Brexit discussion thread II

LeinsterDub

Is it just me or is the UK moving further and further away from reality?

The UK wants to continue to influence the writing of parts of EU regulation after Brexit despite leaving the bloc, according to the latest plan by Whitehall officials.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regulation-position-paper-data-protection-david-davis-a7910196.html


This is quite frankly mental. What happened to Brexit means brexit?

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational, but as an opening position you wouldn't go for anything less. The UK naturally wants the best outcome.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think we should send those Brexit negotiators to North Korea, they will persuade Kim to give up his nuclear weapons in no time.

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Is it just me or is the UK moving further and further away from reality?

Not really; the facts are simply catching up with them.

This quite frankly mental. What happened to Brexit means brexit?

Brexit means Brexit which means UK gets all the benefits of EU while not paying anything for it (in fact EU should pay them for the privilege!), get to opt out of any pesky rules or laws they can't be bothered with while doing their own trade deals as well and get to set their own standards for EU to follow. Which is all in line with what the Brexit leader Boris "Eat cake and have it" Johnson stated in public.

The fun part is as they have repeated it so often they even appear to believe that's reasonable and will happen as well. Oh well reality is now knocking on the door and sooner or later they will have to answer and find out the rest of the world has moved on from WW2 era and are no longer enthralled with the shrunken plum that's left of the great British empire. To bad that the UK's young are the once who'll pay the price for living in a nostalgic dream but the rest of EU can be thankful that UK was kind enough to pull a Trump move and show the rest of us exactly how stupid it was.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where is the evidence that the ECHR is partisan, political or unfair?

Jim2007 wrote: »

BREXIT supporters have a tendency to confuse the ECHR and ECJ.....

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK won't agree to this. If the court is to oversee an arrangement with the EU and the UK then it has to have equal representation and a third party to ensure that it isn't biased towards the EU.

All answers here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40630322

It is the ECtHR not the ECJ that has often upset British politicians by making it harder, for example, to deport terrorist suspects.

The ECJ has tended to support British efforts to extend the remit of the single market.
...
David Davis has made the sporting argument that if you're Manchester United and you go to play Real Madrid, you don't let Madrid nominate the referee.

But the EU sees the footballing metaphor rather differently: the UK is choosing to leave a league of 28 teams. If it wants to come back to play the odd friendly, the EU would argue, it has to accept that the panel of referees will remain the same.

It can't be said often enough, any company that wants to sell into the EU has to follow the rules and that means the ECJ.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

All answers here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40630322



It can't be said often enough, any company that wants to sell into the EU has to follow the rules and that means the ECJ.

Good evening!

Again. In CETA there is a court of joint arbitration. The same is true of the EU - South Korea Free Trade Agreement. In both of these scenarios there is equal representation.

Your suggestion of the UK joining an arbitration mechanism in a bilateral agreement without equal say will be rejected by the UK Government. No other third country does this.

Now, as Dominic Raab pointed out, there are lots of very good options for arbitration in bilateral disputes. This will require consideration of ECJ law in British rulings and vice versa where there is a dispute between both jurisdictions. This would apply in the case of citizens rights all the way through to trade. This is a perfectly reasonable way of handling issues between both countries, and as Raab says it is the EU's practice with international partners.

It's amazing how the concept of joint arbitration (which I had been proposing on this thread a number of times) is perceived as being a "climb down" domestically. Apparently a lot of people in Britain are more hard core than I am!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu61VQ7gebs

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Oh yeah the UK is diverging from the EU on Data Protection.
Good luck getting the same access for the electronic service industry,

With all the UK talk of an invisible border they might get to see one very soon.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41036551

In fact, the UK has the largest internet economy as a percentage of GDP out of all the G20 countries, according to the Boston Consulting Group - and much of that relies on data flowing freely.

A House of Lords report recently found that if data transfers were hindered, "the UK could be put at a competitive disadvantage and the police could lose access to information and intelligence mechanisms".

...
"Unless the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended, it is highly likely that the UK will not be granted an adequacy decision and data flows will be blocked," says Dr Mc Cullagh.

Plus, once out of the EU, the UK will also depart the EU-US Privacy Shield - meaning that the EU could raise concerns about data it passes to the UK.

Nody

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41036551

Some good quotes in the comment section from that article actually:

Brits always love a Monty Python sketch... "What's the EU ever done for us?"

Labour said government is publishing "bland, non-committal papers as a smokescreen to mask their failure to make any meaningful progress".
Amazing! That's exactly what I think every time one of these papers appears!

We don't want freedom of movement, or ECJ involvement or coughing up membership fees (of course, we'll be OUT) but ....
We want tariff free trade - including financial services (nice one!) and to stay part of the satellite program and university research and data transfer and .... ad infinitum.

When will May and Co get it in to their thick heads that Junkers and Co will agree nothing unless its on their terms. Shut the door flood the tunnel and lets be gone and rid of them.

