Brexit discussion thread II

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, Brexit was about fishing rights.

What you spectacularly fail to realise, is that the diverse ethnic groups of the UK would, generally speaking, have had a vote in the referendum and a second generation Pakistani immigrant would have been just as likely to vote leave as someone whose ancestors fought King Richard III.

Could you back up that claim? That the majority of Brexiters were concerned about fishing rights?

First Up

steddyeddy wrote:

Could you back up that claim? That the majority of Brexiters were concerned about fishing rights?

The second generation Pakistanis I know speak of little else.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The second generation Pakistanis I know speak of little else.

. . . in the long nights after Samhain.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Akrasia wrote: »

The best thing for the UK and the EU is a high divorce payment accompanied by favorable trading terms. The high divorce bill is a once off payment that can be added to the national debt and nobody will really notice it, but the favorable trading terms would be much more valuable in the long term to both the EU and the UK.

The EU would like a high divorce payment because this would discourage other nations from leaving, and a large figure like 100 billion would be something their politicians can use in a political campaign that is worth a lot more votes than the mundane details of taxes and tariffs.

Unfortunately, a lot of craven politicians on the pro-brexit side are focused on the divorce bill and would rather shoot themselves in the foot than concede on this issue.

The claim that the UK is going to pay whatever the EU asks for is laughable. Obviously the UK is only going to pay as much as it feels it has to.

As for tariff free trade access. This is as much in the EU's interests as in the UK's. Just look to Ireland's agricultural and services sectors to start off with. Or indeed to other regions in Europe like Flanders. There are already underreported calls from German businesses to show a more amicable tone in the Brexit negotiations.

Obviously the UK isn't going to pay an extortionate bill.

murphaph wrote: »

They need to agree the methodology for calculating the amount. If it falls out at the end that the UK owes 10bn then they should pay 10bn. If it falls out at the end that they should pay 110bn then they should pay that. The methodology should be agreed before random numbers come into play. I don't want to see the UK "charged" for a trade deal. I just want them to pay what's due and as a country has never left the EU, we need to establish these parameters through negotiation.

To be frank, the EU could just present a bill for some huge figure and the with the threat of no deal for UK services, the UK would be under immense pressure to just pay it. In fairness to the EU it is not suggesting this. It wishes to establish the methodology first and do the sums later.

This just proves an underlying point to me. If Britain aren't offering a generous concession it is that they won't compromise. When they do the complaint is that they've not fully bent to the European Commission's point of view.

Obviously they haven't. The UK are willing to pay what they believe is a reasonable assessment of their commitments. It's worth pointing out that the UK don't "owe" anything to the EU but rather they have committed funds to the EU.

They should give what they committed to and not a penny more. Now, what they have committed can't be much more than three years of membership fees. Anything extremely far from that and the EU can go whistle.

If the UK are going to put this forward and Number 10 are vigorously denying it as we speak (I think the report is accurate it's just going to be revealed later) then it's a hugely generous amount given some of the people in the Tory backbench (for example Jacob Rees-Mogg MP of North East Somerset or Andrew Rosindell MP for Romford and co-chair of the British Irish Parliamentary Council).

The idea that the UK will pay whatever the EU ask for is absolutely laughable. It shows how biased both the German and the Irish media are on the issue.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

A deal encompassing services is much more important to the UK than the EU. The UK relies heavily on services sold into the EU. The EU in contrast sells mostly manufactured goods into the UK, which are covered by WTO rules and of course the relationship is asymmetric. The EU is simply much larger so can absorb the blow of lost trade more easily.

It's complete folly to claim that both sides need a deal as much as the other. I don't understand why you keep repeating that.

It is bad for everyone if no deal is reached but much worse for the UK.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

A deal encompassing services is much more important to the UK than the EU. The UK relies heavily on services sold into the EU. The EU in contrast sells mostly manufactured goods into the UK, which are covered by WTO rules and of course the relationship is asymmetric. The EU is simply much larger so can absorb the blow of lost trade more easily.

It's complete folly to claim that both sides need a deal as much as the other. I don't understand why you keep repeating that.

It is bad for everyone if no deal is reached but much worse for the UK.

Good morning!

Again, more nonsense.

Different countries have different levels of exposure to the UK. The EU isn't a superstate yet. That obviously needs to be taken into account. Moreover the UK imports far more from EU member states that exports. That's before we talk about security, intelligence and the need for EU clients to have access to the City of London.

The more you post, the more you demonstrate that Euro-federalists like you will never be happy. No matter how reasonable or how generous Britain is you'll never be happy.

Britain has a very strong hand. It won't be bending to everything the EU says. It has proven itself willing to compromise and now the EU should do the same.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are already underreported calls from German businesses to show a more amicable tone in the Brexit negotiations.

Except 50% want a hard brexit over giving up freedom of movement

From article above wrote:

The survey conducted by the Deloitte audit and consulting group and released Tuesday in Munich showed 49 percent of firms rejected any trade deal if the U.K. remains determined to control immigration on its terms.

Obviously the UK isn't going to pay an extortionate bill.

Well seeing how some politicians think paying anything this is a empty argument as it all falls under what's defined as extortionate.

Obviously they haven't. The UK are willing to pay what they believe is a reasonable assessment of their commitments. It's worth pointing out that the UK don't "owe" anything to the EU but rather they have committed funds to the EU.

And the EU owes nothing to the UK inc. tariff free access to its markets and seeing how EU will have 59 trade deals going forward to UKs zero it's also very clear which market is going to grow faster over the next decade.

They should give what they committed to and not a penny more. Now, what they have committed can't be much more than three years of membership fees. Anything extremely far from that and the EU can go whistle.

And the pension payments for all the civil services that they used for the last 20 odd years; or did you forget that costs are accumulated beyond the immediate yearly payments as well in the budget?

The idea that the UK will pay whatever the EU ask for is absolutely laughable. It shows how biased both the German and the Irish media are on the issue.

If the UK politicians had any brains (and seeing how they are flailing around failing to even deliver position papers on Brexit or be aligned at something basic as even a general direction on government level to policy) they would pay up what ever EU asks. Why? Because it will dwarf the benefits from tariff free access to the EU market esp. in the most vulnerable years directly after Brexit when they will have ZERO trade deals to fall back on. Even with a full fledged EU deal on everything (which is highly unlikely to ever happen) they still have 50% of trade suddenly falling outside trade deals as they lost access to all the EU once which will take optimistically over a decade to get back up and running again.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Different countries have different levels of exposure to the UK. The EU isn't a superstate yet. That obviously needs to be taken into account. Moreover the UK imports far more from EU member states that exports. That's before we talk about security, intelligence and the need for EU clients to have access to the City of London.

