Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post for today.

Enzokk wrote: »

But is that what most leave voters were upset by? That was really never a reason given for voting to leave though, it was more to do with immigration and not having sovereignty over laws that seemed to come up more than not being able to negotiate their own trade deals. It was used as a benefit of Brexit but I cannot recall it being used on a side of a bus as a reason to vote Brexit.

Control was the underlying reason behind the referendum. The reason why the phrase "take back control" was such an effective slogan is because it hit close to home, it captured a national mood and was convincing in comparison to the alternative which was mainly around fear rather than positive argument.

Immigration is only one facet of what was put to the people. Take back control of laws, money and borders was the broad proposition that was put forward.

Again - although I think there were clear reasons why people voted to leave, I think the problem was that the remain side didn't present positive reasons as to why Britain should have stayed. I think there hasn't been a good national narrative for why Britain should be in the EU.

Ireland's on the other hand is incredibly robust as a small nation that prospered under EU structural assistance and now sees the EU as being a force for good to do the same elsewhere. It's a rock solid reason grounded in history that is almost a moral imperative.

When you understand that the reason that gets Irish people passionate about the EU doesn't apply to the UK in the same way that's when you begin to understand Brexit. Admittedly this passion for the EU isn't something I share as an Irish person. I find it hard to be passionate about. I'm happy Ireland benefited but I'm not convinced any more that the EU is all benevolent. Even though I don't agree it is undisputably Ireland's overriding political philosophy in respect to the EU.

This political philosophy point is important because you wake up to the fact that Britain never fit in to the European project's tapestry philosophically. That's before we think about whether or not membership made sense economically for the UK.

Enzokk wrote: »

Also, weren't one of the reasons for voting Brexit given that the British economy is strong and can easily stand on its own? Now it seems you want to claim that in fact the EU was holding it back? Is this what you are posting now? If I have your position wrong please correct me. Has their been any positives from EU membership in your eyes? If not, why did you vote to remain? Has the EU been holding the UK back by not having its interests when negotiating trade deals before?

I don't think so. I don't think many leavers genuinely proposed Britain cutting off trade ties with the EU. I'm of the mind that free trade with the EU is crucial to a good Brexit for both parties. It would have to be the worst case scenario to entertain falling onto WTO rules.

I don't think the UK was always held back. As a member of the EEC it probably wasn't because it was economically helpful to be a member. I think there's positives in terms of security cooperation and trade cooperation but the terms of membership are too costly.

Some other benefits came with other costs. Let's take two examples.

Firstly that trade policy was determined by the EU. This is an advantage in a sense because you don't need to hire your own negotiators and the EU is a big bloc. The downside is it is too slow, your interests aren't presented particularly in a broader bloc and it is difficult to rebuild this competence if you want to leave.

Secondly the EU provided cheap labour after the accession countries joined. This was an advantage because you can fill roles quickly and labour costs are lower. You don't need to set up a Tier 3 visa because you've got freedom of movement. The flip side of this is that it puts pressure on domestic labour, people feel left behind in certain work and companies stop training British people to do this work because they don't have to.

These are double edged swords. Advantages yes, but with negatives.

I voted remain because I didn't want to rock the status quo and basically because I was chicken by project fear. This isn't a good reason and it isn't a deep seated reason. It also was selfish and ignored genuine concerns in other parts of society that I wasn't able to see. I'm thankful for the opportunity to address this.

I've learned a lot from reflecting on this and I think Brexit is the right course of action. Unless Britain can find a convincing clear reason for its membership it should stay out until it finds one. Brexit is thrilling. It's a country redefining it's outlook to be truly global and a country looking through the mirror glass to see how it can work better.

I'm very happy to be behind it and I'm happy to have changed my mind. You have to realise how humbling this was for me. My conclusion is the result of trying to understand why people voted to leave. During the referendum I also learned lots about the EU. I didn't even know about the restrictions on trade policy for example. The result was as I reflected on the leave outcome without a snobbish attitude of saying people were stupid (I knew intelligent leave voters anyway so that was out) or confused I decided leave was actually the right choice.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Sam Russell wrote: »

They will also have to do all the work currently being done by the 'un-elected bureaucrats' in Brussels (and elsewhere in the EU) and this will be done by new 'Loyal Civil Servants'. I would imagine the cost of one civil servant would be at least £100,000 per year taking into account salary pension and office accommodation. There was number given that 10,000 civil servants would be required to negotiate Brexit, and that would cost £1 billion/year. I think the £10 billion saving of net payments will soon be eaten up by their new merry band of civil servants doing the work done by the EU.

For example the EU Medicine board, currently in London, will have to be replicated by the UK and the UK have estimated it will need at least a staff of 60% currently employed, all funded by the UK. This will be replicated in the hundred or so EU quangos.

