Brexit discussion thread II

Leonard Hofstadter

kowtow wrote: »

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.

I can't see the EU allowing them passporting, that would be back to the have cake and eat it scenario. Well not unless the UK agrees to cough up a hefty amount of money and to accept all EU rules including ECJ oversight. Unless the UK gives up something big for it then the best they can hope for is a deal similar to Canada.

steddyeddy

captainspeed wrote: »

I can't see the EU allowing them passporting, that would be back to the have cake and eat it scenario. Well not unless the UK agrees to cough up a hefty amount of money and to accept all EU rules including ECJ oversight. Unless the UK gives up something big for it then the best they can hope for is a deal similar to Canada.

It's in France's interest that the UK doesn't have passporting rights. They have a lot to gain from this.

flaneur

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's in France's interest that the UK doesn't have passporting rights. They have a lot to gain from this.

As do all of the 27 really.

joeysoap

Maybe posted already (I’m not going to trawl)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596825/IPOL_STU%282017%29596825_EN.pdf

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/935599685611515904

Aul one: "Ireland are just being petty because they lost" :cool:

steddyeddy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/935599685611515904

Aul one: "Ireland are just being petty because they lost" :cool:

God almighty that is woeful. You know the education system in England has a lot to answer for when most of those people don't know where the border of the UK is. Cringe worthy stuff.

Samaris

I must admit, I couldn't draw it accurately! The damn thing is all over the place. I know roughly where it is but even then, I couldn't, if put on the spot, name all the counties along it.

Mind you, I was never good at locational geography.

Looked it up there - Leitrim is a very odd-shaped county. (Got most of them, was unsure about Down and Cavan though)

Schorpio

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/935599685611515904

Aul one: "Ireland are just being petty because they lost" :cool:

Interesting young/old contrast. Old lady pretty much expects us to fall into line, whereas the young lady hadn't the faintest notion where the border is (drew a line about halfway through Ireland!)

The poor old lady thinks she is still living in the Empire - we just have to lump it! Err, no. We don't.

Ted_YNWA

Schorpio wrote: »

Interesting young/old contrast. Old lady pretty much expects us to fall into line, whereas the young lady hadn't the faintest notion where the border is (drew a line about halfway through Ireland!)

The poor old lady thinks she is still living in the Empire - we just have to lump it! Err, no. We don't.

The "lump it" attitude works both ways. The UK will do likewise when they realise they don't get all they are expecting, but if anyone was to say that directly in the media they would be villified & the stocks dusted off for the town square.

The problem is her view permeates all the media daily.

Jesus even seeing the young people talking about the Republic being "cut-off" by a border. They really still don't get it.

murphaph

Gonna be a loooong time before there's any money for the NHS. UK seems to be falling into line but I reckon the government will collapse if not over the bill then over Ireland. Just too intractable.

steddyeddy

Schorpio wrote: »

Interesting young/old contrast. Old lady pretty much expects us to fall into line, whereas the young lady hadn't the faintest notion where the border is (drew a line about halfway through Ireland!)

The poor old lady thinks she is still living in the Empire - we just have to lump it! Err, no. We don't.

In fairness she'll be around as long as some of her attitudes. A lot of old people with this mindset ruined the future for the younger generation through Brexit.

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jesus even seeing the young people talking about the Republic being "cut-off" by a border. They really still don't get it.

Or as I shall now refer to it as "The Athlone Wall".

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

Or as I shall now refer to it as "The Athlone Wall".

But will the Mexicans pay for it?

Schorpio

murphaph wrote: »

Gonna be a loooong time before there's any money for the NHS. UK seems to be falling into line but I reckon the government will collapse if not over the bill then over Ireland. Just too intractable.

At 55bn settlement and 350 million per week - the NHS will be waiting for approx. 157 weeks, or just over 3 years.

And that of course is if you just go with the figure on the bus, which Nigel backtracked on literally the morning of the result.

Sam Russell

Schorpio wrote: »

At 55bn settlement and 350 million per week - the NHS will be waiting for approx. 157 weeks, or just over 3 years.

And that of course is if you just go with the figure on the bus, which Nigel backtracked on literally the morning of the result.