Who got a bigger security engine; EU or UK? What side had to write a special deal to get the access back in 2015? UK. Who has added the 500k people into the Europol DB of people blocked from entry to EU? Not UK for sure. UK has 40% of the people in there having interest in going to the UK; UK has the interest to get security deal with EU but quite frankly EU generates a lot more intelligence than UK does so once again EU and UK will need to get a special deal to see the data under ECJ of course. But don't take my word for it:

The calls – from senior figures including Sir Hugh Orde, former chief constable of the police service of Northern Ireland and former head of Europol Max-Peter Ratzel – were reinforced on Saturday night by Dominic Grieve, the Tory chair of the Commons intelligence and security committee.

Grieve said full participation, even if it meant accepting EU rules and judicial oversight for the European Court of Justice (ECJ), could not be more crucial. He said he believed May was committed to remaining closely involved in EU security but believed that doing so would require compromise that would be hard for some in May’s party to accept.

As for London; if EU so desperately needed that access how come all the banks are moving offices over to EU countries instead and seek to follow EU rules to get access to the market? Could that be because they actually know the lay of the land compared to your dreaming up things of what EU requires?

The City of London is exploring alternative ways to access EU markets after Brexit, should a political deal prove elusive or only apply to certain financial sectors.

Lawyers are combing through existing agreements that could allow UK-based firms to strike trading deals on a firm-by-firm basis or even for individual lines of business.

Jonathan Herbst, the global head of financial services at the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said companies could volunteer to be subject to EU rules in order to gain market access.

Britain has a very strong hand. It won't be bending to everything the EU says. It has proven itself willing to compromise and now the EU should do the same.

Britain has a loaded gun pointed at it's own head claiming if they don't get what they want they will shot themselves and confuses that with a strong hand. Britain has two options; a hard brexit with no deal (which they will end up paying a certain amount after a long court case), no access to Europol, no access to EU wide arrest warrants etc. or a softer hard brexit where they will get at least some sort of trade deal, security deal etc. in place with the possibility to use EU functions for a cost in a transition deal.

Both deals will hurt but it's a question if UK will cut of their arm or only their hand in the end.

Peregrinus

No, murphaph is correct. On trade matters, most observers reckon that the EU has the stronger hand. While the EU-27 export more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU-27, the exports matter much more to the UK than to the EU

UK exports to the EU account for about 46% of the UK's total exports. But EU-27 exports to the UK account for only about 8% of the EU's total exports.

Suppose the UK dropped out of the EU without any kind of a deal, and the resulting barriers to trade resulted in a 15% drop in trade in both directions.

For the UK, this would mean a drop in total exports of (0.46 x 0.15 7%. For the EU-27, the corresponding figure would be (0.08 x 0.15 1.2%.

(Obviously, the 1.2% wouldn't be evenly spread. Some parts of the EU would suffer more than others. But that's equally true of the UK, obviousy. The UK as a whole would suffer a 7% drop in its export trade, but some regions within the UK would suffer a much greater drop.)

Neither side would welcome this, but it would obviously be a much bigger deal for the UK than for the EU-27.

To illustrate the point another way, to make up for the loss of its exports to the UK, the EU would have to increase its exports to the rest of the world by 1.21%. But to make up for the loss of its exports to the EU, the UK would have to increase its exports to the rest of the world by 13% - and this in a situation where it has just withdrawn from the EU's network of trading agreements with the rest of the world.

Obviously, I've plucked the 15%-drop-in-trade figure out of the air. But that doesn't matter; you can plug in any figure you like there, and the disparity in impact as between the UK and the EU-27 remains. The UK's exports to the EU are between five and six times more important to the UK than the EU's exports are to the EU.

The bottom line is that both sides are better off with a trade agreement, but this is a much, much bigger deal for the UK than it is for the EU, and the EU is therefore in the stronger bargaining position. And both sides know this.

murphaph

And the concept isn't that hard to grasp. Add in the fact that the percentage drop in trade would not be equal because the UK exports more services as a fraction of their total exports to the EU and these are not covered by WTO rules and you can really see the cards are stacked against the UK.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

The bottom line is that both sides are better off with a trade agreement, but this is a much, much bigger deal for the UK than it is for the EU, and the EU is therefore in the stronger bargaining position. And both sides know this.

The EU side have known this all along but it is only slowly seeping into the British conciousness, because the CBI and captains of industry are bellowing it into Davis' and other ears.

In trade with the EU, exclusion from the single market will devastate supply chains that UK companies spent the last 30+ years building themselves into.

In trade with third countries, the UK has to replace the EU's trade agreements, with approx 10% of the EU's bargaining power.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, murphaph is correct. On trade matters, most observers reckon that the EU has the stronger hand. While the EU-27 export more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU-27, the exports matter much more to the UK than to the EU

UK exports to the EU account for about 46% of the UK's total exports. But EU-27 exports to the UK account for only about 8% of the EU's total exports.

Suppose the UK dropped out of the EU without any kind of a deal, and the resulting barriers to trade resulted in a 15% drop in trade in both directions.

For the UK, this would mean a drop in total exports of (0.46 x 0.15 7%. For the EU-27, the corresponding figure would be (0.08 x 0.15 1.2%.

(Obviously, the 1.2% wouldn't be evenly spread. Some parts of the EU would suffer more than others. But that's equally true of the UK, obviousy. The UK as a whole would suffer a 7% drop in its export trade, but some regions within the UK would suffer a much greater drop.)

Neither side would welcome this, but it would obviously be a much bigger deal for the UK than for the EU-27.

To illustrate the point another way, to make up for the loss of its exports to the UK, the EU would have to increase its exports to the rest of the world by 1.21%. But to make up for the loss of its exports to the EU, the UK would have to increase its exports to the rest of the world by 13% - and this in a situation where it has just withdrawn from the EU's network of trading agreements with the rest of the world.

Obviously, I've plucked the 15%-drop-in-trade figure out of the air. But that doesn't matter; you can plug in any figure you like there, and the disparity in impact as between the UK and the EU-27 remains. The UK's exports to the EU are between five and six times more important to the UK than the EU's exports are to the EU.

