Brexit discussion thread II

kowtow

ambro25 wrote: »

True or not is irrelevant: the single, most plain and obvious take-away point from the GRB, is that it fails completely to maintain regulatory and normative compliance (as same pertains to all cross-border goods and services: physical products, air travel services, etc.) between the UK as a third party country and the EU.

All the GRB does, is set a legislative equivalence at time t0 in the UK, but which would still be lacking the 'UK portion' of the legacy EU systems (organisations, procedures, datasets ,etc.>) established by these EU27 statutes and used by the UK as an EU member state until end March 2019.

Since the jurisdictional scope of the GRB is the UK and NI, the GRB is wholly unable to preserve the UK's acquis within the said EU systems. All it can do is preserve the UK's acquis that is not dependent upon the UK's membership of such systems.

By way of example,

the GRB could perfectly well preserve the UK 'portion' of existing EU trademarks and EU designs as of Brexit day, with any Minister exercising Henry VIII prerogatives, or even Parliament itself, amending both the UK Trademarks Act and the UK Registered Design Acts (plus a couple more) to formally codify and achieve that effect down the line (there are actually a metric ton of real-life costly problems for rights owners down the line with that fudge, but I'm K-I-S-S here )

but the GRB cannot keep UK-based IP professionals on the list of professional representatives maintained by the EU Intellectual Property Office post-Brexit, nor can it preserve their privilege rights across the EU or their rights of audience to the EUIPO <etc.>, whatever and however any Minister exercising Henry VIII prerogatives, or even Parliament itself, may say or do or write or amend the various UK IP Acts: only the EU can do that.

Both outcomes are highly lossy for the UK relative to the status quo regardless, short- to long-term.

Absolutely agree - but that wasn't my point. My point was simply that, if in order to smooth transition the UK needs to undertake to maintain regulatory standards for some period of time it is easier to do given that the starting point is the same, it doesn't need to converge - simply not to diverge.

Clearly to the extent that regulatory standards are to be maintained and overseen, the functions that are presently delegated to EU bodies must be carried out by bodies in the UK and schemes of mutual recognition must be found. Once again, since the actual standards are currently shared it should be much easier to do this than it would for a non-EU nation.

For that to happen will require a lot of political goodwill on both sides, but if both sides are true to their words it should be possible to regain that.

flaneur

Politically, May needs to decide whether she’s a real stateswoman capable of leading and, if necessary, putting manners on the illogical extremists of her own party, or just a weak and wobbly figurehead that is being bounced along by every twist and turn.

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

Politically, May needs to decide whether she’s a real stateswoman capable of leading and, if necessary, putting manners on the illogical extremists of her own party, or just a weak and wobbly figurehead that is being bounced along by every twist and turn.

I don't think she really meets the stateswoman test, perhaps even in her own mind. And I don't think she's going to be able to hang on to Damien Green much longer either. If she could persuade Hague to replace him things would get interesting but I don't think he'll come.

I've always been a bit perplexed as to why the British accepted the typically European "timetabling" of the process so easily and the only logical explanation is that they did so on the - seemingly mutually agreed - proviso of "nothing agreed till everything is agreed". So far everything is a pretty predictable compromise. The one-way ECJ referral on citizens rights is a great window dressing, won't mean anything in practice. The framework agreement on money is unsurprising, we've yet to see the Irish border.... but the hard talking if there is any from the UK is going to come in the second phase - it's at that point that they will pull the financial settlement or, conceivably, increase it for the right deal.

I wonder where the transition period will fit in to all this.. difficult to see how that is any use without an irrevocable agreement beyond "nothing agreed until everything agreed.." or would that amount to a postponement of Brexit which nobody would dare to upset given that a total hard brexit with the breakdown of the talks in - say - late 2018 would hurt everyone.

ancapailldorcha

flaneur wrote: »

Politically, May needs to decide whether she’s a real stateswoman capable of leading and, if necessary, putting manners on the illogical extremists of her own party, or just a weak and wobbly figurehead that is being bounced along by every twist and turn.

She can't. With the DUP, she has a majority of three. That's it. If she pushes too hard, or at all even then all they have to do is resign. Only a few do that and then we're looking at another election while the Article 50 clock continues to tick.

breatheme

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

flaneur wrote: »

Politically, May needs to decide whether she’s a real stateswoman capable of leading and, if necessary, putting manners on the illogical extremists of her own party, or just a weak and wobbly figurehead that is being bounced along by every twist and turn.

She can't. With the DUP, she has a majority of three. That's it. If she pushes too hard, or at all even then all they have to do is resign. Only a few do that and then we're looking at another election while the Article 50 clock continues to tick.

That last GE truly was a disaster for her, wasn't it?

ancapailldorcha

breatheme wrote: »

That last GE truly was a disaster for her, wasn't it?

Bit like the US election. She had a wide open goal with the press savaging her opponent on a daily basis and she blew it. The only policy of hers I can recall off hand was that ill-thought through claptrap from Nick Timothy & Fiona Hill about charging old people for their care.

Edit: Tim Shipman has a new book, Fall Out being released tomorrow if anyone's interested. I rather enjoyed his tome about the EU referendum.

kowtow

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Bit like the US election. She had a wide open goal with the press savaging her opponent on a daily basis and she blew it. The only policy of hers I can recall off hand was that ill-thought through claptrap from Nick Timothy & Fiona Hill about charging old people for their care.