€55 billion is about 5 years current net contributions, and if you add the cost of replacing the 30 odd EU agencies they will have to replicate, and add the cost of the Brexit Dept (£1 billion/year) plus the cost of the trade negotiating team they have yet to recruit, and the cost of CAP payments (but these will only go to 'deserving' farmers), and regional funds for Cornwall, Wales, and NI, I think the three years might be more like 30 years.

Anthracite

Sam Russell wrote: »

€55 billion is about 5 years current net contributions, and if you add the cost of replacing the 30 odd EU agencies they will have to replicate, and add the cost of the Brexit Dept (£1 billion/year) plus the cost of the trade negotiating team they have yet to recruit, and the cost of CAP payments (but these will only go to 'deserving' farmers), and regional funds for Cornwall, Wales, and NI, I think the three years might be more like 30 years.

Plus the lost income from the departing EU agencies.

Anthracite

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Aul one: "Ireland are just being petty because they lost" :cool:

WTF does she think we lost?

Truly, many pensioners live in the Daily Express Cinematic Universe.

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

As do all of the 27 really.

True enough.. but it's also important not to underestimate the attraction of a domicile which is near but not in a closely regulated market. There is a phenomenal amount of investment in European assets held in structures which ameliorate or avoid withholding taxes - for example - and that money would not necessarily want to shift lock stock and barrel into the Eurozone core.

From the perspective of the public that might be quite desirable.. but when push comes to shove nobody wants funds melting out of their own investment markets (commercial property, residential property) for example.. let alone securities and bond markets. Investors, in the end, are not going to be over the moon if they end up having to place funds inside a closely ring-fenced EZ with banking union and more centralised regulation on the way. The City, I think, will remain an important finance centre for Europe. Passporting is far from the whole of the picture and if in practice European subsidiaries retain sufficient access then that will be enough.

Leonard Hofstadter

None of what I saw in that Channel 4 link surprises me.

I bet every other Irish person on this thread who lives in England would agree with me.

That's part of the reason I think giving out to the average British person or being rude to them because of '800 years' etc is a complete waste of time - they really do know no next to nothing about our country - and they certainly don't know about the fact that they occupied Ireland for 800 odd years.

I think the education system there is shocking at times. By the way it's not just Ireland, general knowledge of geography isn't a strong point of your average Brit.

My experience is if you try and explain it in a rational and non emotional manner they are prepared to listen and see why we would have such a major problem with the border.

Ignoring the jingoistic press comments floating about because of our (correct) stance on Brexit, they really do like us and as I've said before on several occasions my nationality has never been an issue in the 5+ years I've lived in the UK.

listermint

kowtow wrote: »

True enough.. but it's also important not to underestimate the attraction of a domicile which is near but not in a closely regulated market. There is a phenomenal amount of investment in European assets held in structures which ameliorate or avoid withholding taxes - for example - and that money would not necessarily want to shift lock stock and barrel into the Eurozone core.

From the perspective of the public that might be quite desirable.. but when push comes to shove nobody wants funds melting out of their own investment markets (commercial property, residential property) for example.. let alone securities and bond markets. Investors, in the end, are not going to be over the moon if they end up having to place funds inside a closely ring-fenced EZ with banking union and more centralised regulation on the way. The City, I think, will remain an important finance centre for Europe. Passporting is far from the whole of the picture and if in practice European subsidiaries retain sufficient access then that will be enough.

That entire post is the most wishful of wishful thinking.

The UK are not getting passporting rights. Mark this post down so you can reference it.

Their days of finance domination within Europe are ending and it's entirely of their own making. Europe made the city, Europe will take it away.

kowtow

listermint wrote: »

That entire post is the most wishful of wishful thinking.

The UK are not getting passporting rights. Mark this post down so you can reference it.

Their days of finance domination within Europe are ending and it's entirely of their own making. Europe made the city, Europe will take it away.

Europe most emphatically did not make the City .. and most certainly not Europe during the time of the EU.

And if you read my post you'll observe that passporting rights are unlikely to be the issue they are held out to be. It seems unlikely that Europe will avoid an FTT in the brave new world and that alone will be a powerful disincentive to keep desks outside it.

listermint

kowtow wrote: »

Europe most emphatically did not make the City .. and most certainly not Europe during the time of the EU.

And if you read my post you'll observe that passporting rights are unlikely to be the issue they are held out to be. It seems unlikely that Europe will avoid an FTT in the brave new world and that alone will be a powerful disincentive to keep desks outside it.