The bottom line is that both sides are better off with a trade agreement, but this is a much, much bigger deal for the UK than it is for the EU, and the EU is therefore in the stronger bargaining position. And both sides know this.

Good morning!

It's multi-faceted. I don't treat the EU as a superstate in considerations. The reality is that the European Union for now is 27 individual countries with different priorities. A number of those countries are highly exposed to the UK. Therefore it is in their particular interests to ensure that Britain has a good deal. Ireland is very much included in this.

Britain has a huge hand as Europe's foremost military power, and in security and intelligence. The leaks from Macron show that collaboration with Britain is a major concern for France in particular. And again, despite how some want to downplay it, access to financial markets in the City of London is vital for European clients.

In any case - the EU doesn't seem to have a justification for asking for the €100bn figure that they are claiming. Moreover, this figure wouldn't be on the "commitments" that the UK had made, because the "commitments" that the UK had made couldn't exceed their membership fee for a number of years.

If £36bn is the offer that the Government are going to make, and I believe it is irrespective of how strongly Number 10 are denying it right now. That is a sizeable amount. It represents three years of contributions. If it is a net figure rather than a gross figure then the European Union stands to gain more from the stake that the UK has in the European Investment Bank and in other institutions.

Akrasia's incredulous point a few posts ago was that the UK should accept a sodding big charge from the EU to allow the EU to convince other member states not to leave. Why on earth is that in the UK's interest at all? That's lunacy.

If this is the figure that the Government are presenting to the EU, it is an extremely fair offer. If the EU want anything like €100bn then I agree with Boris Johnson, they can go whistle.

The UK are offering a fair future relationship with the EU. If the EU go for the punitive option that is an act of self immolation. The UK has simply said it wants a different relationship, and it's willing to go a long way to make that happen. The EU on the other hand aren't even willing to accept what the people voted for last year.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

I'm not impressed by this approach of picking a figure out of the air, whether its 100bn or 36bn, and saying right, that's it, anything more or less is beyond the pale. The ratio which the figure bears to the UK's annual contributions is irrelevant.

There's clearly a negotiation that has to go on about the exit payment. Both sides will open with suggestions about how it might be calculated that are favourable to them. Both sides will have to move somewhat from their opening positions if there is to be agreement. Both sides want agreement; therefore there will be movement by both sides.

After that, it's a matter of interests and priorities. If, as I think, the UK has a greater need for a good trade deal than the EU has, then the UK's best interests lie in being willing to move on the exit payment if that's what it takes to get the trade deal. If I'm wrong in my analysis (or if I'm right but the UK's negotiations are being directed by stupid ideologues) then the UK will sacrifice better trading terms in order to get a lower exit payment. Either outcome is possible; time will tell.

As for the UK being willing to compromise, the UK spent a year dismissing all the most obvious compromises - EEA membership, continued participation in the Customs Union, a Swiss-type deal. None of these questions were actually put to the electorate; the UK government has simply decided that that's not what people voted for. Even if the UK government is correct in that, that would still the UK refusing those various compromises, not the EU.

You say that "the UK has simply said it wants a different relationship, and it's willing to go a long way to make that happen." You're quite right, but they long way that they are willing to go is a long way away from the EU. They are rejecting pretty well everything that is on offer - EU membership, EEA membership, Customs Union Membership, EAEC membership, a Swiss relationship. The notion that this is the EU being punitive, or an act of self-immolation on the part of the EU, is ludicrous. These are all acts of the UK, not of the EU. At the end of this process, every metre of distance that there is between the UK and the EU will be a metre that was put there by the UK.

At the moment, it seems that the UK's willingness to compromise is a willingness to compromise by refusing all the options currently available, setting out what it wants, and then graciously compromising by agreeing to settle for exactly what it wants. This is unimpressive. I appreciate that, for domestic political reasons, the UK government may have to present itself as taking this stance, but for the long-term sake of the UK (as opposed to the short term interests of the Tory party) I hope that when out of the glare of publicity they are looking for ways to stay close to the EU, not to distance themselves from it.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not impressed by this approach of picking a figure out of the air, whether its 100bn or 36bn, and saying right, that's it, anything more or less is beyond the pale. The ratio which the figure bears to the UK's annual contributions is irrelevant.

There's clearly a negotiation that has to go on about the exit payment. Both sides will open with suggestions about how it might be calculated that are favourable to them. Both sides will have to move somewhat from their opening positions if there is to be agreement. Both sides want agreement; therefore there will be movement by both sides.

After that, it's a matter of interests and priorities. If, as I think, the UK has a greater need for a good trade deal than the EU has, then the UK's best interests lie in being willing to move on the exit payment if that's what it takes to get the trade deal. If I'm wrong in my analysis (or if I'm right but the UK's negotiations are being directed by stupid ideologues) then the UK will sacrifice better trading terms in order to get a lower exit payment. Either outcome is possible; time will tell.

As for the UK being willing to compromise, the UK spent a year dismissing all the most obvious compromises - EEA membership, continued participation in the Customs Union, a Swiss-type deal. None of these questions were actually put to the electorate; the UK government has simply decided that that's not what people voted for. Even if the UK government is correct in that, that would still the UK refusing those various compromises, not the EU.

You say that "the UK has simply said it wants a different relationship, and it's willing to go a long way to make that happen." You're quite right, but they long way that they are willing to go is a long way away from the EU. They are rejecting pretty well everything that is on offer - EU membership, EEA membership, Customs Union Membership, EAEC membership, a Swiss relationship. The notion that this is the EU being punitive, or an act of self-immolation on the part of the EU, is ludicrous. These are all acts of the UK, not of the EU. At the end of this process, every metre of distance that there is between the UK and the EU will be a metre that was put there by the UK.

At the moment, it seems that the UK's willingness to compromise is a willingness to compromise by refusing all the options currently available, setting out what it wants, and then graciously compromising by agreeing to settle for exactly what it wants. This is unimpressive. I appreciate that, for domestic political reasons, the UK government may have to present itself as taking this stance, but for the long-term sake of the UK (as opposed to the short term interests of the Tory party) I hope that when out of the glare of publicity they are looking for ways to stay close to the EU, not to distance themselves from it.

Good morning!