That policy did it - no question - absolutely terrible idea and badly put across.

Combined with the fact that Corbyn had the "freedom of the unelectable" about him, starting as such an outsider he was free to promise whatever he wanted (forgiving student loans for example) without too much risk of having to implement it.

So all the people too young to know the damage done by people like Corbyn fell for it and voted for him.

And half those old enough to remember the bad old days of militant leftism stayed at home because Theresa May had p***d them off and they thought she could damned well get herself back to Downing St without their help.

If the election was held again today I'm not sure Corbyn would do as well as people imagine, but then again he'd probably be up against Jacob.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

I've always been a bit perplexed as to why the British accepted the typically European "timetabling" of the process so easily and the only logical explanation is that they did so on the - seemingly mutually agreed - proviso of "nothing agreed till everything is agreed".

I think you are giving them far too much credit. What gives you any indication that they had any plan at all? I think they entered into it with the mindset prevailing during the campaign, that the EU needed the Uk and they were incontrol. The EU would do anything to keep hold of the UK.

Even the triggering of Art 50. There really was no need to do it, certainly not when they did. It was really the EU calling for it to be triggered as without it it damaged the future on the EU. But the Brexiteers were in such a rush to 'take back control' that they handed the initiative straight to the EU.

As was pointed out earlier, say what you like about the EU, but there is no doubt that they are professional and experienced at dealing with trade and negotiations. The UK have little of that but in their arrogance thought they could simply turn up and sort out these guys.

ancapailldorcha

The thing is that British society, like many others is aging. Importing hundreds of thousands of mainly young, healthy people per year is offsetting this at the moment but they too age so it's at best a temporary solution. I'd applaud the Tories for trying to make the elderly shoulder more of the burden of their care because at the moment, younger and middle aged people are carrying far more than their fair share of the load. Unfortunately, we got a hastily written manifesto written by two aides.

Harika

kowtow wrote: »

That policy did it - no question - absolutely terrible idea and badly put across.

Combined with the fact that Corbyn had the "freedom of the unelectable" about him, starting as such an outsider he was free to promise whatever he wanted (forgiving student loans for example) without too much risk of having to implement it.

So all the people too young to know the damage done by people like Corbyn fell for it and voted for him.

And half those old enough to remember the bad old days of militant leftism stayed at home because Theresa May had p***d them off and they thought she could damned well get herself back to Downing St without their help.

If the election was held again today I'm not sure Corbyn would do as well as people imagine, but then again he'd probably be up against Jacob.

If you look at the eight? years of conservative policies implemented and their austerity politic you wonder if Corbyn could actually do more damage than the conservatives are causing. Britain is leaderless and stumbles through the most important negotiations for the last and future decades.
Anyway it might be a good idea to have a GE, after Brexit has been put in stone with whatever deal was picked and Corbyn has to sort out the mess and take the blame for the bad deal Britain got out of their negotiations. Soon he will be forced for another GE and the Cons will be back in power for a long time.

Harika

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think you are giving them far too much credit. <-snip->

As was pointed out earlier, say what you like about the EU, but there is no doubt that they are professional and experienced at dealing with trade and negotiations. The UK have little of that but in their arrogance thought they could simply turn up and sort out these guys.

The UK is atm fighting an experienced united battle-hardened negotiation team of 27 with their divided, inexperienced, new to the game, learning while doing chaps from the pub. This is clearly visible from how the negotiations are running atm, and I don't see any white rabbit they suddenly pull out of their hat to regain initiative.
And as you said it was the first bad move in a row of many to trigger article 50 with only minimal preparation and sorting their side of it already as good as it gets.

kowtow

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing is that British society, like many others is aging. Importing hundreds of thousands of mainly young, healthy people per year is offsetting this at the moment but they too age so it's at best a temporary solution. I'd applaud the Tories for trying to make the elderly shoulder more of the burden of their care because at the moment, younger and middle aged people are carrying far more than their fair share of the load. Unfortunately, we got a hastily written manifesto written by two aides.

Absolutely. It was a bit like that "magic money tree" comment to the nurse... it's quite obvious that there is wastage in the NHS, that modern technology from private firms means that there literally is no limit on what it could spend in the pursuit of cures for everyone - it's equally true that the Tories have kept up spending on it where others expected them not to.

But you don't try and make a nurse look greedy when you answer her question.

Harika

kowtow wrote: »

Absolutely. It was a bit like that "magic money tree" comment to the nurse... it's quite obvious that there is wastage in the NHS, that modern technology from private firms means that there literally is no limit on what it could spend in the pursuit of cures for everyone - it's equally true that the Tories have kept up spending on it where others expected them not to.

But you don't try and make a nurse look greedy when you answer her question.