That just takes into account work currently done by the EU. Add in 'new' work, like customs checking at EU borders, staff to negotiate trade deals, staff to do immigration checks, etc. etc.

I doubt if any of this has had much consideration - how much easier continued membership of the SM and CU would be.

Yeah I said as much before on here but I'm quite sure they will eat up the vast majority of the savings by having to implement a heap of stuff alone that they currently pool resources in. But sure who needs some food safety quango telling us what to do?!

Edit: the "technology" required to man the Irish border alone could swallow billions a year, especially if criminals decide they don't like this technology in the area.

No sane person would proceed with Brexit IMO but the UK must now leave the EU. I think it's getting to the stage where it would be difficult to get unanimity among the 27 to allow the UK to forget the whole thing. It'll be a few years now out on the naughty step to think about what they've done.

First Up

Personally speaking, I'm well past caring what they think or do.  Maybe they will come to their senses over time - maybe not.

I'm far more interested in how we adapt to the situation, both to minimise damage and exploit opportunities.  There will be both.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

Personally speaking, I'm well past caring what they think or do.  Maybe they will come to their senses over time - maybe not.

I'm far more interested in how we adapt to the situation, both to minimise damage and exploit opportunities.  There will be both.

Yep. This is all that matters for me too now. They've thrown us under the bus but do we lie in the road or get up.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

I think it's getting to the stage where it would be difficult to get unanimity among the 27 to allow the UK to forget the whole thing.

I think the attitude of ordinary citizens has also changed, certainly among the group of Italians, Germans and French that I work with, it has gone from one of shock and disappointment to one of impatience to get the thing over and move on.

And certainly some are beginning to realize that solving some of the problems we face will be easier if we don't continually have to address the U.K. 'special situations'.

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

A sovereign parliament is also elected by a sovereign people. There's no reason why a sovereign parliament cannot consult the sovereign people they elected and are accountable to.

The lack of faith in democracy on this thread staggers me. Ireland's democracy in particular is predicated on the referendum.

And there are stringent controls as to how referenda are conducted. While the McKenna judgement took a lot of the 'sport' out of referenda the setting up of the Referendum Commission ensures that we would never have a referenda in Ireland that was conducted the way the Brexit one was.

Jim2007

I don't think the UK was always held back. As a member of the EEC it probably wasn't because it was economically helpful to be a member. I think there's positives in terms of security cooperation and trade cooperation but the terms of membership are too costly.

To my mind that is the biggest joke of all! The reality is that the U.K. has not been able to produce a positive balance of trade in about 25 years, despite the fact that all other major EU economies have been able to do so. It is all very well to blame the EU for missed opportunities, but the reality is that they have failed to to take advantage of the opportunities provided unlike other states.

If the U.K. was fully exploiting the current set of opportunities that would be something, but blaming the EU, while under performing everyone else sounds like a convenient excuse.

And the idea that a country who is dependent of preferential access to a major trading block for 48% of its exports can simply remove itself from that situation without taking a major hit is just not realistic.

The world has changed and the U.K. is no longer in a position to dictate trade as it once was. And given the more even playing field, it has yet to prove it's up to the task.

My expectation is that we are going to see a lot of social unrest in the U.K. in the coming years.

swampgas

Assuming the UK go for hard Brexit, and if (and it's a very big if) the UK want back in, and get back in after a number of years, then they will have wasted a huge amount of time and effort just to end up back where they are today but in a weaker position and without many of the opt-outs they currently enjoy right now. And having duplicated all of the civil service functions they will need post-Brexit will they really want to scrap them all again if they rejoin? That's a lot of unpopular redundancies to consider.

And presumably any trade deals signed by the UK with other countries would have to be voided if the UK once again joined the EU, to be replaced with the EU's version instead? Or is that even possible? Seems like a tricky area.

The more I think about it the more it feels like once any kind of hard Brexit occurs, it's going to be pretty permanent.

Kermit.de.frog

I think Varadkar has put himself in a bad position optically in relation to the border.

If Theresa May is adamant about a customs border there is little we can do to stop it yet Varadkar gave the impression there was something we could do.

murphaph

Jim2007 wrote: »

I think the attitude of ordinary citizens has also changed, certainly among the group of Italians, Germans and French that I work with, it has gone from one of shock and disappointment to one of impatience to get the thing over and move on.

And certainly some are beginning to realize that solving some of the problems we face will be easier if we don't continually have to address the U.K. 'special situations'.

Yes I'm getting that too in Berlin and Munich. It's like "come on get on with it if you want out" is becoming a more common theme.

oscarBravo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If Theresa May is adamant about a customs border...

Theresa doesn't want a customs border. Theresa also doesn't want to be in the customs union.

When Theresa figures out the difference between her rear end and her elbow, we'll have the basis for an intelligent discussion about the border.

murphaph

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think Varadkar has put himself in a bad position optically in relation to the border.