It isn't irrelevant. It's a valid argument. If the EU are asking that the UK deal with it's "commitments". The "commitments" it has made until 2022 cannot be much greater than it's contribution for 3 years. I don't agree that the numbers are plucked from thin air. The Financial Times provided the €100bn figure. If the £36bn figure is correct, then the Government will have some calculation for this.

As for compromises. The UK have been willing to compromise within the red lines that they have set out which broadly mirror the strands of thought from the referendum. It is obvious that any oversight from the ECJ is unacceptable given that the referendum was about regaining control. If the single market and customs union require freedom of movement or restrict trade policy then both are unacceptable also.

However, on plenty of other areas within those parameters the UK have been willing to show movement. It is now up for the EU to deal with the parameters and to make an offer with consideration of these parameters.

There are obviously acceptable and unacceptable limits for the UK side in what it will accept in terms of payment and in terms of what the outcome of the referendum was. To get a net offer of £36bn is a significant movement if it is accurate.

A pre-packaged option isn't suitable or reasonable for the UK. The EU has shown itself to be capable to agree bespoke third country deals with a number of countries. There is no reason why the UK should be an exception.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

Most if not all of the bandying about of figures is coming from the UK side and the UK media. The EU's position has always been that the methodology for calculating the figure must be negotiated. The UK is showing an incredible inability to understand this and that they have homework to do in this regard.

It seems to me they want to take shortcuts right left and centre. They want the easy route to everything. They do not appear to understand they have to put some work in.

The creation of a list of line items to be included or not included is a comparatively straightforward starting point. Actual trade negotiations will be more complex. If I were a trade negotiator for any of the sunlit uplands that the UK expects to negotiate FTAs with I would at this point be taking the view that right now the UK does not know its backside from its elbows.

I sort of understand why the UK is as it is now. It is basically lazy and entitled. They have a steep learning curve and they are still pussy footing around at its base.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't irrelevant. It's a valid argument. If the EU are asking that the UK deal with it's "commitments". The "commitments" it has made until 2022 cannot be much greater than it's contribution for 3 years. I don't agree that the numbers are plucked from thin air. The Financial Times provided the €100bn figure. If the £36bn figure is correct, then the Government will have some calculation for this.

The UK is on the hook for an as yet unknown amount of pension payments too. They will have paid some share of the pensions paid to EEC civil servants before they joined, for which they should get a credit but they need to cover the ongoing pension costs (or parts thereof) of existing and retired EU civil servants who worked on the United Kingdom's behalf for 44 years!

joeysoap

murphaph wrote: »

The UK is on the hook for an as yet unknown amount of pension payments too. They will have paid some share of the pensions paid to EEC civil servants before they joined, for which they should get a credit but they need to cover the ongoing pension costs (or parts thereof) of existing and retired EU civil servants who worked on the United Kingdom's behalf for 44 years!

I think they have to cover (their share) of the pension costs of all EU civil servants who worked on all the EU's (including UK) behalf for the past 40 years.

murphaph

joeysoap wrote: »

I think they have to cover (their share) of the pension costs of all EU civil servants who worked on all the EU's (including UK) behalf for the past 40 years.

Yeah sounds reasonable but they did already pay a share of (presumably much smaller) pension costs for civil servants who had retired before they even joined in 1973 or who started working for the EEC before they joined so didn't work on behalf of the UK for their entire careers. They should get a credit for this in fairness.

This could easily add a few billion to the bill though.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, murphaph is correct. On trade matters, most observers reckon that the EU has the stronger hand. While the EU-27 export more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU-27, the exports matter much more to the UK than to the EU.

Time to drag out this again

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
excluding Gold (which the UK doesn't produce - IIRC it was a one off) and if you balance Gas Turbines against Computers the UK's main import and export categories are very, very similar. So at present it's zero-sum. An unfair advantage for one side would likely lead to job losses on the other. And both sides will loose with a trade war or tariffs. But the EU has more alternative sources than the UK.


compare that to Norway http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/nor/
where it's Fuel , Fish , aluminium and other raw materials form the bulk of exports while the imports are manufactured goods. So there isn't as much conflict of interest because both sides have something the other needs and can give concessions in just those areas without upsetting jobs at home.

The Norway deal is right for them as they get most of the EU membership benefits while retaining more control over 75% of exports. They have to accept EU rules but as a Scandinavian country they are mostly headed that way anyway.

For the UK the Norway deal is no use. "75% of exports" would mean services and Norway deal means no passporting. As I've said most of the exports are l in categories the EU already produces so no huge benefit there. And the big problem that the UK is heading away from the EU on things like Freedom of Movement and ECJ.

Capt'n Midnight

More of the beedin' obvious, maybe in few weeks the papers will be published and government views will be know. Or maybe it's just be more wishful thinking.

The UK's Brexit negotiations have not begun well amid "differences" inside the cabinet, a former head of the diplomatic service has said.

Water John

Well when you have a clown like Con MP Peter Bone saying, it's the EU should be paying the UK, money, its hard for the UK government to present a single, unified, rational position.

LeinsterDub

A former top British diplomat has said Britain's negotiations over leaving the European Union have not begun well due to infighting among Prime Minister Theresa May's cabinet over the kind of deal they are seeking.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0807/895735-brexit-negotiations/

This kind of sentiment has been expressed numerous times in this thread but time is ticking away without any sort of formalised negotiating position. It's shambolic.

solodeogloria

Water John wrote: »

Well when you have a clown like Con MP Peter Bone saying, it's the EU should be paying the UK, money, its hard for the UK government to present a single, unified, rational position.

Good afternoon!

I'll come half way with you on this, because I agree in part.

Firstly - Peter Bone is a backbencher, he is not likely to have any front end experience on cabinet before he retires. If you look to where he is from, you will know that he fits in like a glove with the demographic of his area. He is now the MP for Wittingbourne in Northamptonshire, but he was born in Billericay and grew up in Southend on Sea. He was one of a number ousted from the Tory 1922 Committee for not being liberal enough in 2012.

I'd make a guess and say that if you wanted to draw a map of where many of the hardest Brexiteers grew up, I'd say Essex heading into the London boroughs of Havering and Barking and Dagenham are a safe bet. They are right wing strongholds. Bear in mind that Clacton near Colchester was held by Douglas Carswell, UKIP have taken a number of council seats in the county and in the two London boroughs that were historically a part of Essex until the 60's.

