Brexit discussion thread II

ambro25

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.

I see your point (shoulder some relocating expenses to help save the relationship), but it's interesting that you claim to be looking at it from a "fair/unfair" point of view, because that's exactly how I've been looking at it (I only indicated legal basis in reply to your own, earlier point/challenge about it)...and I'm completely opposite to you: why should other EU countries have to shoulder the full cost of a relocation brought about solely and unilaterally by a UK decision? Particularly when, unlike the UK, they've not had the socio-economic benefits and synergistic development effects of prestigious EU agencies like the EMA and EBA for decades?

I mean, by your line of thought, why not ask them to shoulder the rest of the UK's liabilities? why not let the UK completely off the financial hook for its Brexit folly, never to bear any actual consequences for its political actions? That would solve the animosity surrounding the "exit bill", right?

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit permits signing free trade deals. More liberal trade terms provide more opportunities for exporting goods.

Clearly you do not understand how negotiating a trade deal as a member of the WTO works!

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is the reason why I believe good free trade agreements will expand export opportunities both to the US and to China.

The does not answer the original question how is the EU preventing the U.K. from doing this at present?

And of course to get good trade terms, you'll have need to commit to buying more of their stuff and opening up the labor market.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

Good afternoon!

Both aren't really true.

Most opposition to TTIP wasn't really in the UK. It was in mainland Europe. There's a lot of scope for discussing things like food. Private contracts are a reality today in the NHS. I don't see why the Americans are any more sinister than anyone else. They aren't going to require free movement or restricting trade policy.

Secondly, Donald Trump is protectionist in respect to free trade deals that lead to undercutting. The US isn't really going to be undercut by Britain in the same way as it would be undercut by Mexico. He's also said that he's interested.

Other countries including much smaller countries than the UK have free trade with the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

. This could be increased significantly given better trade terms.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Even assuming these deal will be better and there is no indication that they will. Currently they are roadblocked as the UK hasn't got around to finding decent negotiators, assembling teams..... concluding the deal and signing it.

The current model of copy and paste is laughable

Sam Russell

jm08 wrote: »

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.)

Well, they assemble cars in the UK. Jaguar, Land Rover, Nissan, Toyota, BMW Mini, Honda, Morgan are all 'made' in the UK. In Luton, GM assemble vans for Nissan, Opel, Vauxhall, and Renault. This factory has just been bought (inc Opel) by Peugot Citroen, so likely to be a change there.

These factories import about 70% to 80% of the final value, and export many to the EU. Ford make engines and gearboxes with are exported to their factories in the EU.

Tariffs and customs delays will destroy the JIT production schedules, and will likely cause many changes to production which may well cause many changes in model line up which might mean Ford engines in the Nissans, and the like.

However, the BMW and Mercedes buyers will still be buying their favourite marques with or without tariffs. Probably not so much with the Nissans or Toyotas.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Both aren't really true.

Most opposition to TTIP wasn't really in the UK. It was in mainland Europe. There's a lot of scope for discussing things like food. Private contracts are a reality today in the NHS. I don't see why the Americans are any more sinister than anyone else. They aren't going to require free movement or restricting trade policy.

Secondly, Donald Trump is protectionist in respect to free trade deals that lead to undercutting. The US isn't really going to be undercut by Britain in the same way as it would be undercut by Mexico. He's also said that he's interested.

Other countries including much smaller countries than the UK have free trade with the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Are you saying that one of the advantages of Brexit is that British retailers will be able to buy chlorine-washed chicken to sell to British consumers?

And did people really vote for that?

murphaph

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

How much does Germany export to those two countries under the awful EU I wonder?

Calina

Position paper on Ireland is interesting with respect to food safety.

Details here:

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/904999138890305536

In short: copying Swiss approach, complying with EU standards completely, no freedom to negotiate on food safety standards with any other country.

This would be a serious sticking point in negotiations with the US, for example.

