Brexit discussion thread II

Leroy42

Just a quick question in terms of the less noted impact of brexit.

Recently the roaming charges were capped by the EU, I have found this particularly useful in terms of free data when I travel (there are limits of course) but before it was quite expensive.

Would this be removed from UK mobile users as of Brexit date (I assume yes) and would this have an impact on using mobile in NI or is that a separate agreement from the EU?

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just a quick question in terms of the less noted impact of brexit.

Recently the roaming charges were capped by the EU, I have found this particularly useful in terms of free data when I travel (there are limits of course) but before it was quite expensive.

Would this be removed from UK mobile users as of Brexit date (I assume yes) and would this have an impact on using mobile in NI or is that a separate agreement from the EU?

See my link above NI is currently covered by a separate area.

flaneur

Well the current roaming charge arrangement is governed by an EU Directive.
I would assume the Tories would just let the market decide what the rate would be, as that's what their philosophy tends to be on most things.

FreudianSlippers

flaneur wrote: »

Well the current roaming charge arrangement is governed by an EU Directive.
I would assume the Tories would just let the market decide what the rate would be, as that's what their philosophy tends to be on most things.

I understood it was the UK's plan to repeal all legislation implementing EU Directives immediately (with our without replacement)?

ambro25

Blowfish wrote: »

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, one thing that seems to be overlooked about this is this quote:

It seems that all they've done is look at the various EU rules that apply to different sectors and haven't done any financial impact assessments.

In other words, it's 18 months after the Brexit vote and they still have absolutely no idea what impact Brexit will have on the economy. That's terrifying.

Well, Davis' "allies" can claim whatever they want, and of course in the absence of both the raw data and pertinent information about how the DExEU bods analysed and processed it we can't possibly know better...but I recounted earlier in the thread my own exchange with the PR company tasked with gathering the sectoral analysis data about the UK legal profession, and that conversation certainly covered "how [ND: our-] part of the economy might fare under different Brexit scenarios" (we greatly emphasised the difference between the out-but-still-in-EEA and out-out, which is pivotal for our services).

But well, yeah. It was static we were hearing from the UK government, our regulator and our chartered institutes pre-referendum; and it's still static we're hearing today (but for scant few unicorn-seeking noises of late from our chartered institutes, not echoed in the least by the EU26 and EU side).

The complexity of the whole thing (when you consider the scale of the same consequences due to automatic operation of law, to be visited across the entire UK's goods and services sectors) is truly mind-boggling, and positively dwarfs the apparent lack of preparation/understanding of the UK government in the terrifying stakes

Put it that way: it's the sort of s**t sandwich that will just look to be continually self-refilling, because the [practical] effects of [legal] consequences will keep on snowballing for years on end, so vast is the interrelationship of EU law (and other treaties/statutes) with so many aspects and facets of daily UK trade the world over. Misrepresenting that complexity was the fundamental fault of both campaigns.

solodeogloria

Schorpio wrote: »

Solo - again, I totally respect your views and your right to post here; but I'm not sure what you hope to gain? You keep offering the same views, which are contradictory at best; and you keep repeating the same woolly source material. But more importantly, you've openly stated that your mentality is closed (a bad Brexit is better than no Brexit, etc.).

Good morning!

I hope to gain nothing other than providing balance in what would otherwise be an echo chamber.

I don't think my views are "contradictory" in any way. I also only repeat myself when I'm asked the same question multiple times. I also don't agree that my source material is any more "wooly" than any of the speculative articles that are repeated ad-nauseum predicting a rather elusive Brexit apocalypse.

My mentality is no more "closed" than yours. I'm interested in getting a good Brexit deal for all parts of the UK from Clacton to Coleraine.

I am convinced that democracy must prevail and will prevail in respect to Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU can choose this option or they can choose no deal. Those are the outcomes. That's why the Irish Government position is against the interests of Irish people.

That's a bluff at best. The UK cannot afford to exit with no deal.

But if that is the UK's real position, we choose no deal. The next UK government (possibly of a smaller UK) will be more reasonable.

Zubeneschamali

Blowfish wrote: »

It seems that all they've done is look at the various EU rules that apply to different sectors and haven't done any financial impact assessments.

