Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Brexit will probably happen because the Brits will decide they have to go through with it for a variety of reasons.

Regarding it being a legal matter. . . Of course it matters what senior politicians say. They're the ones controlling Barnier. Politicians can amend the Lisbon treaty or even come out with a separate treaty involving an amendment to article 50 to preventing UK from leaving if they decided to change their minds.

There's a year of this left. By then we'll all know as it all must be wrapped up by this time next year.

I think the point is that, once it becomes apparent that there absolutely cannot be a deal agreed by March 2019, even if all 27 member states are willing it's probably too late to get an amendment through to alter or suspend Art 50 before it operates n March 2019. That would require a new treaty, which would have to be agreed unanimously by the EU-28, and then ratified by each of them in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

It's both a political and a practical imperative that the UK leaves in March 2019, deal or no deal. The UK confidently expects a deal, as is evidenced by the fact that it is not making the preparations it would need to make if it thought no-deal was a possibility in needed to prepare for.

I suspect in the UK official mind the worst-case scenario in March 2019 is not "no deal and no prospect of a deal"; it's "no deal yet but we're making progress and we'll get there and we're facing an awkward few months until we do but better late than never!"

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think that the UK will become a vassal state of the US who will want a presence on the border of a competing world power. In many ways, an Israel Lite.

No. The rest of the world won't stand still while the EU develops into a superstate stretching from the Maghreb to the Urals; other geopolitical trends will also be continuing.

It won't be the US that will be front-runner to adopt the UK as a vassal state on the border of a competing world power; it will be China.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Davis or any replacement he might have would have to bring it up in the negotiations though the only justification I could see for this action from him or his potential successor would be a recession and/or businesses leaving in significant numbers.

I was asking you to describe how the UK could end up with a government that would make such a move and what the make up of a HoC to approve it might be.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I think before being too hasty to write off the negotiations we need to see Theresa May's speech and the negotiations that follow.

I'm still hopeful of some transitional arrangement once the money issue begins to be resolved. It might be a quick and dirty solution but I'm sure it will be done.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think before being too hasty to write off the negotiations we need to see Theresa May's speech and the negotiations that follow.

I'm still hopeful of some transitional arrangement once the money issue begins to be resolved. It might be a quick and dirty solution but I'm sure it will be done.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So are you excepting TM to soften her position on the 3 core issues in this speech then?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think before being too hasty to write off the negotiations we need to see Theresa May's speech and the negotiations that follow.

I'm still hopeful of some transitional arrangement once the money issue begins to be resolved. It might be a quick and dirty solution but I'm sure it will be done.

Sure, but seems the strategy at the moment is for David Davis to go to the smaller regions and plead with them about how much WTO trade terms will hurt them if there is no deal, you would expect a more conciliatory attitude to try and get a deal done.

But you already have the blame game taking place from all the actors of Brexit. Vote Leave is blaming David Davis for triggering article 50 too early. Boris Johnson has laid down his own red line, in an effort to probably get fired so he isn't tied to the sinking ship as he is now. I feel confident this will continue to be a mess for everyone.

solodeogloria

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So are excepting TM to soften her position on the 3 core issues in this speech then?

Good morning!

I'm expecting she will hold the British position on citizens rights. There's room for further discussion on Northern Ireland but this isn't for the speech this is for the negotiations in Brussels.

The big issue that will begin to get resolved is on the money. She will commit to giving what she had budgeted for the transition (it's clearly in the Treasury calculations until 2021) to the EU for single market access. This would cover the EU's budgetary commitments until 2020 and potentially a lot of the pension liability.

This is just my bet. There will be movement but not without Britain getting the clarity it requires in return.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

None of this pussyfooting around would be necessary if actual Brexit was a good idea. The fact that the UK is trying to negotiate the benefits of being in the EU without being in the EU tells you that in fact Brexit is a stupid idea. You wouldn't need a transitional arrangement. And someone who works in IT should not be suggesting a need for a quick and dirty solution. They are almost always a response to bad planning.

We have had 15 months of waiting for this or that.

I don't write off the negotiations. UK skills in the negotiations on the other hand can be safely criticised.

Peter Flynt

blanch152 wrote: »

Well then you should be able to provide links to back all of that up.

I would suggest you go to Seamus Coffey's blog though for the real information.

I have provided a link.

My view is also supported by the European Commission but that's for a different thread.

I have no plans to go through 20-30 years of legislation or ministerial circulars or directives to prove myself to some anonymous poster because, frankly, I don't have to. Apple have admitted in the US senate that they pay little tax in Ireland and this has been backed up by the EC. <SNIP>

If anyone wants to go look for such legislation or edict then they are free to use their own time to do so.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The rest of the world won't stand still while the EU develops into a superstate stretching from the Maghreb to the Urals; other geopolitical trends will also be continuing.

It won't be the US that will be front-runner to adopt the UK as a vassal state on the border of a competing world power; it will be China.

