Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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.

Good morning!

I think this is more about seeking a more appropriate relationship. I don't particularly like referring to Brexit as a divorce, or the European Union as a marriage.

The negotiations are at a very early stage. The EU are entitled to say no, sod off to particular aspects of what they are seeking, but the UK Government are right to aim high for their people in this negotiation.

There'll be the typical back and forth until a final conclusion is agreed. Monday is is important because we'll start to hear some of the European Commission responses.

There's no need to send the crown jewels or the keys to Buckingham Palace yet. It isn't in Britain's interests.

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

You need to read about equivalence for third countries in the MiFID II directive.

Jim2007 wrote: »

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

I suspect to get things started. Now when it is obvious that the schedule doesn't work, it's right for the UK to make this clear. The EU are also being manipulative in saying that the UK is using Northern Ireland as "a bargaining chip". The border issue cannot be addressed until trade and customs are discussed. This is a fair point.

captainspeed wrote: »

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.

With the caveat that I voted remain in the referendum, I'm Irish, under 30 and want the UK to get on with leaving the EU.

The idea that if you don't want to be in the European Union that you don't know how the modern world works is nonsense. Restricting trade policy when the rest of the world is growing and seeking opportunity to trade isn't knowing how the modern world works. There's no substance in this claim, just empty noise.

There's nothing colonial about wanting to take back control areas such as these.

The aim of these negotiations is to get a good and broad trade deal with the EU and to work well with them in a number of areas including security whilst also having access to wider free trade deals with other countries. That's a progressive outcome.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I suspect to get things started. Now when it is obvious that the schedule doesn't work, it's right for the UK to make this clear. The EU are also being manipulative in saying that the UK is using Northern Ireland as "a bargaining chip". The border issue cannot be addressed until trade and customs are discussed. This is a fair point.

If it is such an important point then surely David Davis should have negotiated over it with the EU instead of just rolling over and agreeing that trade will not be negotiated until sufficient progress has been made over the Irish border. Do you agree that the UK had their chance to debate the importance of the border and trade and decided that its not that important?

solodeogloria wrote: »

With the caveat that I voted remain in the referendum, I'm Irish, under 30 and want the UK to get on with leaving the EU.

The idea that if you don't want to be in the European Union that you don't know how the modern world works is nonsense. Restricting trade policy when the rest of the world is growing and seeking opportunity to trade isn't knowing how the modern world works. There's no substance in this claim, just empty noise.

There's nothing colonial about wanting to take back control areas such as these.

The aim of these negotiations is to get a good and broad trade deal with the EU and to work well with them in a number of areas including security whilst also having access to wider free trade deals with other countries. That's a progressive outcome.

Do you have any opinion on the immigration figures under Theresa May being wrong by 96% regarding students overstaying their visas? Does this not fill you with fear, if she is wrong about those figures what else is she wrong about by 96%?

steddyeddy

captainspeed wrote: »

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.

I stand corrected. I live here and agree. I do think there's a shocking lack of awareness about the empire in younger people too though.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Let's look at what you have here.

Enzokk wrote: »

If it is such an important point then surely David Davis should have negotiated over it with the EU instead of just rolling over and agreeing that trade will not be negotiated until sufficient progress has been made over the Irish border. Do you agree that the UK had their chance to debate the importance of the border and trade and decided that its not that important?

Any international frontier has to consider the impact of trade and customs terms on its border. David Davis did highlight this both publicly to the British people on the Andrew Marr show on the BBC and I suspect privately with the EU.

Starting the discussion rather than holding it up was the right thing to do and the pragmatic thing to do. There's two options block everything up front or wait until the negotiations get tangled up around it.

It's obvious to any sensible person that trade and customs needs to be raised with Northern Ireland and Davis was right. It is the row of the summer despite people claiming it wasn't going to be. He was right to also reply to questions about that saying it isn't about how it starts but how it ends. It makes a lot of sense now in hindsight.

For the record if the EU don't agree with the UK proposals the second best is the Norway - Sweden model which Davis brought up in parliamentary hearings. It isn't as open as it is today but it's open for regular traffic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-ysPcjG-8

It's worth repeating though that if we get to this stage it will be because the EU have rejected the UK proposals.

Enzokk wrote: »

Do you have any opinion on the immigration figures under Theresa May being wrong by 96% regarding students overstaying their visas? Does this not fill you with fear, if she is wrong about those figures what else is she wrong about by 96%?

Yes I do. It was wrong. Exit checks should have been brought in much earlier.

It doesn't "fill me with fear" no. On Brexit she's unlikely to be as wrong as project fear were before the referendum.

It's a case of following through with the referendum result and aiming for the best Brexit possible and seeing where we land. I'm impressed with what the UK Government have put forward so far.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think this is more about seeking a more appropriate relationship. I don't particularly like referring to Brexit as a divorce, or the European Union as a marriage.