Also: UK becomes rule taker.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

that's my point. moderate economic damage to the eu, but it could be devastating for parts of Ireland, but hey, that's fine because as a whole, the eu will still be grand.

When Fine Gael lose all their seats in Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Donegal and Sinn Fein are knocking on the door of power, the Irish government may start to take a slightly different approach. Meanwhile, Junckers will still pick up his huge pay check and expense allowance.

jm08 wrote: »

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.

they aren't though, really. Barnier will never lose his job because the border economy in Ireland goes down the swanny.

jm08 wrote: »

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.)

so the UK is the German car industry's largest export market. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Chips Lovell

A.) It's Barnier, not Juncker who's leading the EU negotiation.
B.) Barnier is operating under instruction of all 27 remaining member states, including Ireland,
C.) The Irish government has been quite clear that it's supportive of the EU position.
D.) It's been quite clear that it thinks it's a bad idea for Britain to leave the EU.

Not much more we can do beyond that if they really want to go.

kingchess

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

Not an expert in international trading or any sort of trading,but if 45% of uk exports that go to the EU will be less profitable after Brexit-and even if
the 15% trade deals with other Countries as part of EU trade deals do not incur extra costs(if they can be "cut and pasted"),then it seems to a economic idiot like me that any extra trade deals will only help to make up for lost income from the trade deals that they already have at the moment?or am I missing out on something obvious ??genuine question.

blanch152

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's my point. moderate economic damage to the eu, but it could be devastating for parts of Ireland, but hey, that's fine because as a whole, the eu will still be grand.

When Fine Gael lose all their seats in Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Donegal and Sinn Fein are knocking on the door of power, the Irish government may start to take a slightly different approach. Meanwhile, Junckers will still pick up his huge pay check and expense allowance.

they aren't though, really. Barnier will never lose his job because the border economy in Ireland goes down the swanny.



so the UK is the German car industry's largest export market. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

By my count FG have 4 TDs in Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Donegal. Not a lot to lose.

Ireland will suffer from Brexit, but not as much as the UK and Northern Ireland will be worst off. Looking at the trainwreck that is the UK, the Irish will be happy to have a government that at least is attracting jobs from London to replace some of those lost.

We actually have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to use the turbulence in industry to rearrange how this country is organised with the new investment directed to the cities of Limerick and Cork (possibly Galway and Waterford too).

Fratton Fred

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's Barnier, not Juncker who's leading the EU negotiation.
B.) Barnier is operating under instruction of all 27 remaining member states, including Ireland,
C.) The Irish government has been quite clear that it's supportive of the EU position.
D.) It's been quite clear that it thinks it's a bad idea for Britain to leave the EU.

Not much more we can do beyond that if they really want to go.

Junckers is Barnier's boss, but I think he would agree that the whole thing would be a lot better if JCJ kept his ego out of it and his mouth shut.

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

By my count FG have 4 TDs in Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Donegal. Not a lot to lose.

Ireland will suffer from Brexit, but not as much as the UK and Northern Ireland will be worst off. Looking at the trainwreck that is the UK, the Irish will be happy to have a government that at least is attracting jobs from London to replace some of those lost.

We actually have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to use the turbulence in industry to rearrange how this country is organised with the new investment directed to the cities of Limerick and Cork (possibly Galway and Waterford too).

Good evening!

So the border doesn't matter. You've just listed two of my ancestral counties in that list. Three if I go a few generations further. Apparently Irish people are willing to kick other Irish people in the gonads and to take a jolly bit of masochism on behalf of the European project. Why? I'm hoping there will be some pushback if the EU insists on a hard border (this isn't the UK's wish) or if it insists on punitive trade terms (this isn't the UK's wish).

Britain is advocating the most open border possible in it's approach.

It is in the EU's interest to negotiate for Ireland. If it fails to argue for an arrangement that will suit Ireland's interests then it will have failed it.

There's no other way about it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

His name is Juncker. Not Junckers.

