Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph

Sounds like a lot of the proverbial "red tape" to me. Wasn't that one of the main reasons for Brexit?

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds like a lot of the proverbial "red tape" to me. Wasn't that one of the main reasons for Brexit?

It's important to respect the will of the people as long as they do what the government tells them to do but I'm sure our pro brexit posters will only support the local councils having a say to ensure democracy is followed.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

I found this interesting. New proposals circulated by trade secretary Liam Fox would mean that Britain could strike trade deals without the consent of Scotland, Wales and presumably Northern Ireland. From the Scotsman.

"Take back control"

The regional parliaments have been upset that the Great Repeal Bill would undo a lot of devolution. So looks like the promises about it not being a power grab are dust. Yes they'll go on about exceptions but at the end of the day this is about overruling democratically elected representatives.


http://www.bordbia.ie/industry/manufacturers/insight/alerts/Pages/BrexitandtheGreatRepealBill.aspx?year=2017&wk=20

The bill will also create powers to create secondary legislation. This will help overcome the technical problems that will arise as EU laws are put on the UK statute books. Many laws mention EU institutions and EU law itself and these will not be part of the UK legal system after Brexit. The bill creates powers to "correct the statute book where necessary". The bill will give ministers the power to make these changes to this legislation over time by secondary legislation.

The total body of European law, dating back to 1958, is known as the Acquis Communautaire. It binds all member states and in 2010 was estimated to consist of about 80,000 items, covering everything from workers' rights to environment and trade.

The White Paper also commits to “intensive discussions with the devolved administrations” about how policy powers repatriated to the UK from the EU will be distributed between the areas within the UK.

Nody

Time to be scared... 5 new papers are to be released next week and Davis had the following comment on them:

Ahead of the publication of the documents, Mr Davis said his department would be “putting forward imaginative and creative solutions to build a deep and special partnership with our closest neighbours and allies”.

Now keep in mind their previous paper on the NI border drew the following comment:

European Parliament’s chief Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, described the blueprint as a “fantasy”

And this time they are openly stating that they are "imaginative and creative solutions" would make me very worried for what those papers will contain.

murphaph

There will be no deal. Not even by March 2019. The UK will end up asking for an extension because by then the cliff edge will be in plain sight and will be terrifying.

The airlines will have already cancelled swathes of flights to give a taster of the future outside the EU and it will be scary.

The airlines have to act by autumn 2018 already because of slots at airports.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

There will be no deal. Not even by March 2019. The UK will end up asking for an extension because by then the cliff edge will be in plain sight and will be terrifying.

I tend to agree with you, but I would not put money on them being granted an extension. All 27 must agree and so far UK has not shown any signs of taking it seriously, what would be the point of the extension....

murphaph wrote: »

The airlines have to act by autumn 2018 already because of slots at airports.

But even if they were to be given slots, UK citizens could not book on to such flights unless they could show that they have the right to land there - airlines are liable to be fined in the land passenger that don't have the right to enter.

murphaph

I wasn't even considering that angle, just the impact on UK airlines of being dumped out of open skies. True indeed, that in the absence of a deal, UK citizens have no more right to land in Paris than citizens of countries requiring full visa formalities.

What an unprecedented mess this is going to be.

The UK is starting to get twitchy already, trying to push parallel trade talks again. It smacks of desperation, which it is.

Water John

We'll know after the position papers they publish, this week. Are they dreaming, still?

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

I wasn't even considering that angle, just the impact on UK airlines of being dumped out of open skies.

Everywhere you turn there seems to be yet another issue, a legal friend was pointed out to me today the British lawyers only have a right of audience in EU/EEA/CH courts by virtue of EU membership. So what happens in April 2019? Are judges expected to refuse to accept their submissions, refuse to allow them speak... tell the parties to find new lawyers....

johnnyskeleton

Jim2007 wrote: »

Everywhere you turn there seems to be yet another issue, a legal friend was pointed out to me today the British lawyers only have a right of audience in EU/EEA/CH courts by virtue of EU membership. So what happens in April 2019? Are judges expected to refuse to accept their submissions, refuse to allow them speak... tell the parties to find new lawyers....

I would imagine that if they were recognised as having a right of audience by the law society/kings inns based on their rights under the recognition of foreign professionals directive then that recognition will still be in force but the fees they are charged in the future and the criteria for future recognition will be different and up to the law society/kings inns discretion or might be dealt with by legislation.

They currently have powers to recognise non EU qualifications e.g. Australia or Nigeria, and once you have been recognised I think thats it. Not 100% but I think that EU lawers are put on the roll of solicitors or called to the Irish bar, if not as a matter of formality then certainly as a matter of custom after being recognised here (*I think there is a way to practise in the Irish courts temporarily without actually needing to become an Irish solicitor/barrister but its rare that that happens).