China? Absolutely not. Assuming that the EU progresses towards deeper integration and thus becomes a world power, and that Britain finds itself strategically, politically and economically isolated after Brexit, it is to its old ally, the US, that it will turn for support.

Historically, linguistically, militarily and culturally they are extremely close. There is no realistic scenario imaginable where a British government would spurn the 'special relationship' to become an outpost for China. Nor would the West, the US and EU, stand idly by.

Samaris

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I'll take this over some Paddy who cannot accept that this country is a tax haven for multinationals.

Charming. Don't know where you're from (and nor, frankly, do I care), but I hope you managed the appropriate lip-curling sneer.

Do you address people from other countries similarly?

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

Charming. Don't know where you're from (and nor, frankly, do I care), but I hope you managed the appropriate lip-curling sneer.

Do you address people from other countries similarly?

Good morning!

I'm in agreement with Peter and I'm an Irishman. Obviously Ireland's a corporate tax haven. It's the only way Ireland can compete in a global world.

This is why when people like Emmanuel Macron suggest a common tax policy it should be seen as bloody dangerous to Ireland. Instead we've got posters fawning over a European superstate with a common finance minister and changing Ireland's main way of attracting business.

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee, in this case reality which suggests that there is no guarantee at all and plenty of reason to suggest that the EU won't have Ireland's best interests at heart. It isn't an all benevolent institution as some of the fans of Euro-federalism point out.

There's still a big need for independent nation states to defend their own interests.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

Maybe you should be a tad ashamed of yourself to agree with someone attempting to dismiss a point with a sneer about the person's nationality then. Whatever about his points, given you directly responded to me and my point about it, apparently you agree with that too. Sure, Paddy isn't the worst insult in the world, but it's just condescending and rude. Not to mention piss-poor debate.

Let's be clear - I don't freak out at the word paddy. It's a dumb term, but water off a duck's back. I do object to someone thinking they're clever in using paddy, wog, pikey, whatever to attempt to dismiss someone else's point. At that point, it is pathetic.

murphaph

The UK and it's dependencies and overseas territories are amongst the most prolific of all tax havens! Or do people really think the Cayman Islands and Bermuda are that industrious?!

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

Maybe you should be a tad ashamed of yourself to agree with someone attempting to dismiss a point with a sneer about the person's nationality then. Whatever about his points, given you directly responded to me and my point about it, apparently you agree with that too. Sure, Paddy isn't the worst insult in the world, but it's just condescending and rude. Not to mention piss-poor debate.

Let's be clear - I don't freak out at the word paddy. It's a dumb term, but water off a duck's back. I do object to someone thinking they're clever in using paddy, wog, pikey, whatever to attempt to dismiss someone else's point. At that point, it is pathetic.

Good morning!

Dare I say you're getting offended about very little? I don't see the term as being offensive.

He's right about the substance. Ireland is a corporate tax haven and it's economy is constructed on it. He's right to say multinational companies come to Ireland because it's cheap and there are good tax perks. That's the bottom line.

If Macron has his way then Ireland will lose out big time. Much more than Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm expecting she will hold the British position on citizens rights. There's room for further discussion on Northern Ireland but this isn't for the speech this is for the negotiations in Brussels.

The big issue that will begin to get resolved is on the money. She will commit to giving what she had budgeted for the transition (it's clearly in the Treasury calculations until 2021) to the EU for single market access. This would cover the EU's budgetary commitments until 2020 and potentially a lot of the pension liability.

This is just my bet. There will be movement but not without Britain getting the clarity it requires in return.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So essentially. 3 months after negotiations have begun the UK will have a realistic opening position on their liabilities. I'm sure the EU will be happy to negotiate the UKs calculations. Will the UK? I would expect them to try the this is our one and only offer line. No progress on the North. The UK current position is described as 'dreamland' stuff by those in the EU and continuing to hold a position on citizens rights that was rejected outright by the EU?

That about sum it up?

Peter Flynt

Samaris wrote: »

Charming. Don't know where you're from (and nor, frankly, do I care), but I hope you managed the appropriate lip-curling sneer.

Do you address people from other countries similarly?

I'm Irish, born in Dublin.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

Taxation is a member state competence. So yes, you might think it's bizarre but it is a member state asserting its right to make taxation decisions.

The UK is in no position to point any fingers given the contribution some Crown dependencies and overseas territories make to tax evasion opportunity.

In the meantime, one of the key issues with Ireland is that it has a low baseline corporation tax. But it collects most of it. Its collection rate is broadly close to its nominal rate. This is not the case in France, for example, where a complex system of allowances and write offs mean that the net tax bill tends to be significantly lower than the equivalent would be in Ireland. France's effective rate is significantly lower than its nominal rate.