The city only became the financial centre that it is today because of its EU access to deny that is to deny history.

Professor Moriarty

captainspeed wrote: »

None of what I saw in that Channel 4 link surprises me.

I bet every other Irish person on this thread who lives in England would agree with me.

That's part of the reason I think giving out to the average British person or being rude to them because of '800 years' etc is a complete waste of time - they really do know no next to nothing about our country - and they certainly don't know about the fact that they occupied Ireland for 800 odd years.

I think the education system there is shocking at times. By the way it's not just Ireland, general knowledge of geography isn't a strong point of your average Brit.

My experience is if you try and explain it in a rational and non emotional manner they are prepared to listen and see why we would have such a major problem with the border.

Ignoring the jingoistic press comments floating about because of our (correct) stance on Brexit, they really do like us and as I've said before on several occasions my nationality has never been an issue in the 5+ years I've lived in the UK.

An old maxim: On the subject of history, the English can never remember and the Irish can never forget.

Water John

David Davis finding himself in hot water. The Speaker of the House of Commons demands he appear before the relevent committee.

This caused the collapse to the Govn't in Canada.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/david-davis-risk-contempt-parliament-brexit-reports-speaker

Samaris

They really did not have a clue, bar the man that did draw the border correctly. The very last man had some idea too. The pensioner had an idea, but it was about seventy years out of date. The younger ones were hopeless though. According to the young wan's map, Dublin's in the North!

Leroy42

Wonder what Solo thinks of the current Govt trying to hide information from the parliament. That is after May tried to top the parliament even having a vote on the final deal.

LeinsterDub

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

When you consider its 3 or 6 times higher than your supposed final figures of 10 or 20 bl I'm not surprised. I can't honestly recall but weren't you in the go whistle for it camp if more than 20 bl was offered?

Water John

Speaker considers Davis may be in contempt of Parliament.

kowtow

listermint wrote: »

The city only became the financial centre that it is today because of its EU access to deny that is to deny history.

The City of London was the worlds primary Eurodollar market and the worlds largest foreign exchange centre by the end of the seventies, regaining a position it had held until the 1920s. It was always the worlds premier insurance and reinsurance market thanks to Lloyds, always the centre for the Gold Fix and always pretty much dominant in shipping.

Today London is by far the largest forex market in the world and there is no European city which even makes the list.

It's advantage was - and is - a location in between the USA and the East (and Europe of course) and by far the most trusted commercial common law legal jurisdiction in the world ..absolutely rooted in centuries of commerce. Just consider how many bonds are issued around the world, including in Europe, under English Law and the specific reasons why that might be the case?

The Privy Council in London is the ultimate court of appeal for 31 countries, a figure probably only rivaled by the ECJ.

We all appreciate the success of the EU - which has been considerable - and the concomitant benefits to many countries including our own but the slavish, anti - UK Euro cheer-leading on this thread really makes one wonder.

whatstherush

IDS, a former Tory leader, saying we are playing politics because of the upcoming president election.

https://twitter.com/foxymm12/status/935596154011750406?s=17

Christ the Tansplaining has been bad over the last few weeks but this takes the biscuit.

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

An old maxim: On the subject of history, the English can never remember and the Irish can never forget.

Although I have to confess some surprise at the lack of Irish history taught to my children in their schools here, compared to the 10,000 word submissions on the Irish Civil War which we were expected to produce as 15 year olds in English schools.

Maybe I'm just old and nobody teaches history properly any more!

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

The City of London was the worlds primary Eurodollar market and the worlds largest foreign exchange centre by the end of the seventies, regaining a position it had held until the 1920s. It was always the worlds premier insurance and reinsurance market thanks to Lloyds, always the centre for the Gold Fix and always pretty much dominant in shipping.

Today London is by far the largest forex market in the world and there is no European city which even makes the list.

It's advantage was - and is - a location in between the USA and the East (and Europe of course) and by far the most trusted commercial common law legal jurisdiction in the world ..absolutely rooted in centuries of commerce. Just consider how many bonds are issued around the world, including in Europe, under English Law and the specific reasons why that might be the case?

The Privy Council in London is the ultimate court of appeal for 31 countries, a figure probably only rivaled by the ECJ.