In any event, much like a lot of other areas, such as Extradition, the rule is that if something is done under EU law it doesnt become invalid merely because EU law changes or, in this instance, a country leaves the EU. So Brexit will affect people cross qualifying if they apply after Brexit, but if they have that right beforehand it remains valid.

Thats not to say that the government of either state couldnt pass a law imposing additional requirements on UK lawyers in Ireland or vice versa.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Had a fantastic time down in Hastings and in Eastbourne at the weekend on a trip with some friends (There was a great airshow on the front in Eastbourne today with fighter jets from the RAF in particular). It was very interesting to see so many German and Dutch over for a holiday. I'm glad to see that because it means that people haven't got the impression that because Britain wants to leave the EU that it is closed for business.

I'm sure the drop in the pound has has an effect in drawing people over the summer and hopefully the draw will hugely benefit the local economy on the south coast and other places across the UK.

I don't see huge grounds for fearmongering or project fear round two. There's no reason why a reasonable arrangement can't come to, and I definitely don't blame the British for putting out ambitious options for their corner. It isn't their job to play Nostradamus in respect to what the EU will accept.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

Looks like they're already panicking. From the Guardian.

The Brexit secretary, David Davis, is urging Brussels to revisit the
government’s proposal to kick off discussions on Britain’s future relationship
with the EU alongside withdrawal talks.


Negotiations are to resume in just over a week’s time in Brussels, amid
growing concern in government that at the current pace it may be impossible to
open trade talks until the end of the year.


The EU has always insisted that key aspects of Britain’s withdrawal –
including the principles of a financial settlement, the future of EU citizens
living in the UK and the status of Northern Ireland – be dealt with before talks
on a new trade deal can begin.


Davis initially suggested the timetabling of talks would be “the row of the
summer”, with Britain pressing to begin discussing the future relationship from
the start. When negotiations began formally after the general election, he
appeared to have conceded that the EU’s approach was acceptable.


But in an article in the Sunday Times, he reopened the debate, arguing that
the talks so far have exposed the fact that it is impossible to settle some of
the withdrawal questions without a sense of what the future relationship between
Britain and the EU will be.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't their job to play Nostradamus in respect to what the EU will accept.

Hilarious you claim it not for the UK to guess what the EU will accept but have constantly failed to call out the UK for it's complete lack of position.We are only now getting position papers a year after the vote.

Also it's meant to be a negotiation neither side knows exactly what the other will accept if they didn't we'd not be having a negotiation at all.

solodeogloria

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Hilarious you claim it not for the UK to guess what the EU will accept but have constantly failed to call out the UK for it's complete lack of position.We are only now getting position papers a year after the vote.

Also it's meant to be a negotiation neither side knows exactly what the other will accept if they didn't we'd not be having a negotiation at all.

Good evening!

The whole point of publishing position papers is to make the UK's position on these issues clear.

There are obviously different negotiating strategies between the UK and the EU. The EU prefers to publish everything at go, the UK prefers to reveal things as they become pertinent in the discussion. Again, just because the British government hasn't published everything doesn't mean that they are not prepared or don't have a clue about anything.

This is simply the spin that the European Commission and other hard core remainers want to put on the negotiation.

We know an increasing amount about what the UK is seeking. I'm actually impressed at how well they are consolidating the different priorities that people had so far on Brexit. They haven't been twiddling their thumbs since the referendum at all, that's simply a myth that you might want to perpetuate, but it doesn't make it a truthful representation of reality.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The whole point of publishing position papers is to make the UK's position on these issues clear.

Just a mere year and a month after the vote, five months after triggering A.50 and 2 after official negotiations began and your trying to make this out to be a positive.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Had a fantastic time down in Hastings and in Eastbourne at the weekend on a trip with some friends (There was a great airshow on the front in Eastbourne today with fighter jets from the RAF in particular). It was very interesting to see so many German and Dutch over for a holiday. I'm glad to see that because it means that people haven't got the impression that because Britain wants to leave the EU that it is closed for business.

I'm sure the drop in the pound has has an effect in drawing people over the summer and hopefully the draw will hugely benefit the local economy on the south coast and other places across the UK.

I don't see huge grounds for fearmongering or project fear round two. There's no reason why a reasonable arrangement can't come to, and I definitely don't blame the British for putting out ambitious options for their corner. It isn't their job to play Nostradamus in respect to what the EU will accept.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good evening to you too.