I really don't think you should be projecting onto Barnier anyway and tbf Juncker and Barnier are both significantly more on top of their respective jobs than May and Davis.

You can see this in reports about the infamous Juncker-May dinner and almost any report on negotiations at present.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

By my count FG have 4 TDs in Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Donegal. Not a lot to lose.

Ireland will suffer from Brexit, but not as much as the UK and Northern Ireland will be worst off. Looking at the trainwreck that is the UK, the Irish will be happy to have a government that at least is attracting jobs from London to replace some of those lost.

We actually have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to use the turbulence in industry to rearrange how this country is organised with the new investment directed to the cities of Limerick and Cork (possibly Galway and Waterford too).

Good evening!

So the border doesn't matter. You've just listed two of my ancestral counties in that list. Three if I go a few generations further. Apparently Irish people are willing to kick other Irish people in the gonads and to take a jolly bit of masochism on behalf of the European project. Why? I'm hoping there will be some pushback if the EU insists on a hard border (this isn't the UK's wish) or if it insists on punitive trade terms (this isn't the UK's wish).

Britain is advocating the most open border possible in it's approach.

It is in the EU's interest to negotiate for Ireland. If it fails to argue for an arrangement that will suit Ireland's interests then it will have failed it.

There's no other way about it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If you genuinely cared about Ireland solo, you would be screaming for the UK to stay in the single market. But you are not.

Britain is not advocating an open border at all. What they want is total control of their border while having the border in Ireland totally porous. These are mutually conflicting desires and they are British desires.

Either they want control and freedom for negotiating trade agreement outside the EU customs union or they want to stay in the CU. They cannot have it both ways.

The UK is making decisions and those decisions have consequences. This is not the fault of the EU. The gonad kicking as such is being done by the UK.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Most opposition to TTIP wasn't really in the UK. It was in mainland Europe. There's a lot of scope for discussing things like food. Private contracts are a reality today in the NHS. I don't see why the Americans are any more sinister than anyone else. They aren't going to require free movement or restricting trade policy.

Private contracts in the NHS are still quite limited. US healthcare companies will be pushing for a lot more of it to be open to privatisation which would likely give Jeremy Corbyn a big advantage.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly, Donald Trump is protectionist in respect to free trade deals that lead to undercutting. The US isn't really going to be undercut by Britain in the same way as it would be undercut by Mexico. He's also said that he's interested.

You're missing the whole point of free trade. Free trade is supposed to increase consumer choice while lowering costs. Car companies aren't going to flood back once he leaves NAFTA as US labour is much more expensive than Mexican labour. He's also said that he prioritises a deal with the EU over one with the UK.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

If you genuinely cared about Ireland solo, you would be screaming for the UK to stay in the single market. But you are not.

Britain is not advocating an open border at all. What they want is total control of their border while having the border in Ireland totally porous. These are mutually conflicting desires and they are British desires.

Either they want control and freedom for negotiating trade agreement outside the EU customs union or they want to stay in the CU. They cannot have it both ways.

The UK is making decisions and those decisions have consequences. This is not the fault of the EU. The gonad kicking as such is being done by the UK.

Good evening!

Firstly - I think claiming I don't care about my own country is below the belt. Admittedly I didn't grow up on the border but my immediate family is from the border on both sides.

Secondly - staying in the single market isn't the only way to preserve trade. The EU know this also. Countries outside the customs union can have open borders for passenger traffic and light controls for freight looking to the Norway - Sweden border. There is of course the option of a bilateral customs agreement if Brussels would be willing to consider it.

Thirdly - the UK is advocating free travel across the border and free travel for EU citizens into the UK. Just not free rights to work.

Finally - there are two parties in the negotiations. If the UK advocates for a frictionless border and Brussels insists otherwise the only rational conclusion you can come to is that the EU have insisted on it. They bear responsibility if this happens.

There are options to ensure it won't happen. These should be considered. Democracy in the UK needs to be respected at the same time.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Private contracts in the NHS are still quite limited. US healthcare companies will be pushing for a lot more of it to be open to privatisation which would likely give Jeremy Corbyn a big advantage.