It's esp. amusing to read the Brexiteers comments of "Shut up remoaners and support our government" while in the next breath complaining about the "EU dictatorship". The final quote is a nice summary of the attitude in general.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again. In CETA there is a court of joint arbitration. The same is true of the EU - South Korea Free Trade Agreement. In both of these scenarios there is equal representation.

Your suggestion of the UK joining an arbitration mechanism in a bilateral agreement without equal say will be rejected by the UK Government. No other third country does this.

They certainly do. Norway, for example.

May's mistake has been to make this a red line issue. The truth is that whether submission to ECJ jurisdiction is a necessary or appropriate feature of the Brexit deal will depend on what's in the Brexit deal.

If the Brexit deal looks like CETA or the South Korean free trade deal then, yeah, submission to the ECJ is not an essential element. But if it goes further than those and involves, e.g., UK participation in the European Aviation Area, the energy market, security co-operation or a whole host of other market sectors that are regulated by European law, authoritatively interpreted and applied ultimately by the ECJ, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ would be an absolute sine qua non.

For the UK to look for market participation but not to be subject to the same regulatory regime as other participants would be analogous to the stance the UK took in China in the nineteenth century, insisting that British subjects in China were not answerable to the Chinese courts but only to consular courts run by the British themselves. China's acceptance of those terms was a national humiliation and an indication of the decadence and decay of the Chinese state at that time. The EU is not Manchu China, and the UK has hopefully developed in its attitudes since the Boxer rebellion.

"No ECJ jurisdiction" is as big a limitation on what the UK can hope to achieve in a Brexit deal as "no EEA", "no customs union" or "no free movement". If you adopt it as a red line you should do so with your eyes open. It's fine if someone is an advocate of a hard Brexit and is willing to pay the price associated with that, but drawing all those red lines and still saying that the UK wants a close, co-operative, flexible, etc relationship with the EU with participation in European markets or policies where this is mutually beneficial, is either delusional or dishonest.

On reflection, if it would save face, the UK could participate in aspects of the single market by submitting to the jursidiction of the EFTA Court rather than the ECJ. (Assuming EFTA were willing, which it might not be.) But it's hard to see how May could simultaneously justify a refusal to submit to the ECJ and a willingness to submit to the EFTA Court.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Again, there's no reason why broader cooperation on a number of subjects couldn't happen through a process of bilateral arbitration. This is how Switzerland has been implementing the areas of EU law that it wants to participate in.

Britain isn't seeking single market membership or membership of the EU customs union. This means that it's connection will be looser than either Norway or Switzerland.

The Government needs to commit to delivering on the referendum outcome for its people. Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ is definitely off the table. EU-lite membership also has to be off the table.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, there's no reason why broader cooperation on a number of subjects couldn't happen through a process of bilateral arbitration. This is how Switzerland has been implementing the areas of EU law that it wants to participate in.

Britain isn't seeking single market membership or membership of the EU customs union. This means that it's connection will be looser than either Norway or Switzerland.

The Government needs to commit to delivering on the referendum outcome for its people. Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ is definitely off the table. EU-lite membership also has to be off the table.

I don't know many that will have a problem with your comment that the UK government needs to commit to a Brexit strategy, but your post itself points to a hard Brexit. Can you please stop claiming that the UK wants close co-operation with the EU and Ireland when in reality it wants nothing of the sort.

How can you have a close relationship with the EU and not want to have anything to do with any EU departments? That is what Brexit is, right? Leaving all EU jurisdictions and departments that have a say in anything British. So please stop pretending that the UK is looking for a close relationship when in reality if they want to leave everything EU that simply isn't possible.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again, there's no reason why broader cooperation on a number of subjects couldn't happen through a process of bilateral arbitration. This is how Switzerland has been implementing the areas of EU law that it wants to participate in.

But the EU isn't keen on that arrangement, doesn't think it's working well, and doesn't want to replicate it. A deal's a deal, and they're committed to Switzerland. But, having put a toe in that water, they're not going to make the same deals with other third countries.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain isn't seeking single market membership or membership of the EU customs union. This means that it's connection will be looser than either Norway or Switzerland.

Sure. But I think what we're shaping up for is something like "selective Norway" - the UK doesn't want the kind of broad participation in the single market that Norway enjoys, but it may want participation in selected areas - e.g. it may wish to participate in the European Aviation Area. I think the corollary of that would be that, while the UK won't have a general submission to ECJ jurisdiction, it may have to submit to supranational jurisdiction in relation to its participation in the Aviation Area, etc, just as all the other particpants do.

Obviously, there's a trade-off here; the more areas where it seeks to participate in the existing European structures, the greater degree of jurisdiction it must accept.

That's why I say it's a mistake to make this a red-line item. If you do this, you're effectively saying "we won't participate in supranationally-regulated markets, sectors, etc, regardless of how beneficial it would be for us to do so". You're deciding not to participate in the Aviation Area, to forego financial services passporting, etc, etc, without necessarily even knowing that that's what you're doing.