I'm afraid EU applications to UK universities have dropped by 7%.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/eu-students-numbers-apply-uk-universities-fall-7-per-cent-brexit-latest-news-figures-a7558131.html%3famp

solodeogloria

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just a mere year and a month after the vote, five months after triggering A.50 and 2 after official negotiations began and your trying to make this out to the a positive.

Good evening!

There's no reason why you are obliged to know every detail of the British negotiating position in advance.

It is a positive for the British to be putting things forward when they actually need to be discussed and it is a positive for the British not to negotiate through the media, but rather to seek Britain's best interest in the discussions.

I genuinely think the Government have done a good job, and they have impressed me in some regards. I'm pretty confident of a good outcome.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good evening to you too.

I'm afraid EU applications to UK universities have dropped by 7%.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/eu-students-numbers-apply-uk-universities-fall-7-per-cent-brexit-latest-news-figures-a7558131.html%3famp

And the pull in EU research funding, I have friends coming home from distinguished universities in Britain from their researching jobs as the money is gone.

Reality is setting in.

But I'm sure the UK government will replace the billions in research grants.....

...

steddyeddy

listermint wrote: »

And the pull in EU research funding, I have friends coming home from distinguished universities in Britain from their researching jobs as the money is gone.

Reality is setting in.

But I'm sure the UK government will replace the billions in research grants.....

...

Our lab in the UK lost 200 K in potential EU horizon 2020 funding. It's a mess.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

There's no reason why you are obliged to know every detail of the British negotiating position in advance.

It is a positive for the British to be putting things forward when they actually need to be discussed and it is a positive for the British not to negotiate through the media, but rather to seek Britain's best interest in the discussions.

I genuinely think the Government have done a good job, and they have impressed me in some regards. I'm pretty confident of a good outcome.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You claim the British have a set position yet they've contradictory positions regarding Ireland, they are hard Brexiting but with a 3 year transition period but may be not. They are going to take control of immigration and somehow honour citizens rights.

steddyeddy

David Davis also said trade talks wil help progress the Irish border situation. I think there's a denial of the fact the border issue has to be sorted first.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-trade-deal-would-help-progress-irish-border-issue-says-davis-1.3192242?mode=amp

steddyeddy

I can't debate with Brexiters anymore than I can debate with flat Earthers or climate change deniers. All the above positions rely on a denial or ignorance of science or economics.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can't debate with Brexiters anymore than I can debate with flat Earthers or climate change deniers. All the above positions rely on a denial or ignorance of science or economics.

Moe Note:

Well if that is the case, please don't post here, as this thread is for serious political discussion not point scoring.

Water John

I can well see the point eddy is making. It's boxing shadows, as their position changes every week and are often mutually contradictory.
Don't want Hard Brexit, but their requests actually mean a Hard Brexit. Their strategy is that, they haven't a strategy and blame the EU.

steddyeddy

Water John wrote: »

I can well see the point eddy is making. It's boxing shadows, as their position changes every week and are often mutually contradictory.
Don't want Hard Brexit, but their requests actually mean a Hard Brexit. Their strategy is that, they haven't a strategy and blame the EU.

There is no single position. The negotiating team's positions are contrary to EU regulations. Their economic forecasts are contrary to reality. I feel the frustration of the EU.

Leonard Hofstadter

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is no single position. The negotiating team's positions are contrary to EU regulations. Their economic forecasts are contrary to reality. I feel the frustration of the EU.

That's my feeling. I think they know they're screwed so they're trying to set things up to make it look to the natives like we tried to do all these things for you but those so-and-sos in the EU have prevented us from having our cake and eating it.

The fact that they're so determined to try and get trade back up the agenda is proof that despite the nonsense from the Brexiteers insisting that 'no deal is better than a bad deal', they know just how dependent the UK is on EU trade and they are utterly desperate for a deal. Hopefully this absolute need for a deal on trade will help drag them back into planet Earth for things like the divorce bill and the border, as they're still on a different galaxy at the moment.

The ironic thing is, that things like a transition period, and other proposals by the remainers and supporters of a soft Brexit, are things that would actually make it much more likely for Brexit to be a success and thus keep the UK out of the EU for good.

Capt'n Midnight

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would imagine that if they were recognised as having a right of audience by the law society/kings inns based

IIRC There's reciprocal recognition. So contingency planning.

https://www.ft.com/content/82310ba4-631e-11e7-8814-0ac7eb84e5f1

Almost 1,000 solicitors in England and Wales have registered in Ireland in the year since the EU referendum, at least 10 times the regular annual number, because they fear losing the right to represent clients in European courts after Brexit.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's no reason why you are obliged to know every detail of the British negotiating position in advance.