You're missing the whole point of free trade. Free trade is supposed to increase consumer choice while lowering costs. Car companies aren't going to flood back once he leaves NAFTA as US labour is much more expensive than Mexican labour. He's also said that he prioritises a deal with the EU over one with the UK.

My point about Donald Trump isn't that I agree with him about Mexico. It's that he favours trade deals with countries like Britain because they won't undercut US workers. I'd need some backup to the claim that he favours an EU trade deal given his criticisms of it being overly protectionist recently.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

If you genuinely cared about Ireland solo, you would be screaming for the UK to stay in the single market. But you are not.

Britain is not advocating an open border at all. What they want is total control of their border while having the border in Ireland totally porous. These are mutually conflicting desires and they are British desires.

Either they want control and freedom for negotiating trade agreement outside the EU customs union or they want to stay in the CU. They cannot have it both ways.

The UK is making decisions and those decisions have consequences. This is not the fault of the EU. The gonad kicking as such is being done by the UK.

Good evening!

Firstly - I think claiming I don't care about my own country is below the belt. Admittedly I didn't grow up on the border but my immediate family is from the border on both sides.

Secondly - staying in the single market isn't the only way to preserve trade. The EU know this also. Countries outside the customs union can have open borders for passenger traffic and light controls for freight looking to the Norway - Sweden border. There is of course the option of a bilateral customs agreement if Brussels would be willing to consider it.

Thirdly - the UK is advocating free travel across the border and free travel for EU citizens into the UK. Just not free rights to work.

Finally - there are two parties in the negotiations. If the UK advocates for a frictionless border and Brussels insists otherwise the only rational conclusion you can come to is that the EU have insisted on it. They bear responsibility if this happens.

There are options to ensure it won't happen. These should be considered. Democracy needs to be respected at the same time.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It is not about preserving trade. Trade happens. It is about administering that trade legally. The UK proposal is a smugglers charter.

If the UK falls back on WTO terms the border is a non negotiable hard border. You want a frictionless border you stay in the single market. You want to negotiate your own trade deals you have a hard border with customs requirements to administer trade.

The reason for any hard border is the UK leaving the Single market and customs nion. If the UK does so then a consequence if that is a hard border and decimation specially of the Northern Ireland economy. Caused by a British decision. They want out of the single market and customs union, they own the consequences of which a hard border is one.

Norway is in the single market. Not in the customs union but it has to deal with country of origin paperwork for its exports into the EU. The UK will have to do this too if it is outside the customs union. Just because you think the burden is light between Norway and Sweden doesn't make any guarantees. There are other issues. Check Turkey's issues and the question of permits for freight drivers to drive across different EU countries.

If you really cared about the border in Ireland you would be focusing on retaining single market and customs union membership. You appear to care more about Liam Fox being able to negotiate trade deals however.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point about Donald Trump isn't that I agree with him about Mexico. It's that he favours trade deals with countries like Britain because they won't undercut US workers. I'd need some backup to the claim that he favours an EU trade deal given his criticisms of it being overly protectionist recently.

Sure:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/donald-trump-ready-do-trade-deal-eu-ahead-uk/

He's also withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I can't see him pushing for any sort of trade deal with anyone in the remainder of his first presidency.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

It is not about preserving trade. Trade happens. It is about administering that trade legally. The UK proposal is a smugglers charter.

If the UK falls back on WTO terms the border is a non negotiable hard border. You want a frictionless border you stay in the single market. You want to negotiate your own trade deals you have a hard border with customs requirements to administer trade.

The reason for any hard border is the UK leaving the Single market and customs nion. If the UK does so then a consequence if that is a hard border and decimation specially of the Northern Ireland economy. Caused by a British decision. They want out of the single market and customs union, they own the consequences of which a hard border is one.