A more flexible approach, and one that I think would better serve the UK, would be to identify the supranationally regulated areas that you want to participate in, bargain over the terms of participation, and then make a decision about whether the best terms that can be got are good enough. If accepting supranational jurisdiction is part of the terms, well, that's something you factor into your decision.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Government needs to commit to delivering on the referendum outcome for its people. Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ is definitely off the table. EU-lite membership also has to be off the table.

You keep saying this, solo, but you're wrong. There was no concrete exit proposal put to the people in the referendum, so the referendum result does not confer a mandate either to reject ECJ jurisdiction or to accept it, to leave the EEA or to remain in it, etc. Whether to accept or reject ECJ jursisdicstion is a political decision, for which Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and Parliament is ultimately accountable to the nation. It is not something dictated by the referendum result, and for Ministers to pretend that it is is an evasion of responsibility.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know many that will have a problem with your comment that the UK government needs to commit to a Brexit strategy, but your post itself points to a hard Brexit. Can you please stop claiming that the UK wants close co-operation with the EU and Ireland when in reality it wants nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry, but I won't lie for you. You can read the UK Government position papers, it's clear that it wants a good relationship with the EU and to cooperate with it as a third country.

Enzokk wrote: »

How can you have a close relationship with the EU and not want to have anything to do with any EU departments? That is what Brexit is, right? Leaving all EU jurisdictions and departments that have a say in anything British. So please stop pretending that the UK is looking for a close relationship when in reality if they want to leave everything EU that simply isn't possible.

This isn't the British position. The British position is that it wants to engage with the EU through a process of arbitration. This means in cases of dispute that both parties will be represented with a third party in order to iron out those disputes.

Again, I see no reason why joint arbitration isn't possible. It's how the EU deals with a lot of third countries at present.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the EU isn't keen on that arrangement, doesn't think it's working well, and doesn't want to replicate it. A deal's a deal, and they're committed to Switzerland. But, having put a toe in that water, they're not going to make the same deals with other third countries.

Joint arbitration as we've discussed is used already with a lot of countries outside the European Union. This point still stands. Norway and Switzerland involve membership of the single market.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But I think what we're shaping up for is something like "selective Norway" - the UK doesn't want the kind of broad participation in the single market that Norway enjoys, but it may want participation in selected areas - e.g. it may wish to participate in the European Aviation Area. I think the corollary of that would be that, while the UK won't have a general submission to ECJ jurisdiction, it may have to submit to supranational jurisdiction in relation to its participation in the Aviation Area, etc, just as all the other particpants do.

I would call it much much looser than Norway. On aviation, again, I don't see why a bilateral agreement can't be struck. For example there's the Euro Mediterranean Aviation Agreement. I'm fairly sure that Israel isn't directly subject to ECJ rulings. Or indeed the EU-US Open Skies Agreement. Joint arbitration is perfectly acceptable to the UK.

Also I'd argue not all forms of supranational jurisdiction are unacceptable to the UK. It's perfectly happy to be subject to the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, there's a trade-off here; the more areas where it seeks to participate in the existing European structures, the greater degree of jurisdiction it must accept.

That's why I say it's a mistake to make this a red-line item. If you do this, you're effectively saying "we won't participate in supranationally-regulated markets, sectors, etc, regardless of how beneficial it would be for us to do so". You're deciding not to participate in the Aviation Area, to forego financial services passporting, etc, etc, without necessarily even knowing that that's what you're doing.

See above for aviation. Equivalence is also a real option for trade in financial services from third countries.

Peregrinus wrote: »

A more flexible approach, and one that I think would better serve the UK, would be to identify the supranationally regulated areas that you want to participate in, bargain over the terms of participation, and then make a decision about whether the best terms that can be got are good enough. If accepting supranational jurisdiction is part of the terms, well, that's something you factor into your decision.

If by supranational jurisdiction you mean the ECJ, then that is obviously off the table. The ECJ is a court that deals directly with members of the European Union and indirectly with the EEA through the EFTA court.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You keep saying this, solo, but you're wrong. There was no concrete exit proposal put to the people in the referendum, so the referendum result does not confer a mandate either to reject ECJ jurisdiction or to accept it, to leave the EEA or to remain in it, etc. Whether to accept or reject ECJ jursisdicstion is a political decision, for which Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and Parliament is ultimately accountable to the nation. It is not something dictated by the referendum result, and for Ministers to pretend that it is is an evasion of responsibility.

I think you're wrong. The referendum was won because it was about taking back control. The UK Government are clear that the UK is leaving the single market and the customs union and is looking for a third country agreement. Direct ECJ oversight won't be agreed to.

The Government agreed to implement the results of the referendum. Therefore to weasel out of that and to say that they didn't agree to do this is wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think you're wrong. The referendum was won because it was about taking back control. The UK Government are clear that the UK is leaving the single market and the customs union and is looking for a third country agreement.

The UK government are clear about this after the referendum result. It's not something they said before the vote.

Meaning, this is an interpretation they are placing on the referendum result. That's a choice they are making; they don't have to interpret it that way.
It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.

