigger block gets better trade deals than a small country. The Australia-US agreement is a case in point.

Tbh you could do with explaining why the EU should not have pooled control in these areas where Europe has benefited by cooperation. The UK cannot feed itself and a US-UK FTA ensures its abilities will deteriorate further. The CAP exists because of postwar famine and some member of the UK cabinet- I think it was Gove - has already stated farmers will have to earn their grants.

You have said every area should be scaled back. Explain what you mean by that and why it would be a benefit to the member states. Particularly for trade and fishing. Germany is doing fine on trade. Maybe government policy plays a role again?

Presumably this is of importance for every member state and not just the UK.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So I shouldn't answer questions I'm asked about?

Everyone knew that Brexit would provide some uncertainties and that the negotiations would be difficult. However a currency devaluation, increased inflation and a small number of jobs moving may be the price Britain needs to pay while negotiating for a more suitable deal with new opportunities with the wider world. Expanding trade with America and China is a huge opportunity for Britain never mind with other countries.

The British economy is faring well given the circumstances and will fare better once the details behind the deal become clear. The UK has got a strong hand. A progressive deal with the European Union will be good for both parties.

Edit: when I say the EU is too big I mean it's remit is too large and that it has competence over too many areas to the detriment of national sovereignty. I don't mean anything about the number of members.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK economy grew by just 0.2% in the first quarter of 2017, making it the slowest-growing advanced economy in the world.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain was never going to get emotional about the prospect of the European project. It was primarily involved for cooperation and trade issues. This is precisely why it is better for Britain to leave the EU.

Eh, no. The UK used to be in the EU for co-operation and trade reasons. That was why Margaret Thatcher backed the EU and Single Market.

But if those were still the concern, the UK would not leave. Even you must admit that devaluation, inflation, labour shortages, tariffs and non-tariff barriers will all be costs the UK will have to pay for Brexit.

The UK is leaving for other reasons, mostly pride and wrath.

Lust, gluttony, greed, envy and sloth should encourage them to stay, but apparently pride and wrath are winning out at the moment.

On the other side, prudence, temperance and justice seem to be losing out to courage.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

This is my last one for today.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There have been several EU treaties that the UK has signed.

My point is that although the UK signed them at one point in time doesn't mean that the UK can't change its mind or seek a new direction. The British people decided to do this.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All Irish people are quixotic, doughy-eyed Euro-federalists?

No. I was replying to murphaph's point claiming that the British weren't emotional enough about the EU. I was claiming that despite not being British I share a pragmatic view rather than an emotional one.

Reading posts in context is important.

Calina wrote: »

You have said every area should be scaled back. Explain what you mean by that and why it would be a benefit to the member states. Particularly for trade and fishing. Germany is doing fine on trade. Maybe government policy plays a role again?

Presumably this is of importance for every member state and not just the UK.

It's up to each country to decide if it is worth it to cede this much control to the EU.

This is why I can say that it probably is worth it for a small country like Ireland to cede this level of control even though I find that level of ceding highly distasteful while also holding that it isn't worth it for Britain to do the same.

A looser European Union would have suited the UK better but that isn't on the cards so I think the UK is better off finding a better arrangement. Also, the UK isn't a small country. It will be able to command good deals with a lot of other parties.

As I say it isn't anyone's​ fault to say that an arrangement wasn't working. This is also why talk of anger or wrath isn't helpful, that is only a caricature. It's a positive endeavour to find a more appropriate relationship that works well for both parties and I'm confident it is possible.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

In other words you cannot explain what the issues with the policy areas you named are.

The UK pooled sovereignty in the last 43 years. So clearly they felt it was in their interest and economically it appears to have been in their interest.

So what has changed?

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is my last one for today.



My point is that although the UK signed them at one point in time doesn't mean that the UK can't change its mind or seek a new direction. The British people decided to do this.



No. I was replying to murphaph's point claiming that the British weren't emotional enough about the EU. I was claiming that despite not being British I share a pragmatic view rather than an emotional one.

Reading posts in context is important.



It's up to each country to decide if it is worth it to cede this much control to the EU.

This is why I can say that it probably is worth it for a small country like Ireland to cede this level of control even though I find that level of ceding highly distasteful while also holding that it isn't worth it for Britain to do the same.