I think they did the financial reports and now they are pretending the dog ate them because they are so bad that they show the UK cannot leave with no deal. Releasing the reports would undermine their negotiators bluffing.

steddyeddy

A poll organised by professors at Queen's university has revealed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland prefer a sea border.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/11/26/exclusive-poll-unionist-supporters-content-with-east-west-post-brexit-border-controls/

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's a bluff at best. The UK cannot afford to exit with no deal.

But if that is the UK's real position, we choose no deal. The next UK government (possibly of a smaller UK) will be more reasonable.

Ireland also can afford to exit with no deal. Sure there are better options than a no deal for Ireland but the UK are not really offering them. There are plenty of up shots to Brexit for Ireland (the negatives out way them but they exist) and a no deal situation still leaves a lot of the UK financial sector up for grabs.

As has been said Brexit must happen cos democracy. It is however not up to any other country to make it a success except the UK. This is why I still don't get the UK's position. They are saying take it or lump it (as sol is saying) but the EU suffers only slightly from saying lump it and are quite willing for that to happen. They are free to take this position but it won't help them.

Similarly for Ireland. If the UK can't guarantee the border there is not much for us to play for in terms of helping the UK given the customs union is off the table. As is there is no need for us to push for anything in this scenario. The two things that would help us most - a sea border and the UK staying in the customs union appear to be off the table. Therefore there is little reason for us to say anything but leave it to the UK's current offers.

Zubeneschamali

If the worst comes to the worst (and this is looking increasingly likely) and a hard border is imposed, the situation is a bit like Europe vs. UK. The Republic of Ireland will be badly hit, but NI will be hit much harder. And we can rely on the EU to help, I would be more concerned about Westminster's backing of NI.

Peregrinus

What Christy42 says. When Decision Time comes, the choice for Ireland will not be between the deal we would like and no deal; it will be between the deal the UK is prepared to enter into and no deal.

Which means that, the lousier (from Ireland’s point of view) the deal the UK is willing to make, the less the opportunity cost to us of vetoing it.

From this point of view the UK is not in a good position. Ruling out the Single Market and the Customs Union is bad for us from several points of view, of which the implications for the Irish border is the biggest, but by no means the only one. The UK badly needs to persuade us that exiting the Single Market and the Customs Union is compatible with an open border, and with other features that we would like; my sense is that it’s just beginning to dawn on them that, yes, they need to do that, and they are starting to make some of the noises they need to, but they need to make a lot more noises, a lot more loudly, in the next two weeks.

And we have a strong incentive not to be the first to blink. If we let the UK have a trade deal which doesn't, in the event, deliver an open border, then the UK has what it most wants and needs, which is a trade deal with the EU, and we have a hard border. The UK has no compelling reason to move on from that point. But if we veto the deal, we still have a hard border, but the UK still desparately needs a trade deal, and has an incentive to shift its position - under a new government, if need be - to do what it needs to do to get one.

murphaph

The truth is that for there to be an open border NI at least would need to be in the SM and CU. Whilst Ireland might even gift the UK a ridiculously generous FTA that is analogous to SM membership without the strings (to preserve our own 12.7% trade with them) the rest of the EU wouldn't let us embarrass ourselves and in fact would be doing ourselves out of lots of trade as the UK would have the best of both worlds. So this kind of ultra FTA the UK needs for an open border is just never going to happen.

The most the EU (and it's a heck of a generous offer) can suggest is NI remaining in the EU effectively.

Peregrinus

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I understood it was the UK's plan to repeal all legislation implementing EU Directives immediately (with our without replacement)?

No. The plan is to transpose them into UK, so that they still apply, but to give Ministers/Parliament to review, amend, repeal, etc. They'll then embark on a massive, massive project which will run for a decade at least to review the body of EU law they have inherited. A heated issue of debate in the UK is how the power to amend will be allocated as between Parliament and Ministers.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

What Christy42 says. When Decision Time comes, the choice for Ireland will not be between the deal we would like and no deal; it will be between the deal the UK is prepared to enter into and no deal.

Which means that, the lousier (from Ireland’s point of view) the deal the UK is willing to make, the less the opportunity cost to us of vetoing it.

