Brexit discussion thread II

Leroy42

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.


Do the UK public realise this :eek:

I don't think it would make any difference even if they did. It is akin to Trump.

They have faith in Brexit, despite all the evidence that everything they were told to this point has been shown to be fake, their faith in Brexit is unshakeable.

We had a clear example on it by Solo. Worst forecasts since 1860's, a further drop of 0.4% in growth forecasts for each of the next 5 years, and all that was said was it wasn't the worst case that some had said it would be so nothing to worry about.

They still believe their is this utopia of free trade.

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that I lived in Ireland for over 20 years. I know the attitude that exists. I'm entitled to my own assessment of my experience. I respect you disagree.

Did you live in Ireland during any of the referendum campaigns? It's difficult to argue that there's a narrative of "all benevolent" during one of those.

I also respectfully disagree with the notion that the EU is a free market.

You misunderstand; perhaps you missed the danger quotes.

My point was that the EU provides structures within which the competing interests of the member states can be constructively discussed and a consensus arrived at. Without those structures, there's substantially less incentive for consensus and much more motive for the sort of winner-takes-all, zero-sum attitude that is all too evident in the Brexit negotiations.

This is part of the frustration that is felt in respect to trade policy in a world that is growing more rapidly outside of the EU.

There is no trade bloc in the world with more free trade agreements than the EU; I'm unsure whether there is a single country in the world with more free trade agreements than the EU. The narrative of the EU as an insular protectionist entity is one that I don't understand at all.

I've had conversations with people in the Berlaymont that made it clear to me that the EU's ultimate goal is much more trade with the whole world, but achieved over time in a well-managed way.

Hell, one of the criticisms you hear from left-wingers is that the EU has a globalist agenda. I've always said that when you're being criticised equally by extremists on both sides, you're probably doing something right.

blanch152

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.


Do the UK public realise this :eek:

Will average earnings in Ireland reach 2008 levels by 2022?

The recently published bill only restores public service pay to 2008 levels by 2022, but the pension levy will still be in place so they will be still be behind 2008.

The Rape of Lucretia

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.


Do the UK public realise this :eek:

They are taking no notice of it. Those predictions are compiled be 'experts', so whats the point in listening to them ?
The man in the UK street knows that when the UK gets deals sorted in 2019 with India, Brazil, Dominica, Lesotho, Comoros, etc, the tremendous boost to the UK economy will more than offset anything it will lose from dealing with the EU.

Sand

I cant say I was happy to see the leaks from the Irish government today. While it is amusing to see what the EU really think of Davis and co, and it does show up Solo's faith that things are better behind the scenes than they seem in the media it is bad for Ireland. Those views were collected from our friends speaking frankly. They will be less keen to speak to Ireland in future, and less willing to speak openly if their words are going to be leaked as they were. Also, the leak has Irish govt finger prints all over it: it will create bad feeling in the UK government which can only complicate our efforts to secure our priority: no hard border with NI.

One other point struck me. When the UK leaves the EU/EEA its going to impact their funds industry. UK CIVs can benefit from tax reductions or exemptions in securities held across the EU/EEA. The majority of these depend on DTTs, which wont be directly impacted, but several of them depend on domestic laws. A very typical condition to be approved for these tax reductions in several states is that the UK CIV is resident in an EU/EEA state. That is going to end for the UK in March 2019. Ireland could benefit in such a case, with UK funds switching to Dublin (or Luxembourg) to continue receiving tax benefits they would otherwise lose.

murphaph wrote: »

Well it would have to be similar to NATO insofar as if one EU country were attacked we would all be compelled to respond.

I suspect the EU parliament would need to sanction any military action by such an army.

It would be much more than just a coalition though. You'd have massive economies of scale if an EU army was ordering trucks, food, uniforms etc. rather than 28 smaller armies.

The EU parliament simply lacks the legitimacy to sanction any such military action. That's something the national governments will jealously guard. Ireland and the other non-NATO EU members will simply kill off any such joint defence proposal.

Germany and France fundamentally disagree on the use of military force both inside and outside of Europe. France uses military adventures in Africa and elsewhere as an extension of foreign policy. Germany viscerally does not and is deeply suspicious of French intentions as regards NATO and colonial adventures. Neither France nor Germany want to place their military under the authority of the other. There will be no EU army where the two largest powers have such heavily diverging interests and views on military force.

A huge advance for EU co-ordination would even be agreeing something as basic as freedom of movement for military vehicles and units. Currently for French troops to travel to or through Germany requires mountains of paperwork and approvals: this hugely slows any military reaction to Russian adventures.

The absolute limit of EU military co-operation for this century will be *some* EU states agreeing to co-ordinate their national armoured brigades to form multi-national armoured divisions under NATO corps (Dutch-Germans already doing this) to achieve the most effective deterrent to the Russian for the least outlay. A military confederation or league rather than a common army, which is entirely a fear of the British tabloids.

Leroy42

It is only bad for Ireland if you believe that they were leaked by Ireland alone.

I have my doubts. The EU has already leaked two direct meetings with May. This simply follows that pattern.

J Mysterio

Nody wrote: »

Remember all those great trade deals UK where to sign? Well India has indicated it will take at least a decade and require significantly higher immigration; what was Brexit about again? Reduced immigration, right? Oops...

