Brexit discussion thread II

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So the UK shouldn't pay for pensions of British civil servants who worked in the EU?

where did I say that?

Calina wrote: »

TBH Fred, I think that yes, the UK should indemnify the EU for costs forced on the EU by a UK decision which the EU neither wanted nor sought.

Relocation of the EU agencies is a key example. The decision was a UK decision. Why wouldn't the UK take responsibility for it? You wanted control back, right?

Really, the UK appears not have a clue what it has signed up for.

"I" wanted to take back control?

I think the UK should contribute, I certainly don't think they should give an indemnity. Good god, the civil servants would all be chartering their own private jets if you offered them that

I also think the countries taking on those agencies should contribute, it is a benefit for those countries, so why not?

This is all part and parcel of the negotiation though and as far as I can see, there is no "Legal" obligation on the UK to pay. If you are negotiating, then i you have no obligation to pay something, then a simple rule is that you don't unless you get something in return.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

The EU isn't a restaurant. It's a political a economic union that the UK is trying to get a good trade deal with.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU isn't a restaurant. It's a political a economic union that the UK is trying to get a good trade deal with.

I know Sherlock, i was using someone else's (not very good) analogy.

RDM_83 again

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received).
If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly.
If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

Chips Lovell

That's the point of the negotiation. Agreeing what the UK's commitments are and putting a number on them.

oppenheimer1

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received).
If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly.
If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

Most of the projects the EU funds have durations of many years. It would not be prudent to award projects to the UK whose end date will run beyond March 2019.

RDM_83 again

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received).
If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly.
If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

Most of the projects the EU funds have durations of many years. It would not be prudent to award projects to the UK whose end date will run beyond March 2019.

Yes that's true but as noted the EU bill includes items that have not been initiated and with a time scale of 7 years there seems to be a lot of double think going on in relation to this. Both can't be true if the EU is being "reasonable"
Remember the UK isn't gone yet (though my theory held since before the referendum is that a segment of EU not national figures want UK gone to help speed federalism and increase the power of the Franco German axis)

listermint

Fratton Fred wrote: »

once again the thread disappears off into fantasy land.:rolleyes:

there is no suggestion that the uk isn't going to pay what it has committed to, Davis has already said this, so trying to claim the UK will "Weasel out of this" is just plain daft and to be honest, makes a mockery of this thread which is supposed to be about sensible discussion.

Sorry you clearly are not following the thread. It was suggested that the UK could use their bill as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The bills is the bill same as any restaurant. If there is any fantasy land take it up with the poster rather than multi quoting me to make some point that I didn't make.


I suggest you read what was said.

listermint

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Remember the UK isn't gone yet (though my theory held since before the referendum is that a segment of EU not national figures want UK gone to help speed federalism and increase the power of the Franco German axis)

Sorry but what?

Most want the UK gone at this point because they have been abysmal to deal with unreasonable anti EU for years and illogical.

That's not th EU that's the UK

PeadarCo

RDM_83 again wrote:

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received). If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly. If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

The EU isn't an honest broker. It never was and never will be in Brexit negotiations. The EUs job is to look after its members. The UK won't be a member after negotiations finish. The UKs interests are irrelevant to the EU to a large extent. The Brexit bill being a case in point. The EU will seek to get the most out of the UK as possible. Davis mentioned about the EU trying to blackmail the UK. If the EU is in a position to blackmail the UK and its in the interest of its member states it would be negligent of EU negotiators not too.

This is fairly basic negotiation tactics. Its the reason Ireland is a member to take advantage of the increased bargaining power in trade negotiations that comes with memberships.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

eu negotiating guidelines do not equal UK commitments though, do they?

Of course not...but some of the EU negotiating guidelines may equal the EU's own red lines. I seem to recall EU nationals' rights in UK (and reciprocally for Brits in the EU), the Irish border, and that "exit bill" we're currently on about, as 3 such red lines?

Food for thought at least, I'd have thought.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I also think the countries taking on those agencies should contribute, it is a benefit for those countries, so why not?

In many of the various "red mat" proposals submitted this summer (those publicised at least), the bidding countries certainly are.

They seem to know well, the worth of what they stand to gain.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is all part and parcel of the negotiation though and as far as I can see, there is no "Legal" obligation on the UK to pay. If you are negotiating, then i you have no obligation to pay something, then a simple rule is that you don't unless you get something in return.

Save for the fact that at least some of the UK's obligations have a legal basis enforceable before the ECJ (first, until end March 2019 at least) then the ICJ, as already amply discussed in this and the preceding threads: sure, post-2020 commitments are all up in the air for top-to-bottom negotiations; but at least those earlier British commitments to 2020 all fall within the scope of the TEU/TFEU, and are enforceable by the ECJ at first instance, then by the ICJ when the jurisdiction of the ECJ becomes moot come end March 2019. It would be utterly pointless of the UK to try and play the clock on the ECJ jurisdiction: France and Germany (at least) would always take it to the cleaners in the ICJ afterwards regardless, if only to continue undermining its later FTA efforts with 3rd party countries.

