Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

All of this is unsubstantiated. Nobody has presented any good citations to show that this would actually happen.

I'm also unconvinced that UK exports would be decimated. A weaker pound is actually good in this regard. It allows for greater competitiveness in a global market. In a way it's similar to the benefits that Germany received with a weaker currency after joining the Euro.

I agree with you that talk of UK exports being “decimated” is excessive. But they would be adversely affected. And, while a weaker pound would help to offset that, the whole reason that the pound would be weakening in this scenario is the adverse effect on UK exports of existing the EU without a trad deal.

solodeogloria wrote: »

No deal isn't an ideal scenario but I don't buy this talk of exports being decimated or defaulting on bondholders. The UK has never defaulted on gilts and I don't see any reason why it would start.

I agree with all this. Brexit-without-a-deal wouldn’t be good for the UK national economy, but it wouldn’t imperil UK government finances to a point where default would be foreseeable.

The downside to no deal, from the UK’s point of view, is not government insolvency. I think it’s mainly two things. The first would be the adverse affect on the UK’s foreign trade of moving from having the world’s freest free trade deal with what is far and away your largest trading partner, and likely to remain so, to having no trade deal at all. UK exports wouldn’t be “decimated”, but they would be seriously adversely affected.

The other downside is that it would be a really, really bad start to the UK’s campaign to negotiate trade deals. If they can’t negotiate a trade deal with their closest and largest market that simply loves trade deals, and has the world’s largest network of trade deals, that really torpedoes below the waterline the Brexity claim that the UK will nimbly negotiate a really great, really super, network of trade deals that will herald a bright new future of taking control and a chicken in every pot. The EU trade deal with be far and away the most important trade deal that the UK will be negotiating post-Brexit, and if it turns out that they can’t negotiate it the Liam Fox strategy is in ruins. They’ll have no choice but to go all Patrick Minford, and that won’t end well.

(Just to be clear, I don’t see this happening. There will be a UK-EU deal, even if somebody has to take Teresa May out behind the barn and shoot her, politically speaking, to make this happen.)

solodeogloria wrote: »

An ideal scenario is that we see a reasonable bill. The reason why I mention €100bn is because the Financial Times came up with this figure with European sources. That's worth walking away from.

Not one penny should be paid without trade terms. £36bn net seems like the maximum that should be paid. The pensions argument is moot if the £10bn+ in UK assets are considered.

You keep quoting the £36bn figure, but I can’t see any rational basis for it. I think you explained it as a multiple of the UK’s annual contribution to the EU budget, but there is no reason why the UK’s net liabilities to the EU should be any particular multiple of their annual contribution to the budget.

I’ve said before that, in advance of any agreement as to what the liabilities are, any attempt to value the liabilities is meaningless. But if the UK is going to come up with a maximum figure they are willing to pay (and, FWIW, I don’t think they should do this, certainly not publicly) then, rationally, it should be related not to their annual budget contribution but to the benefit they hope to obtain from the trade deal which is dependent on agreeing an exit payment.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are scenarios where the UK should walk and of course no deal is better than a bad deal.

Well, yes, but only in the sense that the only meaningful definition of “a bad deal” is one which leaves the UK worse off than if it had no deal. And, for the reasons pointed out, that would have to be a very bad deal indeed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The people prophesying incredible accounts of armageddon need to start providing reasons for why they believe stuff like that because it looks fanciful.

Mmm. That cuts both ways, Solo. The people who produce arbitrary caps for the exit fee, or who blithely assert, with as far as I can see no evidence at all, the the UK will negotiate a better network of trade deals than the EU has been able to do, also need to start producing sound reasons for believing apparently fanciful stuff.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so, lets look at Royal Sun Alliance.

They have an Irish subsidiary, which is stand alone (other than needing bailing out every now and again).

How will the employees of RSA in the UK be affected by Brexit?

Will RSA PLC no longer be able to charge its Irish subsidiary head office fees?

Maybe you are thinking about the likes of Lloyds, who have already set up an office in Brussels to cover EU business, which is around 20% of their total business. How many employees does this affect?

Well, will RSA Ireland retain its authorisation in Ireland indefinitely, if it's ultimately owned by shareholders who are not regulated in the EU? Or will its ability to retain its authorisation be conditional on, e.g., increased capitalisation or reserves, either of which would make the business more costly and less profitable for RSA plc? At the moment authorisation for RSA Ireland is a shoe-in because it's a wholly owned subsidiary of another EU-authorised institution. Not so in the future.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so, lets look at Royal Sun Alliance.

Insurance is not a good example, because there are various regulations in each jurisdiction requiring them to maintain a local presence, asset ratios etc... It is not possible really operate as a single global company. The only exception is the Reinsurance business and in this case that would be Royal & Sun Alliance Reinsurance Limited.