The negotiations are at a very early stage. The EU are entitled to say no, sod off to particular aspects of what they are seeking, but the UK Government are right to aim high for their people in this negotiation.

There'll be the typical back and forth until a final conclusion is agreed. Monday is is important because we'll start to hear some of the European Commission responses.

There's no need to send the crown jewels or the keys to Buckingham Palace yet. It isn't in Britain's interests.



You need to read about equivalence for third countries in the MiFID II directive.



I suspect to get things started. Now when it is obvious that the schedule doesn't work, it's right for the UK to make this clear. The EU are also being manipulative in saying that the UK is using Northern Ireland as "a bargaining chip". The border issue cannot be addressed until trade and customs are discussed. This is a fair point.



With the caveat that I voted remain in the referendum, I'm Irish, under 30 and want the UK to get on with leaving the EU.

The idea that if you don't want to be in the European Union that you don't know how the modern world works is nonsense. Restricting trade policy when the rest of the world is growing and seeking opportunity to trade isn't knowing how the modern world works. There's no substance in this claim, just empty noise.

There's nothing colonial about wanting to take back control areas such as these.

The aim of these negotiations is to get a good and broad trade deal with the EU and to work well with them in a number of areas including security whilst also having access to wider free trade deals with other countries. That's a progressive outcome.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If people think the UK is likely to be better outside any single markets then yes, there's a lack of understanding there.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

If people think the UK is likely to be better outside any single markets then yes, there's a lack of understanding there.

Good morning!

You need to do better than one liners here.

I definitely think the UK can be better off outside in the right circumstances. Any other advanced Western economy is testament to this .

Maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible (note here, I'm expecting some loss) while expanding trade with larger markets such as the US and China (both together are just under half of current UK exports to the EU without a free trade agreement) never mind other markets would be hugely beneficial.

I'm convinced that given more flexibility that the UK has every chance of success.

Now - here's the question for you. Why don't you think the UK can be successful outside of the single market?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I know it's been brought up recently, but I would certainly invite people to read www.eureferendum.com.

The author is extremely well versed in all things trade, all things legal, and importantly was an ardent 'Leaver' and has been for many years.

As someone who voted Remain, but now wants the UK to leave without enormous rupture, I have found it illuminating that someone who worked so hard (Flexcit pamphlet) on a competition which was to find the 'best way out of the EU' is utterly appalled by what is going on, and the downright nonsense that has been presented in recent weeks.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Originally Posted by ArmaniJeanss View Post
'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.

Technically speaking the UK would have to do a fair bit of work to be a potential EU candidate once they leave.

Albania is already a candidate for accession.

So unless the UK gets a deal they won't be a level above Albania. And the UK hasn't made much realistic progress towards a deal.


The UK side is coming from a FPTP tradition where winner takes all and having a majority means you can do whatever you want in Parliament as long as you keep wining elections.

The UK side seem to think that compromise means "let's meet in the middle" and so all they need to do is put up a high price so the middle is higher.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Technically speaking the UK would have to do a fair bit of work to be a potential EU candidate once they leave.

Albania is already a candidate for accession.

So unless the UK gets a deal they won't be a level above Albania. And the UK hasn't made much realistic progress towards a deal.


The UK side is coming from a FPTP tradition where winner takes all and having a majority means you can do whatever you want in Parliament as long as you keep wining elections.

The UK side seem to think that compromise means "let's meet in the middle" and so all they need to do is put up a high price so the middle is higher.

Good afternoon!

You're missing the point somewhat. The UK isn't looking to rejoin the EU.

I can't see why it would. There's no good reason as to why I would agree to it if it were put to the people again. Albania is no comparison to the UK in terms of it's global influence. So yes, it's pretty ridiculous.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peter Flynt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

You're missing the point somewhat. The UK isn't looking to rejoin the EU.

I can't see why it would. There's no good reason as to why I would agree to it if it were put to the people again. Albania is no comparison to the UK in terms of it's global influence. So yes, it's pretty ridiculous.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Looking to rejoin?

The UK has not left the European Union and I doubt strongly that they ever will.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

It's worth repeating though that if we get to this stage it will be because the EU have rejected the UK proposals.

That's quite a distorted view, UK leaves the EU and it's the EUs fault there's a border...please explain, I'm lost?

Peter Flynt

Gerry T wrote: »

That's quite a distorted view, UK leaves the EU and it's the EUs fault there's a border...please explain, I'm lost?

UKs position is that they want to leave the European Union whilst simultaneously retaining all the benefits of being a member of the European Union.

Idiotic in the extreme.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

You're missing the point somewhat. The UK isn't looking to rejoin the EU.

I can't see why it would. There's no good reason as to why I would agree to it if it were put to the people again. Albania is no comparison to the UK in terms of it's global influence. So yes, it's pretty ridiculous.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK has formally requested to become a 3rd country relative to the EU. Same as Albania currently is, though Albania is working towards accession.