If you are negotiating under the threat of litigation for <breach of contract, infringement, etc.>, negotiations in that context are conducted on what is called a "pre-action" basis: open neutral/placeholding letter, and privileged (without prejudice save as to costs) nitty-gritty letters. From earlier interaction and posts, I'm quietly confident you'd know that? Doesn't prevent or stop negotiations as such...but it certainly helps the would-be claimant steer the would-be defendant where they want them, and influence the cost-benefit ratio of the exercise and outcomes for both parties

Testiculating about the notion of an "exit bill" is utterly pointless for the UK, and in debates in here. If not on the basis that Davis agreed to that notion at least in principle, when he accepted the EU's negotiating agenda way-back-when, then for the commonsensical reason that the UK cannot hope to have better than WTO terms (and, in fact, may have to settle for less than WTO terms, after an adverse ICJ judgement gets translated into trade sanctions), if it refuses to pay that "exit bill" (the amount of which remains to be debated/negotiated/agreed, of course). It's an inevitability, and so very politically charged in the UK by reason of same.

Thomas__

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

The EU isn't a restaurant. It's a political a economic union that the UK is trying to get a good trade deal with.

They are indeed "trying" but obviously with the wrong footing cos they lack a big deal of substancial sense for reality and therefore they will get nothing by the final date set for at latest 31 March 2019. I just like to suggest to even imagine the same UK "crew" that has proved themselves as such a failure to continue with negotiations for separate trade deals after the UK has finally exited the EU. They will still get nothing done after twenty years from 2019 onwards.

I am rather convinced that even by the end of March 2018, the UK won´t have moved one pace forward in her negotiations, unless they come to their senses or even better have a new govt in place and a new team for the negotiations as well, one the EU can work with and get things settled.

Fratton Fred

listermint wrote: »

Sorry you clearly are not following the thread. It was suggested that the UK could use their bill as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The bills is the bill same as any restaurant. If there is any fantasy land take it up with the poster rather than multi quoting me to make some point that I didn't make.


I suggest you read what was said.

I did. You are clearly confusing commitments with the bill.

If, in your little restaurant, you order sausage, egg and chips, you have committed to pay for sausage egg and chips.

If the restaurant then gives you a bill for sausage, egg, chips and a charge for clearing away your table, then you would be correct in querying the bill. would you not?

steddyeddy

The problem is that the UK hasn't even put forward a method of calculation for determining what they owe.

Thomas__

RDM_83 again wrote: »

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received).
If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly.
If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

Most of the projects the EU funds have durations of many years. It would not be prudent to award projects to the UK whose end date will run beyond March 2019.

Yes that's true but as noted the EU bill includes items that have not been initiated and with a time scale of 7 years there seems to be a lot of double think going on in relation to this. Both can't be true if the EU is being "reasonable"
Remember the UK isn't gone yet (though my theory held since before the referendum is that a segment of EU not national figures want UK gone to help speed federalism and increase the power of the Franco German axis)

Would you rather had have a "Brit-Franco" or "Brit-Franco-German" axis? Sorry to disappoint but it´s been the Brits themselves who always made sure that their commitment within the EU is at the minimum and their "repay" is at the most "achievable". That´s one reason among various which explains that the leave camp won the BrexitRef last year. The "emotional" link from the many of the (older) Brits towards Europe has always been somewhat "ambivalent". The younger generation of them grew up in a UK that was already part of the EU when they were born, now they have to face a future outside of it, voted for by a part of the populace that has lived in times pre-EU Membership and keeps a deluded and illusionary picture of a past which they deem to have been better than being a member of the EU but which isn´t true at all, but which is very selfish towards their descendants and their future.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

Of course not...but some of the EU negotiating guidelines may equal the EU's own red lines. I seem to recall EU nationals' rights in UK (and reciprocally for Brits in the EU), the Irish border, and that "exit bill" we're currently on about, as 3 such red lines?

Food for thought at least, I'd have thought.

ignoring citizens rights and the Irish border (because that is just muddying the water) the eu can have as many red lines as it likes over the "Bill", but those redlines do not equal commitments by the UK.

ambro25 wrote: »

In many of the various "red mat" proposals submitted this summer (those publicised at least), the bidding countries certainly are.

They seem to know well, the worth of what they stand to gain.

Great, so we are agreed that there is no need for the UK to cover the full cost of moving these agencies then.

ambro25 wrote: »

Save for the fact that at least some of the UK's obligations have a legal basis enforceable before the ECJ (first, until end March 2019 at least) then the ICJ, as already amply discussed in this and the preceding threads: sure, post-2020 commitments are all up in the air for top-to-bottom negotiations; but at least those earlier British commitments to 2020 all fall within the scope of the TEU/TFEU, and are enforceable by the ECJ at first instance, then by the ICJ when the jurisdiction of the ECJ becomes moot come end March 2019. It would be utterly pointless of the UK to try and play the clock on the ECJ jurisdiction: France and Germany (at least) would always take it to the cleaners in the ICJ afterwards regardless, if only to continue undermining its later FTA efforts with 3rd party countries.