Norway is in the single market. Not in the customs union but it has to deal with country of origin paperwork for its exports into the EU. The UK will have to do this too if it is outside the customs union. Just because you think the burden is light between Norway and Sweden doesn't make any guarantees. There are other issues. Check Turkey's issues and the question of permits for freight drivers to drive across different EU countries.

If you really cared about the border in Ireland you would be focusing on retaining single market and customs union membership. You appear to care more about Liam Fox being able to negotiate trade deals however.

Good evening!

We can both play this game. For example: if you really cared about it you'd be insisting on the EU to consider the UK's proposals and to come to an agreement.

We can both do this. But it would be empty manipulative language.

There are options available that keep Ireland's border open for all intents and purposes. It just depends on people considering them.

I'm very clear that Brexit must work for everyone from Coleraine to Clacton on Sea. In the same way the EU needs to make it work for everyone from Kinsale to Krakow if it takes the concept of European citizenship seriously.

So no, the EU doesn't get away from responsibility.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Billy86

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

So the border doesn't matter. You've just listed two of my ancestral counties in that list. Three if I go a few generations further. Apparently Irish people are willing to kick other Irish people in the gonads and to take a jolly bit of masochism on behalf of the European project. Why? I'm hoping there will be some pushback if the EU insists on a hard border (this isn't the UK's wish) or if it insists on punitive trade terms (this isn't the UK's wish).

Now that's quite hilariously ironic. Say hi to Scotland for us.

As for an open border, the EU and the hardline Brexiteers won't be having it. After all, one of the bigger reasons for leaving the EU given by UK voters was that they didn't like the supposedly open borders of the EU. While it might wind up hurting the rest of us and deeply to some of your relative, luckily for them it's not something they'll need to worry about and we'll all get to see just how "open" these EU borders really are. After all, if the EU isn't paying attention to why one of it's bigger members just upped and quit by ensuring a hard border, well sure then they'd just be kicking the rest of their members who are still in the EU in the gonads, leading to others quitting and we can't be having that.

These are the types of things usually best thought about by a populace before running face first into the wall voting booth.

Calina

I would prefer to see the UK staying in tge EU solo. this is not a game.

And Brexit is not going to work for everyone from Clacton to Coleraine.

All of this is happening on the back of a UK decision. The buck stops there.

The option that keeps the Irish border open is membership of the single market and customs union. The other options such as Davis' idea about letting the SMEs avoid customs checks is juvenile and counter to WTO regs in terms of favoured status. The IT system was less than vapourware.

What were the others?

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Last post for today (and potentially for a bit longer, this thread is far far too tempting to reply to!)

Again, the official leave campaign argued for an open Ireland border. It isn't true to say that leavers supported a hard border in Ireland.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

Dan Hannan stated that the UK would remain in the single market. So too, initially did Nigel Farage.

Yet here we are.

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's my point. moderate economic damage to the eu, but it could be devastating for parts of Ireland, but hey, that's fine because as a whole, the eu will still be grand.

I think it will be very tough for all of rural Ireland, not just the border area.

they aren't though, really. Barnier will never lose his job because the border economy in Ireland goes down the swanny.

As soon as the negotiations are over, Barnier's job is gone. At 66 years of age, I doubt if he will be worried about his future job prospects. I'd say he'd be more worried about the legacy he leaves in these negotiations.

so the UK is the German car industry's largest export market. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Germany is one of the few countries who could cope well with such a loss of trade. You seem to have forgotten that German Business Leaders have said the EU 27/Single Market is their top priority.

Two of Germany’s biggest industry groups have told the Observer that their main concern during the Brexit process is protecting the single market for the remaining 27 members, even if this harms trade with Britain.
Dieter Kempf, president of the BDI, the federation of German industries, said: “Defending the single market, a key European project, must be the priority for the European Union. Europe must maintain the integrity of the single market and its four freedoms: goods, capital, services, and labour.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/08/german-industry-warns-uk-over-brexit

Its kind of amusing that you have no problem believing that the UK is happy to throw over 50% of its trade out the window for ideological reasons while you can't understand that German business are willing to sacrifice an awful lot less.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's Barnier, not Juncker who's leading the EU negotiation.
B.) Barnier is operating under instruction of all 27 remaining member states, including Ireland,
C.) The Irish government has been quite clear that it's supportive of the EU position.
D.) It's been quite clear that it thinks it's a bad idea for Britain to leave the EU.