The poster quite clearly wrote that unless the UK get a specific deal, they would actually have a lesser relationship to the EU than Albania.

This of course is a simple fact. Not sure why you think the global influence of the UK has anything to do with WTO rules or ongoing trade arrangements.

Aspirations and positivity are genuinely welcome, however pragmatism, realism and ultimately legal strictures are all against the pro-cake-and-eat-it mentality of the ardent Brexiteers.

Many welcomes.

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK has formally requested to become a 3rd country relative to the EU. Same as Albania currently is, though Albania is working towards accession.

The poster quite clearly wrote that unless the UK get a specific deal, they would actually have a lesser relationship to the EU than Albania.

This of course is a simple fact. Not sure why you think the global influence of the UK has anything to do with WTO rules or ongoing trade arrangements.

Aspirations and positivity are genuinely welcome, however pragmatism, realism and ultimately legal strictures are all against the pro-cake-and-eat-it mentality of the ardent Brexiteers.

Many welcomes.

Good evening!

This wasn't the original posters comparison.

The original poster said that the negotiating position of the UK was only marginally above that of Albania. That is a joke. The UK has a much more influential position in the world than that of Albania.

The whole point of leaving the EU is that the UK wants more control over it's own affairs. If that means that it is freer to make decisions after Brexit than Albania is once it joins that is entirely fair enough. The ability to be nimbler in decision making particularly around trade will be welcome.

It's so unworthy of lengthened discussion that I'm going to use this post to respond to something else of much more substance.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.

People speak about the benefits of "pooling sovereignty" or in layman's terms giving over control to central bodies. There are also benefits in taking back control. The problem with the EU is that it has pooled too much sovereignty.

As for the more emotive arguments around the second world war it isn't an argument that can apply to the UK's membership of the European Union for two reasons.

Firstly - the UK joined too late, and was prohibited from joining due to a perceived proximity to the United States. This was correct and de Gaulle was right. The second world war argument isn't the UK's reason for joining the EU. It is Germany's reason for being one of the founding members in the 1950's.

Secondly - the world just after the second world war is a very different place to the world we live in now. Economic growth in Europe was more central to the world's economy. It is no longer. States should make decisions to adapt to a changing world. This is what the UK is doing and it is a sensible decision.

Finally - The UK shouldn't have agreed to Maastricht, and John Major should have put it to a referendum as Thatcher advised him to. It would have saved a lot of mess in terms of untangling the "pooling of sovereignty" that has occurred since then. The problem with giving up lots of control (which is what "pooling sovereignty" actually means) is that if you want it back it is difficult to unravel. This doesn't mean that it won't be worth it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

People speak about the benefits of "pooling sovereignty" or in layman's terms giving over control to central bodies. There are also benefits in taking back control. The problem with the EU is that it has pooled too much sovereignty.

Care to give any specific examples?

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

Care to give any specific examples?

Good evening!

Well, I guess one could be the flexibility that the British economy had during the last economic crisis because it was still able to determine an independent monetary policy in the Bank of England by virtue of not being in the Eurozone. Not being able to determine interest rates nationally is a disadvantage, not being able to decide when is good or bad to start measures such as Quantitative Easing on a national level is a disadvantage.

There are benefits in not tarring a large area with a broad stroke. Britain will be able to consider specific needs that are specific to its individual economy in a way that wasn't able to before. If you will the Bank of England independence effect during the last economic crisis will apply to many more areas of control. More granular control can and often is good.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think that "pooling sovereignty" is always good?

My position is rather nuanced. It can be good if the circumstances warrant it. It can also be bad if the circumstances do not warrant it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Britain was in the EU during that time.

You've just given an example of an EZ issue, not an EU one. The EZ countries have pooled far, far more sovereignty than the EU countries have been doing.

Can you give me an example of issues which are a result of the EU pooling too much sovereignty, as I indeed asked?

No pooling sovereignty is not inherently always positive. That's not my position. You have told us that the EU has pooled too much, and I've asked for a specific example.

Leonard Hofstadter

Deleted User wrote: »

Britain was in the EU during that time.

You've just given an example of an EZ issue, not an EU one. The EZ countries have pooled far, far more sovereignty than the EU countries have been doing.

Can you give me an example of issues which are a result of the EU pooling too much sovereignty, as I indeed asked?

No pooling sovereignty is not inherently always positive. That's not my position. You have told us that the EU has pooled too much, and I've asked for a specific example.

Well said. Britain had an opt-out from the Euro, so whatever about the other arguments for 'taking back control', I simply can't understand the oft-repeated argument by Solo (and other Brexiteers) about the UK taking back control of its own money - it's always had that.

In what way does the EU impact on what the Bank of England can or cannot do to manage the Pound Sterling as it best sees fit?

solodeogloria

captainspeed wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Britain was in the EU during that time.