Looking at a few other constituencies. Priti Patel Secretary for International Development is representing Witham. Andrew Rosindell is representing Romford. Looking around the surrounding constituencies, you can see that the vast majority of MP's supported Brexit, the vast majority of constituencies voted for Brexit. There's little variation. Some of the new arrivals in 2017 moderate the tone, for example I don't think Julia Dockerill the new MP for Hornchurch and Upminster was pro-leave before the referendum when she was a councillor in Tower Hamlets. But you've also got Kemi Badenoch the new MP in Saffron Walden, and former writer in the Spectator who says that she thinks that Brexit was the greatest vote ever.

If you understand a bit of the political background of Essex, you'll understand this a bit better. In a lot of areas there is a lot of resentment about being moved out from council properties in the east end of London during increased migration largely from the Commonwealth. I think there is also the working class vote for the Tories in a lot of these constituencies with some frustrations about uncontrolled migration from eastern Europe in particular. This is why I say a Brexit with remaining under the ECJ with free movement isn't acceptable. In counties like this one (which has as many people living in it as Northern Ireland) the voters will be livid if the Prime Minister doesn't regain control in the way that they desired.

I would even probably say that even though I'm broadly supportive of a well executed Brexit, that my views wouldn't go as far as some of these. I'd probably include some of the Surrey and West London based MP's in a softer version of this. And of course some outliers like Jacob Rees-Mogg in North East Somerset.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't irrelevant. It's a valid argument. If the EU are asking that the UK deal with it's "commitments". The "commitments" it has made until 2022 cannot be much greater than it's contribution for 3 years. I don't agree that the numbers are plucked from thin air. The Financial Times provided the €100bn figure. If the £36bn figure is correct, then the Government will have some calculation for this.

But as long as we don’t know what the basis for the calculation is (and, right now, we don’t) it’s obviously premature to say that the figure is reasonable (or that it isn’t).

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for compromises. The UK have been willing to compromise within the red lines that they have set out which broadly mirror the strands of thought from the referendum. It is obvious that any oversight from the ECJ is unacceptable given that the referendum was about regaining control. If the single market and customs union require freedom of movement or restrict trade policy then both are unacceptable also.

All you’re really saying here is that the UK is willing to compromise in any area, except for the areas that it’s not willing to compromise on. Since the areas that it’s not willing to compromise on cover a wide range of tried-and-tested compromises, the remaining space left for compromise is pretty small. it’s pretty small because the UK has ruled out all the other possible compromises. That’s not intransigence, punitiveness or self-immolation on the part of the EU, solo.

You keep saying that this is what the referendum voted for - that a vote to leave the EU was also a vote to leave the single market, the customs union, ECJ jurisdiction, etc, etc. So what? Your claim about this is debatable, obviously, given the deplorable quality of the public debate that preceded the vote and the diverse and inconsistent messages offered by the various leave campaigns. But even if we accept your view as correct, how does this help? All you’re saying there is that it’s not the UK government that is responsible for dismissing so many possible compromises; it’s the people of the UK. Fine, then; the people of the UK are rejecting compromises. That’s still not intransigence, punitiveness or self-immolation on the part of the EU.

The bottom line is this; the UK cannot reject all the possible deals and arrangements that it doesn’t like and them complain of punitiveness and intransigence if what’s left does not appeal to the EU. This is the negotiating stance of a toddler.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are obviously acceptable and unacceptable limits for the UK side in what it will accept in terms of payment and in terms of what the outcome of the referendum was. To get a net offer of £36bn is a significant movement if it is accurate.

Even if it were accurate, why would anyone care? It is not what the negotiations are about so it is irrelevant. The objective is to establish the method of calculation, not the outcome. The agenda has been set and the U.K. are not going to be allowed to change it no matter how many little games they play. But the clock is ticking, people are getting bored of the games......

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Peregrinus wrote: »

But as long as we don’t know what the basis for the calculation is (and, right now, we don’t) it’s obviously premature to say that the figure is reasonable (or that it isn’t).

Again, for the reason I've mentioned. I think it's very reasonable. Particularly if it is net rather than gross. I'm sure the Government have a breakdown, if this is a true report from the Sunday Telegraph.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All you’re really saying here is that the UK is willing to compromise in any area, except for the areas that it’s not willing to compromise on. Since the areas that it’s not willing to compromise on cover a wide range of tried-and-tested compromises, the remaining space left for compromise is pretty small. it’s pretty small because the UK has ruled out all the other possible compromises. That’s not intransigence, punitiveness or self-immolation on the part of the EU, solo.

It would be self-immolation to take a punitive approach. That was what I said.

The UK has every right to seek a bespoke arrangement suited to it's circumstances. It's in everyone's interests to have a good free trade arrangement after Brexit.

I'm saying that the UK are willing to compromise within the red lines. It's not reasonable to insist that the UK after it has left the EU is subject to the ECJ. There are options that the UK have presented for joint arbitration.

There is a lot of scope for compromise inside the red lines.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You keep saying that this is what the referendum voted for - that a vote to leave the EU was also a vote to leave the single market, the customs union, ECJ jurisdiction, etc, etc. So what? Your claim about this is debatable, obviously, given the deplorable quality of the public debate that preceded the vote and the diverse and inconsistent messages offered by the various leave campaigns. But even if we accept your view as correct, how does this help? All you’re saying there is that it’s not the UK government that is responsible for dismissing all the various compromises available; it’s the people of the UK. Fine, then; the people of the UK are rejecting compromise. That’s still not intransigence, punitiveness or self-immolation on the part of the EU.

It would be punitive for the EU not to offer good trading terms. It would be self-immolation for the EU to lock itself out of good trading arrangements with the UK, or to lock itself outside of good access to the City of London, or to lock itself out of continued military and security cooperation.

The UK is offering continued friendship. That's what needs to be emphasised.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bottom line is this; the UK cannot reject all the possible deals and arrangements that it doesn’t like and them complain of punitiveness and intransigence if what’s left does not appeal to the EU. This is the negotiating stance of a toddler.

It hasn't "rejected all the possible deals". A third country arrangement is an entirely legitimate way of dealing with the European Union. It's nonsense to say that there are no other options.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Even if it were accurate, why would anyone care? It is not what the negotiations are about so it is irrelevant. The objective is to establish the method of calculation, not the outcome. The agenda has been set and the U.K. are not going to be allowed to change it no matter how many little games they play. But the clock is ticking, people are getting bored of the games......

It isn't irrelevant. I'm fairly sure that the UK has a set of calculations.