If you are negotiating under the threat of litigation for <breach of contract, infringement, etc.>, negotiations in that context are conducted on what is called a "pre-action" basis: open neutral/placeholding letter, and privileged (without prejudice save as to costs) nitty-gritty letters. From earlier interaction and posts, I'm quietly confident you'd know that.

why do lawyers always insist on writing so many words? is it a throw back to the days of being paid per letter?

I have lost count with the amount of times I have said this, but i will say it again.

The UK has already stated that it will pay for what it is committed to, it will honour its obligations.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

The problem is that the UK hasn't even put forward a method of calculation for determining what they owe.

I don't think either side could, because it is such a massive calculation, it would require two teams sitting down and working out what the eu is spending, where, and when. Then breaking it down in to who owes what and to whom

Thomas__

Calina wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote:

How is that a commitment by the UK? it is just aspirational stuff from the eu and will therefore be open to negotiation.

TBH Fred, I think that yes, the UK should indemnify the EU for costs forced on the EU by a UK decision which the EU neither wanted nor sought.

Relocation of the EU agencies is a key example. The decision was a UK decision. Why wouldn't the UK take responsibility for it? You wanted control back, right?

Really, the UK appears not have a clue what it has signed up for.

Quite so but they have their wishful thinking list which will always be rejected by the EU and more to the point, they act as if they have deaf ears. It´s stunning that they see themselves as being "professional politicians", they are the laughing stock of Europe.

listermint

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I did. You are clearly confusing commitments with the bill.

If, in your little restaurant, you order sausage, egg and chips, you have committed to pay for sausage egg and chips.

If the restaurant then gives you a bill for sausage, egg, chips and a charge for clearing away your table, then you would be correct in querying the bill. would you not?

You seemed to have missed the part where there is no additions to the bill.

The bill is the bill.

Without additions which solo was making up it can't be used as a bargaining chip. It's hopping out on the sausage egg and chips haven eaten it all.

You do realize the UK signed up to the existing budget there is a bill no additions on the table.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ignoring citizens rights and the Irish border (because that is just muddying the water) the eu can have as many red lines as it likes over the "Bill", but those redlines do not equal commitments by the UK.

You misunderstand the point: the bill itself is the red line. And in that context...

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK has already stated that it will pay for what it is committed to, it will honour its obligations.

...Great, so we are agreed that the UK will pay the exit bill, which shall reflect its obligations as set out in the EU's original guidelines (see Jep Gambardella's post of 12:12):

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Exit bill = meeting existing obligations. As per EU negotiating guidelines:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Great, so we are agreed that there is no need for the UK to cover the full cost of moving these agencies then.

Continuing with the restaurant bill analogy, someone is offering to slip the waiter a £10 for the nicer table away from the toilet/kitchen door, and you'd want the UK's bill reduced by that £10 because it is vacating that very table?

Dream on.

Those agencies are only moving because the UK decided to exit the club, not for any other reason.

The agencies cannot be located outside the EU, by (EU) law.

The UK knew this (or should have known, had anyone in Whitehall done their homework).

Yet, still Ms May triggered Article 50, which forced the moving decision and set the moving deadline to end March 2019.

The UK remains fully liable for the moving costs, from where I'm looking at it. I think they might fall under "sundries"

Thomas__

ambro25 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ignoring citizens rights and the Irish border (because that is just muddying the water) the eu can have as many red lines as it likes over the "Bill", but those redlines do not equal commitments by the UK.

You misunderstand the point: the bill itself is the red line. And in that context...

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK has already stated that it will pay for what it is committed to, it will honour its obligations.

...Great, so we are agreed that the UK will pay the exit bill, which shall reflect its obligations as set out in the EU's original guidelines (see Jep Gambardella's post of 12:12):

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Exit bill = meeting existing obligations. As per EU negotiating guidelines:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Great, so we are agreed that there is no need for the UK to cover the full cost of moving these agencies then.

How so?

Those agencies are only moving because the UK decided to exit the club, and the agencies cannot be located outside the EU by law. The UK knew this (or should have known, had anyone in Whitehall done their homework), and still Ms May triggered Article 50, which declared the moving deadline as March 2019.

The UK remains fully liable for the moving costs, from where I'm looking at it.

That is an interesting point, but I am not sure whether there is any legal regulation that would back up your claim. Normally, a company who moves out by her own decision is to pay for the move by herself and can´t bring it up to the (former) host country to pay for it. They haven´t been "kicked out", they leave while there is time to leave in orderly manners and without too much haste and get things settled for "Day-X" which is within March 2019.

oscarBravo

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Adonis has suggested that it will become Labour policy to have a referendum on the exit deal.

I'm not really sure what the point is. What if the outcome of the referendum is "no" - does that mean exiting with no deal? Will the ramifications of such an exit be explained to the voting public, and will those ramifications be dismissed yet again by lying vested interests as "project fear"?

Brexit is already the catastrophic outcome of an unwise referendum in which an under-informed electorate made a decision on something they were too apathetic to fully understand. I'm not sure what's to be gained by compounding the error.

Fratton Fred

listermint wrote: »

You seemed to have missed the part where there is no additions to the bill.