This "we are forced by the referendum result!" claim is an attempt to position themselves, when hard Brexit proves painful and/or expensive and/or disadvantageous to the UK, to avoid accepting responsibility for what is, in reality, a choice they made. It's totally gutless behaviour.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK government are clear about this after the referendum result. It's not something they said before the vote.

Meaning, this is an interpretation they are placing on the referendum result. That's a choice they are making; they don't have to interpret it that way.
It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.

This "we are forced by the referendum result!" claim is an attempt to position themselves, when hard Brexit proves painful and/or expensive and/or disadvantageous to the UK, to avoid accepting responsibility for what is, in reality, a choice they made. It's totally gutless behaviour.

Good morning!

There's probably no point repeating our respective positions on this ad-nauseum. I disagree with you. The referendum was clearly won on the basis of taking back control from Brussels. Remaining a member of both the single market and the customs union doesn't do that.

The British Government and indeed parliament, agreed to respect the result of the referendum and implement it in 2013. That is what is must do and people will be watching.

Hard Brexit is only a term used by those who want to remain in the European Union. I don't personally recognise the terms soft or hard Brexit. Leaving the European Union in a genuine sense requires Britain to be able to take control of its laws, its borders, its money and its trade policy. The last one in that list is the main reason why I personally want to see Britain get on with leaving.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There's probably no point repeating our respective positions on this ad-nauseum. I disagree with you. The referendum was clearly won on the basis of taking back control from Brussels.

Taking back control, while simultaneously having "regulatory cooperation between the UK and the EU on a range of issues will be essential"?

Square that circle please.


And of course the irony is by leaving to "take back control" what ever that means the UK will have less control as previously they would of had an input into the formation of these laws and could of vetoed them if they didn't like them.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regulation-position-paper-data-protection-david-davis-a7910196.html

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There's probably no point repeating our respective positions on this ad-nauseum. I disagree with you. The referendum was clearly won on the basis of taking back control from Brussels. Remaining a member of both the single market and the customs union doesn't do that.

The British Government and indeed parliament, agreed to respect the result of the referendum and implement it in 2013. That is what is must do and people will be watching.

Hard Brexit is only a term used by those who want to remain in the European Union. I don't personally recognise the terms soft or hard Brexit. Leaving the European Union in a genuine sense requires Britain to be able to take control of its laws, its borders, its money and its trade policy. The last one in that list is the main reason why I personally want to see Britain get on with leaving.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well on that basis the referendum was a failure. Now the UK has far less control over its economic future than before. It's relying on good will from Brussels. Ireland is thought by many in the UK to be a close ally, yet the Irish government have shot down pretty much all of their trade and border proposals. Currently Ireland has more power over the UK's immediate economic future than the UK.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The referendum was clearly won on the basis of taking back control from Brussels. Remaining a member of both the single market and the customs union doesn't do that.

The British Government and indeed parliament, agreed to respect the result of the referendum and implement it in 2013. That is what is must do and people will be watching.

Hard Brexit is only a term used by those who want to remain in the European Union. I don't personally recognise the terms soft or hard Brexit. Leaving the European Union in a genuine sense requires Britain to be able to take control of its laws, its borders, its money and its trade policy. The last one in that list is the main reason why I personally want to see Britain get on with leaving.

Whether or not to participate in the single market, in the customs union, in the European Aviation Area, etc, are policies. If the government had wished to seek a mandate for any or all of these policies in the referendum it could have done so by framing the appropriate questions. It did not do so. It cannot now pretend that it did. "Taking back control" is not a policy; it's a slogan - and not even a slogan which the government adopted, or on which it campaigned.

Pretending that a vote not to be a member of the EU is a vote not to participate in the Single Market is patently absurd. Noway has twice voted not to join the EU and yet participates in the single market, a fact which was much discussed in the referendum campaign. Not even an idiot in a hurry who lived through the referendum campaign could possibly be under the impression that a decision not to be in the EU is necessarily a decision not to participate in the single market.

I've said before - and nobody has disagreed with me - that the referendum was a complete dog's breakfast, which will be held up for years to come as an Awful Example of how not to do things. Still, it was what it was, and the government now has to live with it. But pretending that it conferred an imperative mandate for a range of policies which were never put to the people is not an honest way to live with it.

An honest way to live with it would be for the UK government to acknowledge that not being a member of the EU leaves a range of possible relationships that the UK might have with the EU as a non-member and that the government and parliament, not having sought or obtained a mandate for any particular one, are now responsible for choosing policies from that range which they consider to be in the UK's best interests.

If they don't want that responsibility, they don't have to stand for parliament or accept ministerial office. But if they do take office, they can't point to the Leave campaign's slogan from last year and say it absolves them from discharging their duty to the country. As I say, that's gutless.

murphaph

The Swiss "model" (mess) has taken decades to develop to its current state. There is no time (nor desire from the EU side) to replicate anything like this for the UK, and rightly so.