A more typical example would be a corporate bond issue on behalf of mainland EU company. Currently a UK IB could do this all out of the City without needing a presence in the company's country. Those things are very big fee earners. And it works both ways - you can offer the service to an EU client and you can't act as the gateway to the EU for say US clients and so on.

Yes there is a possibility under MiFID II for third countries to obtain passporting rights, but it not fully implemented and of course touches on TM's sovereignty and ECJ issues. Switzerland is scheduled to start negotiations on it next year, but they already accept they will have to make major concessions to obtain it.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Peregrinus wrote: »

You keep quoting the £36bn figure, but I can’t see any rational basis for it. I think you explained it as a multiple of the UK’s annual contribution to the EU budget, but there is no reason why the UK’s net liabilities to the EU should be any particular multiple of their annual contribution to the budget.

I quote it because it seems like a reasonable amount. The UK's commitments to EU programmes cannot exceed what would be the UK's membership fee for the amount of time they are for. The assets should more than cover aspects such as pensions. I suspect £10bn is more than the UK's share of the pension costs as a member state.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’ve said before that, in advance of any agreement as to what the liabilities are, any attempt to value the liabilities is meaningless. But if the UK is going to come up with a maximum figure they are willing to pay (and, FWIW, I don’t think they should do this, certainly not publicly) then, rationally, it should be related not to their annual budget contribution but to the benefit they hope to obtain from the trade deal which is dependent on agreeing an exit payment.

Sure, this is why I think the UK should challenge every line item on that bill rather than presenting a minimum. This idea is obviously another way of trying to weaken Britain's position in the negotiations. Davis shouldn't agree to it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. That cuts both ways, Solo. The people who produce arbitrary caps for the exit fee, or who blithely assert, with as far as I can see no evidence at all, the the UK will negotiate a better network of trade deals than the EU has been able to do, also need to start producing sound reasons for believing apparently fanciful stuff.

Caps are important because the UK isn't going to agree to an open ended sum like the EU want them to do.

There is an amount after which it becomes a much much better option to walk rather than stay in.

I'd really like to know why you think it would be so difficult for Britain to sign good progressive free trade deals with other countries. Theresa May has also said the UK are currently in discussions with many of the external EU trading partners to ensure continued free trade after Brexit. In theory they only need to sign them with those with substantial trade with the UK first. I actually agree with the idea of using the existing EU deals as a base for these.

But yes, I think there's every chance of expanding hood trade terms after Brexit. What I don't understand is why you think otherwise. Even America and China are a great opportunity in and of themselves.

Striking a deal with the EU is important but this isn't either or. It's both. Staying chained to EU trade policy isn't a good option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

.
Caps are important because the UK isn't going to agree to an open ended sum like the EU want them to do.

There is an amount after which it becomes a much much better option to walk rather than stay in.

I'd really like to know why you think it would be so difficult for Britain to sign good progressive free trade deals with other countries. Theresa May has also said the UK are currently in discussions with many of the external EU trading partners to ensure continued free trade after Brexit. In theory they only need to sign them with those with substantial trade with the UK first. I actually agree with the idea of using the existing EU deals as a base for these.

But yes, I think there's every chance of expanding hood trade terms after Brexit. What I don't understand is why you think otherwise. Even America and China are a great opportunity in and of themselves.

Striking a deal with the EU is important but this isn't either or. It's both. Staying chained to EU trade policy isn't a good option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Firstly the EU don't want an open ended sum that's nonsense. You know it.

Second of all the UK are going around now making awkward usherings of deals you only have to look at t Japan visit for that.

You seem to belief released from the supposed shackles of the EU that you will sort out all these amazing trades deals there is so far nothing of substance in that belief.

Nothing of substance just words

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Sure, this is why I think the UK should challenge every line item on that bill rather than presenting a minimum.

What nonsense! There is no bill because that is not the point of the discussion. The objective was and is to agree the method of calculating the bill and that is now required.

Now you can rabbit on all you like about figures all you want, but until the UK actually address the matter we have no idea what the figure will be.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How can the eu stop Uk services being sold there?

Will they suddenly ban radio stations from playing Ed Sheeran records, or ban tv channels from showing the Premier League?

You can't really stop services, that's why the WTO doesn't cover them.

Services like transport would be drastically cut because UK airlines would only be able to fly to or from the UK. So no Ryanair from Dublin to Paris, no Easyjet from Athens to Berlin.

AFAIK third party banks need a licence per branch to operate in Germany.

UK data protection laws won't be compatible with EU ones so direct selling to consumers may not be doable.

The Premiership is full of foreigners , expect some sort of ruling or claim.