You've just given an example of an EZ issue, not an EU one. The EZ countries have pooled far, far more sovereignty than the EU countries have been doing.

Can you give me an example of issues which are a result of the EU pooling too much sovereignty, as I indeed asked?

No pooling sovereignty is not inherently always positive. That's not my position. You have told us that the EU has pooled too much, and I've asked for a specific example.

Well said. Britain had an opt-out from the Euro, so whatever about the other arguments for 'taking back control', I simply can't understand the oft-repeated argument by Solo (and other Brexiteers) about the UK taking back control of its own money - it's always had that.

In what way does the EU impact on what the Bank of England can or cannot do to manage the Pound Sterling as it best sees fit?

Good evening!

You seem to have misunderstood the point.

I was asked about the advantages of not "pooling sovereignty". The decision of Britain not to join the Eurozone and the additional freedom that gave it during the economic crisis is an example of how not "pooling sovereignty" or giving up control is advantageous.

I can't give an "example" from a scenario that hasn't played out yet, but I'm sure that taking back control over trade policy for example will be a huge advantage. I explained how and why a few posts ago. (I'd also say insisting on free movement and open access to fishing waters are two others. I've been through these before on this thread)

My point is that "pooling sovereignty" is not always a good thing. If you'd like to answer my question I'd appreciate it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You can't give an example but you a sure.

I'm not certain that holds much weight.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

You don't get to say I've not given an example when I've provided four in the last post.

Your question wasn't clear initially. I gave you one example as to how not pooling sovereignty was a huge benefit with historical justification and I gave you three future benefits of being outside the EU.

It's not acceptable to lie about other people's posts.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ArthurDayne

solodeogloria wrote: »

.

I definitely think the UK can be better off outside in the right circumstances. Any other advanced Western economy is testament to this .

Maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible (note here, I'm expecting some loss) while expanding trade with larger markets such as the US and China (both together are just under half of current UK exports to the EU without a free trade agreement) never mind other markets would be hugely beneficial.

I'm convinced that given more flexibility that the UK has every chance of success.

Now - here's the question for you. Why don't you think the UK can be successful outside of the single market?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you're providing a different viewpoint on this. To me, there is no question that the UK can of course be successful outside of the single market. But the problem here is that nostalgically-influenced false political assumptions about sovereignty and 'control' have shrouded the actual working mechanics of how it works. Put it like this, if I was to go to my Board in work with a binary proposal of "We have been doing great for the past half-century but do you agree that we should take the decision to undertake Very Risky Project X?" and then simply shrug my shoulders when asked how it would work, suffice to say that I think it could work, I would at best be credited for giving everyone a laugh and, at worst, lose my job.

The problem with Brexit is that the term 'taking back control' has become a nebular euphemism for all kinds of visions for the UK -- one of which is the image of it throwing off its chains and negotiating all kinds of wonderful mutually-beneficial agreements across the globe. The issue with this assumption is that it seems to presume that the rest of the world sees Brexit as an opportunity to establish equally / mutally favourable and freely negotiated ties with the UK, rather than an opportunity to exploit and seek unilaterally favourable gains from the fact that the UK has decided to plunge itself into uncertainty.

So . . it is not a question about whether the UK can be successful outside of the single market but whether the UK itself even knows what 'success' is supposed to be. Bearing in mind everything which the UK has enjoyed since joining the EU: the halting of its post-war decline; London overtaking New York as the world's financial capital; the fact that British people enjoy high living standards and a peaceful, diverse and tolerant society within a politically and economically harmonised continent that had been at war with itself almost constantly for centuries. If Brexiteers feel that this was achieved in spite of the EU rather than because of it, then what is it that they believe they would have achieved without the EU? The power and success of the United States?

Whether one believes that Britain can succeed outside of the EU depends on what we view as being 'success'. What do you view it as being? Because really, unless it is something which is far beyond the achievements listed above, then you are simply looking to recreate what you already have -- but risking it all in the process.

The statement I requested clarity on was that 'the problem with the EU is that it has pooled too much sovereignty'.

I asked for a specific example which might show this problem. You gave an example of a country within the EU doing something whilst a member of the EU.

When pressed on this you suggested that you were unable to give an example but were sure.

This is visible above. No lies. It was not I who suggested you couldn't give an example. It was you.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Let me explain why your post was unclear.

Here is my post:

solodeogloria wrote:

People speak about the benefits of "pooling sovereignty" or in layman's terms giving over control to central bodies. There are also benefits in taking back control. The problem with the EU is that it has pooled too much sovereignty.

Here was your reply:

Deleted User wrote:

Care to give any specific examples?

This could mean a number of things given my previous post. It could mean what I understood it to mean initially which is give specific examples of benefits of pooling sovereignty. Or it could mean give examples of how the EU has pooled too much sovereignty.

You can understand the difficulty here.