I alternate between utter contempt, anger, pity, scorn and sadness on Brexit. It's just so surreal.

The most amazing thing was that there wasnt even a referendum commission! In Ireland we have referendum commissions for everything! They produce a well researched and comprehensive pamphlet (delivered to every house) and website. This lists the pros and cons of all outcomes and shows different perspectives. This information is further disseminated through radio and tv ads.

In Britain, there was nothing. It was left to the tabloids. In Britain, the Sun has the highest circulation of all papers.

This decision is just the most unimaginable catastrophe for Britain. It's a car crash which is excruciatingly drawn out and is progressively more gory and brutal to watch. It's also shameful and backward.

The Cabinet is the worst assemblage of untrustworthy cretins to have ever darkened the door of Westminster. Deceit and incompetence. There should be riots and protest.

flaneur

I think that was more of an unofficial press release than a leak tbh.

Capt'n Midnight

J Mysterio wrote: »

I alternate between utter contempt, anger, pity, scorn and sadness on Brexit. It's just so surreal.

The most amazing thing was that there wasnt even a referendum commission! In Ireland we have referendum commissions for everything! They produce a well researched and comprehensive pamphlet (delivered to every house) and website. This lists the pros and cons of all outcomes and shows different perspectives. This information is further disseminated through radio and tv ads.

In Britain, there was nothing. It was left to the tabloids. In Britain, the Sun has the highest circulation of all papers.

And it's not just a referendum commission.

We'd have voted on the EXACT WORDS so no ambiguity on the meaning , no second guessing, just the exact words, which can't be overruled by the Government or the Judiciary.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is only bad for Ireland if you believe that they were leaked by Ireland alone.

I have my doubts. The EU has already leaked two direct meetings with May. This simply follows that pattern.

Yeah, but this was an internal Iveagh House paper, not something that we sent to the EU. It's certainly possible that the media got it from someone in Brusssels, but if so someone in Brussels got it from someone in Iveagh House.

Enzokk

kowtow wrote: »

What, precisely, is a problem for the UK here?

Why do I need a reason other than a touching fondness for the underdog or a love of balanced debate?

Since Lisbon at least it has been the democratic right of a nation to exit the EU. Membership is not an irrevocable commitment - and I think it is telling that so many here seem determined to attack the decision of the British people and their reasoning, often in terms of contempt rather than address the issue at hand which is that a member of the EU has decided to leave.

The reality is that the border issue, which appears on the face of it to be a tactical advantage being exploited by Ireland, might actually expose a bigger weakness if it ends up being Ireland drawing a hard border across the Country.

That there should be such defensive reactions to the point being raised speaks volumes.

Okay, so lets examine some of the reasons why the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. There have been attempts to engage solo on some of this but any position that he doesn't agree with or doesn't want to deal with is waved away or ignored.

Immigration to the UK. The rules currently permit a country to remove a person after 6 months of their arrival in a member state if they haven't found work. Was the UK public aware of this? Why is this not being enforced in the UK? How is this a EU problem if the UK ignores this provision?

Trade agreements, the UK cannot sign trade agreements with other countries. This assumes that somehow the UK will be able to get better trade terms on their own and also that the UK doesn't have any say in trade agreements that the EU does have and is negotiating. As we have seen with links provided that one of the reasons there is no trade agreement with India at the moment is the UK holding back on demands for more open immigration from India. The UK has the power to block negotiations if it doesn't work for them in a trade agreement. I fail to see how this will change all of a sudden if the UK is free of the EU, will they open their borders or will the other nation just give in to the UK demands because (enter reason here that I cannot think of).

Sovereignty of laws. This is the other important detail in the campaign. Lets take back control of our laws, yet I have not seen any specific law that the EU has forced on the UK that it needs/wants to repeal. Now they may want to get rid of laws/regulations that irritate them (working hour rules) but those are for the paymasters and not the employees. The term, turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. Now if you can supply some laws that hindered the UK worker and economy (as compared to other EU nations that you would assume fall under these same laws as well) then I will be interested to see it. In any case there has been admission that the UK "remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU", but people didn't feel it.

The Brexit White Paper completely contradicts a key argument for Brexit

Parliament has “remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU” despite people “not always feeling like that”, the Brexit White Paper says.

This is what happens when you give a free voice to the newspapers and there is no body to oversee if what they print is accurate. You get those in charge of those news organisations play with people's feelings and print misleading stories about the EU and people believe it.

The other important argument that was made was the £350m per week to the EU that should find the NHS instead. This was shown to be a lie not even 6 hours after the result was known. In fact it should have been known to be a lie during the campaign, but because you had lots of different people talking about leaving the EU they could always walk away from a slogan if it was the other campaign saying it. Nigel Farage doesn't have to account for the £350m per week as he didn't use it. Boris Johnson never had to muddy the waters with distasteful immigration propaganda as Nigel was doing it for him. Neither would call out the other on their tactics as they were fighting for the same side, so there was no accountability.

So there we have what I consider to be the main arguments that was made in favour of leaving the EU. All of those points can easily be shown to be either a lie or at least there is scope from being in the EU to change the circumstances to provide better "protection" for yourself from some elements of being part of the EU. That is on the previous people in charge in the UK and not the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Do the UK public realise this

Not yet, but they will. And Brexit hasn't even happened yet.