It won't be death by a thousand cuts. But there would be a thousand little cuts and they'll add up.


Tourism will still be a big draw for the UK.
Number of US and Canadian visitors rises by 16% so it looks like the low Sterling is doing wonder until you realise that in Ireland Tourism figures up 23% from US,

solodeogloria

Jim2007 wrote: »

What nonsense! There is no bill because that is not the point of the discussion. The objective was and is to agree the method of calculating the bill and that is now required.

Now you can rabbit on all you like about figures all you want, but until the UK actually address the matter we have no idea what the figure will be.

Good evening!

We do know that there is a ceiling beyond which we get no deal territory.

Negotiating methodology and line items which could cost a varying amount or even be subject to alleged hikes in costs over the next year is a strategy that favours the EU.

Presenting a minimum isn't a clever option for the UK. I don't think presenting a position paper is in the UK's national interest. Challenging the EU's items to reduce the final outcome is the right way to go. The EU are the ones insisting on the liability not the UK.

I'm behind the UK Government on this. Claiming that nobody knows what the cost is doesn't inspire confidence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

We do know that there is a ceiling beyond which we get no deal territory.

Negotiating methodology and line items which could cost a varying amount or even be subject to alleged hikes in costs over the next year is a strategy that favours the EU.

Presenting a minimum isn't a clever option for the UK. I don't think presenting a position paper is in the UK's national interest. Challenging the EU's items to reduce the final outcome is the right way to go. The EU are the ones insisting on the liability not the UK.

I'm behind the UK Government on this. Claiming that nobody knows what the cost is doesn't inspire confidence.

Once again, if it is such an important item that favours the EU maybe David Davis should have challenged it instead of just giving in when the negotiations started. I think you want to try and show how strong the UK negotiation team is but with every post you just show how incompetent they have been. They do not like the timeline of discussions or how the Brexit bill needs to be negotiated, but they gave in on both those items within a day.

You seem to miss the point, it doesn't matter what you want or what the UK wants, they agreed to this timeline with the EU and must now keep to it. Not doing so makes them look weak, untrustworthy and without ideas. It's no wonder Japan has called them out on this now.

Also, the free trade deals that the UK are talking about is basically just copying the EU trade deals and adding the UK instead of EU. So basically the UK wants the same trading terms with other countries as they had. Not better, but the same. So you have to question why they are leaving when they will have the same deals as they currently have. Are you happy with that? What happened to negotiating trade deals that will be to the benefit of the UK where before the EU trade deals didn't focus on the UK 100%?

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

Once again, if it is such an important item that favours the EU maybe David Davis should have challenged it instead of just giving in when the negotiations started. I think you want to try and show how strong the UK negotiation team is but with every post you just show how incompetent they have been. They do not like the timeline of discussions or how the Brexit bill needs to be negotiated, but they gave in on both those items within a day.

You seem to miss the point, it doesn't matter what you want or what the UK wants, they agreed to this timeline with the EU and must now keep to it. Not doing so makes them look weak, untrustworthy and without ideas. It's no wonder Japan has called them out on this now.

Also, the free trade deals that the UK are talking about is basically just copying the EU trade deals and adding the UK instead of EU. So basically the UK wants the same trading terms with other countries as they had. Not better, but the same. So you have to question why they are leaving when they will have the same deals as they currently have. Are you happy with that? What happened to negotiating trade deals that will be to the benefit of the UK where before the EU trade deals didn't focus on the UK 100%?

Good evening!

I think David Davis did raise all these issues. He certainly raised the issue of the ordering publicly on television and predicted (rightly) that this would be the row of the summer. I don't think pushing hard on good priorities for the interests of the British people is incompetent no. The Government have done a really good job so far. A good negotiation doesn't just involve compromise. It also involves not being taken for a mug.

Raising the issue and starting the discussions was wiser than holding up the entire discussion at the start. It's often better to let things hang themselves to show that they don't work.

On the trading terms there's two aims in the British strategy.

Firstly to maintain as much EU trade as possible and to maintain as much as possible. If rubber-stamping quick deals that account for Britain's position today helps that then I'm all for it.

Secondly - looking forward for new trade with other countries and forging new trade deals with other countries.

This balance is good for a good Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I think David Davis did raise all these issues. He certainly raised the issue of the ordering publicly on television and predicted (rightly) that this would be the row of the summer. I don't think pushing hard on good priorities for the interests of the British people is incompetent no. The Government have done a really good job so far. A good negotiation doesn't just involve compromise. It also involves not being taken for a mug.

On the trading terms there's two aims in the British strategy.

Firstly to maintain as much EU trade as possible and to maintain as much as possible. If rubber-stamping quick deals that account for Britain's position today helps that then I'm all for it.