The aviation sector alone is a huge problem. It can't be compared to the EU US deal as currently exists because American airlines have no access to the internal EU market (eg I'm on a week's break on lake Balaton. I flew here with a British airline from Berlin. This is not possible for any airlines from outside the single market)

Blowfish

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Government needs to commit to delivering on the referendum outcome for its people. Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ is definitely off the table. EU-lite membership also has to be off the table.

You keep saying that, but then the position papers say that the UK want to partake in areas which the ECJ is the sole arbitrator of and that the UK wants a 'special relationship' with the EU.

That's the principle issue and why Varadkar mentioned the 'puzzlement' from the EU side. The political end ('brexit is brexit', 'no ECJ' etc.) is contradictory to the position papers ('lets be special friends').

solodeogloria

Blowfish wrote: »

You keep saying that, but then the position papers say that the UK want to partake in areas which the ECJ is the sole arbitrator of and that the UK wants a 'special relationship' with the EU.

That's the principle issue and why Varadkar mentioned the 'puzzlement' from the EU side. The political end ('brexit is brexit', 'no ECJ' etc.) is contradictory to the position papers ('lets be special friends').

Good morning!

The confusion only comes if you see the UK as being a member of the single market, EU or other agencies directly. It doesn't seem that this is the model that the UK is proposing.

The UK is proposing a new bilateral partnership with the EU as a third country. This doesn't require direct oversight by the ECJ. The UK obviously are asking for a lot. This is what you do in an opening position. Now we need to hear what the European Commission will accept.

There will be a lot of back and forth over the coming months until a final conclusion is reached. It probably won't look like what either side opened with exactly. This is fine, and is what negotiating looks like. The nitty gritty of what Brexit will look like is being discussed. Concessions will be made but the idea that Britain is going to roll over to whatever they ask for is absurd.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

Blowfish wrote: »

You keep saying that, but then the position papers say that the UK want to partake in areas which the ECJ is the sole arbitrator of and that the UK wants a 'special relationship' with the EU.

That's the principle issue and why Varadkar mentioned the 'puzzlement' from the EU side. The political end ('brexit is brexit', 'no ECJ' etc.) is contradictory to the position papers ('lets be special friends').

The confusion is that you're not thinking as a Brit; you see EU should change all their legislation, rules etc. to basically make UK have everything they do inside EU when outside of EU. That is excluding all those pesky rules such as having to follow the EU rules, illegal deportation, personal data integrity etc of course since UK government knows best.

Now I'm sure you're asking yourself why in the seven hells would EU do this? Once again you need to think like a Brit; UK is the center of the world which everything else revolves around being part of deep history of WW2, empire builder etc. so naturally everyone in the world would do anything for a chance to bask in their glory and daredevilry. Giving up founding principles, changing laws and rules only for UK simply makes sense for that opportunity; after all UK is the most important country in the world and EU would greatly lose out if they would not strike such a deal.

Now take the above and think this is how reality looks like for someone like Boris "Eat cake and have it" Johnson who actually believes the above and you'll better understand the UK papers. The only minor flaw of course being that no one else but UK thinks that way but since when should the UK government let minor things such as facts or reality inconvenience them after all? The world will simply turn their way if it's repeated often enough because Brexit means Brexit.

Panrich

Blowfish wrote: »

You keep saying that, but then the position papers say that the UK want to partake in areas which the ECJ is the sole arbitrator of and that the UK wants a 'special relationship' with the EU.

That's the principle issue and why Varadkar mentioned the 'puzzlement' from the EU side. The political end ('brexit is brexit', 'no ECJ' etc.) is contradictory to the position papers ('lets be special friends').

Exactly. All the position papers seem to want to rebuild or rebrand the current arrangements as far as possible. If Brexit was really about 'taking back control', then the position papers should look very different in my view. Why try to replicate what you want to leave behind in your quest to explore new opportunities.

As solodeogloria says, the Brexit vote was not to remain party to or retain close ties with the EU. Otherwise the ECJ, single market and customs union should still be on the table. The position papers so far seem to be making the case for maintaining them.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is not something dictated by the referendum result, and for Ministers to pretend that it is is an evasion of responsibility.

The referendum dictated nothing - it was advisory only and Parliament remains sovereign.

Even if the Government announced that Brexit is stupid and they are not doing it, there would be no consequences at all until the next GE, and they might win that anyway.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

There will be a lot of back and forth over the coming months until a final conclusion is reached.

Oh I think you'll find there won't! There will be no movement at all until the three issues set out in the exit discussions are addressed and sufficient progress is made.

And this stage I think it is highly like that the EU will suspend the talk in October. At which point David Davis will be in an even worse position than before because he will somehow have to make it look good at home, while trying to get the EU back to the table.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I won't lie for you. You can read the UK Government position papers, it's clear that it wants a good relationship with the EU and to cooperate with it as a third country.





I think you're wrong. The referendum was won because it was about taking back control. The UK Government are clear that the UK is leaving the single market and the customs union and is looking for a third country agreement. Direct ECJ oversight won't be agreed to.