The question will be can May, Boris & co. successfully blame the EU, or will they get it in the neck.

And can they stagger on until march 2019, or will Corbyn get a chance at the Brexit deal.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

There should be riots and protest.

There will be. It'll be Poll Tax meets Miners Strike before this is over.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

Okay, so lets examine some of the reasons why the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. There have been attempts to engage solo on some of this but any position that he doesn't agree with or doesn't want to deal with is waved away or ignored.

Immigration to the UK. The rules currently permit a country to remove a person after 6 months of their arrival in a member state if they haven't found work. Was the UK public aware of this? Why is this not being enforced in the UK? How is this a EU problem if the UK ignores this provision?

Trade agreements, the UK cannot sign trade agreements with other countries. This assumes that somehow the UK will be able to get better trade terms on their own and also that the UK doesn't have any say in trade agreements that the EU does have and is negotiating. As we have seen with links provided that one of the reasons there is no trade agreement with India at the moment is the UK holding back on demands for more open immigration from India. The UK has the power to block negotiations if it doesn't work for them in a trade agreement. I fail to see how this will change all of a sudden if the UK is free of the EU, will they open their borders or will the other nation just give in to the UK demands because (enter reason here that I cannot think of).

Sovereignty of laws. This is the other important detail in the campaign. Lets take back control of our laws, yet I have not seen any specific law that the EU has forced on the UK that it needs/wants to repeal. Now they may want to get rid of laws/regulations that irritate them (working hour rules) but those are for the paymasters and not the employees. The term, turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. Now if you can supply some laws that hindered the UK worker and economy (as compared to other EU nations that you would assume fall under these same laws as well) then I will be interested to see it. In any case there has been admission that the UK "remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU", but people didn't feel it.

The Brexit White Paper completely contradicts a key argument for Brexit



This is what happens when you give a free voice to the newspapers and there is no body to oversee if what they print is accurate. You get those in charge of those news organisations play with people's feelings and print misleading stories about the EU and people believe it.

The other important argument that was made was the £350m per week to the EU that should find the NHS instead. This was shown to be a lie not even 6 hours after the result was known. In fact it should have been known to be a lie during the campaign, but because you had lots of different people talking about leaving the EU they could always walk away from a slogan if it was the other campaign saying it. Nigel Farage doesn't have to account for the £350m per week as he didn't use it. Boris Johnson never had to muddy the waters with distasteful immigration propaganda as Nigel was doing it for him. Neither would call out the other on their tactics as they were fighting for the same side, so there was no accountability.

So there we have what I consider to be the main arguments that was made in favour of leaving the EU. All of those points can easily be shown to be either a lie or at least there is scope from being in the EU to change the circumstances to provide better "protection" for yourself from some elements of being part of the EU. That is on the previous people in charge in the UK and not the EU.

Good morning!

I've replied to you on all of these points before. It isn't honest to say that I haven't.

Going round and round and round in circles isn't helpful. To a degree rehashing the referendum isn't helpful. The matter is settled - the UK is leaving the EU. What isn't settled is how exactly this happens which is what the negotiation will settle.

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

Nothing was settled - the referendum result raised more questions than it answered, because no-one actually expected it to pass..

Samaris

I've come around to the sea border. It's a terrible option, but the land border is catastropic.

Ireland is going to be brutalised by this insane plunge off the cliff.

By the way, the irony of "We must take back our borders!", followed by "Well, the only land border is in Ireland and it's worse for them so your problem, guys!", is grimly amusing. It rather does show up the mendaciousness of the position.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Going round and round and round in circles isn't helpful. To a degree rehashing the referendum isn't helpful. The matter is settled - the UK is leaving the EU. What isn't settled is how exactly this happens which is what the negotiation will settle.

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

I take the point about rehashing the referendum. But, if we're asking the question "what kind of Brexit is the UK to have?" (or, at any rate, to seek to have - whether they'll have it or not is not entirely within their control) I don't think it's altogether possible to answer that without revisiting the referendum campaign. To the extent that the UK voted for, e.g. the Brexit that would give the NHS 350 million per week, or the Brexit that would enable the UK to construct a network of free trade deals better than the one it currently has, those Brexits do not exist, and never will. The UK will not have them. The UK is therefore to be given a Brexit that, in these respects, is not the Brexit that they voted for, and the responsibility for determining what kind of Brexit that will be lies with Parliament.

That's a bit scary, obviously, if you're Parliament, since you can expect a certain amount of, um, backlash from people who don't like the Brexit that you serve them up. And it's even more scary if, like Parliament, your dominant view is that Brexit in any form is a bad thing for the UK anyway. Whatever you do, some people will denounce it as a bad thing and, in your heart, you'll agree with them, even if for different reasons. That's a pretty depressing prospect.

At some point, Parliament has to decide who to disappoint, who to frustrate, who to "betray", to borrow the language of the Daily Mail. Understandably, they want to put evil day off as long as possible. Hence the general reluctance to stop prevaricating between different objectives and start deciding which to pursue and which to abandon. But the scope for this is pretty much running out around now.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've replied to you on all of these points before. It isn't honest to say that I haven't.

Going round and round and round in circles isn't helpful. To a degree rehashing the referendum isn't helpful. The matter is settled - the UK is leaving the EU. What isn't settled is how exactly this happens which is what the negotiation will settle.