If Theresa May is adamant about a customs border there is little we can do to stop it yet Varadkar gave the impression there was something we could do.

I won't hold it against him. There's not a lot he can do in the face of such abject stupidity. He had to raise the issue though. The UK is reneging on commitments made under the GFA and we'll have to deal with that as best we can.

Junkyard Tom

I believe Varadkar was raising a red flag and, in fairness, did a fairly good job of it. Varadkar was top of the hour news in Britain and LBC's James O'Brien devoted almost an hour to what Varadkar said in QUB and the headlessness of the May led government.

Water John

Varadkar is also reinforcing the EU commitment to look after our interests.

FrancieBrady

Water John wrote: »

Varadkar is also reinforcing the EU commitment to look after our interests.

That's what I liked about it. He very clearly intimated that we are with the EU.

Samaris

http://www.independent.co.uk/infact/brexit-report-latest-remainers-deport-eu-citizens-uk-back-hard-european-union-study-explained-a7892216.html

Regarding that poll that was being waved about - with a bit more analysis of the methodology, the simplistic results presented through the news were rather misleading. It was an interesting experiment that the authors tried, and probably deserves more work at it, but it didn't quite work out this time, at least not in how it was presented.

Water John

Guy on ITV news, using an odd twist. That it's the Irish/EU are having the hard border.

Yeah not UK's responsibility at all.

steddyeddy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think Varadkar has put himself in a bad position optically in relation to the border.

If Theresa May is adamant about a customs border there is little we can do to stop it yet Varadkar gave the impression there was something we could do.

“ I will sit around the European Council table with 26 other Prime Ministers and we will decide together whether sufficient progress has been made on three key issues to allow the Brexit negotiations to proceed to the next phase.” Leo Varadkar, Irish Taoiseach, 4 August 2017

In other words if the border isn't to our liking we can delay trade talks. This would amount to economic sanctions on the UK. We're arguing this with the biggest single market in the world on our side.

oppenheimer1

Headline in Telegraph tonight: its suggesting that the Irish government will use it's veto for the transition over the border issue. Also that the government thinks British ministers are delusional.

Now I know it's the Telegraph, but it's an interesting development. I am looking forward to the anti Irish bile btl.

steddyeddy

swampgas wrote: »

Assuming the UK go for hard Brexit, and if (and it's a very big if) the UK want back in, and get back in after a number of years, then they will have wasted a huge amount of time and effort just to end up back where they are today but in a weaker position and without many of the opt-outs they currently enjoy right now. And having duplicated all of the civil service functions they will need post-Brexit will they really want to scrap them all again if they rejoin? That's a lot of unpopular redundancies to consider.

And presumably any trade deals signed by the UK with other countries would have to be voided if the UK once again joined the EU, to be replaced with the EU's version instead? Or is that even possible? Seems like a tricky area.

The more I think about it the more it feels like once any kind of hard Brexit occurs, it's going to be pretty permanent.

It was also hinted that if they re-join it will be without perks. So say goodbye to the pound.

Sam Russell

steddyeddy wrote: »

It was also hinted that if they re-join it will be without perks. So say goodbye to the pound.

Did they not point all this out to the Scots at their IndyRef that they would have to leave the EU and to rejoin they would have the Euro?

So at least they know the ropes.

steddyeddy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I believe Varadkar was raising a red flag and, in fairness, did a fairly good job of it. Varadkar was top of the hour news in Britain and LBC's James O'Brien devoted almost an hour to what Varadkar said in QUB and the headlessness of the May led government.

I seen that show. Very surprised to hear unionists ring in to say they wouldn't be unhappy if Ireland was unified.

steddyeddy

Sam Russell wrote: »

Did they not point all this out to the Scots at their IndyRef that they would have to leave the EU and to rejoin they would have the Euro?

So at least they know the ropes.

You'd think so but nationalism seems to have blinded them to the facts.

ThisRegard

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Headline in Telegraph tonight: its suggesting that the Irish government will use it's veto for the transition over the border issue. Also that the government thinks British ministers are delusional.

Now I know it's the Telegraph, but it's an interesting development. I am looking forward to the anti Irish bile btl.

Yeah, headline is

Ireland threatens to block Britain's plans for Brexit transition deal accusing ministers of being 'delusional'

but the story is behind a paywall.

steddyeddy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, headline is

but the story is behind a paywall.

The Telegraph is the Daily Mail for richer people. Pay it little regard.

Capt'n Midnight

More erosion of financial sector.
Don't assume the EU needs The City , these days good comms are what's important.

London 'haemorrhaging talent' due to Brexit

But annual comparisons are less cheery, showing a 11% drop in vacancies and a 33% fall in job seekers, proving the City is "still haemorrhaging talent" due to Brexit, he added.
...
"Until recently, it had been assumed that the financial services industry was hub dependent, either remaining in London, or moving to a specific new location.