It is a positive for the British to be putting things forward when they actually need to be discussed and it is a positive for the British not to negotiate through the media, but rather to seek Britain's best interest in the discussions.

This what you keep repeating, but back in the real world there are three items that have to be addressed in sufficient detail to starting to work out an agreement. That has not happened and the side playing the games is the side that does not have time on it's side....

Jim2007

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would imagine that if they were recognised as having a right of audience by the law society/kings inns based on ......

First of all A50 blows every agreement out of the water, it does not make any excepts, it leaves it up to negotiation.

The second thing is that Ireland is a very small part of the puzzle. Ireland and the U.K. and indeed most of the exceptions you mentioned are all common law jurisdictions and English speaking. But Europe has civil law and different languages.

British law firms are setting up small Irish offices and trying to get Irish recognition because with without an agreement its their only chance.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Our lab in the UK lost 200 K in potential EU horizon 2020 funding. It's a mess.

Again - "EU funding" is simply redistributed tax payers money. The £4.5bn it gets back from Brussels today will be spent on similar priorities. I'm fairly sure the British government won't put education funding on a cliff edge.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can't debate with Brexiters anymore than I can debate with flat Earthers or climate change deniers. All the above positions rely on a denial or ignorance of science or economics.

Brexit makes economic sense. Broadening trade with a wider more rapidly growing world is the logical choice. There's nothing flat earth about this. I think this is the point in the thread where we will see the use of the ad-hominem and the ad-baculum arguments in an increasing level.

You're a scientist presumably, therefore you should be able to substitute rational argument here.

Jim2007 wrote: »

This what you keep repeating, but back in the real world there are three items that have to be addressed in sufficient detail to starting to work out an agreement. That has not happened and the side playing the games is the side that does not have time on it's side....

Again, trotting out the ad-hominem. I'm very much speaking about the real world as is David Davis when he points out that you cannot solve the Northern Ireland border without discussing trade terms and customs.

That's reasonable and he's right to push back on it. It seems like he was right to say it would be the row of the summer.

There is also the reality that if the UK in the worst case scenario went to WTO terms it would have to pay £5.7bn on goods into the European Union. The Government could in theory agree to pay these on the behalf of exporters to ensure tariff free trade. This could come out of the £8.7bn it would no longer pay to the EU if necessary. The UK has the option of unilaterally dropping import tariffs if it wishes also.

That's not a scenario anyone wants to go down but I don't think it's as bad as some are presenting it to be on this thread. The only reason the UK would consider this scenario would be if the EU becomes unreasonable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

Jim2007 wrote: »

This what you keep repeating, but back in the real world there are three items that have to be addressed in sufficient detail to starting to work out an agreement. That has not happened and the side playing the games is the side that does not have time on it's side....

The longer it goes on, the less likely they will get a good trading deal because everyone's fed up dealing with them and companies will start shifting their focus towards trade and supply with other markets because god knows what Britain is going to do. Britain may think it can wait up to the last moment, but companies and corporations have to plan ahead.

There does need to be a bit of trust, but so far, Britain's bipolar way of dealing with this problem (taking multiple contradictory stances) has rendered the word of their politicians unreliable. If Britain showed a few signs of being willing to work in some sort of honourable way with the EU, things might progress a bit better. It is not in the interests of the EU to screw over Britain - unless Britain is so obnoxious and awkward over it that it's better to screw them over and focus elsewhere.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again - "EU funding" is simply redistributed tax payers money. The £4.5bn it gets back from Brussels today will be spent on similar priorities. I'm fairly sure the British government won't put education funding on a cliff edge.

Tell me, is it the way the British Government has handled the education right now that makes you think they will not put funding on a cliff edge? I haven't seen a lot of positive messages on that front, more of teaching shortages and austerity still being applied to teachers salaries and more workload for less pay.

Or how about we look at how they are running the NHS, do you think that is a good example to show they will not put it on a cliff edge? Just wondering where you get your sense of security from the UK government.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, trotting out the ad-hominem. I'm very much speaking about the real world as is David Davis when he points out that you cannot solve the Northern Ireland border without discussing trade terms and customs.

That's reasonable and he's right to push back on it. It seems like he was right to say it would be the row of the summer.

I think this is why there is a difference in opinion on the border. The UK sees it as a trading problem, I see it as a security problem first and then trade comes into it. What do you think is more important for the NI border, the trade to continue or the GFA to be protected?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

Tell me, is it the way the British Government has handled the education right now that makes you think they will not put funding on a cliff edge? I haven't seen a lot of positive messages on that front, more of teaching shortages and austerity still being applied to teachers salaries and more workload for less pay.