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So would you be happy with a negotiated divorce bill of £100bn, open borders, staying in the CU and staying within the jurisdiction of the ECJ? What about giving Gibraltar to Spain so as not to damage their economy?

Or does Brexit mean Brexit?

May can't even work out whether the sovereign parliament, over which the UK seem so precious should even have a vote on the deal. And according to the Telegraph/Mail etc, no MP should be allowed to voice any dissent over the process. A sovereign parliament told what to say and do by the media!

Therein lies the problem. Nobody in the UK really knows what they voted for. You just have to look at the uproar over the divorce bill payment. This was always going to be payable, sop why is it even an issue.

murphaph

Not looking good for UK air travel post Brexit:

https://www.ft.com/content/e7674638-d078-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

Basically it says when you leave the SM you leave the SM. No special deal seems to be being considered.

When will the British public wake up?!

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Not looking good for UK air travel post Brexit:

https://www.ft.com/content/e7674638-d078-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

Basically it says when you leave the SM you leave the SM. No special deal seems to be being considered.

When will the British public wake up?!

Good morning!

Did you even read the whole article?

A second co-operation model outlined is based on the Common Aviation Area agreements with Georgia and Moldova. That model would only require partial application of EU law and no EU court rulings — more acceptable conditions for the UK government. 

But the commission argues that in this case, UK operators would be allowed to operate flights to or from EU destinations only if they start or end in Britain, the so-called third and fourth freedoms of the air. EU ownership restrictions would also apply. 

The third model identified by the commission negotiators would offer the type of market access enjoyed by US or Canadian airlines. These include lighter regulatory obligations and no role for European courts.

There are very clearly other options that can be agreed to ensure flights from Britain into the EU continue post-Brexit even according to this article.

I agree that EU27 to EU27 will have to be conducted by European owned carriers, but this is a reasonable cost. I have no issue with the EU insisting on this rule.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So would you be happy with a negotiated divorce bill of £100bn, open borders, staying in the CU and staying within the jurisdiction of the ECJ? What about giving Gibraltar to Spain so as not to damage their economy?

None of these outcomes are acceptable. That's why there is a negotiation rather than a broad acceptance of diktats.

Edit: £100bn isn't a reflection of what Britain actually has committed to so that will be rejected. Open borders, ECJ jurisdiction and staying in the CU are incompatible with the referendum result, giving Gibraltar isn't acceptable because they overwhelmingly want to stay a British territory

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

There are very clearly other options that can be agreed to ensure flights from Britain into the EU continue post-Brexit even according to this article.

Solo, the part you quote says EU ownership issue exists, so that's a stumbling block. Plus only in/out flights. I read an article some time back which outlined that this restriction would make UK operators non competitive as this is not how they currently operate.
My own guess is EU based operators are only queuing up to take the business lost by UK operators. Why would the EU then forge a deal allowing the UK access to internal flights to the detriment of EU operators

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that EU27 to EU27 will have to be conducted by European owned carriers, but this is a reasonable cost.

This will mean no UK owned carriers in pretty short order.

mickoneill31

murphaph wrote: »

When will the British public wake up?!

I'm guessing about March 30th 2019

Brexit day is probably March 29th rather than 30th as the day after 30th is April fools day. Thatd be a bit too fitting

steddyeddy

Apparantly the Irish government are hijacking Brexit talks and delaying trade negotiations to promote a united Ireland. According to the DUP and Arelene. Living in England it always strikes me how little people are aware of Irish history or politics. People here have only being getting Arelene and the Sun's side of the story. This can be dangerous.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/24/dup-leader-arlene-foster-accuses-irish-government-of-hijacking-brexit-talks

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Did you even read the whole article?


There are very clearly other options that can be agreed to ensure flights from Britain into the EU continue post-Brexit even according to this article.

I agree that EU27 to EU27 will have to be conducted by European owned carriers, but this is a reasonable cost. I have no issue with the EU insisting on this rule.



Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I assume that any of those options require an EU/UK agreement on airline access, which will require a ratification process by all 27 Member States (usually takes a year at best). That would mean negotiations concluded by March next year.

I assume those negotiations on an airline access agreement are going well?

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

None of these outcomes are acceptable. That's why there is a negotiation rather than a broad acceptance of diktats.

Edit: £100bn isn't a reflection of what Britain actually has committed to so that will be rejected. Open borders, ECJ jurisdiction and staying in the CU are incompatible with the referendum result, giving Gibraltar isn't acceptable because they overwhelmingly want to stay a British territory

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Of course none of them are acceptable, they are deliberately extreme to show the point.

You have voted for Brexit and yet have no idea what that even means, and May doesn't even want the parliament to have a vote on it. So depending on the negotiation, what is to stop what I stated as being the outcome?

At what point will you say stop, enough? Because a the present time it seems there are many that will accept anything to get Brexit. Why not £100bn? Is sovereignty worth only £40bn, anything over that and you will revert back to the EU?

And what is the process if you don't like it? Will you then asked for a rerun? Should Brexit be cancelled or postponed.

This is where the problem lies. Brexiteers have no idea what they want, what they will give up to get, or what they will go if they don't get it.

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

None of these outcomes are acceptable. That's why there is a negotiation rather than a broad acceptance of diktats.