"A multitude of locations picking away at City jobs, however, suggests that a conglomeration of institutions may soon be a thing of the past," the report explained.

Capt'n Midnight

Another assumption gets kicked.

The UK can't get a better deal than any remaining EU country, nor can it get a better deal than any EFTA country.

To join EFTA even for a transition period means besides bending the knee to the EU and another set of negotiations with countries with their own interests that they can't afford to upset because of vetoes.


Norway casts doubt on temporary British EFTA membership

Norway has cast doubt that Britain could easily join it in a half way house trading group after Brexit.
...
"There would be a cost they would have to share, and an authority outside their border that could impose binding decisions on them, which is not entirely in line with what they've said they want," Solberg said on the sidelines of a news conference.
...
Norway is concerned, among other things, about the fate of Norwegians living in Britain after Brexit, fisheries policy, what kind of terms would be given to Britain after Brexit and whether Britain would get preferential treatment over Norway.

Within EFTA, all member countries have to approve new members, giving each a theoretical veto. Current members are Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

Samaris

Given how much trouble they've caused within the EU, and how much special treatment Britain has demanded over the years...and how both incompetent and delusional their current leaders are, I don't know that I could blame any of the EFTA countries for vetoing on the grounds of not needing that level of madness going on.

Capt'n Midnight

Brexit possibly delayed to 2021 :eek:

As we all know Britain will leave the European Union ‘when Big Ben bongs midnight’ on March 29 2019, Downing Street declared


But Big Ben* will be down for repair until 2012...


*Big Ben is the name of the bell and not, as some tend to think the actual clock which is called clocky McClockface.

Capt'n Midnight

Samaris wrote: »

Given how much trouble they've caused within the EU, and how much special treatment Britain has demanded over the years...and how both incompetent and delusional their current leaders are, I don't know that I could blame any of the EFTA countries for vetoing on the grounds of not needing that level of madness going on.

There's also things like the fishing rights, the threat to kick out EFTA citizens, the huge population compared to the rest of the EFTA, and that their aims , goals and values don't necessarily match those of the other counties.

Samaris

In the time-honoured vein of the sort of bollockology that lead to "that poem was not originally written on the statue" and is apparently endemic in the politics of the anglophone world at the moment, I actually would no longer be surprised if it was delayed to 2021 and May argued on March 28th, 2019 that she said it all along, pointing to the "Big Ben chiming midnight" comment.

Kermit.de.frog

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Headline in Telegraph tonight: its suggesting that the Irish government will use it's veto for the transition over the border issue. Also that the government thinks British ministers are delusional.

Now I know it's the Telegraph, but it's an interesting development. I am looking forward to the anti Irish bile btl.

haha, it would take balls of steel for Ireland to veto progress. Imagine the backlash.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good I don't agree with the assumption that Britain cannot get free trade deals with other economies just because it is smaller than the EU. I agree with the fact that the EU is bigger and therefore has a good place to negotiate together. I don't think it's nimble enough though.

The EU has the most extensive network of free trade agreements in the world. it has twice as many free trade agremeents already in place as the US has, for instance, and more than three times as many currently under negotiation. Evidence that it’s “not nimble enough” is lacking. The notion that the UK can achieve a equally or more extensive network of free trade agreements is implausible. I don’t say that it’s impossible that the UK can do this, but it seems wildly unlikely, and those who expect it to happen really need to say why.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also don't agree with your either or comparison in respect to trade. I don't see why you think that trade with the EU is going to collapse to such an extent. You need to explain to me why that is the case.

I didn’t say that trade with the EU was going to collapse. But it will certainly take a knock. The UK is withdrawing from the freest possible free trade agreement that it currently has with the EU, and you can’t simultaneously expect great things from the free trade agreements that the UK hopes to negotiate with the rest of the world, and assume that withdrawing from the free trade agreement they currently have with the EU will have no effect at all. Take this line, and small children will point at you in the street and laugh.

How big a knock UK-EU trade will take remains to be seen; it depends on what post-Brexit deal the UK and the EU negotiate. But the UK has already ruled out the maximally free options - the single market, the customs union, etc. So it’s inevitable that, by choice of the UK, the UK’s trade with the EU will, post-Brexit, be markedly less free that it is now. And the same logic that says that the UK will boost its trade by entering into free trade arrangements with third countries must also accept that it will diminish its trade by withdrawing from the current arrangements that it has with the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Taking two countries on their own. China and America. Britain exports about £100bn with them both. There's an opportunity to expand opportunity to trade with both with the right free trade agreement. I'm sure this is true of many others. I don't see why the shortfall couldn't be made up.

There’s an opportunity to increase trade with the US and China through “the right free trade agreement”; the question is whether the UK is more likely to find itself a party to the right free trade agreement by staying in the EU or by leaving and negotiating on its own? If we discount unevidenced prejudices like “the EU isn’t nimble enough” I see no reason to think that the UK will be in a more advantageous position as a result of leaving, and I see some reason to think the opposite.