The bill is the bill.

Without additions which solo was making up it can't be used as a bargaining chip. It's hopping out on the sausage egg and chips haven eaten it all.

You do realize the UK signed up to the existing budget there is a bill no additions on the table.

There are additions to the bill, I have already highlighted a very obvious one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not really sure what the point is. What if the outcome of the referendum is "no" - does that mean exiting with no deal? Will the ramifications of such an exit be explained to the voting public, and will those ramifications be dismissed yet again by lying vested interests as "project fear"?

Brexit is already the catastrophic outcome of an unwise referendum in which an under-informed electorate made a decision on something they were too apathetic to fully understand. I'm not sure what's to be gained by compounding the error.

it is just Labour being populist. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

where did I say that?

Can you outline what if any areas you believe the UK has on going commitments to the EU

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

The UK remains fully liable for the moving costs, from where I'm looking at it. I think they might fall under "sundries"

Or penalties?

LeinsterDub

Britain will seek to cut-and-paste existing EU trade deals with other countries because it cannot cope with fresh negotiations, Liam Fox has admitted.

First we learned that countries such as Japan and India have no interest in doing separate trade deals with the UK,” said Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat leader.

“Now we learn that, even if there was appetite for such deals, we wouldn’t have the capacity to negotiate them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-cut-paste-trade-deals-countries-liam-fox-secretary-a7929931.html


The train crash continues apace . So the UK is going to copy and paste agreements with people who have no interest in talking to them and when they decide they want to talk to the UK they most like will want a better deal than they currently have with the EU.

ambro25

Thomas__ wrote: »

That is an interesting point, but I am not sure whether there is any legal regulation that would back up your claim. Normally, a company who moves out by her own decision is to pay for the move by herself and can´t bring it up to the (former) host country to pay for it. They haven´t been "kicked out", they leave while there is time to leave in orderly manners and without too much haste and get things settled for "Day-X" which is within March 2019.

I'll not bore you to tears with legalese (so as to avoid another expression of Fred's aversion for long words and lengthy sentences ), but there is ample legal basis to contend that EU agencies must be based within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Not least the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies, and the extension of the provisions of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (Protocol 7 to the TFEU, which necessarily 'requires' location within the ECJ jurisdiction) to all EU agencies (with or without headquarters agreement), more recently coalesced into the (2013) Guidelines with standard provisions for headquarters agreements of EU decentralised agencies.

EU agencies are being kicked out of the UK. But as an automatic consequence/operation of law, not by an executive order expressly telling them to clear out or somesuch.

Now, pragmatically, they can either move early of their own initiative, to maintain continuity of operation. Or let the systems and services which they respectively provide fall off a cliff on March 2019. Which do you think is the more responsible approach, noting that it is the UK's decision to exit the EU which has placed them in that position in the first place?

There will be umpteen similar 'kicking out' automatically taking place come March 2019, due to the UK exiting the EU (-jurisdiction of the ECJ). It's not like I haven't already brought attention to UK trademark attorneys getting automatically 'kicked out' of the EUIPO come March 2019: same difference, with EU agencies in the UK. There's tons more.

Personally, I can't hardly wait to see what they cook up with OpenSkies, and to Michael O'Leary's more colourful PR to come

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or penalties?

Lest we forget: self-imposed.

Thomas__

oscarBravo wrote: »

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Adonis has suggested that it will become Labour policy to have a referendum on the exit deal.

I'm not really sure what the point is. What if the outcome of the referendum is "no" - does that mean exiting with no deal? Will the ramifications of such an exit be explained to the voting public, and will those ramifications be dismissed yet again by lying vested interests as "project fear"?

Brexit is already the catastrophic outcome of an unwise referendum in which an under-informed electorate made a decision on something they were too apathetic to fully understand. I'm not sure what's to be gained by compounding the error.

A second BrexitRef would rather stand a Chance of reverting the result from 2016 when a) Corbyn is no longer leader of Labour and b) the LibDems get more votes in a snap election held before a BrexitRef2 and c) the wider public realises that they have been led up the garden path by the Brexiteers and will vote different which means in a majority for remain. As These three suggestions are not likely to happen in the near future, the UK will stay on the road to Exit the EU and afterwards have to cope with what they gained in this running negotiations or not, given that they will achieve anything at all.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or penalties?

Come on Fred. The UK bid for these agencies and they were located in London at great expense to the EU's taxpayers. London office space is not exactly cheap.

The UK knew that leaving the EU would cause these agencies to require new homes. Brexit is the reason they have to move and Brexit is the UK's decision. Therefore the costs of moving these agencies are at least morally the UK's responsibility.

But we're talking about peanuts here compared to the value of a FTA to the UK. The UK simply needs the goodwill of the EU or it's in huge trouble come March 2019. Without a deal and a transitional phase, the UK will have to prostitute itself in the four corners of the world and even that won't be enough to prevent massive (possibly irreparable) damage to the UK economy.

The problem is the average Brit still seems to think the UK and EU are equal partners in all this, including it would seem government ministers.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are additions to the bill, I have already highlighted a very obvious one.



it is just Labour being populist. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

As opposed to the Tory party? The only non-populist group is the Lib Dems.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or penalties?