You might want to bear in mind that the issue with the Apple case - complex and all as it is - is about competition between states for FDI rather than about taxation per se. It will be interesting to see if in fact, the Commission will be found to have applied competition law correctly here because it is not that Apple enjoyed benefits vis a vis competitors but that Ireland enjoyed benefits vis a vis other member states.

yeah, that's great and everything, but the simple fact is, that the eu is no more able to tackle big corporations than any other member state. Countries, such as Ireland, Holland and Luxembourg have deliberate tax regimes that allow multinationals to exploit cross border trading and avoid paying taxes in the countries where they make the biggest profits.

This is a fact and the eu has done absolutely nothing to prevent this, in fact, the current president of the eu commission has frustrated attempts to prevent this.

So, the accusation that the eu was more likely to withstand influence from big corporations is bogus. We have a man who was and architect of the Luxembourg tax haven, was later unceremoniously dumped as prime minister in one of europe's smallest countries and then a few months later becomes the overwhelming choice as the most powerful man in europe?

all of this without the influence of the 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels apparently.

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Dare I say you're getting offended about very little? I don't see the term as being offensive.

*eyeroll* Of course you dare. Heaven forfend there be some actual courtesy in debate without resorting to bigotry and name-calling.

And of -course- calling it out means that I'm "offended" (the greatest crime in the current anglosphere world), as opposed to moderately contemptuous, which is actually closer to my feelings on it. Far too early in the morning for proper offence, even if I was inclined to be offended at what some guy on the internet says.

Btw, regarding producing legislation regarding Apple's 2% tax, I was actually in agreement that that wasn't the point he made so he doesn't have to back that up, although he probably should back up "tax haven" a bit better (the corporate tax rate is perhaps an indication). Just how he framed his argument is contemptible.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I'm Irish, born in Dublin.

Still don't care that much, but that probably makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. Fine, carry on, I can see that you and solo reckon that cheap national shots are a totes valid form of debate.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm expecting she will hold the British position on citizens rights. There's room for further discussion on Northern Ireland but this isn't for the speech this is for the negotiations in Brussels.

The big issue that will begin to get resolved is on the money. She will commit to giving what she had budgeted for the transition (it's clearly in the Treasury calculations until 2021) to the EU for single market access. This would cover the EU's budgetary commitments until 2020 and potentially a lot of the pension liability.

This is just my bet. There will be movement but not without Britain getting the clarity it requires in return.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Mmm. Let’s think this through.

In theory, there’s two feasible models for transition. Under one model, the UK continues in substance to participate in the single market and its associated obligations (probably including free movement and certainly including financial contributions) during the transition period. Relatively little changes at the outset; the big change comes at the end when the UK moves into whatever new long-term relationship has been negotiated.

The other model is the opposite; the big changes are mostly front-loaded to the start of the transition, with some residual aspects of EU participation continuing for the transition period.

I think we can discount a model in which there’s a large difference between full membership and the transitional relationship, and another large difference between the transitional relationship and the long-term relationship. That puts both sides through two major, and quite disruptive, changes in a short period of years; I don’t think that’s a good idea from anybody’s perspective.

But I think we can also dismiss the second model, under which most of the big changes happen in in 2019, with a relatively small group of matters deferred for a couple of years. The whole reason that a transitional period is necessary it that it’s clear that the long-term relationship won’t be fully negotiated and ready in practice to roll out in March 2019. And if they aren’t a position to roll out 100% of the new relationship, they’re not likely to be in a position to roll out 80% of it.

So, while the UK will formally cease to be a member in 2019, much of the day-to-day experience of membership will continue during the transitional period. There will be changes, but a lot will stay the same. In some ways a the transitional period might look a bit like EEA membership, but temporary, and with some features tailored to the UK’s circumstances.

In some respects that’ll be unpopular on the Brexity side, but (a) it will probably be acceptable to the majority as long as there’s a definite, and not too-long-deferred, termination date, and (b) it has the advantage that it makes it easy to justify significant payments to the EU during the transition period, and that facilitates agreement on the financial settlement.

On citizens, though, May does need to offer the EU some reassurance now. The issues of deportation letters to long-settled EU citizens in the UK this month was probably just an administrative cock-up, but it was an extraordinarily badly-timed one, really focussing EU attention on a matter that is of genuine concern to them. One of the things that was considered most shocking in Europe about the Brexit debate and the way it played out in Britain was the attitude to migrants that it revealed, and I think that has created a climate of mistrust on this point that May needs to provide some solid reassurance on.

The other thing that’s necessary to achieve in the speech is that May needs to build confidence that there will be a final deal. What the transition period does, to some extent, is kick a lot of difficult questions to touch - we don’t have to solve them right now; we have till 2021 (or whenever). It’s one thing to kick questions to touch because they’re difficult and detailed and they need time to work through; it’s another to kick them to touch because they’re too difficult and we’ll never be able to answer them at all.