But even if you do think that the EU will be in a more advantageous position, that’s not enough. It has to be so much more advantageous that the UK will, on the whole, still be better off even after taking the knock that results from withdrawing from its existing very free trading terms with the EU-27, and negotiating something more restrictive.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, perhaps I'm missing the armageddon scenario that is behind your question.

There is no armageddon behind my question. Just the point that withdrawing from the existing free trade agreements under which about 60% of your trade is conducted, in the hope that you will negotiate something better that will more than make up for the resultant losses, looks impressively optimistic, but not all that realistic.

Obviously, the UK hasn’t been negotiating free trade agreements for the past fifty years or so, so we can’t do a straight comparison between the UK and the EU as free trade negotiators. But what we can say is that the EU has the largest network of free trade agreements the world has ever seen, and this is true whether you are looking at agreements up-and-running, or counting agreements under negotiation as well. No other country even comes close to the EU on this, not even the US, which has similar wealth, or China, which can offer an unparalleled market as an inducement, or India which has a similar GDP to the UK but much better prospects for growth in its domestic market. So why would we be so confident that the UK will?

murphaph

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

haha, it would take balls of steel for Ireland to veto progress. Imagine the backlash.

But it's in Ireland's interest above all others that a deal on trade is struck. We are in somewhat of a bind thanks to our lovely neighbours.

We would like no border but we need trade to continue as much as possible with the UK as a whole and we need the UK as a land bridge to the continent too.

There's much more at stake for us than just the border.

steddyeddy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

haha, it would take balls of steel for Ireland to veto progress. Imagine the backlash.

I think we've previously demonstrated greater "balls" when in the face of British policy. I have no doubt it can happen again.

Peregrinus

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, headline is

but the story is behind a paywall.

The Daily Express is carrying a story which attribute the "delusions" comment to Phil Hogan who, right enough, is Irish, but obviously doesn't speak for the Irish government on this matter. In the Express story, while Hogan points out that any transitional deal will require unanimous agreement from the EU-27, he doesn't say or predict that Ireland will block it.

solodeogloria

swampgas wrote: »

Assuming the UK go for hard Brexit, and if (and it's a very big if) the UK want back in, and get back in after a number of years, then they will have wasted a huge amount of time and effort just to end up back where they are today but in a weaker position and without many of the opt-outs they currently enjoy right now. And having duplicated all of the civil service functions they will need post-Brexit will they really want to scrap them all again if they rejoin? That's a lot of unpopular redundancies to consider.

And presumably any trade deals signed by the UK with other countries would have to be voided if the UK once again joined the EU, to be replaced with the EU's version instead? Or is that even possible? Seems like a tricky area.

The more I think about it the more it feels like once any kind of hard Brexit occurs, it's going to be pretty permanent.

Good morning!

This post is brilliant. Yes Brexit is final. The more and more I think about it the term soft Brexit is primarily used by people who wanted to remain in the EU. There's no soft or hard Brexit in my mind, there's just leaving the EU.

I think the people understood this when they voted for it that it was to bring membership of the EU to a complete end. If the UK is to come back in there will need to be actual reasons put to the electorate rather than project fear.

As for other countries and their understanding about Brexit. I'm personally thankful that the penny has dropped. It means that discussions about a future relationship can begin in earnest and that real progress can be made towards a deal that recognises the concerns of both parties. Nobody wants these negotiations to take longer than they have to.

I think after the next round of proposals are submitted there won't be reasonable grounds for saying that sufficient progress hasn't been made.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

Assuming the UK go for hard Brexit, and if (and it's a very big if) the UK want back in, and get back in after a number of years, then they will have wasted a huge amount of time and effort just to end up back where they are today but in a weaker position and without many of the opt-outs they currently enjoy right now. And having duplicated all of the civil service functions they will need post-Brexit will they really want to scrap them all again if they rejoin? That's a lot of unpopular redundancies to consider.

And presumably any trade deals signed by the UK with other countries would have to be voided if the UK once again joined the EU, to be replaced with the EU's version instead? Or is that even possible? Seems like a tricky area.

The more I think about it the more it feels like once any kind of hard Brexit occurs, it's going to be pretty permanent.

The UK rejoining would face exactly the same issues as any country joining - the need to redeploy civil servants whose functions are now redundant, the need to wind up existing trade deals when they are replaced by EU trade deals, etc.

Legally, constitutionally, practically, etc I don't see that this would be any more difficult for the UK than for any other country joining the Union - or, indeed, than it was for the UK the first time they joined in 1973.

Politically, of course, it would be hugely embarrassing to admit that, yes, Brexit was a colossal mistake and we need to reverse it. And it might be unrealistic to think that a politician who backs Brexit can reverse his or her course on such a fundamental question and survive politically. So I think there'd have to be change of leadership in one or both of the major parties before this would be politically feasible.