We all appreciate the success of the EU - which has been considerable - and the concomitant benefits to many countries including our own but the slavish, anti - UK Euro cheer-leading on this thread really makes one wonder.

You seem to be under the illusion that nothing ever changes. When London was getting into 1st place was before the EU became what it is today. Since the UK was in the EU there really was no need to relocate.

Britain was at the forefront on international trade when very few other countries were involved and UK had the navy. Since then the US has bypassed it, China has roared ahead and EU has gone from 14 to 27 countries.

Kermit.de.frog

whatstherush wrote: »

IDS, a former Tory leader, saying we are playing politics because of the upcoming president election.

https://twitter.com/foxymm12/status/935596154011750406?s=17

Christ the Tansplaining has been bad over the last few weeks but this takes the biscuit.

The government better watch out for those crucial Fine Gael/Sinn Féin swing voters.

kowtow

So which is it to be?

Leroy42 wrote: »

When London was getting into 1st place was before the EU became what it is today.

listermint wrote: »

That entire post is the most wishful of wishful ...Europe made the city, Europe will take it away.

Really Interested

kowtow wrote: »

The City of London was the worlds primary Eurodollar market and the worlds largest foreign exchange centre by the end of the seventies, regaining a position it had held until the 1920s. It was always the worlds premier insurance and reinsurance market thanks to Lloyds, always the centre for the Gold Fix and always pretty much dominant in shipping.

Today London is by far the largest forex market in the world and there is no European city which even makes the list.

It's advantage was - and is - a location in between the USA and the East (and Europe of course) and by far the most trusted commercial common law legal jurisdiction in the world ..absolutely rooted in centuries of commerce. Just consider how many bonds are issued around the world, including in Europe, under English Law and the specific reasons why that might be the case?

The Privy Council in London is the ultimate court of appeal for 31 countries, a figure probably only rivaled by the ECJ.

We all appreciate the success of the EU - which has been considerable - and the concomitant benefits to many countries including our own but the slavish, anti - UK Euro cheer-leading on this thread really makes one wonder.

Are you sure it is 31 countries?

https://www.jcpc.uk/about/role-of-the-jcpc.html

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is tiny name one large country that it is the final court of appeal?

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Britain was at the forefront on international trade when very few other countries were involved and UK had the navy. Since then the US has bypassed it, China has roared ahead and EU has gone from 14 to 27 countries.

From the FT:

Move over, Singapore. There’s a new favoured clearing centre for the renminbi on the global scene.

The UK unseated the southeast Asian financial hub as the largest clearing centre for the renminbi outside of greater China in March, according to Swift’s RMB tracker. The financial transaction system’s data showed the value of UK Rmb payments rose 21 per cent year-on-year last month.

That reflects the growing dominance of China’s currency in payments between the UK and China/Hong Kong, which now accounts for 40 per cent of all payments in the corridor, followed by the Hong Kong dollar (24 per cent).

London is the world’s largest single FX-trading centre, with $2.15tn traded daily, according to the latest data from the Bank of England. The renminbi has climbed to be the eighth most-traded currency in the city, involved in 1.8 per cent of transactions – equivalent to about $39bn of deals, compared with $1.9tn for the dollar and $837bn for the euro.

Enzokk

Schorpio wrote: »

Interesting young/old contrast. Old lady pretty much expects us to fall into line, whereas the young lady hadn't the faintest notion where the border is (drew a line about halfway through Ireland!)

The poor old lady thinks she is still living in the Empire - we just have to lump it! Err, no. We don't.

Gotta love the old lady stating in all seriousness that you cannot always have what you want in life. I guess all we want is peace on the island and prosperity, I think she is saying we should be happy with a return to the 1980's because we lost.

kowtow

Really Interested wrote: »

Are you sure it is 31 countries?

https://www.jcpc.uk/about/role-of-the-jcpc.html

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is tiny name one large country that it is the final court of appeal?

No - it's all the offshore tax havens! - with the exception of Ireland.

Anthracite

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wonder what Solo thinks of the current Govt trying to hide information from the parliament. That is after May tried to top the parliament even having a vote on the final deal.

I'm going to guess it will be framed as a really good thing.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

So which is it to be?

Its not an either or.

London got itself into a significant place because of history and was able to stay there and expand due to being part of the largest trading block in the world. In effect, EU left London at it, mainly because they had nothing significantly different to offer to entice banks etc away.