TBH the NHS uses far less money that most of the other other EU countries. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally The NHS is understaffed and underfunded and now with Brexit they are losing talent left and right. If you look at the graph attached and compare an Irish to an Austrian hospital with their equipment there are worlds between that.
I was with my pregnant wife there and had an emergency in Austria. Went to ER and it took us an hour from going in, to paperwork to be examined. Had a fup that took two hours with waiting time. Two hours ER waiting time is unthinkable in Ireland. The machines there were far superior to what you see in Irish hospitals. That just shows you how underfunded the Irish system is and I don't think the NHS is far better, looking at the numbers.
And in all countries the health system is under pressure with other areas are nearly untouched, where you can easily reduce waste without hurting the overall population but less money is going to lobbyists.
I am sure, that after Brexit services provided by the NHS will have to go down again as access to EU medical companies will be more expansive.

kowtow

Harika wrote: »

The UK is atm fighting an experienced united battle-hardened negotiation team of 27 with their divided, inexperienced, new to the game, learning while doing chaps from the pub. This is clearly visible from how the negotiations are running atm, and I don't see any white rabbit they suddenly pull out of their hat to regain initiative.
And as you said it was the first bad move in a row of many to trigger article 50 with only minimal preparation and sorting their side of it already as good as it gets.

I think there is some truth in that, but I also think that any objective observer should be suspicious of the degree to which that characterization of the British team at the negotiations is being put forward. It has been done - often by coordinated leaks from the EU side (most recently from Ireland) - since even before the talks began and it plays along nicely with the opportunistic debate in London about how much Parliament should have a say as the talks go along.

It is not usual when negotiating foreign treaties to seek approval from Parliament prior to final ratification - for the perfectly obvious reason that to do so would expose the hand of the negotiator and jeopardize his position.

The truth is that the position as we see it is almost certainly somewhat more balanced towards the British than we might like to think. I heard a fairly authoritative account of one session in particular where the British demolished the supposedly "legal" basis for the EU financial claims which left the EU side ashen faced. The reality is that what we are seeing, for the most part, is shadow boxing. The British will pay if they get a deal they are happy with. They were always going to be generous on citizens rights and they've found an ECJ formula to dress that up which is meaningless but can be sold in the EU as a political victory. The Irish border - well, we have yet to see, but at present they are confining themselves to a statement of fact which is that they will not put up a border even if the Irish and the EU insist on one. The future problems with that approach are well rehearsed here, but that doesn't alter the simple truth of the position as they are expressing it today.

If the EU hand really was as strong as it seems, and they really were sitting opposite a bunch of clowns, they'd be doing their level best to paint their opponents as strong, meticulous, and stable negotiators - to make sure above all else that their interlocutors weren't replaced by a more difficult bunch altogether.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

I think there is some truth in that, but I also think that any objective observer should be suspicious of the degree to which that characterization of the British team at the negotiations is being put forward. It has been done - often by coordinated leaks from the EU side (most recently from Ireland) - since even before the talks began and it plays along nicely with the opportunistic debate in London about how much Parliament should have a say as the talks go along.

It is not usual when negotiating foreign treaties to seek approval from Parliament prior to final ratification - for the perfectly obvious reason that to do so would expose the hand of the negotiator and jeopardize his position.

The truth is that the position as we see it is almost certainly somewhat more balanced towards the British than we might like to think. I heard a fairly authoritative account of one session in particular where the British demolished the supposedly "legal" basis for the EU financial claims which left the EU side ashen faced. The reality is that what we are seeing, for the most part, is shadow boxing. The British will pay if they get a deal they are happy with. They were always going to be generous on citizens rights and they've found an ECJ formula to dress that up which is meaningless but can be sold in the EU as a political victory. The Irish border - well, we have yet to see, but at present they are confining themselves to a statement of fact which is that they will not put up a border even if the Irish and the EU insist on one. The future problems with that approach are well rehearsed here, but that doesn't alter the simple truth of the position as they are expressing it today.

If the EU hand really was as strong as it seems, and they really were sitting opposite a bunch of clowns, they'd be doing their level best to paint their opponents as strong, meticulous, and stable negotiators - to make sure above all else that their interlocutors weren't replaced by a more difficult bunch altogether.

Seriously? I mean on what basis are you claiming any of this?

Take for example

I heard a fairly authoritative account of one session in particular where the British demolished the supposedly "legal" basis for the EU financial claims which left the EU side ashen faced.

And yet the Uk government has seemingly agreed to a figure close to 60bn! None of the facts actually bear up anything that you claim.

The UK have handled everything about this badly. The ref itself was done to try to get back voters lost to UKIP. The campaign was based on lies and mistruths throughout and people like May failed to stand up.

Since the vote, Brexit has been taken over by a relatively small number who have decided what Brexit means and even now, so long after the vote, it is clear that neither May nor the government have any plan.

Even yesterday, Patel - a member of the government until very recently - stated that they should tell the EU to feck off. How many in the cabinet still feel this way and yet May has agreed to 50bn.

Ask the government or the Brexiteers about any aspect of the process and at most you will get back from flimsy statement about transitions and future possibilities.

NI border, no ideas
City of London, no threat apparently
Drop of in forecasts - well thats the price of freedom
Freedom from what - well everything!

Vronsky

kowtow wrote: »

I heard a fairly authoritative account of one session in particular where the British demolished the supposedly "legal" basis for the EU financial claims which left the EU side ashen faced.

That was in the Telegraph, so I would hardly call the report authoritive.