The notion that, having spent so much to achieve Brexit (hired all these civil servant, paid this horrible exit price, invested so much time and effort in negotiating trade deals, etc, etc) we have to stick with Brexit has an instinctive appeal, but it's fallacious. It's known as the sunk cost fallacy; having spend all this money on buying or building this wonderful plant/machine/company, we're committed to it; we can't turn back now. But if in fact the wonderful plant/machine/company is not fit for purpose, the fact that it cost a great deal of money is irrelevant. If, five or ten years down the line, the situation is such that the UK's long-term prospects look rosier within the EU than outside it, the rational course for the UK is to rejoin. The costs they incurred in getting out in the first place won't be relevant to that calculation at all.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK rejoining would face exactly the same issues as any country joining - the need to redeploy civil servants whose functions are now redundant, the need to wind up existing trade deals when they are replaced by EU trade deals, etc.

Legally, constitutionally, practically, etc I don't see that this would be any more difficult for the UK than for any other country joining the Union - or, indeed, than it was for the UK the first time they joined in 1973.

Politically, of course, it would be hugely embarrassing to admit that, yes, Brexit was a colossal mistake and we need to reverse it. And it might be unrealistic to think that a politician who backs Brexit can reverse his or her course on such a fundamental question and survive politically. So I think there'd have to be change of leadership in one or both of the major parties before this would be politically feasible.

The notion that, having spent so much to achieve Brexit (hired all these civil servant, paid this horrible exit price, invested so much time and effort in negotiating trade deals, etc, etc) we have to stick with Brexit has an instinctive appeal, but it's fallacious. It's known as the sunk cost fallacy; having spend all this money on buying or building this wonderful plant/machine/company, we're committed to it; we can't turn back now. But if in fact the wonderful plant/machine/company is not fit for purpose, the fact that it cost a great deal of money is irrelevant. If, five or ten years down the line, the situation is such that the UK's long-term prospects look rosier within the EU than outside it, the rational course for the UK is to rejoin. The costs they incurred in getting out in the first place won't be relevant to that calculation at all.

Good point. However, you must also factor in the cost to the EU in terms of planning and implementation of an agreement that they didn't want, the cost in trade, Britain's continuous attempts to degrade the institution of the EU since joining, the fact that Britain and the EU will have been a competitor across a variety of services and industries all over the globe and so on.

While Britain may well want to rejoin the EU in the future, there is no guarantee that the EU would want such a disruptive, divided and dysfunctional member again. Especially a country whose economic and political systems will have been severely damaged.

Samaris

This whole thing is like a Greek comic-tragedy. Fine, jump off the cliff, warnings about the rocks at the base of it is only "project fear", and all the wonderful things that wait just beyond the horizon are absolutely real (except the 350m for the NHS). The tragedy part of it is that it's an entire bus of people, half of whom are going "wait WHAT?!" Oh, and the busdrivers all stabbed each other in the back and/or fled the bus when the results came in (hi Farage), so the current driver, who doesn't really know how to drive a bus, is dithering over the controls and saying "lift off any moment now!"

Admittedly, Cameron and those that forced his hand are still to blame for saying "Yes or no, do we drive off the cliff?" and just expecting common sense to prevail in the face of the tempters railing about the money sent to keep the road operable, other people being allowed onto the bus and the EU army (yeah, analogy broke down).

But for God's sake, will ye note the particularly large rock sticking out of the sea labelled "food security" and try to avoid impacting that head-on?

murphaph

Yeah if the UK wishes to rejoin at some later stage it will take some convincing in the capitals of the EU to see that happen. It would take a referendum with a very clear majority in the UK showing support for the EU and of course acceptance of the € and Schengen.

It's a decade or two away if at all. Sad for the British school leavers of today who will not know freedom of movement as their parents did.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

According to the BBC and the Guardian the UK wants a temporary customs union with the EU for a transitional period. It is also proposing that it should be allowed to negotiate free trade deals in the interim period.

Liam Fox will be happy but I don't know how far the EU will go with this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

It won't. The EU have made it very clear that they want the parts that impact the most people negotiated first and debt discharged, before the UK starts negotiating trade deals. Especially since Britain has been very publicly talking about reneging on their duties and debts anyway, and boasting about how the EU has to buckle to their demands for...reasons that have never been made very clear - German car exports was one.

The EU are very well aware that if Britain is allowed to make all its trade deals first - while still in the EU, which doesn't work that way, btw, then Britain, being currently apparently morally bankrupt, absolutely will try to renege on its duty and it could take a few years of economic sanctions that no-one really wants to go to and squabbling to get Britain to pony up.