Secondly - looking forward for new trade with other countries and forging new trade deals with other countries.

This balance is good for a good Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But it hasn't turned out to be the row of the summer. The UK accepted the sequencing of talks as laid out by the EU. So despite agreeing to it the UK has now gone out to undermine the agreement it made in an effort to generate infighting in the EU.

Which is all rather bizarre because the UK needs a unified EU to negotiate with. Fracturing a group where decisions are taken unanimously doesn't help their position.

The UK will get it's long transition period anyway, it will have to put up with "pay but no say" in exchange. Taking but not making rules from Europe for a few years would be the ultimate put down for the Conservatives and their thoughts of a new glorious Empire.

solodeogloria

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But it hasn't turned out to be the row of the summer. The UK accepted the sequencing of talks as laid out by the EU. So despite agreeing to it the UK has now gone out to undermine the agreement it made in an effort to generate infighting in the EU.

Which is all rather bizarre because the UK needs a unified EU to negotiate with. Fracturing a group where decisions are taken unanimously doesn't help their position.

The UK will get it's long transition period anyway, it will have to put up with "pay but no say" in exchange. Taking but not making rules from Europe for a few years would be the ultimate put down for the Conservatives and their thoughts of a new glorious Empire.

Good evening!

August is still the summer in the UK. I appreciate it isn't in Ireland. So yes, perhaps the row of the autumn. :pac:

The choice is raise your objections but still make progress in the discussions until you hit the obvious difficulty of the scheduling or make no progress at all.

I think starting until the point it becomes obvious the scheduling is a problem was the right choice.

I don't think the intention of direct conversation with France or Germany is intended to divide and conquer. There's a distinction between bureaucratic institutions and the actual governments. It is the European Council that meet in October.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

I quote it because it seems like a reasonable amount. The UK's commitments to EU programmes cannot exceed what would be the UK's membership fee for the amount of time they are for. The assets should more than cover aspects such as pensions. I suspect £10bn is more than the UK's share of the pension costs as a member state.

100bn, 36bn, 10bn there just numbers. Would you agree that the UK has obligations, such as future pension payments on their proportion of staff/time, but also legal binding contracts they may have signed up to. My understanding is this is the "bill". But it's not actually a bill at all. Neither is it a penalty for leaving. It's actually a means of ring-fencing the obligations the UK has made. No one can put a figure on that, the negotiation is all about agreeing what obligations are UK and which are EU.
It is also very logical to separate this obligation from future trade deals. Because they are totally separate. It doesn't matter if the UK get a great trade deal or a terrible trade deal. Their obligations are their obligations. Unless of course they decide to not honour these. Time will tell, but history can leave us to draw our own conclusions.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Liabilities will translate to numbers. Again the best approach is for the UK to examine the EU's proposed liabilities and challenge the ones that they seem dubious.

I'm entitled to have a view of how much is too much and there definitely is a ceiling.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL--

solodeogloria wrote: »

Liabilities will translate to numbers. Again the best approach is for the UK to examine the EU's proposed liabilities and challenge the ones that they seem dubious.

Negotiating a method of calculation? That's a good idea.

Nate

Capt'n Midnight

The UK's ploy to divide and conquer may have finally gotten some results.
With a potential difference of opinion in the German coalition.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-30/german-parties-snub-u-k-to-back-scotland-s-push-to-defy-brexit

Two of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s potential coalition partners after next month’s election have ... given their backing to an independent Scotland inside the European Union.

Lemming

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK's ploy to divide and conquer may have finally gotten some results.

"Divide & Conquer" is a two-way street. Much of the shambles that is mistaken for current British political discourse completely ignores the fact that the other member states of the EU might have their own opinion or two regards Brexit. I doubt much will come of this particular statement of course, but if nothing else it should hopefully serve as a polite rattling of proverbial chains to focus some UK political minds on less playing games and more delivering of substance.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again the best approach is for the UK to examine the EU's proposed liabilities and challenge the ones that they seem dubious.

It's a pity Davis didn't have your advice on day one when he accepted the terms of the negotiations then. Trying to squirm out of his commitments will not go well for him, simply because Europeans will hold him to his word.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!




Sure, this is why I think the UK should challenge every line item on that bill rather than presenting a minimum. This idea is obviously another way of trying to weaken Britain's position in the negotiations. Davis shouldn't agree to it.



Caps are important because the UK isn't going to agree to an open ended sum like the EU want them to do.

There is an amount after which it becomes a much much better option to walk rather than stay in.

I'd really like to know why you think it would be so difficult for Britain to sign good progressive free trade deals with other countries. Theresa May has also said the UK are currently in discussions with many of the external EU trading partners to ensure continued free trade after Brexit. In theory they only need to sign them with those with substantial trade with the UK first. I actually agree with the idea of using the existing EU deals as a base for these.