From this point of view the UK is not in a good position. Ruling out the Single Market and the Customs Union is bad for us from several points of view, of which the implications for the Irish border is the biggest, but by no means the only one. The UK badly needs to persuade us that exiting the Single Market and the Customs Union is compatible with an open border, and with other features that we would like; my sense is that it’s just beginning to dawn on them that, yes, they need to do that, and they are starting to make some of the noises they need to, but they need to make a lot more noises, a lot more loudly, in the next two weeks.

And we have a strong incentive not to be the first to blink. If we let the UK have a trade deal which doesn't, in the event, deliver an open border, then the UK has what it most wants and needs, which is a trade deal with the EU, and we have a hard border. The UK has no compelling reason to move on from that point. But if we veto the deal, we still have a hard border, but the UK still desparately needs a trade deal, and has an incentive to shift its position - under a new government, if need be - to do what it needs to do to get one.

Good afternoon!

Again this position doesn't quite make sense. The UK has made it very clear that it wants an open border and has provided several lines of discussion that could achieve that in the August paper.

It is the EU that is adamant that trade and customs and in turn the final state of the border can't be discussed.

The idea that the veto will lead to single market and customs union membership or a sea border is a misplaced one. I can't see that happening. I also can't see it leading to an election.

The UK have compromised several times in this process. I don't support them compromising on Single Market and Customs Union membership as it would stop the UK Government delivering the logical outcomes of the referendum.

I still think the pressure is in the wrong place and that the Irish Government are being foolish here. They won't get what they want here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Lemming

Just read an interesting snippet on the guardian twitter feed page comments regards the WTO GPA & Liam Fox's letter (16th Oct) addressed to the Brexit committee:

some guardian reader wrote:

The ever-competent Liam Fox wrote:

Fourth, as we leave the EU, a further issue that will arise is the UK's membership of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. At present the UK is party to the agreement by virtue of our membership of the EU.We will need to find a mechanism whereby we can remain a member of the GPA on the same terms that currently apply to us.

My Edit: Source link; pg 2, para. 1

The WTO GPA requires that any public service that has ever had any part of it opened for private tender must be fully opened to private tender. That is a fully privatized NHS. Currently, as an EU member state, we have an exemption, that ends with brexit as Fox states. All 160+ WTO member states would have to agree to that exemption continuing, the US isn't going to agree. The only way to avoid this is to remain in the Single Market.

Bold emphasis is mine. Assuming the above to be correct, that'll leave the NHS vulnerable to US-style takeover. White text on the side of a big red bus wont amount to squat if that scenario comes to pass, and any agreement with the US will insist upon agricultural & medical access for US businesses or no deal. Out of the frying pan and all that ...

Leroy42

As far as I can work out there is no way that we can square the circle of non membership of EU and an open border.

To allow Ni to be an open border we are simply giving a massive advantage to the UK, and in the coming years it will be us v's the UK.

Should Ireland not just start planning for that now. It seems that Ireland is hoping against hope that the girlfriend doesn't leave them but rather than waste time on a relationship well past it should be looking to the future. No amount of wishing the Uk will come to its senses (in our opinion) will make it so.

So forget about talks with May etc, we should be holding talks with the EU on structural funds to get our ports/airports ready for a new import/export regime. Going through mainland UK will be a poor second option as the waiting times at the borders will be massive.

We have moved to a more open market since joining the EU and this is simply the next stage. We will still trade with the UK but it will change in almost every aspect. Of course it is risky, but that is really the only option as the UK have made their decision. The only possible silver lining is that the effects of Brexit are such that the UK come to their senses and look to return but even that will take a decade or more.

We simply cannot afford to sit by and suffer whilst we wait for them

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is the EU that is adamant that trade and customs and in turn the final state of the border can't be discussed.

Its almost as if these are red lines for the EU. Imagine stating that you are unwilling to move from a red line issue.

Lucky the UK are of higher moral character than to carry on like that.

flaneur

steddyeddy wrote: »

A poll organised by professors at Queen's university has revealed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland prefer a sea border.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/11/26/exclusive-poll-unionist-supporters-content-with-east-west-post-brexit-border-controls/

But a vocal minority representing a particularly extreme version of unionism hold all the power in Westminster and will absolutely not budge.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Again this position doesn't quite make sense. The UK has made it very clear that it wants an open border and has provided several lines of discussion that could achieve that in the August paper.