A looser European Union would have suited the UK better but that isn't on the cards so I think the UK is better off finding a better arrangement. Also, the UK isn't a small country. It will be able to command good deals with a lot of other parties.

As I say it isn't anyone's​ fault to say that an arrangement wasn't working. This is also why talk of anger or wrath isn't helpful, that is only a caricature. It's a positive endeavour to find a more appropriate relationship that works well for both parties and I'm confident it is possible.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No. The idea that we should all be good friends and jolly good company is delusional. especially considering the relentless attacks the Tories have been making on the EU for years.

It is Barnier's job to extract as much concessions as possible from Britain while simultaneously ensuring that they leave with as little opportunity as possible to compete with the EU. What happens to Britain after it leaves the EU is of interest only insofar as it affects the EU economically. If the EU can screw Britain to the point where the EU can take over some of Britain's trade and that is the most advantageous scenario, then they should do just that. Nothing personal, no sentiment, just business.

listermint

Calina wrote: »

In other words you cannot explain what the issues with the policy areas you named are.

The UK pooled sovereignty in the last 43 years. So clearly they felt it was in their interest and economically it appears to have been in their interest.

So what has changed?

I think thats entirely the point, Evasive to the point of forgetting a vote took place. Sure it happened the reasons dont matter the point is that Europe was the problem not lets be friends yada yada or some such.


Its quite clear the reasons for leaving have all been trashed and no for some reason there is a belief there that the UK can continue on business as usual outside the EU. whilst seemingly getting some controls back that they already had in the first place.

Quality!

Junkyard Tom

Good afternoon.

solodeogloria wrote: »

you can't deny that a basic underlying reason why people voted to leave is because they felt that Brussels had too much a say over British affairs.

As I've said before, and you've ignored, people voted to leave for many reasons, some based on barefaced lies, some because they felt they were competing for lower-paid jobs, some as a protest against the establishment. There were multifarious reasons why people voted leave.

One thing we know for sure is that not one leave voter knew what they were voting for because there was no plan presented.

As I've said before, and you've ignored, if a number of people voted to get off a ship, and a slim majority voted to get off, they wouldn't simply jump into the sea and hope for the best. They'd make a disembarkation plan which would include the views of the people who voted to stay.

No doubt you'll ignore this post too.

Many thanks,
JYT.

ancapailldorcha

The ultimate problem with the referendum was that it was so vague that any conclusions drawn can be interpreted as being both valid and invalid depending on who is reading into it.

If you take the SSM referendum held in Ireland, everyone knew what the outcome would be if either side won. Here, that was only true in the case of the remain side. The leave side used this freedom to concoct all sorts of caricatures, boogeymen, lies and deceit et Voilá!

We have elected representatives who make these decisions for us. It is how a functional democracy is supposed to work.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The ultimate problem with the referendum was that it was so vague that any conclusions drawn can be interpreted as being both valid and invalid depending on who is reading into it.

If you take the SSM referendum held in Ireland, everyone knew what the outcome would be if either side won. Here, that was only true in the case of the remain side. The leave side used this freedom to concoct all sorts of caricatures, boogeymen, lies and deceit et Voilá!

We have elected representatives who make these decisions for us. It is how a functional democracy is supposed to work.

Yes. However, one could argue that FPTP is not in alignment with a functioning democracy. Either way, in Britain's case, the Tories simply put party before country. If they hadn't then they would be in this fine mess.

murphaph

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened had the UK been a happy member and had Germany opted to leave the EU. I wonder how the British press would behave towards Germany in that event.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. However, one could argue that FPTP is not in alignment with a functioning democracy. Either way, in Britain's case, the Tories simply put party before country. If they hadn't then they would be in this fine mess.

Different voting systems have their merits and caveats. FPTP is the only way to count votes in a binary referendum, even is said referendum is a way to patch up the Conservative party at the expense of the nation and the continent.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Different voting systems have their merits and caveats. FPTP is the only way to count votes in a binary referendum, even is said referendum is a way to patch up the Conservative party at the expense of the nation and the continent.

True but the nature of FPTP caused the referendum.