Nobody is denying that the past few years have been difficult in most advanced economies. The Government has been right to reduce the deficit. Government services should not be funded by borrowing but with the proceeds of economic growth.

The £4.5bn bloc of funds returned from the EU is funding that is already spent and already committed in the UK budget. There's no reason why that will be suddenly whisked away. It is also a relatively small amount of money given the UK's entire tax take.

Enzokk wrote: »

Or how about we look at how they are running the NHS, do you think that is a good example to show they will not put it on a cliff edge? Just wondering where you get your sense of security from the UK government.

What's your experience of the NHS? Mine is receiving excellent free care at the point of entry when I went to a hospital in London in the early hours of the morning and receiving treatment in 2 hours. On subsequent treatments although there were wait times and although there was a huge strain evident on being there the care that I received for free was excellent.

Compare this to Ireland where a GP appointment costs about €50. My experience of British hospitals has also been much better.

Enzokk wrote: »

I think this is why there is a difference in opinion on the border. The UK sees it as a trading problem, I see it as a security problem first and then trade comes into it. What do you think is more important for the NI border, the trade to continue or the GFA to be protected?

Trade and security are both border issues. They need to be handled together. You cannot settle a border issue when you're not dealing with customs and trade. The UK is clear that it wants the border to remain open. Without open trade terms you cannot have an open border. End of story.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Trade and security are both border issues. They need to be handled together. You cannot settle a border issue when you're not dealing with customs and trade. The UK is clear that it wants the border to remain open. Without open trade terms you cannot have an open border. End of story.

Exactly. Which is why the British insistence on leaving the single market and the customs union is hard to square with their claim that they want an open border. if they really wanted an open border, they wouldn't be adopting policies calculated to close the border.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Exactly. Which is why the British insistence on leaving the single market and the customs union is hard to square with their claim that they want an open border. if they really wanted an open border, they wouldn't be adopting policies calculated to close the border.

Good morning!

They've proposed ideas about how customs can work.

The British government are in a tight position. They need to deliver a Brexit that works for the entire United Kingdom. As much for people living in Clacton on Sea as in Coleraine.

Staying under ECJ oversight is unacceptable given the mandate of taking back control that was put forward in the referendum. The UK shouldn't be pitting voters in Essex against voters in Northern Ireland or pitting voters in Scotland against voters in the Welsh valleys. It's much more difficult to negotiate for the whole United Kingdom.

The British negotiating position so far as articulated in these papers manages to effectively do this.

The EU idea of sorting a border without trade terms is an absurdity.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

bill66

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can't debate with Brexiters anymore than I can debate with flat Earthers or climate change deniers. All the above positions rely on a denial or ignorance of science or economics.

Wow, what an amazing comment, I am surprised you have time to post here, what with counting your money from your 100% success in economic forecasting.

I would suggest that no one knows what the impact of Brexit will be, good, bad or indifferent or which parts of the EU or Britain will be affected in which way. There is simply not enough evidence to make a reasoned and accurate prediction. Anyone who offers any such a prediction on either side of the debate is merely pissing in the wind.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is also the reality that if the UK in the worst case scenario went to WTO terms it would have to pay £5.7bn on goods into the European Union. The Government could in theory agree to pay these on the behalf of exporters to ensure tariff free trade. This could come out of the £8.7bn it would no longer pay to the EU if necessary. The UK has the option of unilaterally dropping import tariffs if it wishes also.

That's not a scenario anyone wants to go down but I don't think it's as bad as some are presenting it to be on this thread.

This would be economic suicide for a country whose economy is 70% services based and which would have no automatic rights to sell those services into the EU without the EU's consent. The WTO does not govern trade in services, but you keep forgetting that for some reason.

I agree that the Northern Ireland border is tricky to solve outside of the broader trade terms but the exit bill and EU citizens rights issues can be sorted independently of trade. No question.

Peregrinus

bill66 wrote: »

Wow, what an amazing comment, I am surprised you have time to post here, what with counting your money from your 100% success in economic forecasting.

I would suggest that no one knows what the impact of Brexit will be, good, bad or indifferent or which parts of the EU or Britain will be affected in which way. There is simply not enough evidence to make a reasoned and accurate prediction. Anyone who offers any such a prediction on either side of the debate is merely pissing in the wind.

I wouldn't agree, and if I were you I'd be wary of associating the Brexit cause with an appeal to ignorance.