The clock is ticking for both parties. I'm agreed with you. Position papers for the areas of negotiations coming up in August will be published in a number of weeks. Good progress has been made in other areas.

It isn't a "game" to say that the UK will not give a carte blanche to the EU in respect of payment.

The UK has a political mandate to deliver, that isn't a "game".

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

For heaven's sake, the UK cabinet doesn't even know what its mandate is. They are still undecided as to what they want from the EU.

Also, it is very strange that you see it as perfectly ok for the UK to draw a series of red lines but when the EU does you call it "punitive".

The clock is ticking and the UK will suffer 10 times more than the EU (as a whole, Ireland will be in big trouble without significant assistance from our EU partners) when it runs out. Open Skies will cease in March 2019. No open skies means no fifth freedom rights and many direct UK-EU flights are also governed by open skies. Air travel in the UK will be severely affected. No WTO rules to fall back on, just like services.

Every respected publication I read (especially the FT, which IMO is pretty neutral and sticks to the facts on Brexit) calls the UK position weak. You believe all these publications to be wrong which to me is not a credible position.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't irrelevant. I'm fairly sure that the UK has a set of calculations.

Of course it is irrelevant, as already stated the objective is to agree the method. The EU has set out their proposal, if the UK has a method then they better presented it PDQ or accept the EU method. That is what is required if they want to get to the point where a negotiations of trade deal can begin.

The cabinet is a shambles, it is very unlike they have anything remote to an agreement on how the figure should be calculated.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

Open Skies will cease in March 2019.

True but the schedules most be agreed by Oct 2018 and as it stands the UK will be out.

That said though, without an agreement on visa free travel in Schengen, it will not matter too much , without it they will need Schengen visas.....

murphaph wrote: »

No WTO rules to fall back on, just like services.

As pointed out by EU officials, most of those agreements have a global tariff free quota and the UK has no allocation in that quota. Wonder if The Donald is willing to give part of the US quota for the special relationship :rolleyes:

solodeogloria

Good morning!

murphaph wrote: »

For heaven's sake, the UK cabinet doesn't even know what its mandate is. They are still undecided as to what they want from the EU.

Again, it's hard to see this is anything other than a myth. The UK have published their direction of travel and they have stated what their desired outcome is. As for whether or not everything has been published - no, but that's a different question entirely to saying that the UK doesn't know what it wants.

murphaph wrote: »

Also, it is very strange that you see it as perfectly ok for the UK to draw a series of red lines but when the EU does you call it "punitive".

The EU are entitled to draw whatever red lines they like, provided they are consistent. The idea that the EU aren't interested in a third country deal isn't substantiated in reality though. There's no reason at the present time to think that one can't be agreed.

There's a choice that the European Commission will have to make over the next few months, and it's pretty simple. Do we want to hammer out a progressive deal with the UK Government (this is what the UK is looking for, a mutually beneficial deal) or do we want to punish the UK to set an example for purely political ends?

I'm still hopeful that economics will win out on the EU side.

murphaph wrote: »

The clock is ticking and the UK will suffer 10 times more than the EU (as a whole, Ireland will be in big trouble without significant assistance from our EU partners) when it runs out. Open Skies will cease in March 2019. No open skies means no fifth freedom rights and many direct UK-EU flights are also governed by open skies. Air travel in the UK will be severely affected. No WTO rules to fall back on, just like services.

Again, more pointless fearmongering. There's no reason as to why these cannot be agreed over the course of the negotiations.

murphaph wrote: »

Every respected publication I read (especially the FT, which IMO is pretty neutral and sticks to the facts on Brexit) calls the UK position weak. You believe all these publications to be wrong which to me is not a credible position.

The Financial Times is actually rather biased, along with pretty much every newspaper on the British political spectrum. Most of what is being published at the moment is conjecture. X could happen if Y happens. Fine, but what's the justification for believing Y will happen in the first place?

I think the UK position is right. Stay calm and work through the details without airing everything through the press as the European Commission is so fond of doing.

Everyone knew the negotiations would be difficult and that there would be a cost to Brexit. What the Government has to do now is work through them for the best outcome.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Of course it is irrelevant, as already stated the objective is to agree the method. The EU has set out their proposal, if the UK has a method then they better presented it PDQ or accept the EU method. That is what is required if they want to get to the point where a negotiations of trade deal can begin.

The cabinet is a shambles, it is very unlike they have anything remote to an agreement on how the figure should be calculated.

It is relevant. If you produce a figure you've got the metrics for the calculation. At the moment Number 10 haven't actually confirmed this amount, but you need patience. As I say, the UK Government is wise not to negotiate through newspapers. You don't send 90+ negotiators to Brussels without a plan.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

You expect the EU commission to base its decisions on economics but excuse the UK government this because of "sovereignty". That's quite the contradictory position to take solo.

Calina

It isn't uncommon for the Brexit contingent to argue that the UK can make its decisions on flaky emotional nonsense about getting sovereignty back but that economics dictates that the EU must give the UK everything it wants.

Recall the assurances that German car manufacturers would dictate EU trade policy.

Also at no point pre-referendum was there an assertion that there would be a cost implicit in Brexit. The bus operated on the idea that the UK would be financially better off by not paying its EU contribution. Even if you argued over whether the Let's give it to the NHS meant giving the money to the NHS or not the strong implication was leaving the EU would result in more available cash in the UK. So any Brexit supporter who suggests that it was always known there would be a cost is misrepresenting the narrative given to the UK electorate at the time.

The EU is governed by what matters to the member states. Like the UK they will be making a political decision. Brexit supporters have to stop thinking the UK dictates anything. It doesnt. It asks. It may or may not receive. It also does not define what is in the EU's interests because if the UK cared about the EU's interests, the UK would not be leaving. The UK and its apologists only refer to the EU's interests becausr it is in the UK's interest to convince people that the interests align. Politically they don't and long term economically they won't either. Britain is overspending and has been for years.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is relevant. If you produce a figure you've got the metrics for the calculation. At the moment Number 10 haven't actually confirmed this amount, but you need patience.

The time for patience is gone... They have had long enough to come to the table with their proposed method of calculation or to point out the issues they have with the EU proposal.

solodeogloria wrote: »

As I say, the UK Government is wise not to negotiate through newspapers. You don't send 90+ negotiators to Brussels without a plan.