Thank you for answering Leroy's question so eloquently, if even by absolute accident. So, what DID you vote for? Because it wasn't to leave. Allegedly.

Further, how can you claim - with a straight face - that the scenario put to you is "unacceptable" and therefore the UK must kertow to your view of acceptability? It only further underscores Leroy's question and the sheer absurdity & irony of your answer to it.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

At what point will you say stop, enough? Because a the present time it seems there are many that will accept anything to get Brexit. Why not £100bn? Is sovereignty worth only £40bn, anything over that and you will revert back to the EU?

You are not getting just how erm, eccentric the brexiteers are.

They still think that if they don't like the deal on offer from the EU, they can walk away, pay nothing, take up trade with everyone on WTO terms and still come out ahead.

enda1

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I'm guessing about March 30th 2019

Brexit day is probably March 29th rather than 30th as the day after 30th is April fools day. Thatd be a bit too fitting

There are 31 days in March

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course none of them are acceptable, they are deliberately extreme to show the point.

You have voted for Brexit and yet have no idea what that even means, and May doesn't even want the parliament to have a vote on it. So depending on the negotiation, what is to stop what I stated as being the outcome?

At what point will you say stop, enough? Because a the present time it seems there are many that will accept anything to get Brexit. Why not £100bn? Is sovereignty worth only £40bn, anything over that and you will revert back to the EU?

And what is the process if you don't like it? Will you then asked for a rerun? Should Brexit be cancelled or postponed.

This is where the problem lies. Brexiteers have no idea what they want, what they will give up to get, or what they will go if they don't get it.

Good morning!

I actually didn't vote for Brexit. Leaving that aside.

Whether or not Brexit is happening or not was settled in the referendum. The UK is coming out irrespective. The Government are clear that they won't rescind Article 50. Brexit won't be stopped in other words.

How it is coming out is subject to the negotiations. The Government will reject options that aren't faithful to the outcome. There's scope for a middle ground and that's the hope of negotiating.

The Government have to be wise with taxpayers money. £100bn isn't representative of what the UK has committed to. So no that shouldn't be paid.

If there was no scope for a middle ground negotiating would be a waste of time.

Lemming: Polling suggests that most British people think this outcome would be unacceptable also. Namely YouGov on Article 50 triggering and the BuzzFeed poll showed that even remainers object to a figure like £100bn.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

You keep telling people that Brexit is happening, yeah we get it. It is not the question.

You say my list is unacceptable, ok, so what then? You have ruled out a rerun, so a no deal then is the only other option.

So £100bn is unacceptable but a chaotic and potentially catastrophic effect on the economy is fine? A massive failure in diplomacy and a walking away from agreements signed in good faith in the past will be reneged on? What impact will that have on possible future trade deals.

Is more immigration from the likes of China, India, Brazil, Africa acceptable. Because you know that all those countries are going to look for that

Up until last week 20bn was the most, nw 40bn. What is they give 60bn? Will you demand a rerun then. What if the 350m per week never happens? Do you have a line that you will not cross apart from not accepting stuff from the EU?

murphaph

Solo..what about falling out of EASA?

Schorpio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: £100bn isn't a reflection of what Britain actually has committed to so that will be rejected. Open borders, ECJ jurisdiction and staying in the CU are incompatible with the referendum result, giving Gibraltar isn't acceptable because they overwhelmingly want to stay a British territory.

As I see it, the UK government has laid down a number of 'red lines' in relation to their leaving of the Union. Fair enough.

However, from Ireland's point of view, a NI border of any kind is a red line. And whether you agree or not, it just is and they are entitled to that, the same way the UK are.

The problem is, both red lines are perfectly parallel. They will never meet because they directly oppose each other. Now, the position of the EU is that the NI border is currently unrestricted, and had you asked any Irish government over he past 20 years whether they would be opposed to a border, they would have said yes. What I'm getting at is, the position of the EU and Irish government is both consistent and compatible with the existing arrangement.

The position of the UK government however has completely reversed since Brexit, and the 'red lines' they have laid out are new and incompatible with what we currently have. Therefore, as the ones who are dissatisfied (for want of a better word) with the current arrangement, the onus is on the UK government to propose an acceptable solution.

Now, i know what you are going to say - we need to talk about trade before we can resolve the border. But in fact, the opposite is true. A clear stance on the future of the border informs how trade is likely progress. As many others have pointed out, a border isn't just the calculation of tariffs. And all this talk of trade completely omits the social and historical significance of the NI border. It isn't just about trade.

All references to the Swiss model is pointless. Switzerland has signed two bilateral agreements which makes a large share of EU law applicable to Switzerland. Switzerland also pays into the EU budget, and is a member of the borderless Schengen Area. None of these things would be acceptable to Brexiteers.

You are right that the UK needs a bespoke and innovative solution. However, they have neither begun to hint at any such solution, nor does the EU (or anybody else for that matter) see what kind of solution there can be within the corner the UK has backed itself into. The UK needs to move it's red lines, but if it does so it will provoke even further ire from the 52%.