In other words, May needs to convince people that the UK will stop engaging in wishful thinking in which it can have its cake and eat it - take back control of its borders, and have a Common Travel Area that includes part of the EU; pursue an independent trade and customs policy, but have an open border with the EU in Ireland; etc. A Brexit deal will require objectives to be prioritised, choices to be made, and I think the EU needs to see that May recognises this (and that she has the political and practical ability to make and implement choices, despite her weak parliamentary situation). If the judgment is that she can't or won't do this, a transitional period is not going to solve anything.

Samaris

The other thing that’s necessary to achieve in the speech is that May needs to build confidence that there will be a final deal. What the transition period does, to some extent, is kick a lot of difficult questions to touch - we don’t have to solve them right now; we have till 2021 (or whenever). It’s one thing to kick questions to touch because they’re difficult and detailed and they need time to work through; it’s another to kick them to touch because they’re too difficult and we’ll never be able to answer them at all.

In other words, May needs to convince people that the UK will stop engaging in wishful thinking in which it can have its cake and eat it - take back control of its borders, and have a Common Travel Area that includes part of the EU; pursue an independent trade and customs policy, but have an open border with the EU in Ireland; etc. A Brexit deal will require objectives to be prioritised, choices to be made, and I think the EU needs to see that May recognises this (and that she has the political and practical ability to make and implement choices, despite her weak parliamentary situation).

These points in particular are worrying. Britain is showing marked reluctance to make any hard suggestions or offers, it's all very pie in sky in terms of what they want. Aspirational, I think the word used was. It's a little late for aspirational. Aspirational was okay before the referendum. Once that started moving, it really needed to get to solid facts, solid plans. Kicking it down the road, potentially to a future government that may not approve of the deals made is dangerous and not a bit cowardly.

The whole issue of what's being fed to the British public is also frustrating and it's got to be a hundred times more frustrating to EU negotiators who actually have to deal with it than it is to random spod on the internet (me in this case :P)
"No dice, our people demand X" ]
"Well stop effing promising them X then! You know it can't be done!"

And this will eventually start to rebound on them. Britain may need to consider that every other country they are dealing with also has a national media that is paying attention and, depending on their various outlooks, are reporting on what Britain are saying and doing. It also needs to consider that leaders of other countries are also beholden to the will of their various peoples and if Britain doesn't stop acting the goat over all this, patience is going to wear thin very quickly. The public has much less patience than the politicians.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

The UK and it's dependencies and overseas territories are amongst the most prolific of all tax havens! Or do people really think the Cayman Islands and Bermuda are that industrious?!

The Caymen islands are free to employ whatever tax regimes they see fit, these rates are set by their governments and the UK has no jurisdiction on taxation matters.

But that is all irrelevant, as multinationals ability to use these islands would be minimal (as far as european taxation goes) were it not for the cooperation of the Irish and Dutch governments.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39784907/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/#.WcNvSIyPKUk

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. Let’s think this through.

In theory, there’s two feasible models for transition. Under one model, the UK continues in substance to participate in the single market and its associated obligations (probably including free movement and certainly including financial contributions) during the transition period. Relatively little changes at the outset; the big change comes at the end when the UK moves into whatever new long-term relationship has been negotiated.

The other model is the opposite; the big changes are mostly front-loaded to the start of the transition, with some residual aspects of EU participation continuing for the transition period.

I think we can discount a model in which there’s a large difference between full membership and the transitional relationship, and another large difference between the transitional relationship and the long-term relationship. That puts both sides through two major, and quite disruptive, changes in a short period of years; I don’t think that’s a good idea from anybody’s perspective.

But I think we can also dismiss the second model, under which most of the big changes happen in in 2019, with a relatively small group of matters deferred for a couple of years. The whole reason that a transitional period is necessary it that it’s clear that the long-term relationship won’t be fully negotiated and ready in practice to roll out in March 2019. And if they aren’t a position to roll out 100% of the new relationship, they’re not likely to be in a position to roll out 80% of it.

So, while the UK will formally cease to be a member in 2019, much of the day-to-day experience of membership will continue during the transitional period. There will be changes, but a lot will stay the same. In some ways a the transitional period might look a bit like EEA membership, but temporary, and with some features tailored to the UK’s circumstances.

In some respects that’ll be unpopular on the Brexity side, but (a) it will probably be acceptable to the majority as long as there’s a definite, and not too-long-deferred, termination date, and (b) it has the advantage that it makes it easy to justify significant payments to the EU during the transition period, and that facilitates agreement on the financial settlement.

On citizens, though, May does need to offer the EU some reassurance now. The issues of deportation letters to long-settled EU citizens in the UK this month was probably just an administrative cock-up, but it was an extraordinarily badly-timed one, really focussing EU attention on a matter that is of genuine concern to them. One of the things that was considered most shocking in Europe about the Brexit debate and the way it played out in Britain was the attitude to migrants that it revealed, and I think that has created a climate of mistrust on this point that May needs to provide some solid reassurance on.