Not much more we can do beyond that if they really want to go.

Junckers is Barnier's boss,

No he isn't.

Barnier's mandate comes directly from the 27 member states. He is not a member of the (Juncker) European Commission. Even were he a member, the Commission operates on a Collegiate system, so the Conmission President would have no authority to "boss" him around.

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point about Donald Trump isn't that I agree with him about Mexico. It's that he favours trade deals with countries like Britain because they won't undercut US workers. I'd need some backup to the claim that he favours an EU trade deal given his criticisms of it being overly protectionist recently.

I don't know what the hurry is to do a deal with the US since most countries do just fine exporting to the US.

He wants a trade agreement with Germany - Angela has told him 3 times that Germany does not do trade deals and that he needs to talk to the EU about that one.

Thargor

Wow David Davis getting laughed out of Parliament there in the exact same way they used to laugh at Corbyn. He made a totally bizarre "Nobody ever said this would be easy" claim then doubled down by listing off basically every issue facing them and claiming progress on all of them, I wish Paxman was still with us to ask him about it.

Jim2007

jm08 wrote: »

I don't know what the hurry is to do a deal with the US since most countries do just fine exporting to the US.

Well not all... UK exports to the US fell 19.1% in June

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

We can both play this game. For example: if you really cared about it you'd be insisting on the EU to consider the UK's proposals and to come to an agreement.

Which one's are we meant to take seriously? The UK having free access to the the customs union but no oversight ? NI being both in and out at the same time with small companies being in but large companies out. The border cameras option that was proposed for about a day?

Fratton Fred

View wrote: »

No he isn't.

Barnier's mandate comes directly from the 27 member states. He is not a member of the (Juncker) European Commission. Even were he a member, the Commission operates on a Collegiate system, so the Conmission President would have no authority to "boss" him around.

Barrier was appointed by Juncker

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/27/jean-claude-juncker-puts-michel-barnier-in-charge-brexit-talks

Jim2007

jm08 wrote: »

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.

Don't forget Barnier was also the EU's point man on the Good Friday Agreement. It was not an accident that he was chosen!

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Barrier was appointed by Juncker

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/27/jean-claude-juncker-puts-michel-barnier-in-charge-brexit-talks

No, he wasn't. He was appointed by the General Affairs Council with the approval of the Council of Ministers.

http://www.politico.eu/article/meet-the-obscure-eu-council-driving-brexit-negotiations-general-affairs-council-michel-barnier/

The British press get a lot of things wrong. A couple of weeks ago they were reporting that Davis was annoyed because Barnier strings were tightly held by the Council of Ministers.



General Affairs Council (Art. 50)

In the General Affairs Council (Art.50) ministers, who meet in an EU27 format, will discuss any issues dealing with Brexit.

Between the meetings of the European Council (Art.50), the General Affairs Council (Art.50) will ensure that the negotiations are conducted in line with the European Council guidelines and the Council negotiating directives.

The aim of the Estonian presidency during these negotiations, is to maintain the unity of the 27 member states and to facilitate reaching an agreement with the United Kingdom.

Fratton Fred

jm08 wrote: »

No, he wasn't. He was appointed by the General Affairs Council with the approval of the Council of Ministers.

http://www.politico.eu/article/meet-the-obscure-eu-council-driving-brexit-negotiations-general-affairs-council-michel-barnier/

The British press get a lot of things wrong. A couple of weeks ago they were reporting that Davis was annoyed because Barnier strings were tightly held by the Council of Ministers.