No. The UK has said that it wants an open border, but the "lines of discussion" offered in its August paper have been universally derided as not being a serious step towards making that possible. And - this is the alarming bit - the UK seems unbothered by that.

What it comes down to is this; the UK has put forward thoughts which the EU has dismissed, and the EU has put forward thoughts which the UK has dismissed.

There's not much point in playing a blame-game here. As it happens I think the EU's position is rational and the UK's irrational, and you think the opposite. But so what? Regardless of which of us is correct, if the question is "has their been 'sufficient progress' towards an open border?" the answer has to be an unambiguous "no". The situation just described cannot be characterised as 'progress'.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The idea that the veto will lead to single market and customs union membership or a sea border is a misplaced one.

I can't see that happening. I also can't see it leading to an election.

Just to be clear; I'm not saying that a veto will lead to SM/CU membership or to a sea border; it certainly won't, at least in the short term. But what it will do is keep up the pressure on the UK to agree to one of those, or to some other measure which will enable an open border. And that, for us, is better than a situation in which the UK has no such incentive. Therefore we would rationally prefer it.

Nor am I saying that it will lead to an election. But an election will come anyway, sooner or later; that's how the UK constitution workds. In this scenario, to be honest, it probably comes sooner, given the parliamentary situation, and given the plight of a government whose strategy for Brexit crucially depends on negotiating trade deals, but who can't negotiate the trade deal that the UK needs the most.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have compromised several times in this process. I don't support them compromising on Single Market and Customs Union membership as it would stop the UK Government delivering the logical outcomes of the referendum.

They could compromise on the sea border, though. Not even the most ardent brexiteer will pretend that the debate/discussion that preceded the referendum vote has to be construed such that the referendum vote amounts to a mandate against a sea border. That's a matter for Parliament, unconstrained by any referendum.

flaneur

My view of it at this stage is the UK doesn’t give a hoot about us and it’s everyone for themselves, so we should just go in aggressively after as many Brexit fleeing businesses as we can possibly convince to move here.

There are predictions of up to 50,000 job losses here and it’s likely to be as as bad or worse in the north. So we are going to have to do something. There’s a hell of a lot of people’s livelihoods hanging in the balance over something we did not in anyway cause.

Peregrinus

flaneur wrote: »

But a vocal minority representing a particularly extreme version of unionism hold all the power in Westminster and will absolutely not budge.

But they won't hold it for very long. If we have to, it makes sense for us to hold out until the situation changes.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they won't hold it for very long. If we have to, it makes sense for us to hold out until the situation changes.

I'm not sure about that. I think their thinking is that the UK will cover any possible loses and as such there really isn't a cost.

The question will be if the mainland voters are willing to put up with that. However, May successfully gave them an additional £1bn without much blowback

Akrasia

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



This isn't true. It simply isn't possible to guarantee a border until you can guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. This requires both parties to guarantee that.

What?
Borders have existed for thousands of years that are sealed to free trade. Do you think South Korea does much trading with North Korea?

Free trade across borders is rare, and only happens when there are extensive arrangements and treaties in place.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I still think the pressure is in the wrong place

This is the very definition of wishful thinking.

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's a bluff at best. The UK cannot afford to exit with no deal.

But if that is the UK's real position, we choose no deal. The next UK government (possibly of a smaller UK) will be more reasonable.

Yep. We might lose trade with the UK in the short term, but we still have 250 million other potential customers in the EU. If the UK leave with no deal, they're on their own, reliant on imported food, defaulted to extremely restrictive WTO rules and with aviation and financial services on their knees.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. I think their thinking is that the UK will cover any possible loses and as such there really isn't a cost.

The question will be if the mainland voters are willing to put up with that. However, May successfully gave them an additional £1bn without much blowback

My point is that the DUP's leverage at Westminster is unlikely to survive the next election. If there's no EU/UK trade deal because the present UK government is hamstrung by the DUP and is unable to make the moves needed to enable a open borders , the next UK government (of either party) is unlikely to be similarly hamstrung. Therefore even if the UK government won't move to facilitate open borders now, the next UK government may have more room for rational self-interested manouevre. It's in our interests to wait for better times rather than to give up.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Again this position doesn't quite make sense. The UK has made it very clear that it wants an open border and has provided several lines of discussion that could achieve that in the August paper.