Other reputable papers reported that it was the attitude of the UK that left them shocked. They subjected the EU negotiators to a lengthy powerpoint, and didn't produce any documents for the EU team to digest.

The shock of behalf of the EU team was it showed how unpredictable the UK team could be and that this power point flew in the face of the noises coming from the UK establishment at the time.

demfad

kowtow wrote: »

I think there is some truth in that, but I also think that any objective observer should be suspicious of the degree to which that characterization of the British team at the negotiations is being put forward. It has been done - often by coordinated leaks from the EU side (most recently from Ireland) - since even before the talks began and it plays along nicely with the opportunistic debate in London about how much Parliament should have a say as the talks go along.

A lot of the perception of weakness comes from the fact that the UK cabinet clearly does not have a set position on Brexit. Some want SM/CU membership, some want a hard Brexit, some are OK with no-deal at all!

It is not usual when negotiating foreign treaties to seek approval from Parliament prior to final ratification - for the perfectly obvious reason that to do so would expose the hand of the negotiator and jeopardize his position.

We all know the hand of the negotiators.

The truth is that the position as we see it is almost certainly somewhat more balanced towards the British than we might like to think. I heard a fairly authoritative account of one session in particular where the British demolished the supposedly "legal" basis for the EU financial claims which left the EU side ashen faced. The reality is that what we are seeing, for the most part, is shadow boxing. The British will pay if they get a deal they are happy with.

Could you link to this authoritative account?
You see the argument for the bill is not a legal one. It is just housekeeping.
Today it appears the UK side have completely capitulated to the EU side. No mention of a deal whatsoever.

They were always going to be generous on citizens rights and they've found an ECJ formula to dress that up which is meaningless but can be sold in the EU as a political victory. The Irish border - well, we have yet to see, but at present they are confining themselves to a statement of fact which is that they will not put up a border even if the Irish and the EU insist on one. The future problems with that approach are well rehearsed here, but that doesn't alter the simple truth of the position as they are expressing it today.

If the UK are outside the SM and CU they must put up a border as must the EU under international law. In the time since the vote the British have not put up one credible alternative to this. There is none.

If the EU hand really was as strong as it seems, and they really were sitting opposite a bunch of clowns, they'd be doing their level best to paint their opponents as strong, meticulous, and stable negotiators - to make sure above all else that their interlocutors weren't replaced by a more difficult bunch altogether.

There is no 'more difficult bunch' available. And the main weakness of the negotiators is with the position they are in. If they leave without a deal their economy is destroyed.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Seriously? I mean on what basis are you claiming any of this?

...

I'm not claiming anything, I'm repeating a single anecdotal account, which I believe, of one negotiating session - which in any case has little bearing on the point.

Apart from that I am speculating, as most of us are.

The figures are not binding (nothing agreed until... etc.) and they may appall or delight voters in the UK, including Priti Patel who is simply laying a marker down to remind Theresa May & Co.

It always pays to question a narrative when such trouble is taken to leak that narrative from so many places. Do you not think so? It's always wise to wonder why trouble is taken to paint a particular picture in public. And it's obvious that no seasoned negotiator faced with an idiot and holding all the cards would do anything which might change the face on the other side of the table.

It doesn't mean that the approach is not chaotic - plainly it is, and there is no smoke without fire - but things are never as black and white as they seem and we would be fools if we believed they were.

kowtow

demfad wrote: »

Could you link to this authoritative account?

No, it was a personal account.

There is no 'more difficult bunch' available. And the main weakness of the negotiators is with the position they are in. If they leave without a deal their economy is destroyed.

Now there you may be on to something, but my point stands nonetheless.

I would give up a fool on the other side of the table if I knew I could get a bigger fool to take his place.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

I'm not claiming anything, I'm repeating a single anecdotal account, which I believe, of one negotiating session - which in any case has little bearing on the point.

Apart from that I am speculating, as most of us are.

The figures are not binding (nothing agreed until... etc.) and they may appall or delight voters in the UK, including Priti Patel who is simply laying a marker down to remind Theresa May & Co.

It always pays to question a narrative when such trouble is taken to leak that narrative from so many places. Do you not think so? It's always wise to wonder why trouble is taken to paint a particular picture in public. And it's obvious that no seasoned negotiator faced with an idiot and holding all the cards would do anything which might change the face on the other side of the table.

It doesn't mean that the approach is not chaotic - plainly it is, and there is no smoke without fire - but things are never as black and white as they seem and we would be fools if we believed they were.

You are trying to claim that the UK are not the unprepared bunch they appear to be. That was the point of your post. Your anecdote was a way to try to show how well the UK team were doing.

Of course the figure is not binding, which is why the EU are taking a hard line on the phases of the talks. They know, you know, we all know, that May simply does not have the power to stand by anything that it agreed in the talks. Yet both you and Solo keep telling us that Ireland should allow UK to move the talks of border to the next phase. Not only should they demand it is agreed, Ireland should demand that the UK parliament ratify it.

I agree is is right to question everything, if only the UK voter had done so before committing to a brexit they didn't understand. But it not just the leaks that it is based on. Look at any communication from the government.
May spoke for months about 'Brexit means Brexit'. What sort of nonsense is that.
As I stated Patel came out yesterday completely at odds with what must have been talked about at the cabinet.
Davies went into the first meeting promising the toughest talks, and within hours had agreed to everything the EU wanted.