There is absolutely no benefit to the EU to back down on its position and let Britain do whatever it likes rather than come to the deal table. And sadly, the British sense of honour - particularly in it's leadership - appears to have gone down the toilet, so its word cannot be trusted either. It has made that abundantly clear already.

Edit: By the way, I'm not gloating over this. I'm tired of it. I lived in England for a few years, I have family in England, I have some roots in England and I have friends there. I am very fond of Britain, am half-British myself and have never had any truck with the Irish national pastime of anti-British wibbling. But I am fed up of Britain's senseless posturing and pipedreams that it continues to demand concessions for even while arguing that if the EU is damaged, or its neighbours are damaged, that's an even better outcome.

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

According to the BBC and the Guardian the UK wants a temporary customs union with the EU for a transitional period. It is also proposing that it should be allowed to negotiate free trade deals in the interim period.

Liam Fox will be happy but I don't know how far the EU will go with this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You do know how far the EU will go; it's the old "eat the cake and have it" approach all over again and EU has made very clear their view on that idea.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

According to the BBC and the Guardian the UK wants a temporary customs union with the EU for a transitional period. It is also proposing that it should be allowed to negotiate free trade deals in the interim period.

Liam Fox will be happy but I don't know how far the EU will go with this.

I think the plan here is that, during the transitional period, the UK could negotiate free trade deals, but not implement them. Then, at the end of the transitional period, the UK would (hopefully) have a whole bunch of trade/customs deals ready to roll, and they'd avoid a painful interim period when they were out of the EU, but didn't have other trade deals.

From the UK's point of view it's definitely a good idea. From the Union's, it's a bit "meh"; it makes little difference, one way or the other. I predict that the EU's position will be "Thanks, this is interesting, a valuable contribution, certainly worth considering, we'll put it on the sideboard over there for the time being, because it's a bit premature. You and we have already agreed that the three priorities to be progressed first are the divorce bill, citizens right and the Irish border. We need to make some progress on that last point in particular because, obviously, the kind of border we agree we want will shape the kind of customs/trade arrangements that we might put in place. So I'll have a read of this very interesting and productive document over the next few days - and thank you again for bringing it - but I really don't think it would be helpful to discuss it just yet. We can discuss it much more productively and usefully after we have read and responded to your proposal on the border - which I think you're bringing tomorrow?"

Dave0301

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

According to the BBC and the Guardian the UK wants a temporary customs union with the EU for a transitional period. It is also proposing that it should be allowed to negotiate free trade deals in the interim period.

Liam Fox will be happy but I don't know how far the EU will go with this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It will be interesting to see what the EU make of it. It is very much Britian trying to have its cake and eat it.

Firstly, they declare they want to leave the customs union. Reality begins to sink in regarding the magnitude of leaving the union with no trade deals in place. Now they want to stay in the union until they are sure that Britian is in the best place possible, by retaining membership of the union, but being allow to do what no other member can do, and put in place new trade deals.

Would it be a huge concession for the EU to make, and I am not sure if they have enough of an incentive to do it?

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the plan here is that, during the transitional period, the UK could negotiate free trade deals, but not implement them. Then, at the end of the transitional period, the UK would (hopefully) have a whole bunch of trade/customs deals ready to roll, and they'd avoid a painful interim period when they were out of the EU, but didn't have other trade deals.

From the UK's point of view it's definitely a good idea. From the Union's, it's a bit "meh"; it makes little difference, one way or the other. I predict that the EU's position will be "Thanks, this is interesting, a valuable contribution, certainly worth considering, we'll put it on the sideboard over there for the time being, because it's a bit premature. You and we have already agreed that the three priorities to be progressed first are the divorce bill, citizens right and the Irish border. We need to make some progress on that last point in particular because, obviously, the kind of border we agree we want will shape the kind of customs/trade arrangements that we might put in place. So I'll have a read of this very interesting and productive document over the next few days - and thank you again for bringing it - but I really don't think it would be helpful to discuss it just yet. We can discuss it much more productively and usefully after we have read and responded to your proposal on the border - which I think you're bringing tomorrow?"

Good morning!

Apparently the border paper is coming tomorrow but I do agree broadly with the UK government when they say that the border can't be dealt with without knowing the customs arrangements that the EU will give or indeed the trade terms.

I guess the idea must be to be as ambitious as possible and see where they get to. I think it is very ambitious.

I agree with you though that the money issue must be resolved as soon as possible. I don't think it should be paid until trade terms are clear but they do need to agree on this. Perhaps the UK can use that as leverage to get concessions elsewhere such as on this customs arrangement.

EDIT: also fascinating that you say that the border dictates the trade arrangement. I think the UK see it the other way around. Trade and customs terms dictate the border.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Chips Lovell

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the plan here is that, during the transitional period, the UK could negotiate free trade deals, but not implement them. Then, at the end of the transitional period, the UK would (hopefully) have a whole bunch of trade/customs deals ready to roll, and they'd avoid a painful interim period when they were out of the EU, but didn't have other trade deals.