Yes. Self imposed restrictions on trade with their biggest trading partners.

murphaph

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-cut-paste-trade-deals-countries-liam-fox-secretary-a7929931.html


The train crash continues apace . So the UK is going to copy and paste agreements with people who have no interest in talking to them and when they decide they want to talk to the UK they most like will want a better deal than they currently have with the EU.

It displays some arrogance to think you can cut and paste a deal between a bloc of 500,000,000 people and try to apply it to your country one ninth the size and expect the other side to be happy!

They really don't seem to understand that being part of the world's largest trading bloc brought power in such negotiations. Perhaps they think it's because the UK is a member that the EU has the power it does.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

Come on Fred. The UK bid for these agencies and they were located in London at great expense to the EU's taxpayers. London office space is not exactly cheap.

The UK knew that leaving the EU would cause these agencies to require new homes. Brexit is the reason they have to move and Brexit is the UK's decision. Therefore the costs of moving these agencies are at least morally the UK's responsibility.

But we're talking about peanuts here compared to the value of a FTA to the UK. The UK simply needs the goodwill of the EU or it's in huge trouble come March 2019. Without a deal and a transitional phase, the UK will have to prostitute itself in the four corners of the world and even that won't be enough to prevent massive (possibly irreparable) damage to the UK economy.

The problem is the average Brit still seems to think the UK and EU are equal partners in all this, including it would seem government ministers.

exactly.

Which is why these things would be far simpler to sort out if the end game were defined early doors.

I have already stated that i think the UK should contribute and Ambro already suggested that part of the bidding process will be for the host countries to shoulder part of the costs as well. So it seems like a deal should be easy to achieve.

All we need now is for the eu to show a bit of this goodwill you mention, rather than to ring fence this as a stand alone issue.

robindch

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The train crash continues apace . So the UK is going to copy and paste agreements with people who have no interest in talking to them and when they decide they want to talk to the UK they most like will want a better deal than they currently have with the EU.

UK: Here's the new trade agreement!
Random country: Looks exactly the same as the one we have with the EU.
UK: Yep. Sure is. We're "taking back control", you see! Democratic mandate. Will of the people and all that.
Random country: I see. And tell me, are you seriously agreeing to purchase two hundred and fifty thousand tonnes of bananas per year?
UK: Sorry?
Random country: See page two thousand, five hundred and ninety three, paragraph 2, subsection 9.
UK: Oh, f*ck.
Random country: Here are ten refill pads. Give us a shout in five years' time.

Thomas__

ambro25 wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

That is an interesting point, but I am not sure whether there is any legal regulation that would back up your claim. Normally, a company who moves out by her own decision is to pay for the move by herself and can´t bring it up to the (former) host country to pay for it. They haven´t been "kicked out", they leave while there is time to leave in orderly manners and without too much haste and get things settled for "Day-X" which is within March 2019.

I'll not bore you to tears with legalese (so as to avoid another expression of Fred's aversion for long words and lengthy sentences ), but there is ample legal basis to contend that EU agencies must be based within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Not least the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies, and the extension of the provisions of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (Protocol 7 to the TFEU, which necessarily 'requires' location within the ECJ jurisdiction) to all EU agencies (with or without headquarters agreement), more recently coalesced into the (2013) Guidelines with standard provisions for headquarters agreements of EU decentralised agencies.

EU agencies are being kicked out of the UK. But as an automatic consequence/operation of law, not by an executive order expressly telling them to clear out or somesuch.

Now, pragmatically, they can either move early of their own initiative, to maintain continuity of operation. Or let the systems and services which they respectively provide fall off a cliff on March 2019. Which do you think is the more responsible approach, noting that it is the UK's decision to exit the EU which has placed them in that position in the first place?

There will be umpteen similar 'kicking out' automatically taking place come March 2019, due to the UK exiting the EU (-jurisdiction of the ECJ). It's not like I haven't already brought attention to UK trademark attorneys getting automatically 'kicked out' of the EUIPO come March 2019: same difference, with EU agencies in the UK. There's tons more.

Personally, I can't hardly wait to see what they cook up with OpenSkies, and to Michael O'Leary's more colourful PR to come

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or penalties?

Lest we forget: self-imposed.

Well, thanks for explaining me your point of view. Mine is different to yours and I see it - besides the randomly cited legal points - in a way that EU agencies are about to "withdraw" from the UK in a way of preparation for the time after the UK has exited the EU. From my pov and understanding of just solution, I regard it as unfair and not sustainable to impose the costs for a move of EU agencies to other EU countries on the UK. That smells of punishment and this should be avoided in the light of the economical connections some EU member states have with the UK.

Somehow and in some ways a deal has to be reached between the UK and the EU, not at all costs but on a fair Basis which has the least negative Impacts on the EU, but will leave the UK to deal with it the way she sees fit and if they´ll suffer from it, well, that´s the consequence of the Brexit itself. But deliberately making it more harder for them by imposing "moving costs" for EU agencies doesn´t bring about any progress in negotiations and is rather good for strenghtening the prejudices of the Brexiteers and disappoint some other people who are still pro-EU.  