But yes, I think there's every chance of expanding hood trade terms after Brexit. What I don't understand is why you think otherwise. Even America and China are a great opportunity in and of themselves.

Striking a deal with the EU is important but this isn't either or. It's both. Staying chained to EU trade policy isn't a good option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First of all no one's trying to weaken Britain's position. It has no sensible negotiating position and it's already in a weak position.

Secondly I find it hard unlikely that Britain will sign a progressive deal with a developed economy because no one from a developed economy has made any concrete plans to do a deal with them.

Thirdly the type of deal the UK gets with the EU will dictate the type of deal they will get with other countries. Japan and India have already stated this.

Fourthly I can't believe you believe the last sentence you posted. It's contrary to you other posts.

Junkyard Tom

Lemming wrote: »

"Divide & Conquer" is a two-way street. Much of the shambles that is mistaken for current British political discourse completely ignores the fact that the other member states of the EU might have their own opinion or two regards Brexit.

I was just thinking about this today. For all we know there could be powerful forces within the EU planning to make an example of Britain.

If Britain gets badly damaged as a consequence of withdrawing from EU the remaining European electorate will see the danger in voting for Euro skeptics.

Lemming

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I was just thinking about this today. For all we know there could be powerful forces within the EU planning to make an example of Britain.

If Britain gets badly damaged as a consequence of withdrawing from EU the remaining European electorate will see the danger in voting for Euro skeptics.

I'm not so sure that there are groups within the EU planning on making an example of Britain; actively attempting to harm the UK would require expending effort & resources - diplomatic or otherwise - and why go ti such an effort or risk being found out when you can let nature do your work for you if so inclined. Nobody need harm the UK, but then again nobody need help the UK either, unless it suits themselves to do so at the end of the day. Whilst that's a particularly callous viewpoint, and not one that I think the EU member states would be inclined to lean towards, the UK has burnt a significant amount of any goodwill capital it may have had with all of its jingoistic carry-on over the last year.

Indifference rather than malice would be more likely.

View

Peregrinus wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You default on your debts you get junk status.

Failure to agree an exit fee, with the result that no exit fee is paid, would not be a default by the UK. It might have very adverse consequences in other respects, including reputational consequences, but it wouldn't be viewed by the markets as a default.

No one is discussing an "exit fee" but rather a settling of accounts by adding up and/or subtracting liabilities and assets. Failing to pay your resulting bill would be a default event.

First Up

Lemming wrote:

Indifference rather than malice would be more likely.

No, it is not indifference but it is very definitely prioritising the interests of EU member states over those of the UK. Those interests are being assessed individually and collectively and they will be defended individually and collectively.

That makes it more complex but the EU is well used to complexity. The UK still doesn't get it.

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

No one is discussing an "exit fee" but rather a settling of accounts by adding up and/or subtracting liabilities and assets. Failing to pay your resulting bill would be a default event.

No. The liabilities and assets aren't agreed, and there are no established rules for identifying or valuing them. If no payment is made because the UK and the EU don't reach agreement on a basis on which a payment would be due, legally speaking there is no default.

Imagine a divorcing couple, in a situation in which there is no court with power to value or divide their assets. If they fail to agree a valuation and division, is either of them in default? No; they have just failed to agree (and it's a failure on both their parts, necessarily). That's the closest analogy to the present situation.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Imagine a divorcing couple, in a situation in which there is no court with power to value or divide their assets. If they fail to agree a valuation and division, is either of them in default? No; they have just failed to agree (and it's a failure on both their parts, necessarily). That's the closest analogy to the present situation.

Do you think the resulting (rather frosty) situation would help the UK achieve its stated wish of close trade and other relations with the EU?

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Do you think the resulting (rather frosty) situation would help the UK achieve its stated wish of close trade and other relations with the EU?

No. It would be a very bad outcome for the UK, and I've already made clear that it's an outcome that the UK cannot accept. The must get a trade deal with the EU and to do that they must agree a Brexit financial settlement.

But, disadvantageous and and all as failure to agree would be, it would not be a legal default, and it would not result in UK government securities being downgraded to junk bond status.

But I don't expect it will come to that. The UK will make a deal because, really, they have no choice. They'll make the best deal they can, but they will make a deal.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

But, disadvantageous and and all as failure to agree would be, it would not be a legal default, and it would not result in UK government securities being downgraded to junk bond status.

That would be very poor consolation to them.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

That would be very poor consolation to them.

But of great cheer to anyone holding UK government securities.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

But of great cheer to anyone holding UK government securities.

Relief more than cheer but the ramifications would extend far beyond that.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Relief more than cheer but the ramifications would extend far beyond that.