Well it is beginning to look more and more like that is exactly what they are doing.... TM wanted to start discussions on a trade deal, she was told what it would take to get to that point... so far we're waiting to see them back up that wish, with some actions....

murphaph

Calina wrote: »

Also at no point pre-referendum was there an assertion that there would be a cost implicit in Brexit. The bus operated on the idea that the UK would be financially better off by not paying its EU contribution. Even if you argued over whether the Let's give it to the NHS meant giving the money to the NHS or not the strong implication was leaving the EU would result in more available cash in the UK. So any Brexit supporter who suggests that it was always known there would be a cost is misrepresenting the narrative given to the UK electorate at the time.

Yep. I think any attempt to imply that the Leave side made it clear that there would be pain before gain or indeed pain followed by more pain is an attempt to re-write history. There was simply none of this.

The Leave side was only positive about the perceived financial effects of Brexit. There was never any mention of so much as a leaving bill. The people were sold a pup.

murphaph

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well it is beginning to look more and more like that is exactly what they are doing.... TM wanted to start discussions on a trade deal, she was told what it would take to get to that point... so far we're waiting to see them back up that wish, with some actions....

The problem lies with the cabinet. They are not unified on what they want their negotiators to negotiate for, hence the lack of position papers.

Waffly Lancaster House type speeches are fine for the Daily Mail and its readership but the UK government needs to get down to brass tacks (should have already as they controlled the timing on the triggering on A50 and should have prepared position papers before pulling the trigger...not faffing about with a general election). This means presenting detailed position papers, not waffling about "technological solutions to the border" etc.

oppenheimer1

Having experienced and learned from dealing with the Greek crisis, the way this is playing out is entirely predictable. Just like the Greeks falling out of the Euro would have caused problems for Europe, it would have been devastating for Greece. On this issue, that are risks for Europe, but the same risks are much larger for the UK. If we get that far, the EU will take the UK to the brink before they roll over for market access.

At this stage it's a near certainty that not enough progress will have been made for the EU by October to progress the talks for trade as it is not in the EUs interest to progress them. The more time that ticks by, the greater the concessions that will be able to be extracted from the UK as "No deal" is feasible but harmful for Europe, but "No deal" is not feasible for the UK (no matter what politicians say in public, no deal is not an option as it is far too harmful). No one has been able to explain how the UK would survive the first five years of a "No deal" scenario, that's why it's not credible.

The end of the negotiation will be a severe test of will for the UK government. It will likely collapse it. I still think there will be another vote/election in the next 12 months in the UK.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

Yep. I think any attempt to imply that the Leave side made it clear that there would be pain before gain or indeed pain followed by more pain is an attempt to re-write history. There was simply none of this.

Worse still, any suggestion that there would be any pain at all was derided as "Project Fear".

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is relevant. If you produce a figure you've got the metrics for the calculation. At the moment Number 10 haven't actually confirmed this amount, but you need patience. As I say, the UK Government is wise not to negotiate through newspapers. You don't send 90+ negotiators to Brussels without a plan.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Much of the commentary around the leaked figure in the Telegraph is how it is a figure decided on how much that they can get away with without the far right in the Tory party going balistic. The British Gov. is negotiating through newspapers - there is nothing but leaks. Thankfully, the EU realises that it needs to be open and transparent on where it is coming from.

Interesting comment from Catherine Day (retired Director General of EU Commission and now an (unpaid) budgetary advisor to Juncker) recently that the British Civil Servants are top class, but their hands are tied due to a complete lack of politicial direction.

Did I read somewhere about a week ago that the British Government are only now commissioning a study on the NI border whereas Enda Kenny had the Revenue Commission look into it a year ago (and probably why the Irish Government think it not feasible).

solodeogloria

jm08 wrote: »

Much of the commentary around the leaked figure in the Telegraph is how it is a figure decided on how much that they can get away with without the far right in the Tory party going balistic. The British Gov. is negotiating through newspapers - there is nothing but leaks. Thankfully, the EU realises that it needs to be open and transparent on where it is coming from.

Interesting comment from Catherine Day (retired Director General of EU Commission and now an (unpaid) budgetary advisor to Juncker) recently that the British Civil Servants are top class, but their hands are tied due to a complete lack of politicial direction.

Did I read somewhere about a week ago that the British Government are only now commissioning a study on the NI border whereas Enda Kenny had the Revenue Commission look into it a year ago (and probably why the Irish Government think it not feasible).

Good afternoon!

A few things. Firstly - a leak from an official isn't "the Government negotiating through the media". The British government doesn't do this, and it won't start just because the European Commission does. Remember, it was the European Commission who leaked the story of Juncker at Downing Street to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

As for quoting what someone in the European Commission thinks, there's room for scepticism here. It's in the European Commission's interest to send someone like Catherine Day out to allege something in the press. It's in their interest to influence the British public, but nearly every intervention solidifies the existing position.

The idea that everything needs to be sent to Brussels on day one in order for someone to be "prepared" is ridiculous. It is in Britain's interests to reveal only as much as it needs to at every stage in the negotiations. I don't believe the nonsense that the British government hasn't been preparing since last year. I'm fairly sure they have been and we're going to see a lot of that as the process goes on.

As for the idea that "the time for patience" is gone. That's nonsense. There's three rounds of negotiations before the European Council meeting in October. Britain has a much stronger hand than many of the Euro-federalists on this thread or elsewhere are willing to admit.

The best policy is stay calm, get it sorted, and ignore what's being said in the media. The only thing that matters for the Government is what is said around the negotiating table.

It's worth pointing out that a major reason for seeking Brexit is based on economics, and on pursuing wider trade relationships which could benefit the British economy. The UK wants to maintain as close a relationship with the EU as possible whilst seeking new opportunities elsewhere.

Edit: Remember the chatter about Gibraltar, seems like Spain are backing down. As expected.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Please drop the "Euro-federalists" thing (clearly intended as some sort of slur as if it's not acceptable to wish for continued European integration). We don't accuse you of being a "British-isolationist".

oppenheimer1

Solo, for the UK to have a strong hand it had to have a credible alternative to a deal. This is the reasoning behind Mays "No deal is better than a bad deal". Yet no alternative vision has been outlined apart from some guff about future trading with the rest of the world (Global Britain :rolleyes: ). There has been no explanation on how the UK would cope with the interim period reorientating it's economy assuming it could turn itself into a global exporter in the future.