Solodeogloria, I respect your opinion. I really do. I also respect that you discuss Brexit from a Leave perspective online and manage to act like a normal human being in the process. However, whether you realise it or not, you are echoing same unworkable sentiments over and over again. At this stage I want the UK to Leave. They voted for it, they should get it. However, they are going to have to accept that they aren't only one with demands, and the EU shouldn't bend over just because the UK public expects them too. If I felt that the EU was being obstructive, I would say so. But that the UK government is this far into the negotiations, and has no answer to this problem is baffling.

breatheme

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: £100bn isn't a reflection of what Britain actually has committed to so that will be rejected. Open borders, ECJ jurisdiction and staying in the CU are incompatible with the referendum result, giving Gibraltar isn't acceptable because they overwhelmingly want to stay a British territory

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The irony. Didn't they also vote overwhelmingly to stay in the EU? More than 90%?
Anyway. Of course the EU can't force the UK to give up Gibraltar. That isn't what's up for discussion. What Spain is seeking is to exempt Gibraltar from the transition period and automatically kick them out of the EU on Brexit day. It will then be up to Spain to decide how to control the border, if they want to close it... etc. They might try to use Brexit to exert pressure for either joint or Spanish sovereignty. We shall see. Either way, we live in interesting times.

This is one of those areas where the UK's influence in the EU really did show. Gibraltar's border with Spain was closed up during the dictatorship. When Spain (along with Portugal) back in 1986 sought to join the EU, one of the UK's conditions was for Spain to open up the border. Which they did.
You should brush up on the history of Gibraltar, and maybe actually go there for a visit. It's a quite lovely, albeit a bit weird, place.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Whether or not Brexit is happening or not was settled in the referendum. The UK is coming out irrespective. The Government are clear that they won't rescind Article 50.

This Government may not, but by the time this Government collapses, Corbyn will have been talked around by his young voters and the unions to stay in the Single Market, which would eliminate most of our problems at a stroke.

kowtow

Schorpio wrote: »

All references to the Swiss model is pointless. Switzerland has signed two bilateral agreements which makes a large share of EU law applicable to Switzerland. Switzerland also pays into the EU budget, and is a member of the borderless Schengen Area. None of these things would be acceptable to Brexiteers.

You are right that the UK needs a bespoke and innovative solution. However, neither they haven't even begun to hint at any such solution, nor does the EU (or anybody else for that matter) see what kind of solution there can be within the corner the UK has backed itself into. The UK needs to move it's red lines, but if it does so it will provoke even further ire from the 52%.

I'm not sure that references to the Swiss model are "pointless" although quite clearly it cannot be cut and pasted as a ready made solution in part for the reasons you outline but also because every border - not least this one - is peculiar to it's own geography.

The fact is that Swiss customs address many of the practical problems which UK and Irish customs must get their heads around, which is why it is relevant. It is a non EU member trading under treaty and outside the CU - that it has Schengen is irrelevant for these purposes (Ireland doesn't either) but Ireland and the UK have long enjoyed a CTA which has much the same effect.

It is also mighty efficient, at least to the private citizen. I have lost count of the times I have got a swiss customs bill for items purchased inside and outside the EU.

Norway is another model in similar circumstances, although from the Sky News feature this morning the Norwegians don't call it friction free and don't think it would work for NI. In the end trade across borders is never quite friction free, although inside the Eurozone it is very close.

Clearly the UK are aiming for (1) electronic declarations with plenty of trusted traders (2) cameras only at the border and (3) physical checks at some place remote from the border which must surely mean the Northern Irish ports.

Presumably the wish of the UK - which seems reasonable on the face of it - would be that the Irish would engage with them on the detail of this once everybody knows what kind of trade is envisaged and in effect share the electronic arrangements without - of course - placing Irish customs at Northern Irish ports in a physical sense.

The current demands of the Irish government are (1) not even cameras at the border and (2) That the North is in the CU, which forms a full economic border inside the UK and (?) absolves the Irish authorities from the need for customs checks. This is provocative, perhaps deliberately, from a constitutional point of view and at first blush is no more likely to succeed than the UK demanding that Ireland join a customs union with itself and place the borders around the Irish ports...

There is speculation now that some vague agreement that Northern Ireland will attempt to maintain regulatory convergence could be sufficient to persuade the Irish to move on to phase two - when the problem will surface again but with greater detail and perhaps calmer heads. I have my doubts.

This is one of those issues where the sincerity of the negotiating parties is really tested and I am not sure that we are judging it correctly. If - as some say - Switzerland and Norway are irrelevant because their trading arrangements and treaties with the EU are x or y - then surely it must be right that we must wait to see the trading arrangements which arise before dismissing one or other approach to the border?

For whatever reasons the UK have felt able to rule out physical infrastructure at the border and absolutely continue the CTA from day one of the negotiations. In return we have said that the border simply can't exist (there cannot be cameras) and Northern Ireland must join the Customs Union. Is that sincere negotiation in good faith or simply a tactical point being played at the only moment it can be?

breatheme

Regarding NI, what I think right now is that, FTA aside, both current solutions (in the EU/CU, no land border, but sea border and out of the EU/CU, land border but no sea border) should be voted in a referendum in NI. The EU parliament already voted to offer this as a solution to NI, NI can either take it or leave it. It would finally put the question to rest and we could move on.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

I'm not sure that references to the Swiss model are "pointless" although quite clearly it cannot be cut and pasted as a ready made solution in part for the reasons you outline but also because every border - not least this one - is peculiar to it's own geography.