I answered the first question referring to the historical precedent of the Bank of England and the Eurozone crisis, and how the UK benefited from not pooling sovereignty. If the first meaning was your question, then I could only refer to historical examples.

When you explained that you meant the latter, I gave you three more reasons. (The Eurozone crisis still stands as an example as to how the EU has "pooled too much sovereignty" or taken too much control from member states). To your second question I gave the Eurozone crisis, fishing, external trade, and free movement as examples where the EU has taken too much control from member states.

I'm really not interested in playing games. You've had four examples now.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Let's look at what you have here.



Any international frontier has to consider the impact of trade and customs terms on its border. David Davis did highlight this both publicly to the British people on the Andrew Marr show on the BBC and I suspect privately with the EU.

Starting the discussion rather than holding it up was the right thing to do and the pragmatic thing to do. There's two options block everything up front or wait until the negotiations get tangled up around it.

It's obvious to any sensible person that trade and customs needs to be raised with Northern Ireland and Davis was right. It is the row of the summer despite people claiming it wasn't going to be. He was right to also reply to questions about that saying it isn't about how it starts but how it ends. It makes a lot of sense now in hindsight.

For the record if the EU don't agree with the UK proposals the second best is the Norway - Sweden model which Davis brought up in parliamentary hearings. It isn't as open as it is today but it's open for regular traffic.

It's worth repeating though that if we get to this stage it will be because the EU have rejected the UK proposals.

So an important discussion about how the negotiation of the Irish border and how it will be tied to trade was left off by the UK side, because they agreed with the EU timeline on the discussion order, because the UK wanted to start discussions first.

It was going to be an intense discussion because trade is so important that we leave the discussion up to the EU? I still don't get it? David Davis knew it was an important discussion but caved on the first day. Now when the EU wants to stick to the agreed plan of discussion its the EU's fault if there is no discussions about the border because they don't want to discuss trade. Its so stupid one would think it comes from the Donald Trump playbook.

The time to discuss this was surely during the first meetings to discuss the timeline. Now the UK have wasted another 2 months where preparations are made for the discussions to dispute how the discussions will be conducted. Tell me again who will suffer more if the cliff edge is reached, the UK or the EU? Because the way the UK is going about it, makes it seems as though the EU will suffer the most. Then again in most Brexiteers minds they see this as the truth so is it any wonder this is how discussions are being done.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes I do. It was wrong. Exit checks should have been brought in much earlier.

It doesn't "fill me with fear" no. On Brexit she's unlikely to be as wrong as project fear were before the referendum.

It's a case of following through with the referendum result and aiming for the best Brexit possible and seeing where we land. I'm impressed with what the UK Government have put forward so far.

You have posted before that you disliked the "project fear" that the Remain camp ran. Seeing that a lot of people seemed to want to get back "control" of immigration then I think the current PM lying about figures to inflate a problem that frankly didn't exist is the same, if not worse. Or let me be generous, she either lied or she was incompetent to not check that the figures were accurate. This person is running the government leading the negotiations. If I were you I would be very afraid of the outcome, seeing as she will do what she wants to get what she wants, truth be damned it seems.

Also, again the UK had the rules to control immigration from EU countries but didn't bother to implement them. Its absolutely ridiculous to try and blame the EU for having a lack of control when the EU gave its members the tools to take some control. The UK not using this is not the EU's fault and the UK not getting the deal it wants will also not the EU's fault. It will be all on the UK.

The UK so far has put forward EU membership without having any of the obligations of being a member. I would expect people to be happy about it, but they are not going to get it though. There will be no CTA with control over immigration because these two things conflict with each other. There will be no frictionless trade and the UK will have the ability to negotiate their own trade deals as again, these two things are in contradiction of each other.

Do you see that?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

When you explained that you meant the latter, I gave you three more reasons. (The Eurozone crisis still stands as an example as to how the EU has "pooled too much sovereignty" or taken too much control from member states). To your second question I gave the Eurozone crisis, fishing, external trade, and free movement as examples where the EU has taken too much control from member states.

Except that it isn't. Countries entered the Eurozone of their own volition knowing what that entailed. Several EU member states are outside the Eurozone. As a non-Eurozone country, Britain was never going to be bailing out Eurozone nations.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You seem to have misunderstood the point.

I was asked about the advantages of not "pooling sovereignty". The decision of Britain not to join the Eurozone and the additional freedom that gave it during the economic crisis is an example of how not "pooling sovereignty" or giving up control is advantageous.

I can't give an "example" from a scenario that hasn't played out yet, but I'm sure that taking back control over trade policy for example will be a huge advantage. I explained how and why a few posts ago. (I'd also say insisting on free movement and open access to fishing waters are two others. I've been through these before on this thread)

My point is that "pooling sovereignty" is not always a good thing. If you'd like to answer my question I'd appreciate it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You don't get to say I've not given an example when I've provided four in the last post.