The evidence that they are not ready is everywhere you look, if you are prepared to look. Questioning can't only be one sided.

Given all the evidence is surely is foolhardy to believe that this UK government has any thing like a handle on this process. May has offered nothing to suggest that she has the capacity to lead through this

demfad

kowtow wrote: »

No, it was a personal account.



Now there you may be on to something, but my point stands nonetheless.

I would give up a fool on the other side of the table if I knew I could get a bigger fool to take his place.

Who says the EU wants to negotiate with fools?
May triggerring A50 and having an eclection after was all the foolishness they needed: it delivered time pressure to the UK team.

What do you think would happen if Gove or Johnson were at that table?
Gove is owned by Murdoch. Johnson? Who knows....
There would be a no-deal Brexit: the UK economy would be destroyed and the EU would take a big hit. No one in the EU really wants this.

Peregrinus

I think the account you got may have been a bit coloured, kowtow.

There's no "legal basis" for the Brexit debt. It's acknowledged on all sides that the UK could walk away in 2019 and not pay a shilling, and there would be no legal recourse.

The debt is due as a political and diplomatic necessity - if the UK, having made these commitments, and having by doing so induced other countries to make similar commitments, and having accepted payments from funds established by these commitments, unilaterally decides that it doesn't propose to honour its commitments, it burns a huge amount of diplomatic and political credibility. If the UK doesn't take it's own commitments seriously, why should anyone else? And if other people don't take the UK's commitments seriously, why bother making deals with the UK? The UK not dealing with its Brexit liablities would be signalling - very deliberately signalling - that it did not want an agreed Brexit deal, a post-Brexit EU trade agreement, or anything else of the kind. And in fact they'd also be signalling that they weren't too fussed about making deals with third countries either, since there'd be no reason to think that the UK would be any more mindful of its obligations to third countries than of its obligations to the EU.

Theres's ample scope for arguing about exactly what the UK's commitments are, and even more scope for arguing about how they should be valued. But there was never much scope for arguing about their "legal basis". If somebody told me that the British delegation had demolished the legal basis of the Brexit bill, I'd be thinking that the British delegation had kind of missed the point here.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

No, to be clear, if the UK is leaving the EU it must have the capacity to set it's own regulatory standards and make trade agreements.

So it follows that I would like to see, in the fullness of time, a customs border . . . .

Interesting. So when the British government says that they want an open border, do you think they are lying, or mistaken, or that they are using the term "open border" in a somewhat misleading way?

Calina

kowtow wrote: »

demfad wrote: »

Could you link to this authoritative account?

No, it was a personal account.

In other words we cannot be certain it was authoritive at all.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yet both you and Solo and telling us that Ireland should allow UK to move the talks of border to the next phase. Not only should they demand it is agreed, Ireland should demand that the UK parliament ratify it.

I agree is is right to question everything, if only the UK voter hand done so before committing to a brexit they didn't understand. But it not just the leaks that it is based on. Look at any communication from the government.
May spoke for months about 'Brexit means Brexit'. What sort of nonsense is that.
As I stated Patel came out yesterday completely at odds with what must have been talked about at the cabinet.
Davies went into the first meeting promising the toughest talks, and within hours had agreed to everything the EU wanted.

The evidence that they are not ready is everywhere you look, if you are prepared to look. Questioning can't only be one sided.

Given all the evidence is surely is foolhardy to believe that this UK government has any thing like a handle on this process. May has offered nothing to suggest that she has the capacity to lead through this

I think if you look further up the thread you'll see that I think Varadkar is probably right in threatening the Veto, especially if we have leverage which we will lose at a later point.

My point has been that we should recognize the risks of this approach for what they are - and that, to my mind, actually expecting NI to remain in the CU is unrealistic and unreasonable - not because of the presence of the DUP, incidentally, but simply because it's a constitutional affront to Britain which would never be tolerated.

Other than that I'm in favour of Ireland and Britain working out a border solution which really does work into the future, so that both of our countries (and we are the ones out of the 28 which stand to lose most) suffer as little damage as possible both economically and socially.

I think by "Brexit means Brexit" May is implying that without the ability to negotiate your own trade deals, govern yourself, and rely on your own courts Brexit is meaningless - in other words no SM, no CU, at least on the terms advertised by the EU. It's not an easy phrase to decipher though.

And as I said earlier I've always been perplexed by the acquiescence to the timetable of the talks - the only rational explanation for which is that with nothing agreed until the end the timetable is just a timetable.

And of course the British approach is chaotic - my point is and has always been that it may not be quite as chaotic as it seems.

It could be that the Irish border issue will be the litmus test of that. If we see phase two proceeding on the basis of NI staying in the CU with - as you say - ratification in Westminster then I think you will have me absolutely convinced.

kowtow

Calina wrote: »

In other words we cannot be certain it was authoritive at all.

No, you must take it as you will, for what it is worth.

kowtow

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the account you got may have been a bit coloured, kowtow.

There's no "legal basis" for the Brexit debt. It's acknowledged on all sides that the UK could walk away in 2019 and not pay a shilling, and there would be no legal recourse.