The other thing that’s necessary to achieve in the speech is that May needs to build confidence that there will be a final deal. What the transition period does, to some extent, is kick a lot of difficult questions to touch - we don’t have to solve them right now; we have till 2021 (or whenever). It’s one thing to kick questions to touch because they’re difficult and detailed and they need time to work through; it’s another to kick them to touch because they’re too difficult and we’ll never be able to answer them at all.

In other words, May needs to convince people that the UK will stop engaging in wishful thinking in which it can have its cake and eat it - take back control of its borders, and have a Common Travel Area that includes part of the EU; pursue an independent trade and customs policy, but have an open border with the EU in Ireland; etc. A Brexit deal will require objectives to be prioritised, choices to be made, and I think the EU needs to see that May recognises this (and that she has the political and practical ability to make and implement choices, despite her weak parliamentary situation). If the judgment is that she can't or won't do this, a transitional period is not going to solve anything.

Good morning!

Firstly - I don't think the UK needs to offer anything else in respect to EU citizens. The Government have been clear that settled status confers the same rights to them as to British citizens. The only exception is voting in the House of Commons elections and referenda.

The Home Office obviously needs to apologise for cockups with their systems but the offer on the table is a very good one. It's preferential to non-EU citizens which I explained clearly a few posts ago.

Secondly - the Northern Ireland border needs to be dealt with in the negotiations. The British position is clear as is the EU's. There needs to be a middle ground.

Thirdly - the UK will do whatever it can within the red lines of the referendum result. There will be an arrangement on the money but the EU needs to see that the payment is linked to transition. That's the only acceptable option. If it doesn't I suspect we'll see continued deadlock and rightfully so. The UK needs to get something out if this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - the Northern Ireland border needs to be dealt with in the negotiations. The British position is clear as is the EU's. There needs to be a middle ground.

What do you mean with in the negotiations? In case it escaped your notice negotiations began 3 months ago and the EU and UK need to find sufficient agreement on the North before anything else is discussed.

solodeogloria

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What do you mean with in the negotiations? In case it escaped your notice negotiations began 3 months ago and the EU and UK need to find sufficient agreement on the North before anything else is discussed.

Good morning!

One liners like this aren't helpful to a constructive discussion or to anyone.

It's obvious that Northern Ireland depends on what trade terms the EU are willing to give the UK and on what customs terms are on the border.

This is the most complex issue so I don't know why you think it can be settled in 3 months. If the EU give clarity on the future relationship this can be resolved.

Even the EU understands that this issue will take longer to resolve than the months before the European Council.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yeah, that's great and everything, but the simple fact is, that the eu is no more able to tackle big corporations than any other member state. Countries, such as Ireland, Holland and Luxembourg have deliberate tax regimes that allow multinationals to exploit cross border trading and avoid paying taxes in the countries where they make the biggest profits.

This is a fact and the eu has done absolutely nothing to prevent this, in fact, the current president of the eu commission has frustrated attempts to prevent this.

So, the accusation that the eu was more likely to withstand influence from big corporations is bogus. We have a man who was and architect of the Luxembourg tax haven, was later unceremoniously dumped as prime minister in one of europe's smallest countries and then a few months later becomes the overwhelming choice as the most powerful man in europe?

all of this without the influence of the 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels apparently.

I guess it comes down to this then, are you able to influence a government more easily than the EU parliament? I think Rupert Murdoch said it best though,

Rupert Murdoch wrote:

When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.

Anthony Hilton: Stay or go - the lack of solid facts means it’s all a leap of faith

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - I don't think the UK needs to offer anything else in respect to EU citizens. The Government have been clear that settled status confers the same rights to them as to British citizens. The only exception is voting in the House of Commons elections and referenda.

The Home Office obviously needs to apologise for cockups with their systems but the offer on the table is a very good one. It's preferential to non-EU citizens which I explained clearly a few posts ago.

Secondly - the Northern Ireland border needs to be dealt with in the negotiations. The British position is clear as is the EU's. There needs to be a middle ground.

Thirdly - the UK will do whatever it can within the red lines of the referendum result. There will be an arrangement on the money but the EU needs to see that the payment is linked to transition. That's the only acceptable option. If it doesn't I suspect we'll see continued deadlock and rightfully so. The UK needs to get something out if this.

I think we should be at a stage where we recognize its not just mistakes from the Home Office but policy from their side. Seeing as the Minister in charge is most likely in contempt of court, Samim Bigzad: Amber Rudd could be jailed for contempt of court after Home Office defies judges, barrister says, and the way they treat their own citizens, Home Office decision to deny Cobham man's Thai wife and daughter entry to UK bringing family to 'breaking point', do you really think a fair system will apply for the likes of, well you, after Brexit?

Also, you haven't ever replied on how you can marry the open border with immigration control or no customs union yet. Please spare me the UK proposals as they are almost as contradictory as a Donald Trump speech in advocating two positions as one.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's obvious that Northern Ireland depends on what trade terms the EU are willing to give the UK and on what customs terms are on the border.