Yes, I know. But I only weighed in on this question to counter the claim that if the UK didn't agree and pay an exit fee, that would be a default which would lead to UK government securities being downgraded to junk.

Failure to agree an exit fee would be many bad things, but it would not be that.

solodeogloria

Goodness me!

It seems like the British negotiators are going further than I would!

They apparently gave a three hour PowerPoint on why they don't agree on the EU's position including paying into the EU budget until 2020 because it is legally contestable.

This is very interesting. I would have thought they would have contested other aspects other than the budgetary contributions! This would have been compromise territory for me.

Am I going soft? :pac:

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Failure to agree an exit fee would be many bad things, but it would not be that.

Give it a few years of economic winter and it could happen eventually.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Goodness me!

It seems like the British negotiators are going further than I would!

They apparently gave a three hour PowerPoint on why they don't agree on the EU's position including paying into the EU budget until 2020 because it is legally contestable.

This is very interesting. I would have thought they would have contested other aspects other than the budgetary contributions! This would have been compromise territory for me.

Am I going soft? :pac:

No. You're just cutting to the chase.

The basis for identifying the UK's liablities to (and claims on) the Union has yet to be agreed. Both sides will take a position on how it should be agreed, and then negotiate from there. The expectation is that some movement on both sides will be necessary if agreement is to be reached; each side will therefore open with a position which is relatively advantageous to it, while rejecting the position of the other side. That's how the dance begins.

The dance ends, hopefully, with both sides agreeing a basis for identifying, valuing and apportining assets and liabilities, and agreeing the payment that results.

You're focussed on how the dance ends, and your figure is what you think the UK should actually be willing to pay. That bears only a distant relationship to the UK's opening position.

(And, similarly, there'll be a great gap between the EU's opening position and what they will eventually agree.)

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Goodness me!

It seems like the British negotiators are going further than I would!

They apparently gave a three hour PowerPoint on why they don't agree on the EU's position including paying into the EU budget until 2020 because it is legally contestable.

This is very interesting. I would have thought they would have contested other aspects other than the budgetary contributions! This would have been compromise territory for me.

Am I going soft? :pac:

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No, solo you are not going soft. You are demonstrating that you don't have an inside track on what the UK think they are getting away with.

I will say this. A three hour powerpoint presentation is not evidence of hardball. It is evidence of desperation. I hope the Guardian FOI's the slide deck. The minute I hear three hour powerpoint I also hear complete incompetence. Their opposite numbers are very bright. A document provided in advance of any meeting would have been more productive. This was a time wasting exercise.

Nody

Well looks like this week's negotiations ended with yet another failure; there are only two sessions left until October since UK insisted at the start on not needing as much time as EU proposed for negotiations (rofl). Here's the thing though which I wonder if the UK government has understood or not; even if a FTA was agreed it means nothing if the other issues are not resolved because it's one package deal and all issues needs to be resolved for it to go into effect. Hence even if the best FTA in the world was agreed it does not matter if the Irish border issues are not resolved etc.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Goodness me!

It seems like the British negotiators are going further than I would!

They apparently gave a three hour PowerPoint on why they don't agree on the EU's position including paying into the EU budget until 2020 because it is legally contestable.

This is very interesting. I would have thought they would have contested other aspects other than the budgetary contributions! This would have been compromise territory for me.

Am I going soft? :pac:

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Either position is ridiculous. To be honest views like yours and the position of the UK are making me of the opinion that the UK should leave ASAP. This is my position as an EU citizen. Too many lies, uneducated views about trade, the EU and Britain's power outside the EU have been spread and accepted. It's time those views are tested and the UK goes it alone.

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

Well looks like this week's negotiations ended with yet another failure; there are only two sessions left until October since UK insisted at the start on not needing as much time as EU proposed for negotiations (rofl). <...>

It looks to me like the UK is stonewalling, and has been doing so steadfastly, ever since Davis first yay'ed the EU's agenda and points. With an end game of pinning the negotiations' failure on the EU, for placating the Mail- and Express-reading domestic support.

As long predicted.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Either position is ridiculous. To be honest views like yours and the position of the UK are making me of the opinion that the UK should leave ASAP. This is my position as an EU citizen. Too many lies, uneducated views about trade, the EU and Britain's power outside the EU have been spread and accepted. It's time those views are tested and the UK goes it alone.

Good morning!

I don't think that positing the view that Britain could benefit from free trade agreements outside the EU is "uneducated". I think you need to start making substantial arguments for your position rather than using ad hominems.

As for the thing about being an "EU citizen". I'm an "EU citizen" also as an Irish citizen. So I don't see why or how you're presenting this as a trump card.