General Affairs Council (Art. 50)

In the General Affairs Council (Art.50) ministers, who meet in an EU27 format, will discuss any issues dealing with Brexit.

Between the meetings of the European Council (Art.50), the General Affairs Council (Art.50) will ensure that the negotiations are conducted in line with the European Council guidelines and the Council negotiating directives.

The aim of the Estonian presidency during these negotiations, is to maintain the unity of the 27 member states and to facilitate reaching an agreement with the United Kingdom.

You need to go and read that article properly and this time, read this link that was in there http://www.politico.eu/article/michael-barnier-europe-brexit-not-so-supremo-uk-negotiation-deal/

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Barrier was appointed by Juncker

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/27/jean-claude-juncker-puts-michel-barnier-in-charge-brexit-talks

Go look at the official documents! He was appointed by Junker after the approval by the council and he gets his mandate from the council.

However any agreement must ultimately be approved by the parliament and they have appointed Guy Verhofstadt as their representative. Which is why his pronouncements are also a key factor in this process.

Alles Klar?

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You need to go and read that article properly and this time, read this link that was in there http://www.politico.eu/article/michael-barnier-europe-brexit-not-so-supremo-uk-negotiation-deal/

Its the General Affairs Council who is going to decide if enough progress has been made and it will be the Council of Ministers who have the final say.

It was interesting that they said that Barnier has a good grasp of detail such as knowing that 250K UK dogs and cats travel to the EU every year!

LeinsterDub

It is also likely to enrage many in Europe who will feel the UK is intending to treat EU nationals as second-class citizens and could invite retaliatory action by the 27-country bloc.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/05/leaked-document-reveals-uk-brexit-plan-to-deter-eu-immigrants


At this point is there any point in continuing negotiations. We've had no progress on any of the 3 core issues.

flutered

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

could be, question is will it

oppenheimer1

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/05/leaked-document-reveals-uk-brexit-plan-to-deter-eu-immigrants


At this point is there any point in continuing negotiations. We've had no progress on any of the 3 core issues.

At this point it looks likely that the negotiations will collapse. On the basis that the above document is what the British are after, there will be no transitional deal of any consequence.

It will be interesting to see what the pound does in the morning.

Jaggo

Just on the Free trade agreements, the UK's position is really poor.

On the copy and paste FTA, you will have 40 countries that have 2 years to review the impact of the FTA and come up with modifications that can alter the terms of trade verses the Uk in their own favour.
Each country will have three pieces of leverage in that the UK will need these FTAs, the UK will have little time to review each deal and the UK will not have their standards agencies up and running.

Obviously the 2 key countries that the UK will need to agree FTAs are with China and the USA - but there are issues with both.

The trade body, the Confederation of British Industry have warned against signing a FTA with the USA too early as they say the British trade team will be vastly inexperienced. http://news.sky.com/story/pm-warned-against-rushing-into-free-trade-deal-with-trumps-us-10942698, they also point out the amount of 'control' that will be giving away. It would seem rather silly to 'take back control' from a place where you had political and judicial oversight and then give it away in a deal where you have none. The CBI did recommend that the UK focuses on replicating some of the 38 trade agreements that the EU has with the USA.

On China things look worse. China has 15 FTAs- http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/english/ (the ministry of finance in China). But you can see from the list of FTA, neither economics nor trade is the motivation for trade deals.

Australia;
New Zealand,
Iceland;
Switzerland;
Chile;
Georgia;
Korea;
Peru;
Costa Rica;
Singapore;
Pakistan;
ASEAN (times 2)
Hong Kong;
Macao.

A very short list, focused on commodities and political influence (Pakistan due to the number of wars with india; Georgia deal signed as part of the silk road project linking China -EU; Iceland regarding access to Arctic talks; Macao and Hong Kong, well China own these). The Swiss deal, the one offering most hope to the Brexit faithful, does not deal with either services nor finances.