The debt is due as a political and diplomatic necessity - if the UK, having made these commitments, and having by doing so induced other countries to make similar commitments, and having accepted payments from funds established by these commitments, unilaterally decides that it doesn't propose to honour its commitments, it burns a huge amount of diplomatic and political credibility. If the UK doesn't take it's own commitments seriously, why should anyone else? And if other people don't take the UK's commitments seriously, why bother making deals with the UK? The UK not dealing with its Brexit liablities would be signalling - very deliberately signalling - that it did not want an agreed Brexit deal, a post-Brexit EU trade agreement, or anything else of the kind. And in fact they'd also be signalling that they weren't too fussed about making deals with third countries either, since there'd be no reason to think that the UK would be any more mindful of its obligations to third countries than of its obligations to the EU.

Theres's ample scope for arguing about exactly what the UK's commitments are, and even more scope for arguing about how they should be valued. But there was never much scope for arguing about their "legal basis". If somebody told me that the British delegation had demolished the legal basis of the Brexit bill, I'd be thinking that the British delegation had kind of missed the point here.

From https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/uk-has-lots-of-legal-advice-to-reject-e60-billion-brexit-bill/

The European Commission claims that no official numbers have been decided yet, with some estimates even putting the Brexit tab closer to €100 billion.

“The UK legal advisers say they have lots of advice suggesting the country does not need to pay the €60 billion to the EU,” a source told EURACTIV on condition of anonymity. UK advisers are reportedly very keen to know the legal basis of the EU’s demand.

“We are trying to tell [the UK government] not to politicise the discussion as this is a legal case and an obligation and not a Brexit fine as some tend to present it,” the same source added.

“UK premier Theresa May should not be affected by those fueling the rhetoric ‘they ask us for a bill even if we are leaving’,” the source warned.

flatty

There also, really, is no "deal" to be done. The UK either pays the asking price for market access, be that financial or political, or it doesn't.
The UK govt can grandstand at will. This, however, is the fact.
The UK govt has apparently agreed to pay the financial price. Now it will agree to pay the political price, or it won't.

An Ciarraioch

Varadkar tells the Dáil that there has been some progress on the Border issue, but still appears to be some distance away from a substantive solution:

https://www.rte.ie/amp/923573/

Zubeneschamali

Vronsky wrote: »

Other reputable papers reported that it was the attitude of the UK that left them shocked. They subjected the EU negotiators to a lengthy powerpoint

Yes, I remember those reports. A powerpoint presentation!

flaneur

I could see a problem where the Irish and British Government agree something relatively sane and the DUP just torpedo the Tories for it.

CelticRambler

Surely Labour (UK) could be persuaded to support a Tory compromise on the border for the greater good? Given Corbyn's alleged "understanding" of the IRA, perhaps he'd even be happy to see an Irish Sea border.

Over the longer term, such a arrangement would give the UK a chance to show that they could build and operate an "electronic" border, seeing as they'd have total control of both sides of the border (NI & GB) during the developmental phase, and of course the RoI would be happy to play along if it kept the island whole.

They could use the same structure for Gibraltar too.

swampgas

CelticRambler wrote: »

Surely Labour (UK) could be persuaded to support a Tory compromise on the border for the greater good? Given Corbyn's alleged "understanding" of the IRA, perhaps he'd even be happy to see an Irish Sea border.

Over the longer term, such a arrangement would give the UK a chance to show that they could build and operate an "electronic" border, seeing as they'd have total control of both sides of the border (NI & GB) during the developmental phase, and of course the RoI would be happy to play along if it kept the island whole.

They could use the same structure for Gibraltar too.

I'd imagine that if NI and Gibraltar were able to stay in the SM/CU, Scotland might look for the same. Unlikely perhaps, but who knows?

This really could be the end of UK as we know it.

Call me Al

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/29/pmqs-brexit-divorce-bill-grayling-defends-paying-massively-increased-brexit-divorce-bill-saying-uk-shouldnt-just-walk-away-politics-live

So EU saying not enough done yet for stage 2. Very clear and direct on what their requirements from the British are wrt EU citizens rights and the border.
Those red lines will have to become decidedly more pinkish if we've to cover this gap.

kowtow

Call me Al wrote: »

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/29/pmqs-brexit-divorce-bill-grayling-defends-paying-massively-increased-brexit-divorce-bill-saying-uk-shouldnt-just-walk-away-politics-live

So EU saying not enough done yet for stage 2. Very clear and direct on what their requirements from the British are wrt EU citizens rights and the border.
Those red lines will have to become decidedly more pinkish if we've to cover this gap.

Interesting that he phrases the Irish border question in terms of the rights of the citizens of Northern Ireland and he also maintains that the ECJ is the sole authority for EU citizens in the UK.

Taken at face value, those two assertions are a sufficient affront to British sovereignty to render all the talks to date a waste of time and money.

The British would be better, if they believe those to be red lines, to walk away now and get on with some serious structuring.

demfad

kowtow wrote: »

Interesting that he phrases the Irish border question in terms of the rights of the citizens of Northern Ireland and he also maintains that the ECJ is the sole authority for EU citizens in the UK.

Taken at face value, those two assertions are a sufficient affront to British sovereignty to render all the talks to date a waste of time and money.