There's a range of possible outcomes to Brexit, and it's perfectly possible to model them on various assumptions and on various scenarios, and to discuss and defend the models. Indeed, everybody who thinks that the UK will be better off as a result of Brexit is implicitly modelling both a future for Britain if Brexit occurs and a future for Britain if Brexit does not occur, and comparing the two. If you really believe that "no one knows what the impact of Brexit will be, good, bad or indifferent" then there is no basis for optimism about Brexit and no reason to support it.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post for today.

murphaph:
I've responded to this point many times on this thread.

Services can and are imported from the European Union from outside the European Union. The idea that this would simply halt isn't true.

I agree that the UK should make progress on the exit bill but that it shouldn't be paid until trading and customs terms become clear. If the latter aren't clear the money should be spent on protecting British businesses against EU tariffs in the event that the EU won't do a reasonable deal.

Why are the EU saying that the Northern Ireland border issue must be resolved before trade and customs terms if that is impossible?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

They've proposed ideas about how customs can work.

The British government are in a tight position. They need to deliver a Brexit that works for the entire United Kingdom. As much for people living in Clacton on Sea as in Coleraine.

Staying under ECJ oversight is unacceptable given the mandate of taking back control that was put forward in the referendum. The UK shouldn't be pitting voters in Essex against voters in Northern Ireland or pitting voters in Scotland against voters in the Welsh valleys. It's much more difficult to negotiate for the whole United Kingdom.

The British negotiating position so far as articulated in these papers manages to effectively do this.

The EU idea of sorting a border without trade terms is an absurdity.

There’s no possibility of delivering “a Brexit that works for the entire United Kingdom . . . As much for people living in Clacton on Sea as in Coleraine”. There will be winners and losers from Brexit. The most that can be hoped is that there will be more winners than losers, though personally I am doubtful about that. But unquestionably there will be parts of the United Kingdom that suffer as a result of Brexit, and equally unquestionably Northern Ireland will be one of those parts. I have seen no serious analysis which attempts to suggest otherwise and, if you have, now would be a really good time to give us a link to it.

The claim that “The British negotiating position so far as articulated in these papers manages to effectively” ensure that all parts of the UK will benefit is absurd beyond belief. There is no possible way in which Northern Ireland will benefit politically, socially or economically from a hardening of the border, and any change from the current status quo can only be a hardening. There is no possible way that Northern Ireland can benefit from greater barriers to trade being erected between it and its closest market, but withdrawing from the customs union and declining to join the EEA both put barriers in the way of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Northern Ireland’s interests are being sacrificed for the political advantage in England of the Conservative Party. And nobody familiar with Irish history will be in the least surprised by that.

murphaph

The EU can prevent all services from the UK being sold into the EU. If the UK decides to do a solo run they can expect the EU to retaliate in kind and hit the UK where it hurts.

The UK's current strategy for Brexit is utterly reliant on a transitional period that may be granted by the EU at its sole discretion.

The UK economy would implode before we even got to March 2019 as businesses would have fled before being driven over the cliff edge.

To me your infrequent posts here are becoming vaguer and vaguer. I think, deep down, you know things are not going to plan. The UK is learning (albeit slowly) what it's like to be outside the tent pissing in rather than inside pissing out.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why are the EU saying that the Northern Ireland border issue must be resolved before trade and customs terms if that is impossible?

The EU aren't saying that - as I suspect you know. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but the EU wants to see signficant progress on the priority issues - which include the border - before turning to negotiation of the long-term trading relationship, since what the parties agree they want in relation to the border will set some parameters for the trading relationship that they will have.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why are the EU saying that the Northern Ireland border issue must be resolved before trade and customs terms if that is impossible?

Because it is an important issue, one which is core to peace in Ireland and therefore more important than trade. Given that the British were happy to throw the Northern Irish under a bus there, it's nice that someone has the border in mind.

ambro25

Jim2007 wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

I wasn't even considering that angle, just the impact on UK airlines of being dumped out of open skies.

Everywhere you turn there seems to be yet another issue, a legal friend was pointed out to me today the British lawyers only have a right of audience in EU/EEA/CH courts by virtue of EU membership. So what happens in April 2019? Are judges expected to refuse to accept their submissions, refuse to allow them speak... tell the parties to find new lawyers....

and, in some cases (field of practice-dependent), EU nationality and/or qualification.

solodeogloria wrote: »

<...>

Services can and are imported from the European Union from outside the European Union. The idea that this would simply halt isn't true

<...>

Filing, prosecuting and opposing EU trade marks and Community designs are services "exported" by EU practitioners (including, until March 2019, UK practitioners) to prospective owners in 3rd party countries (US, CN, JP, AU, NZ <...>). The capacity to provide these services is 100% tied to an EU location: an e.g. US attorney (or an EU national and/or EU-qualified attorney practicing in e.g. the US) cannot represent before the EUIPO, they have to use an EU IP firm.