In general saying, the EU has to develope more flexibility and that not for the sake of the UK in the first place, but for herself. On the other hand, the UK needs to have a negotiation team that works like professional and adults and not like those who are currently in charge on her side.

I wonder, by all the shunning of the Brexiteers and my deep dislike towards them, what is there to gain from a failed Brexit negotiation? One might be "glad" that the arrogant Brexit Brits got their punsh in the face, but that´s a rather short living "joy". The Brits will be out of the EU, but they won´t be out of this world.

I´d insist on the Brits meeting their obligations they´ve committed themselves to while an EU member state, but no, I wouldn´t impose them anything beyond that, by all means, cos this would lead to no good.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

It displays some arrogance to think you can cut and paste a deal between a bloc of 500,000,000 people and try to apply it to your country one ninth the size and expect the other side to be happy!

They really don't seem to understand that being part of the world's largest trading bloc brought power in such negotiations. Perhaps they think it's because the UK is a member that the EU has the power it does.

No, I can see where the UK is coming from on this. They badly need to get a network of trade deals up and running ASAP after Brexit, but even for someone with the resources and the experience to negotiate trade deals - like the EU or the US - the process takes years. And the UK has neither resources nor experience here, and can't afford to wait years.

So, their thinking is, countries which already have a trade deal with the EU are already trading with the UK on the terms of that deal, and it's not completely unrealistic to hope that in the majority of cases they might be willing to continue doing so. So the UK aims to put in place a network of trade deals which is, basically, a mirror of [some of] the deals they currently participate in as Union members.

But, while there's a certain sense here, it highlights how threadbare the Brexit case is. Basically, the UK will use its new-found freedom to conclude trade deals to try and conclude a network of trade deals that will be as much as possible like par of the network they'll be abandoning through Brexit.

I say "part of", because only about 15% of the UK's foreign trade is conducted under EU trade deals with third countries. About 45% is conducted with other member states of the EU, and here the British are targetting much worse trade terms than the ones they currently enjoy.

So, overall, the Brexit plan seems to be to leave the EU's network of trade deals and try to replace it ASAP with a smaller network of, on the whole, lousier deals.

Harika

robindch wrote: »

UK: Here's the new trade agreement!
Random country: Looks exactly the same as the one we have with the EU.
UK: Yep. Sure is. We're "taking back control", you see! Democratic mandate. Will of the people and all that.
Random country: I see. And tell me, are you seriously agreeing to purchase two hundred and fifty thousand tonnes of bananas per year?
UK: Sorry?
Random country: See page two thousand, five hundred and ninety three, paragraph 2, subsection 9.
UK: Oh, f*ck.
Random country: Here are ten refill pads. Give us a shout in five years' time.

That is the crux of it, if Trump says he will fast track a trade deal with the UK, it won't be a fair deal for the UK. It will be heavily favoured towards the US, then the UK might rightly say, "wait a moment, we won't build a Trump Hotel for free in each city" Hell, if you want, you can draft a trade deal between UK and US in a day, when you don't worry about your own company's, workers or standards. Hooray a trade deal!

Fratton Fred

Thomas__ wrote: »

Well, thanks for explaining me your point of view. Mine is different to yours and I see it - besides the randomly cited legal points - in a way that EU agencies are about to "withdraw" from the UK in a way of preparation for the time after the UK has exited the EU. From my pov and understanding of just solution, I regard it as unfair and not sustainable to impose the costs for a move of EU agencies to other EU countries on the UK. That smells of punishment and this should be avoided in the light of the economical connections some EU member states have with the UK.

Somehow and in some ways a deal has to be reached between the UK and the EU, not at all costs but on a fair Basis which has the least negative Impacts on the EU, but will leave the UK to deal with it the way she sees fit and if they´ll suffer from it, well, that´s the consequence of the Brexit itself. But deliberately making it more harder for them by imposing "moving costs" for EU agencies doesn´t bring about any progress in negotiations and is rather good for strenghtening the prejudices of the Brexiteers and disappoint some other people who are still pro-EU.  

In general saying, the EU has to develope more flexibility and that not for the sake of the UK in the first place, but for herself. On the other hand, the UK needs to have a negotiation team that works like professional and adults and not like those who are currently in charge on her side.

I wonder, by all the shunning of the Brexiteers and my deep dislike towards them, what is there to gain from a failed Brexit negotiation? One might be "glad" that the arrogant Brexit Brits got their punsh in the face, but that´s a rather short living "joy". The Brits will be out of the EU, but they won´t be out of this world.

I´d insist on the Brits meeting their obligations they´ve committed themselves to while an EU member state, but no, I wouldn´t impose them anything beyond that, by all means, cos this would lead to no good.

And this is where the eu negotiators and the British negotiators are approaching this from different angles.

The UK needs a trade deal to further the economy of the UK, as do each one of the 27 member states.

The eu politicians don't, they just need the eu to come out of this intact. If the economy of Ireland goes tits up, it will make zero difference to Junckers or Barnier.