The British would be better, if they believe those to be red lines, to walk away now and get on with some serious structuring.

This is what was said which is not what you said was said:

"Finally, we can only again reiterate our position that in order to guarantee the coherence and integrity of the EU legal order, the CJEU [court of justice of the European Union] must remain the sole and competent authority for interpreting and enforcing European Union law and not least the citizens’ rights provisions of the withdrawal agreement."

So ECJ remains authority for adjudicating EU citizens rights. UK is sovereign to adjudicate British Citizens rights but not sovereign to decide on EU citizens rights. Straightforward.

Can you elaborate on why it would be better to walk away now given that it would destroy their economy?

The 'no-deal' is better than a bad deal spoof surely died with the capitulation of the UK to EUs Brexit bill. It is clear that 'no-deal' is not only a bad deal it is the worst possible deal.

blanch152

Call me Al wrote: »

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/29/pmqs-brexit-divorce-bill-grayling-defends-paying-massively-increased-brexit-divorce-bill-saying-uk-shouldnt-just-walk-away-politics-live

So EU saying not enough done yet for stage 2. Very clear and direct on what their requirements from the British are wrt EU citizens rights and the border.
Those red lines will have to become decidedly more pinkish if we've to cover this gap.

That is the European Parliament. Interesting but not crucial to a decision.

It is comparable to the Scottish National Assembly saying that they don't like the Brexit terms.

Call me Al

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the European Parliament. Interesting but not crucial to a decision.

It is comparable to the Scottish National Assembly saying that they don't like the Brexit terms.

The article does make your first point blanch.

And also says that they do have some influence.. which they do.

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the European Parliament. Interesting but not crucial to a decision.

It is comparable to the Scottish National Assembly saying that they don't like the Brexit terms.

Not really. EP has veto on any trade deal so they cannot be easily dismissed by the EC or the UK.

kowtow

demfad wrote: »

This is what was said which is not what you said was said:

The quote I was referring to the one below, also from that Guardian piece:

It is arguable that 'regulatory alignment' leaves room for maneuver and it doesn't seem as strong as the previous "must be in the Customs Union" shorthand.. but to my reading the expression of the Irish border issue in terms of the rights of people in Northern Ireland is deliberately provocative.

I grant you it might not be meant as such, if he is simply referring to the rights enshrined in the GFA - but at first glance and after his assertions on the ECJ it reads that way to me.

His wording on the ECJ is very ambitious and appears to be at odds with the reported current 'agreed' position which if I understand it gives leave to the UK courts to refer decisions to the ECJ (at the court's option) where they deem it's jurisdiction appropriate. That's quite a good solution to the problem, IMO, especially as they will in any case follow ECJ precedent in their own decisions.

Concerning Ireland, the BSG [Brexit steering group] believes that the UK must make a clear commitment, to be enshrined in a form which would guarantee its full implementation in the withdrawal agreement, that it would protect the operation of the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, ensure, by means of continued regulatory alignment between the north and the south, there is no hardening of the border on the island of Ireland and that there is no diminishing of the rights of people in Northern Ireland.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

Not really. EP has veto on any trade deal so they cannot be easily dismissed by the EC or the UK.

That veto is on the final trade deal, not on whether we start negotiations. A long way away.

demfad

kowtow wrote: »

The quote I was referring to the one below, also from that Guardian piece:

It is arguable that 'regulatory alignment' leaves room for maneuver and it doesn't seem as strong as the previous "must be in the Customs Union" shorthand.. but to my reading the expression of the Irish border issue in terms of the rights of people in Northern Ireland is deliberately provocative.

I grant you it might not be meant as such, if he is simply referring to the rights enshrined in the GFA - but at first glance and after his assertions on the ECJ it reads that way to me.

His wording on the ECJ is very ambitious and appears to be at odds with the reported current 'agreed' position which if I understand it gives leave to the UK courts to refer decisions to the ECJ (at the court's option) where they deem it's jurisdiction appropriate. That's quite a good solution to the problem, IMO, especially as they will in any case follow ECJ precedent in their own decisions.

Regulatory alignment means avoiding a hard border which means must be in the SM and CU. This is just stating the obvious. If there is another way to achieve regulatory alignment suggested by the UK please let us know. Otherwise, the only way for regulatory alignment to work is by a very deep bilateral agreement like Switzerland has with the EU. The EU cannot grant this without the UK accepting the 4 freedoms which it has ruled out.
The EU and Ireland contend a hard border is unavoidable if NI outside CU and SM. Continued Waffle from the UK will only reinforce a belief and clearly this needs to be sorted before phase 1 ends.

NI citizens have automatically a right to Irish citizenship which gives which bestows automatic EU citizenship. These rights must not be diminished.

kowtow

demfad wrote: »

Regulatory alignment means avoiding a hard border which means must be in the SM and CU. This is just stating the obvious. If there is another way to achieve regulatory alignment suggested by the UK please let us know. Otherwise, the only way for regulatory alignment to work is by a very deep bilateral agreement like Switzerland has with the EU. The EU cannot grant this without the UK accepting the 4 freedoms which it has ruled out.
The EU and Ireland contend a hard border is unavoidable if NI outside CU and SM. Continued Waffle from the UK will only reinforce a belief and clearly this needs to be sorted before phase 1 ends.