That is the regime awaiting UK practitioners and prospective UK owners of EU trade marks and Community designs (who currently can file, prosecute and oppose themselves, at least cost but perhaps sub-optimally), come Brexit day. No ifs or buts, it's just automatic operation of law, without any negotiating elbow room.

Save for those who have (or open) an EU office and put in place relevant inter-company procedures by then, the entire UK IP profession will effectively be surrendering all of their EU caseload to their EU competition by March 2019.

That is a 100% effective NTB and, in that specific context, indeed amounts to halting (UK-benefitting-) trade in services. With further collateral damage (we have stats showing market erosion is already under way, with German, French and Irish firms already reaping the benefits of that erosion: these things take a long time, and blue chip rights owners are not waiting until 2019, they are moving business from UK IP firms to non-UK EU IP firms 'early' to (re)build relationship and avoid any disruption).

Nothing that was not previously explained to you, by the way:

Peregrinus wrote:

<...> But the more aspects of single market participation that the UK rejects, the more barriers to the free entry of UK goods and services arise. <...>

Objectively, and logically, relative to the pre-Brexit situation, every aspect of single market participation that the UK rejects, is likely become one more trade barrier to the free entry of UK goods and services, with the significance varying as a function of how tall each barrier is or becomes, if not in negotiations then in practice.

Some NTBs are likely to amount to 100% from the get-go, and a simple (anecdotal) example to easily explain this issue to solodeogloria, is that which my (UK) industry is now facing in respect of rights of audience at the EU Intellectual Property Office.

To have access to the EUIPO as a practitioner, one has to be (IP-) qualified in an EU member state.

For the EUIPO to communicate with representatives (or with a self-representing EU trade mark or design applicant), the IP professional or their firm (or the self-representing applicant) must be based in an EU member state.

That is how and why an EU-based applicant can self-file an EU TM application, but a non-EU (e.g. Swiss, US, <etc.>) applicant cannot: they have to come to me (figuratively speaking: any professional on the EUIPO Register) to get it done.

Now, currently still, the UK's single market membership means unfettered access by the UK IP profession (UK trademark attorneys) to the European trademark and design registration system of the EUIPO.

Right now, if a UK client, or an Irish client, or a US client, or a Japanese client <etc.> rings my office in the UK, I can file an EU TM or design for them at the click of a button. My market is global and my competition is EU-wide, EU and non-EU clients can come to me or go to Manfred in Munich or Gérard in Paris <etc.>

Currently, there is no other 'barrier' in that respect, than price competition: we Brit, French, German, Spaniard <etc.> trade mark attorneys are all equal before the EUIPO and EU/non-EU clients. A proper pan-European commodity service.

But take Brexit now: anything less than single market membership (i.e. access to the single market access on any model less than membership), means no access for the UK IP profession (UK trademark attorneys) to the European trademark and design registration system of the EUIPO.

Yes, that's an outright loss of all rights of audience at the EUIPO for the UK profession. NTBs don't come much taller than that: you are simply forbidden from accessing this "market" (filing EUTMs and designs and representing applicants at the EUIPO as a professional service) entirely.

A simplistic analogy for the less legally-literate: this European Court's doors are now shut to British solicitors, permanently and without exception, so hand your cases over to the EU competition and go do your stuff at your own British Courts.

And no, that can't be negotiated (at all as I believe, for statutory reasons as much as self-interested lobbying by the EU competition).

So what's the net effect, practically? Loss of global competitiveness for the UK profession and higher cost of protection for UK rights owners.

Post-Brexit, if a UK client, or an Irish client, or a US client, or a Japanese client <etc.> rings my office in the UK and wants an EU TM or design, I'll have to ask an Irish attorney, or a French attorney, or a German attorney <etc.> to do it for me.

No tariffs whatsoever in the above, 100% NTB, and 100% effective in shutting out the Brit competition from that particular EU services market.

And it won't be the EU "punishing" the UK either, as all of the above is simply a straightforward and inevitable application of decades-old law, predicted and discussed months before the Referendum: the law says that to use this system as a representative you must be EU-qualified and -based. Once you're neither and/or nor (because the UK is out), you cease to fulfil the criteria, so you can't use the system. Simple as.

That's just my industry, very niche and specialist. Feel free to research and extrapolate how far/wide the principle holds true.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Services can and are imported from the European Union from outside the European Union. The idea that this would simply halt isn't true.

And when a UK barrister or solicitor stand up in a European court in April 2019 and is told by the Judge that he has not right to speak.... of when the Swiss companies office refuses to accept accounts signed by a UK Chartered Accountant refuses to accept it, because the law clearly states it must be signed by a Swiss or EU professional accountant....