The Government agreed to implement the results of the referendum. Therefore to weasel out of that and to say that they didn't agree to do this is wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

These two parts of your post are self-contradictory. IF (and it is a big IF) the UK wants a close relationship with the EU, wants a seamless border etc., as implied by the first part of your post then the second part of your post, whereby there is no direct ECJ oversight just won't happen.


The UK can have the status of an Indonesia or a South Korea and not have ECJ jurisdiction, but the type of close co-operation being talked about isn't available to Indonesia or South Korea and will require ECJ oversight.

steddyeddy

Nody wrote: »

The confusion is that you're not thinking as a Brit; you see EU should change all their legislation, rules etc. to basically make UK have everything they do inside EU when outside of EU. That is excluding all those pesky rules such as having to follow the EU rules, illegal deportation, personal data integrity etc of course since UK government knows best.

Now I'm sure you're asking yourself why in the seven hells would EU do this? Once again you need to think like a Brit; UK is the center of the world which everything else revolves around being part of deep history of WW2, empire builder etc. so naturally everyone in the world would do anything for a chance to bask in their glory and daredevilry. Giving up founding principles, changing laws and rules only for UK simply makes sense for that opportunity; after all UK is the most important country in the world and EU would greatly lose out if they would not strike such a deal.

Now take the above and think this is how reality looks like for someone like Boris "Eat cake and have it" Johnson who actually believes the above and you'll better understand the UK papers. The only minor flaw of course being that no one else but UK thinks that way but since when should the UK government let minor things such as facts or reality inconvenience them after all? The world will simply turn their way if it's repeated often enough because Brexit means Brexit.

I said it before and I said it again; the UK hasn't educated its young people with a realistic sense of Britain's place in the world. This has led to Brexit. Specifically how they got to be wealthy and how their policies affected other countries. There were Brexiters ringing up James O'Brien telling him "we'll be fine, we used to rule 2/3rds of the world. They're relying on two false assumptions: that the rest of the world bears Britain tremendous good will and Britain's still has the influence of an empire.

YouGov found 44 per cent were proud of Britain’s history of colonialism while only 21 per cent regretted that it happened. 23 per cent held neither view.

The same poll also asked about whether the British Empire was a good thing or a bad thing: 43 per cent said it was good, while only 19 per cent said it was bad. 25 per cent responded that it was “neither”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

wes

steddyeddy wrote: »

I said it before and I said it again; the UK hasn't educated its young people with a realistic sense of Britain's place in the world. This has led to Brexit. Specifically how they got to be wealthy and how their policies affected other countries. There were Brexiters ringing up James O'Brien telling him "we'll be fine, we used to rule 2/3rds of the world. They're relying on two false assumptions: that the rest of the world bears Britain tremendous good will and Britain's still has the influence of an empire.





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

This was done deliberately btw. Operation Legacy, was the UK way of wiping out there colonial atrocities. The UK are just as bad as Japan and Turkey for ignoring there past colonial crimes.

There in for a rude awakening, as there former colonial subjects, do remember the past, and won't be looking to do the UK any favors. There in a for a well deserved rude awakening.

steddyeddy

wes wrote: »

This was done deliberately btw. Operation Legacy, was the UK way of wiping out there colonial atrocities. The UK are just as bad as Japan and Turkey for ignoring there past colonial crimes.

There in for a rude awakening, as there former colonial subjects, do remember the past, and won't be looking to do the UK any favors. There in a for a well deserved rude awakening.

It's amazing they barely teach this stuff at school. This has come back to bite them.

ArthurDayne

steddyeddy wrote: »

I said it before and I said it again; the UK hasn't educated its young people with a realistic sense of Britain's place in the world

Absolutely. Even Churchill, that bastion of British defiance against continental threats, recognised that the decline of Old Europe could only be halted by pooling its power and sovereignty. Europe's renaissance as a great collective economic power and an emerging superpower was a remarkable achievement of adaptation. The UK managed to pull off an 'achievement within an achievement' by carving itself a rather special niche position within the EU, maintaining its currency and holding considerable sway in resisting 'interference' from Brussels. The EU became a formidable global power and, by virtue of the UK's influence within the EU, the British had very successfully recalibrated their place in the world and reestablished themselves as a major world player.

But unfortunately the British people, or at least a large proportion of them, do not seem to see it this way. They have been raised on a diet of British exceptionalism -- the fervent belief that Britain is an exception to the rest of the world and that its imperial history, its defiance and victory in the face of Napoleon and Hitler, along with the incredible influence it has had on human civilisation all entail that it is impervious to the forces that harm other 'lesser' nations. They view the EU as having been some straight-jacket holding them back from returning to the so-called glory days of Rule Britannia -- when in reality the EU has been the salvation of their influence.

Jim2007

wes wrote: »

This was done deliberately btw. Operation Legacy, was the UK way of wiping out there colonial atrocities. The UK are just as bad as Japan and Turkey for ignoring there past colonial crimes.