Your question wasn't clear initially. I gave you one example as to how not pooling sovereignty was a huge benefit with historical justification and I gave you three future benefits of being outside the EU.

It's not acceptable to lie about other people's posts.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Four? I only counted three.

Trade Policy - Yes, we know you believe that the UK will be able to do great deals to import cheap Brazilian and Argentine beef fattened on steroids and American GM grain, the rest of us just aren't sure that it is a good idea.

Insisting on Free Movement - I assume taking this back is the question. I really look forward to seeing all the young Brits taking jobs in McDonals and Tesco. That will surely work.

Open access to fishing waters - Oh yes, there are still fish in the North Sea, are there?

OK, do you have any meaningful examples?

Sand

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the more emotive arguments around the second world war it isn't an argument that can apply to the UK's membership of the European Union for two reasons.

Firstly - the UK joined too late, and was prohibited from joining due to a perceived proximity to the United States. This was correct and de Gaulle was right. The second world war argument isn't the UK's reason for joining the EU. It is Germany's reason for being one of the founding members in the 1950's.

Secondly - the world just after the second world war is a very different place to the world we live in now. Economic growth in Europe was more central to the world's economy. It is no longer. States should make decisions to adapt to a changing world. This is what the UK is doing and it is a sensible decision.

Finally - The UK shouldn't have agreed to Maastricht, and John Major should have put it to a referendum as Thatcher advised him to. It would have saved a lot of mess in terms of untangling the "pooling of sovereignty" that has occurred since then. The problem with giving up lots of control (which is what "pooling sovereignty" actually means) is that if you want it back it is difficult to unravel. This doesn't mean that it won't be worth it.

The UK didn't join too late for want of effort. It applied three times to join the EC/EU. It did so in a context whereby it was one of the victorious powers of WW2, had a 'special relationship' with the US, and indeed a special relationship with a huge empire spanning a large portion of the globe which for a century or more was aligned to the UK's economic benefit.

But yet it still applied to join the EC/EU 3 times. Not because it was enamoured with the EC/EU per se, but because it was necessary to maintain the UK's prosperity. The UK had gone from a situation whereby it had a GDP per capita 90% greater than the EC/EU founders in 1945 to having actually fallen 6% behind by the time it joined in 1973. People in the EC/EU were richer, and getting richer faster. The EC/EU model of pooling sovereignty led to greater prosperity than the UK's go it alone/free trade model. It worked for the UK too - the UK's relative decline halted with membership of the EU. The EC/EU is and was good for the UK and its people. They didn't join by mistake.

Now, through an act of complacent jingoism, the UK wants to return to relative decline outside of the EU. Having given up on free trade with the remnants of Empire in the 1950s and 1960s, the UK wants to pin the economic prosperity of its people on trade with people that are far away, that they don't understand or have many links with, where rule of law is often questionable and who they don't trade with to any significant degree today for all of the above reasons. You may be hopeful, but you have few grounds to hopeful.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that it isn't. Countries entered the Eurozone of their own volition knowing what that entailed. Several EU member states are outside the Eurozone. As a non-Eurozone country, Britain was never going to be bailing out Eurozone nations.

Good evening!

You're missing my point.

My point was very clear. Pooling sovereignty isn't always beneficial.

It also needs to be weighed up for each situation. I think in Ireland's case as a small country, it probably is beneficial. In the UK's case I don't think it is. I think the Eurozone crisis was a good example of how not "pooling sovereignty" or in layman's terms not handing over a lot of control was beneficial. Being nimble about making domestic decisions is often very positive.

I think post-Brexit when this gets extended further it will be ultimately good for the UK insofar as it will be able to be nimble on more fronts than before.

The task at hand is to try and retain as much EU exports as possible on the best terms possible while opening up trade with the wider world. If the UK manages to do this, I have no doubt at all that it will be better off outside the European Union.

The difficulties of untangling the relationship the UK has with the European Union only go to show how much sovereignty has been given to it over the years. This isn't a positive argument for membership, it just reflects how much control is handed over to the European Union on becoming a member. A looser relationship would have always been better for the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

Starmer has just set off a hand grenade. LB moving to soft Brexit with transition time of staying in the single market and customs union.
So David heads to Brussells for talks on Monday, with a position that doesn't have the support of the majority in Westminister.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/26/labour-soft-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may

Leonard Hofstadter

Water John wrote: »

Starmer has just set off a hand grenade. LB moving to soft Brexit with transition time of staying in the single market and customs union.
So David heads to Brussells for talks on Monday, with a position that doesn't have the support of the majority in Westminister.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/26/labour-soft-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may

A pity this hand grenade wasn't set off sooner, but still, better late than never. At last, we have a sensible alternative to the Tories (I can't believe I'm saying that about Labour, especially Labour with 'Jez we can' as leader, but these are the times we live in).