My hope is still very much for coming to an amicable arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think that positing the view that Britain could benefit from free trade agreements outside the EU is "uneducated". I think you need to start making substantial arguments for your position rather than using ad hominems.

As for the thing about being an "EU citizen". I'm an "EU citizen" also as an Irish citizen. So I don't see why or how you're presenting this as a trump card.

My hope is still very much for coming to an amicable arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You've yet to make any substantial argument about sovereignty despite being asked time and time again other than we get out sovereignty back.

What parts of it are you missing specifically


Since this is pretty much the basis for your new found exit direction.

swampgas

ambro25 wrote: »

It looks to me like the UK is stonewalling, and has been doing so steadfastly, ever since Davis first yay'ed the EU's agenda and points. With an end game of pinning the negotiations' failure on the EU, for placating the Mail- and Express-reading domestic support.

As long predicted.

I suspect the UK cabinet are caught up in a situation bigger than any of them can deal with. Maybe they're just going through the motions, collecting their pay and expenses, for as long as possible before the wheels fall off.

I've seen projects in multinational companies like this, where the CEO or HQ have decreed that project X will succeed despite it being impossible, and everyone just plays along with it as best they can, while waiting for a change at the top.

.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Am I going soft? :pac:

I think this is further evidence that they are going Hard - they have no intention of negotiating anything, they are just getting set to blame the EU for the fallout.

solodeogloria

listermint wrote: »

You've yet to make any substantial argument about sovereignty despite being asked time and time again other than we get out sovereignty back.

What parts of it are you missing specifically


Since this is pretty much the basis for your new found exit direction.

Good morning!

I don't think I've seen you present any "substantial argument" on the thread.

If highlighting every area where I feel the UK could benefit from regaining control and why that would be beneficial isn't "substantial" I don't know what is. I've explained all of this very clearly on the thread.

Not being willing to hear what has already been said, isn't the same as me not presenting a "substantial argument".

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

I've seen projects in multinational companies like this, where the CEO or HQ have decreed that project X will success despite it being impossible, and everyone just plays along with it as best they can, while waiting for a change at the top.

In the software industry, this kind of project is called a Death March. Management have announced the impossible goal, and everyone involved works away, projecting good news upwards, knowing that it will all eventually go horribly wrong but trying not to be the one who gets blamed.

Seen in this light, the Tories Brexit omnishambles makes some sense.

ancapailldorcha

A fantastic article from Patrick Smyth in today's Irish Times:

Patrick Smyth, Irish Times wrote:

When Voltaire suggested that “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him,” he was not denying the existence of God. Or, as some of his followers have argued, cynically putting down religion. On the contrary, the line forms part of a poetic polemic against atheism. And his point is that a God is an imperative to good social order, a necessary foundation of ethics, morality and co-operation: “This sublime system is necessary to man. It is the sacred tie that binds society.”

Which brings me, convinced atheist, somewhat improbably you may think, to Brexit and to the fundamental flaw in the UK’s negotiating position: its inability to come to terms with the reality, pace Voltaire, that, in this age of globalisation and sovereignty-sharing, “If the European Union did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.”

Or reinvent it by another name, in broadly the same form, a process we are painfully witnessing in Brussels in the Brexit talks, and the reason why the British are finding it so difficult plausibly to explain where they stand.

Larbre34

Its a reasonable article (although I dont agree that May viscerally hates the European legal structures, she is forced to a strong opposing position from her (now very sketchy) mandate)

The conclusion is very good though and captures the nub of the UK conundrum:

You don’t have to love the European Union to acknowledge its necessity in some form in the modern age. Yes, it has a democratic deficit. Yes, it appears to work more for business than for ordinary citizens. But Brexiteers’ Little Englander obsession with the idea itself, with its otherness, misses the point.

“ ’Tis but thy name that is my enemy . . .
O be some other name.
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Yes it appears to work for business first, but if it didnt forge economic progress as a priority, where would the income for ordinary europeans come from? The EU did after all morph out of the ECSC and EEC, overt economic co-operation at its core.

On that note, David Davis is apparently due to host various captains of British industry at his (shared) country pile this weekend, wouldnt you just love to be a fly on the wall at that one. Whatever about pub chain bosses and UKIP supporting property magnates, British industry on balance supported remaining in the EU, especially the FDI corporations and they are no-doubt by this stage getting hot under the collar about the abject failure to put a firm shape on Brexit and deliver the certainty they need and indeed were promised by the Tories.

If the groundswell against Brexit continues to gather momentum, at the crest of the wave will surely be the big exporting industries and commercials and the employees thereof who must be also now very worried.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In the software industry, this kind of project is called a Death March. Management have announced the impossible goal, and everyone involved works away, projecting good news upwards, knowing that it will all eventually go horribly wrong but trying not to be the one who gets blamed..