I suppose the obvious question is why the EU would agree to this. Post customs union, the UK will be competing with the EU in trade terms and why would it want to give it a "head start" with its foot half in, half out of the customs union? Everyone's going to have to scramble to adapt and why would the UK allow the EU to do so within the comfort blanket of the customs union.

The other issue of course is that issues like this aren't going to be even on the table until stuff like the exit bill and citizens rights are sorted out, so it's a while away yet before its even discussed.

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes Brexit is final. The more and more I think about it the term soft Brexit is primarily used by people who wanted to remain in the EU. There's no soft or hard Brexit in my mind, there's just leaving the EU.

I think the people understood this when they voted for it that it was to bring membership of the EU to a complete end. If the UK is to come back in there will need to be actual reasons put to the electorate rather than project fear.

As for other countries and their understanding about Brexit. I'm personally thankful that the penny has dropped. It means that discussions about a future relationship can begin in earnest and that real progress can be made towards a deal that recognises the concerns of both parties. Nobody wants these negotiations to take longer than they have to.

I think after the next round of proposals are submitted there won't be reasonable grounds for saying that sufficient progress hasn't been made.

Clearly we see the world through different lenses
I think the UK would be better off inside the EU, what I was thinking about was the way that any reversal of Brexit would be unlikely in the short to medium term. And implicitly that this will affect the way the negotiations will pan out.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK rejoining would face exactly the same issues as any country joining - the need to redeploy civil servants whose functions are now redundant, the need to wind up existing trade deals when they are replaced by EU trade deals, etc.

Legally, constitutionally, practically, etc I don't see that this would be any more difficult for the UK than for any other country joining the Union - or, indeed, than it was for the UK the first time they joined in 1973.

Politically, of course, it would be hugely embarrassing to admit that, yes, Brexit was a colossal mistake and we need to reverse it. And it might be unrealistic to think that a politician who backs Brexit can reverse his or her course on such a fundamental question and survive politically. So I think there'd have to be change of leadership in one or both of the major parties before this would be politically feasible.

The notion that, having spent so much to achieve Brexit (hired all these civil servant, paid this horrible exit price, invested so much time and effort in negotiating trade deals, etc, etc) we have to stick with Brexit has an instinctive appeal, but it's fallacious. It's known as the sunk cost fallacy; having spend all this money on buying or building this wonderful plant/machine/company, we're committed to it; we can't turn back now. But if in fact the wonderful plant/machine/company is not fit for purpose, the fact that it cost a great deal of money is irrelevant. If, five or ten years down the line, the situation is such that the UK's long-term prospects look rosier within the EU than outside it, the rational course for the UK is to rejoin. The costs they incurred in getting out in the first place won't be relevant to that calculation at all.

I agree on the sunk cost fallacy from an economic perspective, it's the political cost (and hit to national pride) that would be the biggest sticking point, IMO.

It would take more than a change of political leadership to sell re-entry to the people of the UK, it would require a cultural change in the UK itself. It would require a UK that looks more towards Europe and less towards the Anglosphere than is currently the case. It would require a major change of stance by some of the big newspapers, most of which I expect to keep hammering away at the EU as that's the message that seems to resonate with their readers.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Apparently the border paper is coming tomorrow but I do agree broadly with the UK government when they say that the border can't be dealt with without knowing the customs arrangements that the EU will give or indeed the trade terms. . . .

EDIT: also fascinating that you say that the border dictates the trade arrangement. I think the UK see it the other way around. Trade and customs terms dictate the border.

The UK and the EU see (or saw) things differently on this:

The UK agreed with you that the proper approach was to agree trading terms and arrangements, and what was or was not possible with respect to the border would be driven by that. (That was their true position; their public stance has to treat the two things as largely independent of one another. So they would say that they wanted to leave the customs union, and that they wanted an open Irish border, and they would not indicate or acknowledge any need to prioritise one of these objectives over the other.)

The EU (and this, I have to say, has been a triumph of deft Irish diplomacy) puts things the other way around. We need to know what kind of border we want in Ireland, given the significance both for Ireland as a member state particularly affected by Brexit, and for the GFA. And, when we know that, that will set some parameters within which customs, trade etc terms have to be settled.

The first battle over which sequencing will prevail has been fought and won; the EU proposed that the border would be one of the three priority items to be progressed before the parties would turn to other matters (including trade) and the UK accepted that back in June. While this was generally seen as round 1 to the EU, so to speak, the particular significance of this sequencing wasn't much commented on in the media at the time, but the UK negotiators certainly understood it.

That's not to say that the UK will simply abandon its objective of letting trade terms drive what the border will end up like; they lost a battle, not the war. But right now on this particular point the EU is in the ascendant, and they won't give up their advantage lightly.