You seem to be ignoring that EU played any part at all in the expansion of the City.

But UK has decided to change all of that. Why would you keep your main office, which serves EU, within a smaller market with access issues to that market?

London is not going to disappear in terms of banks etc, the UK market is big in of itself, but the reasons to stay rather than relocate to Paris, Frankfurt etc have diminshed. Whether it has a significant negative effect is unknown, by me but more importantly by the UK.

It may well stay intact, but it seems a hell of a risk to take without having a pretty good guarantee.

Anthracite

whatstherush wrote: »

IDS, a former Tory leader, saying we are playing politics because of the upcoming president election.

https://twitter.com/foxymm12/status/935596154011750406?s=17

The question remains as to whether - as it appears - British politicians really are as thick as mince, or whether this is just a lie from IDS knowing 95% of voters will never care otherwise.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its not an either or.

London got itself into a significant place because of history and was able to stay there and expand due to being part of the largest trading block in the world. In effect, EU left London at it, mainly because they had nothing significantly different to offer to entice banks etc away.

You seem to be ignoring that EU played any part at all in the expansion of the City.

But UK has decided to change all of that. Why would you keep your main office, which serves EU, within a smaller market with access issues to that market?

London is not going to disappear in terms of banks etc, the UK market is big in of itself, but the reasons to stay rather than relocate to Paris, Frankfurt etc have diminshed. Whether it has a significant negative effect is unknown, by me but more importantly by the UK.

I'm not suggesting that Europe hasn't contributed to the City's growth - of course it has. And of course some business will move there..

But the suggestion that the City will be broken by Brexit could only come from somebody that doesn't understand the City.

Firstly, an FTT is an increasing likelihood and that would be a death knell for most trading operations.

Second, Chinese & US currency trading, securities, and the derivatives business which surround them, will always seek the most flexible regulation and the most flexible taxation arrangements that can be found. The UK is already dominant in this part of the world and absolutely free to provide the best taxation structures for holding and trading these investments. Ask yourself why so many German property funds are domiciled in Guernsey, for example, rather than in Frankfurt.

The more Europe seeks to becomes a closed shop for financial services the more it limits itself to handling finance flows for it's own internal trade and investment rather than being open to global flows - and that hurts liquidity.

Of course passporting is important - especially for retail and near retail operations, but that's not the big part of the City that some would imagine. I'd be surprised if it was 25% or 30% of current business and free of the regulatory burden of Europe with tax laws optimized to channel investment into it you might be surprised how quickly the City will replace that.

Back in the Eurodollar days we grew in London as an "offshore America" - there's every chance that the City will actually grow faster again in years to come as "offshore Europe".

Job losses? Yes loads, but we do that in London every few years anyway. Moves to Europe? Some. But there are record deals still taking place in City office blocks - and that market has been overheated for years. There's a lot more talk than walk at the moment.

flaneur

I think what could cause London huge issues is also the fact that technology changes no longer require physical financial hubs. I have a feeling Europe's trade could end up as a network of cities.

Also, with America first policies, a lot of trade could end up pulled back to Wall Street.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

Still, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

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

Officially, no. The money is a (soon-to-be) agreed compounding of the UK’s existing net liabilities and commitments to the EU. From early on the UK’s position has always been, yes, we owe this, and we’re going to pay it; the only issue is how to value our liabilities/commitments and calculate the amount to be paid. On this view, the UK doesn’t get anything in return for the money, any more than you get anything in return when unhappy differences arise between you and your current Reason for Living, and you have to divide up the house and the mortgage and the cat and the dog. You’re just drawing a line under existing business.

In reality, of course, yes; what the UK hopes to get in return for this is trust and goodwill which will pave the way to an EU/UK Brexit deal which meets the UK’s objectives/aspirations. And, as you say, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

kowtow wrote: »

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

Not so much. The money (and in particular the amount of the money) has always been a much bigger factor in the UK than in the EU. As far as the EU are concerned, they want an exit settlement because of the Principle of the Thing, and the amount must be correctly and reasonably calculated because Principle and because Fairness and yes, all other things being equal, a bigger payment is better than a smaller one.