What are they going to say, solodeogloria said it was ok so it must be true!!!

ancapailldorcha

Apparently, about 20% of Leave Voters are still expecting the NHS to be funded with the money that is currently spent on EU membership:

PoliticalBetting.com wrote:

And one in five of all leave voters are still expecting the extra £350m a week for the NHS

In its August poll Opinium, which was one of the most accurate at the EU referendum, asked about whether at the time voters had believed the Leave Campaign on the £350m a week coming back to the NHS. There were the possible repsones:

A ” I believed this pledge at the time and think that the £350 million contribution will be given to the NHS instead once the UK leaves the EU.”

B “I believed this pledge at the time but no longer believe it will happen once the UK leaves the EU”

C “I did not believe this pledge at the time but think that the £350 million contribution will be given to the NHS instead once the UK leaves the EU”

D “I did not believe this pledge at the time and do not think it will happen once the UK leaves the EU”

E “N/A – I do not believe this was a pledge made by the Leave campaign”

F “Don’t know / had not heard about this before”

Amongst all who were sampled 25% responded with A or B as above – that at the time they believed that the extra money would be coming to the NHS. 55% responded C or D saying that at the the time didn’t believe it.

Source.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



Again - "EU funding" is simply redistributed tax payers money. The £4.5bn it gets back from Brussels today will be spent on similar priorities. I'm fairly sure the British government won't put education funding on a cliff edge.



Brexit makes economic sense. Broadening trade with a wider more rapidly growing world is the logical choice. There's nothing flat earth about this. I think this is the point in the thread where we will see the use of the ad-hominem and the ad-baculum arguments in an increasing level.

You're a scientist presumably, therefore you should be able to substitute rational argument here.


Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Once again you are flying in the face of reality. His firm had to close a Lab

I have actually friends returning to Ireland because the funding is not being renewed next year because it's European funding they cannot get from the UK government they've tried.

These are real people and real scenarios occurring right now.

Not some random scenario that is being dreamt up.

Project reality in full effect despite your usherings to the Contrary.

Im beginning to believe there is an echo chamber in your industry and you've excluded what's occuring elsewhere as project fear or some other nonsense term

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

Trade and security are both border issues. They need to be handled together. You cannot settle a border issue when you're not dealing with customs and trade.

Of course you can. It is perfectly possible to conduct trade & have security with a "standard" international frontier as most countries do. Doing so is not dependent there being a trade agreement in place since trade can take place without one.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is clear that it wants the border to remain open. Without open trade terms you cannot have an open border.

Were the UK interested in "open trade terms" it could have opted for a Norwegian style arrangement as the Leave campaign mooted on more than one occasion during the referendum. Instead the UK government appear intent on rejecting such open trade terms and opting instead for the hardest of hard Brexits. That is completely incompatible with an open border on any of the UK's borders.

steddyeddy

Trade is of course important in discussions about borders, but the UK have signaled they want to leave the customs union and the single market. This makes it necessary to have discussions on the border situation.

ambro25

listermint wrote: »

<...> I have actually friends returning to Ireland because the funding is not being renewed next year because it's European funding they cannot get from the UK government they've tried.

These are real people and real scenarios occurring right now.

Not some random scenario that is being dreamt up.

Project reality in full effect despite your usherings to the Contrary.
<...>

We had at least one UK tech start-up as a client, which is now in admin (effectively, folded) because the EIF culled its funding to their (middleman) UK investor and so they're not getting their next, life-giving investment round. That's about 3 months after this article.

I spoke with the CEO only last week, about ways and means to keep servicing levels and their IP portfolio alive, whilst they scramble for alt funding and phoenixing. He said the UK investor (Newcastle based) had confirmed that the EIF had pulled the funding on the back of the June 2017 GE result.

They're not alone, I'm afraid (other UK start-ups depending on that particular UK investor are not getting their slice of EIF funding either).

That's about £20k's worth of business per annum to us, to say nothing of the start-up's employees, and other suppliers, etc. That's on top of the EU work we're beginning to lose (and may eventually lose completely come 2019...and that is 'comfortable' 6 figures' worth) per my earlier post above.

Put it that way: so far as I'm concerned, from my caseload and figures over the past 12 months, it's like 2008 all over again, more or less. Fewer clients hitting the buffers than then, sure...but most of them sitting on their waiting-and-seeing thumbs, and not spending a dime on IP. You'd tell me the UK went from G7 powerhouse to G7 red lantern inside one year, I'd easily believe you. Because that's exactly what the coalface is showing me.