The fact is that Swiss customs address many of the practical problems which UK and Irish customs must get their heads around, which is why it is relevant. It is a non EU member trading under treaty and outside the CU - that it has Schengen is irrelevant for these purposes (Ireland doesn't either) but Ireland and the UK have long enjoyed a CTA which has much the same effect.

It is also mighty efficient, at least to the private citizen. I have lost count of the times I have got a swiss customs bill for items purchased inside and outside the EU.

Norway is another model in similar circumstances, although from the Sky News feature this morning the Norwegians don't call it friction free and don't think it would work for NI. In the end trade across borders is never quite friction free, although inside the Eurozone it is very close.

Clearly the UK are aiming for (1) electronic declarations with plenty of trusted traders (2) cameras only at the border and (3) physical checks at some place remote from the border which must surely mean the Northern Irish ports.

Presumably the wish of the UK - which seems reasonable on the face of it - would be that the Irish would engage with them on the detail of this once everybody knows what kind of trade is envisaged and in effect share the electronic arrangements without - of course - placing Irish customs at Northern Irish ports in a physical sense.

The current demands of the Irish government are (1) not even cameras at the border and (2) That the North is in the CU, which forms a full economic border inside the UK and (?) absolves the Irish authorities from the need for customs checks. This is provocative, perhaps deliberately, from a constitutional point of view and at first blush is no more likely to succeed than the UK demanding that Ireland join a customs union with itself and place the borders around the Irish ports...

There is speculation now that some vague agreement that Northern Ireland will attempt to maintain regulatory convergence could be sufficient to persuade the Irish to move on to phase two - when the problem will surface again but with greater detail and perhaps calmer heads. I have my doubts.

This is one of those issues where the sincerity of the negotiating parties is really tested and I am not sure that we are judging it correctly. If - as some say - Switzerland and Norway are irrelevant because their trading arrangements and treaties with the EU are x or y - then surely it must be right that we must wait to see the trading arrangements which arise before dismissing one or other approach to the border?

For whatever reasons the UK have felt able to rule out physical infrastructure at the border and absolutely continue the CTA from day one of the negotiations. In return we have said that the border simply can't exist (there cannot be cameras) and Northern Ireland must join the Customs Union. Is that sincere negotiation in good faith or simply a tactical point being played at the only moment it can be?

A main reason why Ireland has to play hardball at this stage is because it loses its veto when it comes to the final deal. I read somewhere this morning that, through back channels, the British have offered Ireland a rolling veto. This could definitely assuage Irish fears but the devil is in the detail, as always.

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A main reason why Ireland has to play hardball at this stage is because it loses its veto when it comes to the final deal. I read somewhere this morning that, through back channels, the British have offered Ireland a rolling veto. This could definitely assuage Irish fears but the devil is in the detail, as always.

If we get that then it was a card played well and probably also a sign that despite all the smoke and noise at the surface there probably has always been some sensible movement underneath.

J Mysterio

kowtow wrote: »

If we get that then it was a card played well and probably also a sign that despite all the smoke and noise at the surface there probably has always been some sensible movement underneath.

If it is the case - which I doubt - it would be foolish to take that deal. All the pressure is on the UK at the moment to make a sensible proposal, and Ireland has a strong hand.

Should we give up that hand, events will overtake us, rolling veto or not. The issues will change and Ireland (while still being significant) will not be one of the main focus areas as it is now. We could then be seen as a frustrating element.

It is a phase one issue now and we worked hard to get that. We need to pressure the UK now, not give them a free pass to move on to different issues. They dont deserve it anyway.

Again, I doubt this is true, but if it is, it's a cunning ploy we would be foolish to take. Were it true, I cant see the Gov taking it anyhow.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

If it is the case - which I doubt - it would be foolish to take that deal. All the pressure is on the UK at the moment to make a sensible proposal, and Ireland has a strong hand.

Should we give up that hand, events will overtake us, rolling veto or not. The issues will change and Ireland (while still being significant) will not be one of the main focus areas as it is now. We could then be seen as a frustrating element.

It is a phase one issue now and we worked hard to get that. We need to pressure the UK now, not give them a free pass to move on to different issues. They dont deserve it anyway.

Again, I doubt this is true, but if it is, it's a cunning ploy we would be foolish to take. Were it true, I cant see the Gov taking it anyhow.

Yes, it is fraught with danger but it might work and would suit Ireland. The Irish need to take a balanced approach.

We can play hardball using our current and only veto, but if Britain is pushed to crashing out without a deal then we will have shot ourselves in the foot. Conversely, we have to keep pushing them towards a soft Brexit. So it should be carrot and stick - not all stick. Which is why a rolling veto might give them some breathing space while allowing Ireland to retain control.

Is it likely to happen? Probably not but it would be in our best interests.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A main reason why Ireland has to play hardball at this stage is because it loses its veto when it comes to the final deal. I read somewhere this morning that, through back channels, the British have offered Ireland a rolling veto. This could definitely assuage Irish fears but the devil is in the detail, as always.

The British government offering a foreign government a veto which would override their sovereignty? It sounds a bit far fetched and definitely not taking back control.

I wouldn't trust it even if it were offered - there are too many variables - it would just be an attempt to kick the border problem past this stage and then try to conflate it in the trade talks stage.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The British government offering a foreign government a veto which would override their sovereignty? It sounds a bit far fetched and definitely not taking back control.