All in all, very depressing. I think we can chalk up another 'lie' to the Leave side.

murphaph

Yikes. That Chinese FTA list is short and sweet

blanch152

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/05/leaked-document-reveals-uk-brexit-plan-to-deter-eu-immigrants


At this point is there any point in continuing negotiations. We've had no progress on any of the 3 core issues.

Wow, just wow.

At least it should be cheaper to buy property in the Canaries and the south of Spain when all the Brits are thrown out.

Water John

Well a good few of those retirees abroad, actually voted for Brexit.
Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
A long winter in Sunderland, might cure them.

listermint

blanch152 wrote: »

Wow, just wow.

At least it should be cheaper to buy property in the Canaries and the south of Spain when all the Brits are thrown out.

916,000 Polish nationals live in the UK, more than the total number of British nationals living in the EU
....


This part of the article appears to be not factual.

There is estimated to be over 1.2 million British citizens living in EU countries.

steddyeddy

Tory voters must be kicking themselves now. Nationalism can be very self destructive.

breatheme

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It is also likely to enrage many in Europe who will feel the UK is intending to treat EU nationals as second-class citizens and could invite retaliatory action by the 27-country bloc.

At this point is there any point in continuing negotiations. We've had no progress on any of the 3 core issues.

Wait. So, according to this and the Irish position paper:
- The UK want to retain the CTA and the open border between RoI & NI.
- The UK want EU nationals to enter on their passports.
- EU citizens can enter Ireland with their identity card, and then go on to NI without their passport.
So, what gives? These things are mutually exclusive.

Rain Ascending

I believe we have seen enough over the last couple of months to predict the outcome of a successful negotiation for the Brexit divorce talks:

• Both sides will agree to a figure for the so-called divorce bill. The tricky bit here is the politics of it in the UK, where explaining the need for any payment will be difficult. However it will be helped by the next point.
• There will be some transitional arrangement that lasts up to the end of the current EU budget cycle, for which the UK seems to have some financial obligations anyway. The nature of the transition will depend on who is in government in the UK: possibly membership of the single market if it's Labour, possibly just the customs union if it's the Conservatives under May.
• An agreement will be reached on EU nationals already in the UK and on UK nationals in the EU.
• There will be a successful negotiation on the Common Travel Area, but not on cross-boarder trade. There will be some agreed financial support for the Republic (from the EU) and the North (from the UK) to offset the resulting damage.

The post-Brexit trade position will depend again on who is in government in the UK: perhaps as part of the customs union if it's Labour or aiming for a free-trade agreement if it's the Conservatives under May. Any free-trade agreement negotiation will be a multi-year affair.

Risks:
- One or other side, or both, get hung up on the issue of legal adjudication for EU and UK citizens on the "wrong" side of the border.
- The UK political system grinds to a halt due to May's weak position.

The basic reason why it's possible to narrow down to a range of probable outcomes is, in my belief, the simplicity of the EU position: get the divorce terms sorted and then wait for the UK to select one of a number of existing models: single market membership as per Norway, customs union membership as per Turkey, or a free-trade agreement as per the Ukraine, but (just like most such agreements) customized for the specifics of the UK situation. I don't believe that there is much appetite within the EU-27 for designing a new model just for the UK -- the risks for EU cohesion are much too high.

robindch

First Up wrote: »

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. [...] 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.

You're quite correct, of course.

However, in economic terms, a tariff break point isn't all that dissimilar to a sales target, so I hope you don't mind me simplifying the punchline by inverting the economic sense of it, in the hope that any of the current crop of cabinet members reading this thread might get the gag.

Thanks!

robindch

steddyeddy wrote: »

Tory voters must be kicking themselves now.

I wouldn't have thought so - the majority of Tory voters (if not MP's) seem happy enough to do anything so long as it annoys Johnny Foreigner, even if it costs jobs within their family.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Nationalism can be very self destructive.

Nationalism is now mainstream Tory policy, so one can only stand, at a distance, back and admire the cheeky nature of the creek up which the the current administration is paddling for its own amusement.