But the actual amount is relatively much less significant to the EU than it has been in the the UK, if only because the EU is vastly bigger and wealthier than the UK. You’ll have noticed that much of the Brexity rhetoric on this question has focussed on the amount, because the amount really matters at the UK end. But not so much at the EU end, where the focus has always been on the method and basis of calculation. A couple of weeks ago Jacob Rees-Mogg, the famous genius, suggested that the loss of the UK’s net contribution to the EU of £9 billion sterling per annum would render the EU “effectively insolvent”, and that the UK could (and indeed should) force the EU to accept a Brexit deal on UK terms by threatening an immediate suspension of the UK’s payments. It was left to others with a greater mastery of arithmetic to point out that the UK’s net contribution works out at £20 per head, or £46 per household, on the EU side.

The fact is that the EU decided some time ago that if the UK left without making any exit payment at all they could absorb the financial impact of that without too much difficulty. If that’s their attitude towards getting no payment at all, you can imagine that increases or decreases in the projected amount of the payment are not going to change many minds on purely financial grounds. As far as the EU is concerned, if the UK’s projected payment goes up from, say, €40 billion over five years to €55 billion over five years that’s nice, but the main significance is not the extra €3 billion per year; it’s the change in the UK’s attitude that is signalled by this.

kowtow wrote: »

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.

Possibly. What is needed here is an arrangement which can colourably be presented as not Single Market participation, not Customs Union participation and not a “sea border” but which still guarantees that goods and services crossing the Irish border are such as can be freely imported into and traded in the Single Market. I think that does require a bit more than regulatory compliance in NI during the transitional period; it requires (a high degree of) regulatory compliance on an ongoing basis, either within NI supported by (what is tantamount to) a sea border, or within the UK as a whole. The yet to be invented electronic gizmos aren’t a substitute for regulatory equivalence; they are a way of assuring and monitoring it.

kowtow wrote: »

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.

That would be a hard message for the UK to sell. It’s plainly the case that the EU and Ireland do not want a hard border; right now there is an open border and that situation suits us just fine; we would love for it to continue. It’s the UK that is determined to move away from the status quo, remember. And if Ireland does veto a Brexit deal because it isn’t consistent with an open border, and pays a high economic price for doing so, that will underline still further that we really, really don’t want a hard border, and are prepared to pay a high price to avoid one. In that context, any narrative which starts “Ireland and the EU obviously wanted a hard border all along” will lack credibility.

The narrative that the UK never had any intention of putting a border up will also be a hard sell. The UK say they don’t want a hard border, but the question is whether they wanted an open border badly enough to be willing to compromise other aspirations and objectives in order to get it. I think the way most observers will read the situation is that both sides wanted an open border, but the UK wanted other things more than it wanted an open border and, when push came to shove, they chose the other things.

flaneur

Politically they seem to be going out of their way to destroy goodwill though, whatever the official strategy might be. All the jingoism is being received loud and clear in Brussels and more importantly, in other EU member states' capitals.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly. What is needed here is an arrangement which can colourably be presented as not Single Market participation, not Customs Union participation and not a “sea border” but which still guarantees that goods and services crossing the Irish border are such as can be freely imported into and traded in the Single Market. I think that does require a bit more than regulatory compliance in NI during the transitional period; it requires (a high degree of) regulatory compliance on an ongoing basis, either within NI supported by (what is tantamount to) a sea border, or within the UK as a whole. The yet to be invented electronic gizmos aren’t a substitute for regulatory equivalence; they are a way of assuring and monitoring it.

You can dress a pig in lipstick but unless Britain regains control over trade policy, laws and immigration then people will see through it.

Particularly when it is coming at a €55bn price tag potentially. That's how this payment is seen in the UK. The access received better be fantastic for that amount of money.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The narrative that the UK never had any intention of putting a border up will also be a hard sell. The UK say they don’t want a hard border, but the question is whether they wanted an open border badly enough to be willing to compromise other aspirations and objectives in order to get it. I think the way most observers will read the situation is that both sides wanted an open border, but the UK wanted other things more than it wanted an open border and, when push came to shove, they chose the other things.

If the EU insist that the border must go up that won't be a hard sell at all. At least not within the UK. The Government have been clear so far that they want the border open. The only doubt is whether or not the EU will allow it to be.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

kowtow wrote: »

But there are record deals still taking place in City office blocks - and that market has been overheated for years. There's a lot more talk than walk at the moment.