I wouldn't trust it even if it were offered - there are too many variables - it would just be an attempt to kick the border problem past this stage and then try to conflate it in the trade talks stage.

That veto is there presently, it would be a matter of extending it. It would also depend on how it was underwritten and guaranteed. But yeah it's unlikely.

kowtow

Deleted User wrote: »

The British government offering a foreign government a veto which would override their sovereignty? It sounds a bit far fetched and definitely not taking back control.

I wouldn't trust it even if it were offered - there are too many variables - it would just be an attempt to kick the border problem past this stage and then try to conflate it in the trade talks stage.

Surely the veto only affects the continuing trade (exit) talks?

The only effect of it would be to stall the talks and either force the UK to exit in a hard Brexit or try again to resolve the issue. I'm not sure that such a veto impinges on sovereignty, it just gives an enhanced role to Ireland at the negotiating table?

Given that - all this Britain blaming aside - we'd like the fullest and free-est trade deal possible almost as much as the UK would I'd have thought our interests are actually pretty well aligned.

Maybe I misunderstand the nature of the veto?

Peregrinus

enda1 wrote: »

There are 31 days in March

There is now. But, after Brexit, the UK will be free to adopt and use a calendar which differs from that used elsewhere in Europe (as they did in the Glorious Past, before they succumbed to this popish Gregorian nonsense). And of course the first thing they will do is to abolish 31 March, since that is the anniversary of the poll tax riots which marked the start of Margaret Thatcher's fall, and is therefore a day of shame in the minds of all True Brexity Believers.

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is now. But, after Brexit, the UK will be free to adopt and use a calendar which differs from that used elsewhere in Europe (as they did in the Glorious Past, before they succumbed to this popish Gregorian nonsense). And of course the first thing they will do is to abolish 31 March, since that is the anniversary of the poll tax riots which marked the start of Margaret Thatcher's fall, and is therefore a day of shame in the minds of all True Brexity Believers.

And 23 June will become Brexit day, a public holiday, celebrating the UK's liberation from rationality and reason.

kowtow

Peregrinus wrote: »

And of course the first thing they will do is to abolish 31 March, since that is the anniversary of the poll tax riots which marked the start of Margaret Thatcher's fall, and is therefore a day of shame in the minds of all True Brexity Believers.

I think you are overstating it.

It's always a pity to suffer riots, and the criminal damage that goes with them, but if they must take place then - in the UK - from the property owners point of view the 31st of March is about the most tax efficient time of year to have them.

kowtow

kowtow wrote: »

Surely the veto only affects the continuing trade (exit) talks?

The only effect of it would be to stall the talks and either force the UK to exit in a hard Brexit or try again to resolve the issue. I'm not sure that such a veto impinges on sovereignty, it just gives an enhanced role to Ireland at the negotiating table?

Given that - all this Britain blaming aside - we'd like the fullest and free-est trade deal possible almost as much as the UK would I'd have thought our interests are actually pretty well aligned.

Maybe I misunderstand the nature of the veto?

As far as I can see, if any country uses a veto then it means a full hard Brexit and a hard border, so even if Ireland does have one, it could be devastating.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

As far as I can see, if any country uses a veto then it means a full hard Brexit and a hard border, so even if Ireland does have one, it could be devastating.

But the result of using the veto is not that we fail to get the Brexit we would like; it's that we fail to get the Brexit that the UK would like (and would otherwise be able to agree with the other EU member states).

For example if, hypothetically, the UK were to seek a Brexit deal that realistically speaking would involve a hard border anyway then "hard border" is not part of the cost to us of using the veto.

So, before using the veto, we'd need to think fairly dispassionately about how we would fair if we didn't use the veto, and compare that with how we would fair if we did use the veto.

Which means that, if the UK want us not to use the veto, they need to seek a Brexit deal which is attractive to Ireland. If they can't accommodate our aspirations regarding the border, then it's very much in their interests to put in something else that will make the deal they seek advantageous to us - more so than no deal. And it will have to be something pretty big, to compensate for the disadvantage of a hard border, which is considerable.

If they don't do that, frankly, it would signal to me that they are not serious about a deal; that they have decided to go for a hard Brexit, and are just positioning themselves to blame the EU for it.

This is all hypothetical, I stress. I think that, a few loopers aside, the British do want a deal, and they are canny enough to know that any deal has to be beneficial to all the stakeholders, including us, or it won't happen.

In a nutshell, the exericse of an Irish veto would essentially be Ireland following the Brexiteer principal that "no deal is better than a bad deal". The Brexiteers who make that point on behalf of the UK must recognise that it is an equally valid consideration for other countries. They therefore need to seek a deal which is better for Ireland than no deal; otherwise its a bad deal, and we'll veto it.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the result of using the veto is not that we fail to get the Brexit we would like; it's that we fail to get the Brexit that the UK would like (and would otherwise be able to agree with the other EU member states).

The use of a veto, by anyone, means that no one gets the Brexit deal they want, because despite all the chest beating and willy waving, no one wants the eu/uk trading on unknown terms with full customs checks. Noted exception to the loopers you mention, obviously.

But yes, it does give Ireland the chance to use what is, effectively, the nuclear option if it is all going wrong from an Irish perspective.