This is the most complex issue so I don't know why you think it can be settled in 3 months. If the EU give clarity on the future relationship this can be resolved.

Even the EU understands that this issue will take longer to resolve than the months before the European Council.

Maybe the UK should have told the EU this when agreeing to the negotiating timetable then. Seeing as they didn't, stop harping on how its the nasty EU that needs to change the agreement. If the UK wants the CTA to continue then trade discussions can take place with that in mind. If the UK wants control of their borders then we know the CTA is off the table and trade discussions can continue with that in mind.

You see how its the UK that needs to come up with their position on the border? Stop blaming the EU for the ills of the UK and its incompetent government.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

One liners like this aren't helpful to a constructive discussion or to anyone.

It's obvious that Northern Ireland depends on what trade terms the EU are willing to give the UK and on what customs terms are on the border.

This is the most complex issue so I don't know why you think it can be settled in 3 months. If the EU give clarity on the future relationship this can be resolved.

Even the EU understands that this issue will take longer to resolve than the months before the European Council.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's far from a one liner. It's a basic statement of fact and a question asking you to clarify "with in the negotiations". A fact you've attempted time and time again to muddy the waters around.

Agreement is required on NI before we can move on. Now it may be a partial agreement or an agreement of principals but until such time as the Irish government and the EU are happy to move forward there will be no trade discussions.

How can the EU give clarity when it's the UK deciding it's own future position?

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

I guess it comes down to this then, are you able to influence a government more easily than the EU parliament? I think Rupert Murdoch said it best though,
Anthony Hilton: Stay or go - the lack of solid facts means it’s all a leap of faith

That's probably because the first question they ask is "Who are you?"

but hey, all these multinationals are obviously spending €1,5bn euros for the fun of it I guess.

Meanwhile, in Brussels https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mep-expelled-in-cash-for-influence-scandal-1.579994

Because you don't know about it, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So are you excepting TM to soften her position on the 3 core issues in this speech then?

Obviously Boris is expecting her to soften the Governments line, that's why he came out with that lying £350m article, to outflank her with the Eurosceptic wing of the party.

Zubeneschamali

Jim2007 wrote: »

It does not matter what the politicians say. It is a legal matter, there is no provision in the treaties to allow it to be revoked.

There is no language tin the treaties to stop it being revoked, either.

As a practical matter, if the other 27 countries agree, it could be revoked.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

I was asking you to describe how the UK could end up with a government that would make such a move and what the make up of a HoC to approve it might be.

There'd have to be another election which, given the minute lead held by the Tories and the DUP in their confidence and supply agreement is not unthinkable.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

In some respects that’ll be unpopular on the Brexity side

I think heads will explode on the Brexity side, and May will face a leadership challenge. Boris is probably just a stalking horse, but I can see a Brexiteer being leader within a couple of months, and then it's buckle up for chaotic brexit in 2019.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is why when people like Emmanuel Macron suggest a common tax policy it should be seen as bloody dangerous to Ireland. Instead we've got posters fawning over a European superstate with a common finance minister and changing Ireland's main way of attracting business.

This is just another of your meaningless strawmen. Nobody here is fawning over a European superstate and frankly, to mention that is just more of your fearmongering.

Calina

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Jim2007 wrote: »

It does not matter what the politicians say. It is a legal matter, there is no provision in the treaties to allow it to be revoked.

There is no language tin the treaties to stop it being revoked, either.

As a practical matter, if the other 27 countries agree, it could be revoked.

UK govt fought the Miller case on the basis Article 50 was not revocable. So if the UK government attempts to revoke it woukd be interesting.

blanch152

Calina wrote: »

UK govt fought the Miller case on the basis Article 50 was not revocable. So if the UK government attempts to revoke it woukd be interesting.

Not really. The question of whether Article 50 is revocable is a matter of European law and therefore wasn't settled as part of the Miller case, only the ECJ could definitively rule on that.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

Not really. The question of whether Article 50 is revocable is a matter of European law and therefore wasn't settled as part of the Miller case, only the ECJ could definitively rule on that.

Extremely unlikely to happen whichever way you look at it, but it would be delightfully ironic if the hated ECJ was the means by which Britain reversed Article 50.

ambro25

Calina wrote: »

UK govt fought the Miller case on the basis Article 50 was not revocable. So if the UK government attempts to revoke it woukd be interesting.

The Miller case was brought and fought about the constitutionality of the UK government invoking Article 50 without Parliamentary consultation (aka exercising the "Royal Prerogative").

It was not about the revocability of Article 50 per se. The Miller case (and appeal) 'solved' the sovereignty question in the UK, but did not go anywhere near the revocability of Article 50. That question has been considered by Ireland (and others), I believe?

On that score, both 'sides' of the argument are correct.