This is why I can see someone like Merkel stepping in, as she did with Greece and saying that this is far too important for a few out of touch euro politicians to sort out, it needs someone who actually has skin in the game.

blanch152

murphaph wrote: »

The problem is the average Brit still seems to think the UK and EU are equal partners in all this, including it would seem government ministers.

That is the astounding bit of the whole discussion.

The UK seem to think that it is a match between two teams of 11 players with an independent referee. In actual fact, it is a match between 27 on one side and 1 on the other, a free-for-all with no referee.

First Up

robindch wrote: »

UK: Here's the new trade agreement!
Random country: Looks exactly the same as the one we have with the EU.
UK: Yep. Sure is. We're "taking back control", you see! Democratic mandate. Will of the people and all that.
Random country: I see. And tell me, are you seriously agreeing to purchase two hundred and fifty thousand tonnes of bananas per year?
UK: Sorry?
Random country: See page two thousand, five hundred and ninety three, paragraph 2, subsection 9.
UK: Oh, f*ck.
Random country: Here are ten refill pads. Give us a shout in five years' time.

I know the point you are making but a trade "deal" is not about either side agreeing to buy specific amounts of specific products from each other. It is about setting the terms under which buyers, sellers and intermediaries can do business. That is mostly about rates of duty and documentary requirements - standards, certification, health/safety etc. There may be quotas applied but they will be for maximum, not minimum amounts. Trade is a private sector activity and is conducted on a commercial/competitive basis. Nobody in any country is obliged to buy anything from anyone in another.

jm08

Thomas__ wrote: »

Well, thanks for explaining me your point of view. Mine is different to yours and I see it - besides the randomly cited legal points - in a way that EU agencies are about to "withdraw" from the UK in a way of preparation for the time after the UK has exited the EU. From my pov and understanding of just solution, I regard it as unfair and not sustainable to impose the costs for a move of EU agencies to other EU countries on the UK. That smells of punishment and this should be avoided in the light of the economical connections some EU member states have with the UK.

Somehow and in some ways a deal has to be reached between the UK and the EU, not at all costs but on a fair Basis which has the least negative Impacts on the EU, but will leave the UK to deal with it the way she sees fit and if they´ll suffer from it, well, that´s the consequence of the Brexit itself. But deliberately making it more harder for them by imposing "moving costs" for EU agencies doesn´t bring about any progress in negotiations and is rather good for strenghtening the prejudices of the Brexiteers and disappoint some other people who are still pro-EU.

In general saying, the EU has to develope more flexibility and that not for the sake of the UK in the first place, but for herself. On the other hand, the UK needs to have a negotiation team that works like professional and adults and not like those who are currently in charge on her side.

I wonder, by all the shunning of the Brexiteers and my deep dislike towards them, what is there to gain from a failed Brexit negotiation? One might be "glad" that the arrogant Brexit Brits got their punsh in the face, but that´s a rather short living "joy". The Brits will be out of the EU, but they won´t be out of this world.

I´d insist on the Brits meeting their obligations they´ve committed themselves to while an EU member state, but no, I wouldn´t impose them anything beyond that, by all means, cos this would lead to no good.

The issues with moving the Medicines board is that the EU has just entered into a long term lease with no break clause (as that would have made it more expensive). Informative article here on the situation which boils down to who is forcing the Medicines Board/EBA to leave will be liable.

http://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-eu-trapped-itself-into-a-no-break-lease-in-britain/

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is why I can see someone like Merkel stepping in, as she did with Greece and saying that this is far too important for a few out of touch euro politicians to sort out, it needs someone who actually has skin in the game.

The priority of the French and the Germans is to secure the future of the EU. The Greek crisis threatened the whole Eurozone whereas Brexit will just result in moderate economic damage at worst to the EU. Barnier is in charge so that he can represent the EU27 rather than just France and Germany.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I can see where the UK is coming from on this. They badly need to get a network of trade deals up and running ASAP after Brexit, but even for someone with the resources and the experience to negotiate trade deals - like the EU or the US - the process takes years. And the UK has neither resources nor experience here, and can't afford to wait years.

So, their thinking is, countries which already have a trade deal with the EU are already trading with the UK on the terms of that deal, and it's not completely unrealistic to hope that in the majority of cases they might be willing to continue doing so. So the UK aims to put in place a network of trade deals which is, basically, a mirror of [some of] the deals they currently participate in as Union members.

But, while there's a certain sense here, it highlights how threadbare the Brexit case is. Basically, the UK will use its new-found freedom to conclude trade deals to try and conclude a network of trade deals that will be as much as possible like par of the network they'll be abandoning through Brexit.

I say "part of", because only about 15% of the UK's foreign trade is conducted under EU trade deals with third countries. About 45% is conducted with other member states of the EU, and here the British are targetting much worse trade terms than the ones they currently enjoy.

So, overall, the Brexit plan seems to be to leave the EU's network of trade deals and try to replace it ASAP with a smaller network of, on the whole, lousier deals.

Good afternoon!

This post helpfully identifies the crux.

I don't think there's anything wrong about interim copy and paste deals to maintain as much of the 15% as possible. This is definitely the easier objective to fulfil.