Capt'n Midnight

Calina wrote: »

Fishing is a particular example of why cooperation works. Do you honestly think the North Sea cod stocks would have recovered without quotas and regulations being implemented at and international level given fish do not recognise borders? The UK was massively overfishing. That they messed up the areas where they did have discretion on fishing in yerms of fleet ownership and operation is not the EU's fault. It is one area where blame for the ails of the fishing industry in the UK lies with the UK and not the EU.

Here's one that never gets old.

Back before they joined the EU the UK were overfishing in Icelandic waters, so next thing you know there's another Cod War. All of which the UK lost.

The UK on paper had by far the biggest navy. But didn't have the same public opinion pressure as in Iceland. Iceland threatened to close down a US airbase. And that's how Iceland got it's 200 mile fishing limit.

The UK public are very split on Brexit. On the EU side the UK is seen as having burnt any goodwill, recent elections have all been pro EU and much stronger mandates than back in Blighty.

The only advantage the UK might have is EU voter apathy , Brexit isn't a hot news topic on the continent, but that apathy may translate into anger if they get a deal at the expense of EU workers.

As much as I hate the FPTP system that the UK has, the idea of AV was absolutely savaged in their 2011 referendum.

The UK electorate had a chance to move towards a more representative system and they utterly and definitively rejected that chance.

It was an enormous victory for the No camp. 68 - 32. The UK did not want to change their 'leads to strong governments' system at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

As much as I hate the FPTP system that the UK has, the idea of AV was absolutely savaged in their 2011 referendum.

The UK electorate had a chance to move towards a more representative system and they utterly and definitively rejected that chance.

It was an enormous victory for the No camp. 68 - 32. The UK did not want to change their 'leads to strong governments' system at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

No doubt the Tory press saw that idea off.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No doubt the Tory press saw that idea off.

An awful awful lot of crossover between NoToAV and Vote Leave.

All Out War is worth reading for some of the colour https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Out-War-Britains-Political/dp/0008215154

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

As much as I hate the FPTP system that the UK has, the idea of AV was absolutely savaged in their 2011 referendum.

It was badly explained.

They should have said from the very start that it would have no effect on the result except in marginals and even then only in certain cases.

Instead most of the discussion was on how it would change the result. Result was to scare the electorate.


More mixed messages and we end up with Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It was badly explained.

They should have said from the very start that it would have no effect on the result except in marginals and even then only in certain cases.

Instead most of the discussion was on how it would change the result. Result was to scare the electorate.


More mixed messages and we end up with Brexit.

Though broadly in agreement, at what stage do we stop making excuses for the UK electorate?

Water John

Yes, the same as the US, you make your choices. Each citizen takes responsibility for their own vote.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Here's one that never gets old.

Back before they joined the EU the UK were overfishing in Icelandic waters, so next thing you know there's another Cod War. All of which the UK lost.

The UK on paper had by far the biggest navy. But didn't have the same public opinion pressure as in Iceland. Iceland threatened to close down a US airbase. And that's how Iceland got it's 200 mile fishing limit.

The UK public are very split on Brexit. On the EU side the UK is seen as having burnt any goodwill, recent elections have all been pro EU and much stronger mandates than back in Blighty.

The only advantage the UK might have is EU voter apathy , Brexit isn't a hot news topic on the continent, but that apathy may translate into anger if they get a deal at the expense of EU workers.

What made them think they could fish in Icelandic waters?

Water John

History. They usually did what they liked on the seas, in the great tradition of Francis Drake.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

What made them think they could fish in Icelandic waters?

More importantly what was their cod doing in Icelandic waters ?


It's an example of how Gunboat Diplomacy just won't work anymore. UK military force won't win trade deals.

The EU is gradually becoming more ethical. The UK has had dodgy arms deals before, but in future could face EU sanctions if outside. Sweden, France, Germany , Italy and Spain also sell lots of arms and so hobbling the competition won't hurt.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Though broadly in agreement, at what stage do we stop making excuses for the UK electorate?

Jeremy Corbyn wants a soft Bexit so won't be much help from there.


One alternative would be to scare them straight, EU could hint that the UK would be getting a trade war instead of just no deal. (If the UK sign up for GMO and US food standards and US data sharing and US monopolies and US liberalisation of Stock Market rules then it could be Shields UP and Good Luck because EU law blocks a lot of that stuff already)


Then again scaring the UK electorate is how they ended up with Brexit so probably won't work.