The only time the UK was a great trading nation was when they played on uneven ground - the had the British Navy to enforce their trading.... But given a more even field over the past 30 years or so, they have failed to produce a positive balance of trade in any year during that time.

wes wrote: »

There in for a rude awakening, as there former colonial subjects, do remember the past, and won't be looking to do the UK any favors. There in a for a well deserved rude awakening.

It is not just that, those countries have evolved over the past 40 years as well, opening up their own markets etc... and while they will be happy make a trade deal, the UK will find it does not hold remotely close the sway they held over 40 years ago.

On top of that many of those countries saw the UK as their gateway to Europe, that will no longer be the case and so the dynamics change as well.

steddyeddy

The EU have responded to the UK's border proposals as "magical thinking." I can't see trade talks happening yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/25/uk-accused-of-magical-thinking-over-brexit-plan-for-irish-border

Capt'n Midnight

The UK paper on Data is interesting.

It doesn't mention that David Davis won a case against the UK government in the European Court of Justice over general and indiscriminate data retention last year.

So if the UK Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union doesn't trust his own government over new powers like the snoopers charter , why should the EU trust them enough to share data ?

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU have responded to the UK's border proposals as "magical thinking." I can't see trade talks happening yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/25/uk-accused-of-magical-thinking-over-brexit-plan-for-irish-border

You can't have a magical invisible border without sharing data and the UK is diverging from the EU over privacy not to mention the prospect of sharing with the US.


Link in that article UK faces €2bn fine over Chinese imports scam, say EU investigators

France, Germany, Spain and Italy are estimated to have lost a combined €3.2bn from 2013 to 2016 in VAT revenues, as a result of British failures in handling imports at its ports.

Capt'n Midnight

Not really news, this is just the EU having to explain the initial position all over again. So we are a long way from trade talks.


UK warned not to use NI peace process as Brexit bargaining chip

According to the phased approach to the negotiations, agreed by all 27 governments in their Negotiating Guidelines in April, the EU will only get into the future relationship once they have confidence that Britain will agree to meeting its financial obligations on withdrawal, to ensuring the rights of EU citizens living in the UK (and vice versa) and the issue of the Irish border.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not really news, this is just the EU having to explain the initial position all over again. So we are a long way from trade talks.


UK warned not to use NI peace process as Brexit bargaining chip

Good evening!

The thing is the British government were right about this. The scheduling doesn't make sense. The EU know this also. You cannot address the Northern Ireland border without discussing trade and customs.

The schedule is an attempted way for the EU to have an upper hand. Of course the UK should call this out for what it is and push for a dealing of these issues. This is reasonable and Davis highlighted it before the talks began.

Monday will certainly be interesting. The EU need to understand that the UK won't be staying in the EU by the back door. The discussion now is about a new relationship for the future.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not really news, this is just the EU having to explain the initial position all over again. So we are a long way from trade talks.


UK warned not to use NI peace process as Brexit bargaining chip

It's pretty disgusting the way they have to be warned not to endanger hard won peace in order to get a better trade deal.

Alun

My wife was conducting some phone interviews this afternoon for a high level software project management position and some of the applicants were EU citizens currently ion the UK. Three guesses what their motivation was for wanting to leave the UK?

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The thing is the British government were right about this. The scheduling doesn't make sense. The EU know this also. You cannot address the Northern Ireland border without discussing trade and customs.

The schedule is an attempted way for the EU to have an upper hand. Of course the UK should call this out for what it is and push for a dealing of these issues. This is reasonable and Davis highlighted it before the talks began.

Monday will certainly be interesting. The EU need to understand that the UK won't be staying in the EU by the back door. The discussion now is about a new relationship for the future.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Oh, the UK should call this out for what it is!!!

You know my teenage son tries to call me out on something at home, then I remind him who pays the bills and he quietens down. He certainly has more sense than the Brexiteers. At the end of the day, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK.

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh, the UK should call this out for what it is!!!

You know my teenage son tries to call me out on something at home, then I remind him who pays the bills and he quietens down. He certainly has more sense than the Brexiteers. At the end of the day, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK.

Good evening!

And remind me, who is paying the bill here? Or rather, who has paid the bill during the last 40 odd years of membership? It isn't the EU from what I understand.

That aside, there's plenty of reasons why the UK needs continued partnership with the EU, and there are plenty of reasons why the EU needs continued partnership with the UK.

This is why the discussions need to progress.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

And remind me, who is paying the bill here? Or rather, who has paid the bill during the last 40 odd years of membership? It isn't the EU from what I understand.

That aside, there's plenty of reasons why the UK needs continued partnership with the EU, and there are plenty of reasons why the EU needs continued partnership with the UK.

This is why the discussions need to progress.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well the EU has. In terms of benefits anyway. Access to the single market pretty much built Britain's service economy.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The thing is the British government were right about this. The scheduling doesn't make sense. The EU know this also. You cannot address the Northern Ireland border without discussing trade and customs.