It is the EU that is adamant that trade and customs and in turn the final state of the border can't be discussed.

The idea that the veto will lead to single market and customs union membership or a sea border is a misplaced one. I can't see that happening. I also can't see it leading to an election.

The UK have compromised several times in this process. I don't support them compromising on Single Market and Customs Union membership as it would stop the UK Government delivering the logical outcomes of the referendum.

I still think the pressure is in the wrong place and that the Irish Government are being foolish here. They won't get what they want here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nobody will get what they want except Putin.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. I think their thinking is that the UK will cover any possible loses and as such there really isn't a cost.

The question will be if the mainland voters are willing to put up with that. However, May successfully gave them an additional £1bn without much blowback

The only problem is that the £1bn has yet to arrive, and that there is no Assembly to spend it. Great deal.

murphaph

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only problem is that the £1bn has yet to arrive, and that there is no Assembly to spend it. Great deal.

The biblical DUP got their 40 pieces of silver as an IOU that will never materialise.

I agree that we can maintain this pressure with our EU partners until the British government collapses and we can talk business with a new government without the DUP blocking the sea border idea.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Should Ireland not just start planning for that now.

Don't worry, Irish officials already have plans. Leo told them to shut up about them as they were well ahead of where the UK have admitted the position is, and we don't want to be giving them ideas, but the plans are drawn up.

Sam Russell

I think we should see a bit of UK movement over the next week as the tabloids have been diverted by a much more important story.

steddyeddy

flaneur wrote: »

But a vocal minority representing a particularly extreme version of unionism hold all the power in Westminster and will absolutely not budge.

That's the problem. People over here (England) have been telling me they thought that Arlene Foster represents Northern Ireland. Even better is the fact that when I go to the states they think Arelene Foster is representative of Britain's wishes.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

The Telegraph have an article claiming the EU and the UK have agreed on the money issue.

Not anywhere else yet. Claimed ballpark is €45-55bn. Admittedly too much for my liking if true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The Telegraph have an article claiming the EU and the UK have agreed on the money issue.

Not anywhere else yet. Claimed ballpark is €45-55bn. Admittedly too much for my liking if true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Ha 60 billion according to the Telegraph there. Finally the penny drops that they're the small fish in the negotiation.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ha 60 billion according to the Telegraph there. Finally the penny drops that they're the small fish in the negotiation.

Good evening!

Further down it shows that the agreed range is €45-55bn. You'd need an account to see that though due to the pay wall.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

kowtow

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The Telegraph have an article claiming the EU and the UK have agreed on the money issue.

Not anywhere else yet. Claimed ballpark is €45-55bn. Admittedly too much for my liking if true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Still, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

So they obviously feel they'll be getting something worthwhile in return.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Further down it shows that the agreed range is €45-55bn. You'd need an account to see that though due to the pay wall.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If you read further down, you'll find they agreed a methodology, not a sum.

Here's the money quote on that:

The Telegraph understands that the final figure, which is deliberately being left open to interpretation, will be between €45bn and €55bn, depending on how each side calculates the output from an agreed methodology.

This methodology is something which I'm pretty sure we pointed out to you was what had to be agreed, not a random sum.

From here, it looks as though the UK is starting to deal with reality.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

If you read further down, you'll find they agreed a methodology, not a sum.

Here's the money quote on that:


This methodology is something which I'm pretty sure we pointed out to you was what had to be agreed, not a random sum.

From here, it looks as though the UK is starting to deal with reality.

Good evening!

All is yet to be confirmed but the article gives a range of where it will come to. That's what we've got for now.

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

All is yet to be confirmed but the article gives a range of where it will come to. That's what we've got for now.

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What matters is they agreed a methodology. Per my last post. I'd point out that what the UK actually winds up having to pay will vary for them because the sum is expressed in euros and sterling has been floating a bit.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

All is yet to be confirmed but the article gives a range of where it will come to. That's what we've got for now.

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU were not looking for a particular sum but a methodology to calculate that sum. Since the methodology has not been published (yet) we can only guess at what the final bill will be. Also, it depends on the payment schedule, and if they have agreed that the sum is due - deal or no deal.