If it doesn't have a credible alternative to no deal then it has a weak hand. The EU knows the UK cannot afford to walk away, just like Greece. It has to accept whatever it is offered. It might be able to negotiate the frilly bits and the edges but that's it really. Ultimately that's what it comes down to.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

A few things. Firstly - a leak from an official isn't "the Government negotiating through the media". The British government doesn't do this, and it won't start just because the European Commission does. Remember, it was the European Commission who leaked the story of Juncker at Downing Street to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

As for quoting what someone in the European Commission thinks, there's room for scepticism here. It's in the European Commissions interest to send someone like Catherine Day out to allege something in the press. It's in their interest to influence the British public, but nearly every intervention solidifies the existing position.

The idea that everything needs to be sent to Brussels on day one in order for someone to be "prepared" is ridiculous. It is in Britain's interests to reveal only as much as it needs to at every stage in the negotiations. I don't believe the nonsense that the British government hasn't been preparing since last year. I'm fairly sure they have been and we're going to see a lot of that as the process goes on.

As for the idea that "the time for patience" is gone. That's nonsense. There's three rounds of negotiations before the European Council meeting in October. Britain has a much stronger hand than many of the Euro-federalists on this thread or elsewhere are willing to admit.

The best policy is stay calm, get it sorted, and ignore what's being said in the media. The only thing that matters for the Government is what is said around the negotiating table.

It's worth pointing out that a major reason for seeking Brexit is based on economics, and on pursuing wider trade relationships which could benefit the British economy. The UK wants to maintain as close a relationship with the EU as possible whilst seeking new opportunities elsewhere.

Edit: Remember the chatter about Gibraltar, seems like Spain are backing down. As expected.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Wrong.

The majority of Leave voters voted for Brexit because of sovereignty and immigration issues.

Only (6%) said their main reason was that Britain's trade and economy would benefit from leaving the EU.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Please drop the "Euro-federalists" thing (clearly intended as some sort of slur as if it's not acceptable to wish for continued European integration). We don't accuse you of being a "British-isolationist".

Good afternoon!

Last post for today.

Please use the report post function if you've got an issue with my terms.

British-isolationalist doesn't work for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I'm not British. Secondly, Britain won't be isolated post-Brexit, if anything it will be global focused. If anything I'm pro-global rather than solely pro-European.

Edit: And yes, I think continued "integration" at the expense of national sovereignty would be a very bad thing from an Irish perspective. If anything less integration is required.

Professor Moriarty - I'm not saying that most people voted leave because of economic opportunities. But it was a key strand in the referendum campaign. It's my overriding reason for supporting Brexit, as a remain voter this side of the referendum.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Billy86

Now if only the EU dealt with other economies around the globe...

murphaph

And whoosh, solo ignores the salient points put to him once again.

As outlined above, the UK cannot credibly claim to have any plan for the 5 years+ it will take to get trade deals agreed post Brexit, should the EU not grant (and yes it is the EU granting) the UK a deal to save their skin and allow them to keep going under the EU's wing during that period.

If the UK actually walks away from the EU with no deal and falls back to WTO terms (not clear whose quotas they expect to use and WTO doesn't cover services and OpenSkies is a whole other world of hurt) its economy will be damaged beyond repair (no exaggeration!)

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the idea that "the time for patience" is gone. That's nonsense. There's three rounds of negotiations before the European Council meeting in October. Britain has a much stronger hand than many of the Euro-federalists on this thread or elsewhere are willing to admit.

At this point they are so far apart on the citizenship issue alone that they will not get that done in three sessions, never mind getting a start on the other two where UK proposals are still pending.

Perhaps it's just inexperience or perhaps the plan is to just capitulate....

Either way, time to press pause on you until then as there is noting new here.

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

And whoosh, solo ignores the salient points put to him once again.

As outlined above, the UK cannot credibly claim to have any plan for the 5 years+ it will take to get trade deals agreed post Brexit, should the EU not grant (and yes it is the EU granting) the UK a deal to save their skin and allow them to keep going under the EU's wing during that period.

If the UK actually walks away from the EU with no deal and falls back to WTO terms (not clear whose quotas they expect to use and WTO doesn't cover services and OpenSkies is a whole other world of hurt) its economy will be damaged beyond repair (no exaggeration!)

It's even worse than that; because EU is part of the WTO and have negotiated trade deals on behalf of EU part of the quotas belong to UK and part to the remaining 27 countries (be it imports or exports). Now how is for example Canada suppose to write a new TD with UK if EU and UK have not settled how much of the Canadian share belongs to each party? It would become a huge mess or UK would have to accept even higher qoutas (new TD + share from old one once finalized) than planned.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

And whoosh, solo ignores the salient points put to him once again.

As outlined above, the UK cannot credibly claim to have any plan for the 5 years+ it will take to get trade deals agreed post Brexit, should the EU not grant (and yes it is the EU granting) the UK a deal to save their skin and allow them to keep going under the EU's wing during that period.

If the UK actually walks away from the EU with no deal and falls back to WTO terms (not clear whose quotas they expect to use and WTO doesn't cover services and OpenSkies is a whole other world of hurt) its economy will be damaged beyond repair (no exaggeration!)

To be honest I don't debate Brexiters. It's easier to link them the daily facts which point to a dying economy.

Capt'n Midnight

So should the UK mirror new ECJ rulings after Brexit ?


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40855526

Britain's most senior judge has told the government it must provide more clarity about how UK law will be developed after Brexit.
...
also expressed his concerns about cuts to legal aid, which was largely removed for most family cases in 2013.
...
Opponents point out the apparent contradiction of that position, saying any British company or organisation doing business in the EU is subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

steddyeddy

I know it's the Express but I had to share it. This is where a lot of Brexiters seem to get their "facts" from. This particular article has the headline "EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO" in an article about the financial implications of a hard Brexit. So once again it's the EU's fault, not the UK's. From the Express.

EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO

STANDARD Life CEO Keith Skeoch warned UK companies will have to move to Ireland and Luxembourg to comply with EU-dictated law allowing them to operate in the European Union.

listermint

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know it's the Express but I had to share it. This is where a lot of Brexiters seem to get their "facts" from. This particular article has the headline "EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO" in an article about the financial implications of a hard Brexit. So once again it's the EU's fault, not the UK's. From the Express.

Designed to polarize when you put facts a certain way.

The data is accurate the way its put using terms like forced and dictated is nonsense.

Companies operating in the EU have to comply with EU laws shocker......