Nody

Water John wrote: »

Starmer has just set off a hand grenade. LB moving to soft Brexit with transition time of staying in the single market and customs union.
So David heads to Brussells for talks on Monday, with a position that doesn't have the support of the majority in Westminister.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/26/labour-soft-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may

Sorry but what's the real difference? It's still a hard brexit the only difference being they delay it for 2 to 4 years; after that they are back at Tories position again while Tories already talked about wanting a transition period as well. The problem in both cases is wtf EU would want to have a transition period and secondly what difference 2 years delay would make in practice as the government will still be unprepared as it is today.

Water John

Also a few of the Tory remainers may get brave. Then Fox, Davie et al are in a worse pickle, than they already are.

steddyeddy

captainspeed wrote: »

A pity this hand grenade wasn't set off sooner, but still, better late than never. At last, we have a sensible alternative to the Tories (I can't believe I'm saying that about Labour, especially Labour with 'Jez we can' as leader, but these are the times we live in).

I personally think the Lib Dems are speaking the most sense. I.E stop this madness. The Conservatives are making no economic sense whatsoever.

ArthurDayne

steddyeddy wrote: »

I personally think the Lib Dems are speaking the most sense. I.E stop this madness. The Conservtives are making no economic sense whatsoever.

The Tories are in a total shambles on this. My fear however is that the same jingoistic tripe that led them down this sorry path will prevent them from publicly stepping forward and being honest with the British people; that this whole ill-thought, ill-defined Brexit process is a lame duck. They are a party wading across Macbeth's river of blood; stepped in so far that to return now and face the wrath of the wounded British ego is as tedious and treacherous a prospect to them as fumbling onward with this mess.

In their view, the Tories need to win something from this to avoid a total humiliation of the UK. Such blind devotion to anti-defeatism is a dangerous mindset.

LeinsterDub

captainspeed wrote: »

A pity this hand grenade wasn't set off sooner, but still, better late than never. At last, we have a sensible alternative to the Tories (I can't believe I'm saying that about Labour, especially Labour with 'Jez we can' as leader, but these are the times we live in).

In what way is it sensible. They'll leave the EU therefore having no say in how the laws are made but they'll also be tightly bound to the EU so they'll have to follow all the EU laws. Now don't get me wrong leaving the EU also makes very little sense but at least with the hardest of hard Brexit they'll be free of the EU and more than likely free to enjoy their economic collapse

Calina

Sensible is on a continuum in this case and this buys Labour time to lose Corbyn and get a reverse in the pro-Brexit nonsense. They should never have waved Article 50 through the way they did.

A lot can change in four years.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but what's the real difference? It's still a hard brexit the only difference being they delay it for 2 to 4 years . . .

The difference, I think, is that (a) the markets, the economy and the voters have a couple of years to react to the Brexit deal after they know what it is, but before it is implemented, and (b) within that period a general election occurs. Odds are that there will be a change of government at the next election. (Does May look to you like the kind of Prime Minister who is likely lead the Tories back into government at a fourth successive general election? No, me neither.)

This doesn't necessarily change the long term outcome, but it opens up a space within which there is room for a change to occur.

Jim2007

Calina wrote: »

Sensible is on a continuum in this case and this buys Labour time to lose Corbyn and get a reverse in the pro-Brexit nonsense. They should never have waved Article 50 through the way they did.

A lot can change in four years.

A lot can change, but not just in the UK. From reader comments on German/French political and media sites, that attitude is changing to one of irritation and a wish to get this over with. On top of this EU member states will have gotten used to a lot less friction in decision making - no more UK opt out crap etc..

If the UK do decide they want back in at some state, they may find the EU a lot less welcoming that they might expect.

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

I personally think the Lib Dems are speaking the most sense. I.E stop this madness. The Conservatives are making no economic sense whatsoever.

But stop is not an option, no matter how many common law jurists say it is. Any action seeking the enforcement of A50 will be heard by a large majority of civil law jurists and I have yet to hear of a senior civil law jurist expressing the opinion that it can be withdrawn. In civil law the stumbling block is that there is no provisions what so ever in the treaties to allow for it's withdrawal. Civil law is not judge made as in common law.

In which case they would need to reapply for membership and this time round there would be very little support among the 27 for all the opt out nonsense again.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

I have no doubt at all that it will be better off outside the European Union.

And this confidence is based on what exactly?

- The UK has failed to produce a positive balance of trade in over 25 years, what is going to change so that they suddenly become a trading nation again?

- Last time I looked 48% of their exports went to the EU and in fact 18% of their exports got to three small member states. What are they going to do to retain those exports if the are forced to accept WTO tariffs and more challenging - tariff free quotas?

- As a third country directly competing with low cost competition, who are they planning to maintain the standard of living while taking on this competition?

- Assuming the UK can get WTO full membership in say two years (three currently being the fastest so far), a trade deal in say three years (again very optimistic in WTO terms) and say five years for UK industry to build a market, that is about ten years.... what is the plan to plug the whole in that period?