So, it just leaves the Citizen's rights and the Irish border. Now that Leo can concentrate on both, we shall see a shift in the British position - perhaps to off-shore.

We await developments.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

What matters is they agreed a methodology. Per my last post. I'd point out that what the UK actually winds up having to pay will vary for them because the sum is expressed in euros and sterling has been floating a bit.

Good evening!

My post and the article express the sum in Euro. I'm fully aware of currency risk.

Let's wait to see the details. I definitely can't see it above the top threshold.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Igotadose

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

All is yet to be confirmed but the article gives a range of where it will come to. That's what we've got for now.

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Whatever the amount was, it finally does seem like there's some tangible progress. IMO 60bn should be 'chump change' to the UK with an annual revenue of about 750 billion sterling. They don't leave the EU too often, and heck, there's that 350million/week they'll get back for the NHS (/sarcasm).

More momentous is that they've actually done something. The first easy issue is done - a process for determining the divorce bill now exists. Now the harder issues need progress - NI and the border, and EU Citizens rights.

Zubeneschamali

Calina wrote: »

From here, it looks as though the UK is starting to deal with reality.

Perhaps the statements that there will be no Phase 2 until progres is made on Phase 1 have sunk in.

Or perhaps they are using Royal Wedding cover to release unpopular news which they knew would have to come out eventually.

Leonard Hofstadter

This is obviously a welcome development. Still not enough for us to give the green light though... Now that there's not going to be an election our negotiating leverage has increased and we need to let Varadkar and Coveney get back to making sure there's no change to the border and look after our interests... something they were doing very well before the recent nonsense with the Tánaiste blew up.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU were not looking for a particular sum but a methodology to calculate that sum. Since the methodology has not been published (yet) we can only guess at what the final bill will be. Also, it depends on the payment schedule, and if they have agreed that the sum is due - deal or no deal.

So, it just leaves the Citizen's rights and the Irish border. Now that Leo can concentrate on both, we shall see a shift in the British position - perhaps to off-shore.

We await developments.

Good evening!

We certainly do. I personally suspect a fudge is on the horizon. I still don't believe they will move on the sea border with the DUP in confidence and supply.

Citizens rights is broadly consistent. Again, I can't see her getting away with ECJ direct oversight.

Interesting times ahead.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

What is your assertion that it is definitely too much based on? Have they released the methodology?

An Ciarraioch

captainspeed wrote: »

This is obviously a welcome development. Still not enough for us to give the green light though... Now that there's not going to be an election our negotiating leverage has increased and we need to let Varadkar and Coveney get back to making sure there's no change to the border and look after our interests... something they were doing very well before the recent nonsense with the Tánaiste blew up.

And Gavan Reilly reports that there appears to be broad agreement on the ultimate citizens' rights deal, so we now firmly hold the whip hand on both the Border and phase two.

https://mobile.twitter.com/gavreilly/status/935571691153121280

kowtow

My guess is that they will end up with a fudge which guarantees no regulatory divergence in NI until such time as a mutually acceptable electronic whole Island border thingy is implemented. They'll aim to use the transition period to do much of the work for this. They'll offer a bit of cash to Ireland to help in the planning and we'll jump.

The alternative is we hold up the talks (which even if right, doesn't help us much) and they drive home the message that they have never had any intention of putting a border up and Ireland and the EU obviously want to.

Once the rest of the 27 have a sniff of the money the pressure will be on from a lot of directions.

Then on with the second phase where the EU go for the same amount of money again in return for financial services pass porting rights. In many ways that's where things get interesting.

Nody

Sadly citizen rights and the bill are the easier of the two even though the bill amount could be political dynamite. I think if the bill is agreed to be paid over a longer time (let's say 8 billion 2019, 2020 and then taper off to cover the longer term items at a billion a year or similar) I think it can be sold in easily enough though. Then we're down to the border and that's the interesting one due to May's weak position with DUP playing the king maker; honestly not sure how that can be resolved (I'm sure May would happily sell out NI for a good trade deal if she did not have to rely on them to stay in power). Even if she gets Labour to support that specific bill she'd be dead in the water afterwards.