Usually, major crashes are preceded by a few years of record deals and "we're different" or "this time it's different".

A lot of problems in other places which lost their places at the top of their respective industries was a flat refusal to recognise things could ever change. So I am somewhat stuck between assuming you know what you're talking about by being where you are and seeing a certain blindness to risk of major losses on your part. Surely you recognise that the City of London voiced a preference for not Brexiting and not exiting the single market and the customs union? And that the Mayor's office is engaged in major league damage limitation?

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You can dress a pig in lipstick but unless Britain regains control over trade policy, laws and immigration then people will see through it.

You can't because lipstick is not an item of clothing. Anyone who understands trade policy will understand that policy is one thing, negotiations with other parties are a different thing and Britain will be the smaller party in a lot of those negotiations in the future, where it is the bigger party, the other party will not be contributing so much to its economy either way. Anyone who understands laws understands the UK had control over it and anyone at all who knows about immigration knows that the UK did not and continues not to bother implementing the control it has over immigration.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Particularly when it is coming at a €55bn price tag potentially. That's how this payment is seen in the UK. The access received better be fantastic for that amount of money.

You really need to understand that this sum is not paying for access. It is in settlement of what you already owe. It deals with the past, not the future. The problem for you is that you have no future if you don't deal with past debts. You are not paying for access here. Access payments will be whatover contributions you make to the EU budget going forward after the existing commitments have been paid. Check with Norway.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU insist that the border must go up that won't be a hard sell at all. At least not within the UK. The Government have been clear so far that they want the border open. The only doubt is whether or not the EU will allow it to be.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If a border goes up it is because of a UK decision and prevailing international regulations on trading and customs. You know this because people are dead from telling you. It is not an EU decision, it is a UK decision to Brexit and all events arising from it are as a result of a UK decision. UK fault. UK responsibility. If there is a border in Northern Ireland it will be as a result of Brexit. BREXIT. BRITISH DECISION.

I believe you understand who voted for Brexit in the first place. It was the UK. Not the EU. The EU was quite happy for no change to happen. Anything else is the responsibilty of the UK. Stop pretending or deluding yourself that it is not.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

You can dress a pig in lipstick but unless Britain regains control over trade policy, laws and immigration then people will see through it.

Particularly when it is coming at a €55bn price tag potentially. That's how this payment is seen in the UK. The access received better be fantastic for that amount of money . . .

If the EU insist that the border must go up that won't be a hard sell at all. At least not within the UK. The Government have been clear so far that they want the border open. The only doubt is whether or not the EU will allow it to be.

Do you not see the contrast here, solo? The UK cannot both "regain control over trade policy, laws and immigration" and at the same time unlaterally decide that they want an open border with the EU. Unilaterally to open your borders is not to regain control over trade, laws and migration; it's to abandon it.

The default for an international border is that it's not open; that's pretty much inherent in the whole concept of "border". Borders are only opened if the sovereign powers on both sides of the border enter into agreements whereby their interests can be safeguarded and their objectives achieved despite an open border. The Single Market is such an agreement which is why, right now, the border is open. The UK has decided to withdraw from the Single Market, which inevitably means that the border will close unless the UK is willing to enter into a replacement arrangement whose terms facilitate an open border. If the UK adopts a set of "red lines" which prevent an open border, that's an exercise of control by the UK all right, but it's an exercise of control which is the result of choices made by the UK, and for which the UK is responsible.

It's not a question of whether "the EU will allow" the border to be open. Seriously, if you genuinely thought that the outcome of Brexit is that the EU gets to decide whether the UK's borders are open or not, you would denounce Brexit as having completely failed to achieve the stated objective of "regaining control".

The bottom line is that, if the UK wants an open border, it has to be prepared to enter into the kinds of cross-border arrangements necessary to facilitate open borders. Simply saying "we'd like an open border" gets you about as far as saying "we'd like a network of trade deals which will repair the damage we're about to do to our international trade". In neither case does the aspiration mean anything in itself; in both cases nothing will be achieved unless the UK is prepared to enter into the appropriate agreements with the independent sovereign powers with whom they need to agree these things. If what you're telling us is that the UK has no responsibility for whether it succeeds or fails in concluding the international agreements it needs to achieve its objectives but that, nevertheless, it has "regained control", then excuse us while we point and laugh.