- Under what circumstances will the UK be able to get better trading terms than WTO without entering into a customs union and accepting restricted negotiating rights?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Repeatedly citing a metric that excludes Britain's biggest trade output namely services is silly.

48% is wrong. It was 44% in 2016 and decreasing each year. My point is if Britain gets a good trade deal that covers as much of this 44% as possible and new trade deals with other countries such as America and China to expand trade then there's every reason why Brexit can be a success.

I've got no reason to predict the apocalypse right now.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ELM327

Calina wrote: »

Sensible is on a continuum in this case and this buys Labour time to lose Corbyn and get a reverse in the pro-Brexit nonsense. They should never have waved Article 50 through the way they did.

A lot can change in four years.

It was my understanding that once Article 50 was triggered, it was irrevocable?

First Up

ELM327 wrote: »

It was my understanding that once Article 50 was triggered, it was irrevocable?

Not quite. It could be revoked but only if all 27 members agree -and they could each set conditions. It could only happen if the UK (a) first undergoes a major political upheaval - as in chaos, parties fragmenting etc. and (b) is prepared to endure complete humiliation. I think chaos and humiliation are inevitable but its hard to see them admitting it.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Repeatedly citing a metric that excludes Britain's biggest trade output namely services is silly.

48% is wrong. It was 44% in 2016 and decreasing each year. My point is if Britain gets a good trade deal that covers as much of this 44% as possible and new trade deals with other countries such as America and China to expand trade then there's every reason why Brexit can be a success.

I've got no reason to predict the apocalypse right now.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You keep mentioning China. The UK does more trade with Ireland than it does with China, does more trade with France than it does with Austrailia and does more trade with Germany than it does with Japan. Look at any other country and you'll see a similar pattern. Trade correlates positively with distance. Closer countries trade more. That's because exporting costs money and continues to cost as a function of distance. It's not as simple as just trading with China and Austrailia. Any free trade deal you get might not cover the increased cost associated with trading with such a country.

steddyeddy

First Up wrote: »

Not quite. It could be revoked but only if all 27 members agree -and they could each set conditions. It could only happen if the UK (a) first undergoes a major political upheaval - as in chaos, parties fragmenting etc. and (b) is prepared to endure complete humiliation. I think chaos and humiliation are inevitable but its hard to see them admitting it.

It was also hinted by Guy Verhofstadt that any return by the UK would require them to take the Euro.

ELM327

First Up wrote: »

Not quite. It could be revoked but only if all 27 members agree -and they could each set conditions. It could only happen if the UK (a) first undergoes a major political upheaval - as in chaos, parties fragmenting etc. and (b) is prepared to endure complete humiliation. I think chaos and humiliation are inevitable but its hard to see them admitting it.

Ah yes, of course.
I can't see the likes of Spain et al accepting a reversal of Article 50 unless it was perceived as a huge climbdown by the UK.

I can't see anyone in the UK agreeing to take the Euro etc so it's for all intents and purposes rendered therefore irrevocable. IMO.

I didn't think they would actually go through with it, until they actually triggered the article, at which point there is now really no going back.

Water John

Corbyn may not be some peoples, cup of tea. One thing I would say is that he is honourable. Stand him alongside, Fox, David Johnson et al, I know who I would prefer.

steddyeddy

Water John wrote: »

Corbyn may not be some peoples, cup of tea. One thing I would say is that he is honourable. Stand him alongside, Fox, David Johnson et al, I know who I would prefer.

The next potential Tory leader is Jacob Reece Mog. That says it all really.

Calina

ELM327 wrote: »

It was my understanding that once Article 50 was triggered, it was irrevocable?

The UK government fought the Miller case on the basis that it was irrevocable and it is fair to say that the treaty says nothing explicit about the irrevocability or otherwise of an Article 50 notification. The drafter of the article has apparently stated that of course it is revocable. It may wind up being an ECJ decision which decides one way or the other.

An extension of the 2 year period is possible with, I think, unanimous accord of the other members so one fudge would be an indefinite extension. However, that's really an interim solution so the question is what might happen the next time there are a bunch of treaty negotiations.

The UK has historically managed to carve itself out a number of fudges and member state specific agreements. I don't exclude the possibility of a fudge. What I do think is this: if Labour had won the last election, the sane thing to do would have been to request an extension immediately given the arrival of a new government. I don't think this is necessarily something that the Tory party could get away with since they own the entire mess but a new and less obnoxious negotiating government might have.

Ultimately, all things remaining equal - and this includes things like referenda in the UK to come on future agreements - Article 50 notification stands, so exit in March 2019, controlled or not controlled. The issue as I see it is that in practical terms, the UK is doing nothing at all to prepare for being a third country. Either they expect to win (unlikely) or they expect not to have go to through with it (doesn't align with their behaviour to date). But I've seen no rationale for the latter position and the former is delusional.