On the one side, technically, there is no 'saving' clawback or retract clause in any of the EU treaties, once Article 50 has been triggered. It has two purposes, and those two purpose only: (i) to provide a mechanism for exiting the EU, and (ii) to guarantee that the EU and the departing state will at least talk about the exit conditions. Whether the 2-year term is extended (with the unanimous consent of the EU27 ) or not, it's outcome is automatic: the departing member is out once the period is exhausted. Agreement on exit conditions or not, deal or no deal.

Which is why some/many of us facepalmed when, shortly after the Miller Appeal decision in January, Parliament voted for its triggering, and then May actually did the deed back in March: she started the doomsday clock, and there was not turning back from it, thus all-but-guaranteeing the UK's exit and handing over to the EU(27) a very sizeable chunk of whatever leverage the UK still had before then. But I digress, and we are where we are.

On the other side, and pragmatically now, the EU(27) undeniably has form to fudge such technicalities when it so requires for political expediency and, adverting to Merkel's favoured Anglicism as publicly telegraphed by Macron and Barnier, the clawback/retract option is clearly on the table. Even if few of us can envisage how (in legal terms), and still fewer can have a guess about what imperial tons of flesh the EU would demand for it.

Taking a SWAG (simple wild-a**ed guess), I'd say the EU(27) would want at least the rebate abrogated sooner. But, as that is one which would go to the heart of the £350m campaign claim, I can't see the UK giving in to it for political reasons, regardless of who's in No.10 at the time.

Personally, I just can't see the UK backing from Article 50 in any way or form now. It took me a long while to get around to the notion and accept it.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's probably because the first question they ask is "Who are you?"

but hey, all these multinationals are obviously spending €1,5bn euros for the fun of it I guess.

Meanwhile, in Brussels https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mep-expelled-in-cash-for-influence-scandal-1.579994

Because you don't know about it, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Or maybe those on the European continent just doesn't listen to him even when they know who he is and they have nothing to fear from him. Do you think a MEP from Belgium really is worried if the Sun runs a story on his private life?

I don't know what your point is actually. Are you saying politicians in the EU are open to be lobbied by others? Or are you in such a defensive mode due to Brexit that any negative comment against the UK you try and oppose. So because the assertion is that the EU looks tougher on policies against multinational corporations you try and disprove this point. Why?

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just another of your meaningless strawmen. Nobody here is fawning over a European superstate and frankly, to mention that is just more of your fearmongering.

Good morning!

Obviously you've not read any of the posts from murphaph or mountaintop yesterday. They seemed pretty keen on a Euro-federalist superstate.

If the common taxation measures are implemented that's Ireland's main attraction to corporate America gone. Ireland depends on that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

One liners like this aren't helpful to a constructive discussion or to anyone.

It's obvious that Northern Ireland depends on what trade terms the EU are willing to give the UK and on what customs terms are on the border.

This is the most complex issue so I don't know why you think it can be settled in 3 months. If the EU give clarity on the future relationship this can be resolved.

Even the EU understands that this issue will take longer to resolve than the months before the European Council.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU is willing to give the UK full access to the single market so long as it respects the four freedoms and submits to ECJ oversight and pays for access. So what is delaying the UK, they know what's on offer?

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

The EU is willing to give the UK full access to the single market so long as it respects the four freedoms and submits to ECJ oversight and pays for access. So what is delaying the UK, they know what's on offer?

Good morning!

I think you know the answer to that. The terms aren't acceptable so something else needs to be negotiated.

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)

• Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
• Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
• Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and its interpretation)
• Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with its non-EU trade partners)

Within these lines nearly anything else can be proposed. The Government must deliver a true Brexit though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Dare I say you're getting offended about very little? I don't see the term as being offensive.

He's right about the substance. Ireland is a corporate tax haven and it's economy is constructed on it. He's right to say multinational companies come to Ireland because it's cheap and there are good tax perks. That's the bottom line.

If Macron has his way then Ireland will lose out big time. Much more than Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's not personally a matter of offence S. The cause for offence is the quality of the argument. I know some seriously academically clever people who voted for Brexit (well one). So it's fair to say a decent debate exists.

Now I've been on Boards for quite some time so I'm familiar with your posts. Here, you posted contradictory statements about your desire for Brexit, your intentions and motive. In other words it's impossible for me to take your position seriously because there's no single position. You change your mind about why you believed in Brexit and what you believed.

Then you applaud the use of a racial slur in a debate.

Contrast this with posts detailing the realities of trade, fiance and international law and you can see how posters could be insulted.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously you've not read any of the posts from murphaph or mountaintop yesterday. They seemed pretty keen on a Euro-federalist superstate.

Borders and nationalism are becoming less and less relevant thankfully. People, goods, services and capital are more mobile than ever before and once the Trump bubble bursts this trend will almost certainly continue. The EU is basically an attempt to manage globalisation in a fair manner so that poorer nations aren't unfairly exploited. It isn't fawning over an EU superstate to realise this. Brexit won't halt globalisation.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the common taxation measures are implemented that's Ireland's main attraction to corporate America gone. Ireland depends on that.