The schedule is an attempted way for the EU to have an upper hand. Of course the UK should call this out for what it is and push for a dealing of these issues. This is reasonable and Davis highlighted it before the talks began.

Monday will certainly be interesting. The EU need to understand that the UK won't be staying in the EU by the back door. The discussion now is about a new relationship for the future.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK wrote Article 50.
The UK triggered Article 50.
They knew that the EU isn't as money mad as they are.
They knew back in April just how serious the EU were about sorting out the leaving before the trade deals.

The UK position papers are delusional and still haven't moved much from "have our cake and eat it".

An Ciarraioch

To give a historical dimension to sterling's current weakness, the old Irish punt would now be worth £1.17 sterling, with the current euro exchange rate multiplied by the fixed entry rate of 1.27 euro to the old currency - back in the day, even the punt exceeding parity was noteworthy, so the euro doing so would be unprecedented.

Junkyard Tom

solodeogloria wrote: »

That aside, there's plenty of reasons why the UK needs continued partnership with the EU, and there are plenty of reasons why the EU needs continued partnership with the UK.

The point being made is that the UK is in danger of suffering far more economic damage than the EU will. There'll still be close to half-a-billion people living in the EU including a number of the World's largest economies (Germany exports three times as much stuff as the UK). Then there's the UK Britain England.

One possible benefit that will come from all this is that Britain will learn to accept its position as a second tier power and perhaps the Rule Britannia idiots, that seem to have so much influence, will be eternally discredited as the fantasists they are.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The thing is the British government were right about this. The scheduling doesn't make sense.

Then why did the U.K. agree to the schedule in the first place.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU need to understand that the UK won't be staying in the EU by the back door.

But that is exactly what they are trying to do. They either go or they reapply for membership. The days of the special opt out/in for the U.K. are now over and they need to realize that.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The discussion now is about a new relationship for the future.

No at this stage, you'll find that EU will continue to require concentration to remain as agreed on the exit agreement.

ArmaniJeanss

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

And remind me, who is paying the bill here? Or rather, who has paid the bill during the last 40 odd years of membership? It isn't the EU from what I understand.

That aside, there's plenty of reasons why the UK needs continued partnership with the EU, and there are plenty of reasons why the EU needs continued partnership with the UK.

This is why the discussions need to progress.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

'Partnership' makes it sound like equals, a meeting of two great powerhouse blocs to decide their future. That it's something like the great JFK/Krushchev meetings of the 60s. Its an attitude I see repeated over various UK politic fora (not to mention the comments section of the newspapers online versions).
Rightly or wrongly the EU actually sees the UKs negotiating position as maybe something of a level above that of say Albania, which I don't think enough people in the UK realise yet.

Jim2007

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The point being made is that the UK is in danger of suffering far more economic damage than the EU will.

I don't think they appreciate the extent of it. My wife was involved this morning in the planning kick off to move their U.K. data center to Poland by the end of Sept. 2018.

Leonard Hofstadter

steddyeddy wrote: »

I said it before and I said it again; the UK hasn't educated its young people with a realistic sense of Britain's place in the world.

I think that's very unfair, a majority of under 45s voted to remain especially under 30s are very much pro remain. Not one of my (under 30) English friends thought leaving the EU was a good idea, and it is the younger generation that is going to suffer bigtime from the stupidity of their elders.

The younger generation ARE very much clued in with how the modern world works, it's the old ones that have the colonial mindset and still believe in Rule Britannia and Britain can get whatever it wants simply because it is Britain etc.

Anyway, Sterling is now less than €1.08 as I write, I'd say at the current rate it won't be long before we see the currencies hitting parity to be honest.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

And remind me, who is paying the bill here? Or rather, who has paid the bill during the last 40 odd years of membership? It isn't the EU from what I understand.

That aside, there's plenty of reasons why the UK needs continued partnership with the EU, and there are plenty of reasons why the EU needs continued partnership with the UK.

This is why the discussions need to progress.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The benefits to the UK Exchequer of access for the City of London to the EU in terms of financial services has more than made up for any level of net contribution by the UK.

The UK is not going to get access to financial passporting without serious concessions, not just financial but also in terms of the ECJ, free movement and the customs union.

solodeogloria

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

'Partnership' makes it sound like equals, a meeting of two great powerhouse blocs to decide their future. That it's something like the great JFK/Krushchev meetings of the 60s. Its an attitude I see repeated over various UK politic fora (not to mention the comments section of the newspapers online versions).
Rightly or wrongly the EU actually sees the UKs negotiating position as maybe something of a level above that of say Albania, which I don't think enough people in the UK realise yet.

Good morning!

I think you might have won the prize for the most ridiculous comment on the thread with this comparison.

In any case, I'm not particularly worried. I'm hopeful for good steps forward over the next three months of meetings.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

.

That aside, there's plenty of reasons why the UK needs continued partnership with the EU, and there are plenty of reasons why the EU needs continued partnership with the UK.

I'm divorcing you, I never liked you and you were never any good for me but I assume we'll still be friends with benefits and I'll get access to the children I like.