I think we've been around and around that enough times to understand the arguments. It's worth adding that Switzerland does not allow Freedom of movement in quite the same way as it is understood in Dublin or indeed London. There is a national preference system in many occupations, it is not - with certain exceptions - possible for immigrants to buy real estate, and there are very well enforced provisions ensuring that immigrants have (and continue to have) the means to support themselves. I am aware that some of these provisions have been available to, but not used by the UK. As with the current UK / Brexit position there is a determined standoff between CH and EU on any question of the ECJ having jurisdiction.

NI citizens have automatically a right to Irish citizenship which gives which bestows automatic EU citizenship. These rights must not be diminished.

Indeed they do. But the issue here is a more fundamental one. Rights are rights only within a given jurisdiction. There is no problem granting rights, provided that all citizens rights within a jurisdiction are substantially equal, but the enforcement of those rights cannot take place anywhere other than the courts of the jurisdiction which grants and maintains them. It might be possible to enshrine the continuation of rights in a bilateral treaty - indeed it happens all the time - but the citizen is not party to the treaty. He must rely on the country he lives adhering to the treaty, and look to it's proper courts for remedy. If that is not sufficient then (unless he has diplomatic immunity) he must place himself within the jurisdiction of a court which suits him better.

That, so far as I can determine, is where the red line is on rights with the UK.

steddyeddy

kowtow wrote: »

Interesting that he phrases the Irish border question in terms of the rights of the citizens of Northern Ireland and he also maintains that the ECJ is the sole authority for EU citizens in the UK.

Taken at face value, those two assertions are a sufficient affront to British sovereignty to render all the talks to date a waste of time and money.

The British would be better, if they believe those to be red lines, to walk away now and get on with some serious structuring.

To be honest. The fact that Britain was in the EU seemed to be an affront to a substantially amount of leave voters.

Call me Al

Are rights defined or "allocated" in the context of the GFA?

Water John

Wondering the UK very busy sowing stories. Kowtow seems to have one. Another was a Times columnist on Sky News last night saying, some very good sources had told her that, Enda Kenny had almost agreed with the UK on the nature of an electronic border. But that was blown away by Varadkar when he assumed office.

kowtow

Water John wrote: »

Wondering the UK very busy sowing stories. Kowtow seems to have one. Another was a Times columnist on Sky News last night saying, some very good sources had told her that, Enda Kenny had almost agreed with the UK on the nature of an electronic border. But that was blown away by Varadkar when he assumed office.

I think there was a definite change of tack on the border issue after Enda went - this was the bbc report in July. Does that make sense to those of you that follow Irish politics closer than I do? Is there an underlying reason / hardening of the position coming from Ireland, or the EU, or have things just evolved this way?

Earlier, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney denied a newspaper report that suggested the Irish government preferred a sea border.
'Madness'
The Times report suggested Mr Varadkar wanted customs and immigration checks at ports, rather than any checks along the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

As for my story about the negotiating session, I'd be quite certain it was accurate - but it wasn't told to me by way of a compliment to the UK team (it came from the camp of about as big a remainer as you could imagine) rather the abilities and demeanor of some of the people involved. It was anecdotal and personal. And I fully accept that the other side could have been ashen faced for more than one reason!! I hadn't realised it was written about in the press but I'm not surprised because it was a subject of gossip for wholly different reasons which I won't go into here.

Nody

I guess May will regret those words for ever but Brexit means Brexit...

Speaking on Wednesday Mr Barnier said that the EU’s defence and security union “will have to be developed without the British, since on 30 March 2019 the United Kingdom will, as is its wish, become a third country when it comes to defence and security issues”.

“We must draw the appropriate legal and operational conclusions from this: The UK defence minister will no longer take part in meetings of EU Defence Ministers; there will be no UK ambassador sitting on the Political and Security Committee,” he said.

“The UK can no longer be a framework nation: it will not be able to take command of EU–led operations or lead EU battlegroups. The UK will no longer be a member of the European Defence Agency or Europol.

“The UK will not be able to benefit from the European Defence Fund the same way Member States will. The UK will no longer be involved in decision-making, nor in planning our defence and security instruments.

Why does it matter? well European arrest warrants, searching the Europol DBs for criminals etc. which May thought she'd be allowed to keep after leaving EU will all now be lost to the UK; but hey that's because UK will be sovereign again and that's all that matters. Who wants to capture paedophiles or murderers fleeing to Europe after all?

kowtow

Nody wrote: »

I guess May will regret those words for ever but Brexit means Brexit...

Why does it matter? well European arrest warrants, searching the Europol DBs for criminals etc. which May thought she'd be allowed to keep after leaving EU will all now be lost to the UK; but hey that's because UK will be sovereign again and that's all that matters. Who wants to capture paedophiles or murderers fleeing to Europe after all?

Are the EU going to stop consulting the UK on intelligence questions? They won't have any FVEY party?

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

Are the EU going to stop consulting the UK on intelligence questions? They won't have any FVEY party?

As per article UK will no longer be allowed to participate in any security discussions, conferences etc. UK will become a third party country like USA, Russia or Turkey in that sense. Exactly as UK wants it to be except of course they want to be allowed to pick the raising out of the cake and eat 'em.