Yap once worked on one of the moons ago called the European Logistics and Distribution Project (ELDP) for a US company. The Europeans soon renamed it to the Ever Lasting Dam Project! And in the end all that remained was pumper stickers that our American colleagues commissioned:D

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think that positing the view that Britain could benefit from free trade agreements outside the EU is "uneducated". I think you need to start making substantial arguments for your position rather than using ad hominems.

As for the thing about being an "EU citizen". I'm an "EU citizen" also as an Irish citizen. So I don't see why or how you're presenting this as a trump card.

My hope is still very much for coming to an amicable arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's not an ad hominem, it's an attack on the arguments for Brexit which rely on a complete misunderstanding of how trade works, how one benefits from being in a single market and a complete denial about how badly the negotiations have been going.

Based on the UK's performance in these negotiations I can't see other countries rushing to do a deal with Brexit Britain.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A fantastic article from Patrick Smyth in today's Irish Times:

Good evening!

So the EU is like a non-existent deity (from the authors standpoint)?

I'm failing to see what's so fantastic about it.

An obsession with the foreignness of all things “European” has obscured the argument for the EU from the point of view of its function: it performs essential tasks that we and the UK need performed, from the regulation and control of an open trading market, or the protection of external frontiers, to co-operation in environmental projects or scientific research.

The UK can perform these tasks itself, like most other countries on the earth. Non-EU countries participate in European research programmes and vice versa. Environmental standards are typically agreed at a much higher level than the European Union. Climate agreements are signed internationally.

I'm not 100% sure I'd refer to the European Union as an "open market". It is only open to a degree. It is highly protectionist in respect to external trade also. It's open within the member states that are a part of it. The "protection of external frontiers" argument is also very weak. The UK already deals with its frontiers itself through the UK Border Force, it isn't a member of Schengen. It also handles its own customs.

But the UK wants to do a trade deal post-Brexit with the EU, and all trade deals now involve some means of judicial arbitration between the parties over disputes of interpretation. So it is inevitable that the UK will have to agree to establish and accept the jurisprudence of an international tribunal staffed in part by “foreign” judges, British judges and, heaven spare us, EU judges. An ECJ by another name.

No, it isn't the ECJ by another name. Having equal representation on the tribunal and including third country observers is much less prone to bias than allowing it direct jurisdiction over British affairs presumably without any British representation.

You don’t have to love the European Union to acknowledge its necessity in some form in the modern age. Yes, it has a democratic deficit. Yes, it appears to work more for business than for ordinary citizens. But Brexiteers’ Little Englander obsession with the idea itself, with its otherness, misses the point.

I don't understand why nobody wants to correct this "democratic deficit". I might be convinced that the European Union might be a "necessity" in some form. But I don't consider Britain's membership a necessity.

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's not an ad hominem, it's an attack on the arguments for Brexit which rely on a complete misunderstanding of how trade works, how one benefits from being in a single market and a complete denial about how badly the negotiations have been going.

Based on the UK's performance in these negotiations I can't see other countries rushing to do a deal with Brexit Britain.

Yes, it is an ad hominem.

Claiming that someone is "uneducated" for disagreeing with you about the benefits of external trade deals for the UK is baseless. It is also not a "misunderstanding" of how trade works.

The EU only accounts for 44% of British trade. If it accounted for the vast majority I might agree with your position. If it wasn't a decreasing share I might agree with you.

But on the basis of the facts, which is a global world that Britain trades with, then it is obviously better to seek a free trade deal with the EU, and sign new trade deals elsewhere. That's not being "uneducated". Quite the opposite, it is a conclusion made on assessing the facts that we know about British trade.

Snobbery isn't a replacement for a logical argument.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think this is further evidence that they are going Hard - they have no intention of negotiating anything, they are just getting set to blame the EU for the fallout.

I think it is yet another example of them putting party before country yet again. To make any progress the cabinet would need to get down to the nuts and bolts of the issue and make some hard policy decisions, leading to a split. And that must be avoided at all costs, so we get these broad statements that everyone can sign up to. Which will of course lead to an exit with no deal by default.

I doubt very much that there is any thought for the country going on.

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think I've seen you present any "substantial argument" on the thread.

If highlighting every area where I feel the UK could benefit from regaining control and why that would be beneficial isn't "substantial" I don't know what is. I've explained all of this very clearly on the thread.

Not being willing to hear what has already been said, isn't the same as me not presenting a "substantial argument".

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo, there has not been any country in history that has managed to increase trade by putting up barriers to trade. Ever.


The EU only accounts for 44% of the UKs trade, as if that was a trifling amount. It's just under half ffs.

Even worse is that much of the remaining trade is conducted under rules and agreements between the EU and it's international partners.