The second objective is to maintain as much trade with the EU as possible. I agree that there will be an impact here, but the aim should be to keep this to a minimum.

The third objective is to sign additional trade deals. The first port of call should be the United States followed by China. Significant increases in exports to both of these destinations should insulate against the shortfall in EU trade that will arise.

Subsequently there's options to expand trade further with other countries.

Nobody is saying there won't be a short to medium term impact from Brexit. Most of the benefits of having control over trade policy are only going to be realised fully after the first three steps are completed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Harika

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

<->

The third objective is to sign additional trade deals. The first port of call should be the United States followed by China. Significant increases in exports to both of these destinations should insulate against the shortfall in EU trade that will arise.

<->

Where exactly was the EU holding back the UK, in selling more goods to the US or China? Overall this seems some nice dreamy stuff to me, like there are great business opportunities that everyone sees, and only the UK can get in, but is not allowed because of the EU.

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And this is where the eu negotiators and the British negotiators are approaching this from different angles.

The UK needs a trade deal to further the economy of the UK, as do each one of the 27 member states.

The eu politicians don't, they just need the eu to come out of this intact. If the economy of Ireland goes tits up, it will make zero difference to Junckers or Barnier.

This is why I can see someone like Merkel stepping in, as she did with Greece and saying that this is far too important for a few out of touch euro politicians to sort out, it needs someone who actually has skin in the game.

Barnier is in touch though. Unlike Davis, he has actually visited the border between NI & ROI. Simon Coveney met with Barnier (and other Eurocrats) yesterday presumably to hear what Ireland think of the UK's offer.

Also, worth noting that Germany exports 1 out of 7 cars manufactured to the UK (which suggests 6 out of 7 are imported elsewhere such as EU 26, Japan, China, etc.)

solodeogloria

Harika wrote: »

Where exactly was the EU holding back the UK, in selling more goods to the US or China? Overall this seems some nice dreamy stuff to me, like there are great business opportunities that everyone sees, and only the UK can get in, but is not allowed because of the EU.

Good afternoon!

The inability to sign free trade deals prevents Britain from liberalising trade terms. Brexit permits signing free trade deals. More liberal trade terms provide more opportunities for exporting goods. This is the reason why I believe good free trade agreements will expand export opportunities both to the US and to China.

These two countries make up £100bn in trade together at present. This could be increased significantly given better trade terms.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The inability to sign free trade deals prevents Britain from liberalising trade terms. Brexit permits signing free trade deals. More liberal trade terms provide more opportunities for exporting goods. This is the reason why I believe good free trade agreements will expand export opportunities both to the US and to China.

These two countries make up £100bn in trade together at present. This could be increased significantly given better trade terms.

You're forgetting two things. Firstly, TTIP was sunk because of significant opposition, much of which came from the UK over things like the NHS, steroids in meat, lower standards of regulation in the US, etc. Secondly, Donald Trump is explicitly opposed to free trade and will lose support if he pursues such a policy when he made promises to bring back dead industries like coal mining in an attempt to court the working classes in America's rustbelt.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So the UK shouldn't pay for pensions of British civil servants who worked in the EU?

Actually the UK are being asked to pay their share of ALL EU Civil Servants that have retired or will retire over the next 40 years. The UK have been under represented in Brussels, particularly at the lower levels, partly because of their poor language skills, and their reluctance to relocate.

Their contribution is independent of the number of UK personnel involved. It is a share of the pension fund that they have to pay into, at today's net value.

Harika

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The inability to sign free trade deals prevents Britain from liberalising trade terms. Brexit permits signing free trade deals. More liberal trade terms provide more opportunities for exporting goods. This is the reason why I believe good free trade agreements will expand export opportunities both to the US and to China.

These two countries make up £100bn in trade together at present. This could be increased significantly given better trade terms.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

More trade, means also more competition, what will put up stress for until now protected sectors and means loss of jobs and so on. So: Is there any study available that shows the impact of different trade deals between US and UK while not holding a wet finger in the air and guessing that it might be more beneficial than damaging?

Red_Wake

solodeogloria wrote: »

Harika wrote: »

Where exactly was the EU holding back the UK, in selling more goods to the US or China? Overall this seems some nice dreamy stuff to me, like there are great business opportunities that everyone sees, and only the UK can get in, but is not allowed because of the EU.

Good afternoon!

The inability to sign free trade deals prevents Britain from liberalising trade terms. Brexit permits signing free trade deals. More liberal trade terms provide more opportunities for exporting goods. This is the reason why I believe good free trade agreements will expand export opportunities both to the US and to China.

These two countries make up £100bn in trade together at present. This could be increased significantly given better trade terms.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The US is currently under an increasingly protectionist regime, that not so long ago torpedoed a proposed free trade agreement, and is currently trying to impose tariffs on its neighbours to fortify its border, and China is the world's largest manufacturer, with a heavily regulated economy, whose primary imports are raw materials.

What do you think you can offer these countries that can persuade them to give you terms better those agreed with the EU[bearing in mind your negotiators have shown themselves to be incompetent]?