Not quite true. Ireland is an English speaking nation with a well ranked education system in the OECD PISA rankings and full membership of the richest trading bloc in the world. Even if corporation income tax is harmonised which is nowhere near definite, moving to another member state won't fix that and will involve significant upheaval. Frankly, you seem to be scaremongering again.

mountaintop

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think you know the answer to that. The terms aren't acceptable so something else needs to be negotiated.

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)

• Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
• Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
• Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and it's interpretation)
• Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with it's non-EU trade partners)

Within these lines nearly anything else can be proposed. The Government must deliver a true Brexit though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What does Control mean? If a British government gains control of these areas, how does that prove? That members of parliament from Bolton can vote to pass laws that will affect Bournemouth and maybe Glasgow. How does that improve matters? Oh, I get it, it's because they're British, so they'll have the interests of their fellow countrymen at heart. I don't think so!

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

Or maybe those on the European continent just doesn't listen to him even when they know who he is and they have nothing to fear from him. Do you think a MEP from Belgium really is worried if the Sun runs a story on his private life?

exactly, so Rupert Murdoch's opinion is pretty irrelevant.

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know what your point is actually. Are you saying politicians in the EU are open to be lobbied by others?

That's exactly it, as I have stated several times already.

Enzokk wrote: »

or are you in such a defensive mode due to Brexit that any negative comment against the UK you try and oppose. So because the assertion is that the EU looks tougher on policies against multinational corporations you try and disprove this point. Why?

oh please, it isn't defensive at all, it is merely stating facts. This debate is being treated as if it were a football match, which I guess is to be expected on an Irish board. England are playing someone, so we'll cheer for the other side regardless of who they are.

The eu is being elevated to god like levels where it apparently can do no wrong. It is a deeply flawed organisation and needs reform and more accountability. It suffers from the exact same problems as all "Big" government does, it is too far detached from the people for them to make any difference and this leaves them open to influence from those who have the means to do so, ie big corporations and those with the ability to lobby at a high level.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)

• Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
• Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
• Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and it's interpretation)
• Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with it's non-EU trade partners)

All of this is entirely within the UKs control after Brexit, none of it needs any concessions from the EU, and if these are red lines, the EU has no incentive to give any.

Negotiations are a waste of time, a transition period is a waste of time, the pain will just be spread over a longer period. Just drive off that cliff in 2019 and start the long process of rebuilding at once.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think you know the answer to that. The terms aren't acceptable so something else needs to be negotiated.

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)

• Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
• Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
• Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and it's interpretation)
• Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with it's non-EU trade partners)

Within these lines nearly anything else can be proposed. The Government must deliver a true Brexit though.

Well then there is little left to negotiate. There will be no customs union, so custom checks on goods. There will be no CTA so there will be a border between NI and Ireland. And there will be limited access to the single market, which almost everyone agrees will be negative for years to come for the UK.

I don't see what you want to negotiate with the EU though. The best the UK can hope for is a trade deal with the EU that will not be as good as membership. That seems to be control, control of a mess but control is control.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

<...>

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)

• Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)

To look at just one of your points, in the exact context you posit (EU economic migration): the maximum stay duration guaranteed by the EU in that context is 90 days if you can't support yourself independently. And that is enforced by many continental EU member states indeed. See e.g. here. That has been the situation for years and longer.

So, 2 questions to you:

(i) what has stopped the UK government from proposing, and Parliament enacting, relevant new (and/or amendments to) immigration rules aimed at EU economic migrants and enforcing them -clearly in full compliance with EU law- for the past umpteen years?

(ii) given the prevalent Parliamentary majority, what is still stopping the UK government from proposing, and Parliament enacting, such new (and/or amendments to) immigration rules aimed at EU economic migrants and enforcing them now?

solodeogloria

ambro25 wrote: »

To look at just one of your points: the maximum stay duration guaranteed by the EU in that context is 90 days if you can't support yourself independently. And that is enforced by many continental EU member states indeed. See e.g. here. That has been the situation for years and longer.

So, 2 questions to you:

(i) what has stopped the UK government from proposing, and Parliament enacting, relevant new (and/or amendments to) relevant immigration rules -clearly in full compliance with EU law- for the past umpteen years?

(ii) given the prevalent Parliamentary majority, what is still stopping the UK government from proposing, and Parliament enacting, such new (and/or amendments to) relevant immigration rules now?

Good morning!

Those are questions for the Cameron government and the Blair government and the Major government. I can't answer them because I don't know why they didn't do it. The May government is addressing Brexit.

These controls aren't sufficient post-Brexit to satisfy the referendum result. I think at a minimum there needs to be quotas on low skilled and low wage labour.

It isn't my hottest reason for wanting to leave but the concerns raised in the referendum need to be addressed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria