Brexit discussion thread II

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Nah it's more like watching a match and needing a team (The UK) to get a result for us to qualify. If they won (Remain) we're straight through. Unfortunately they lost (Leave) by having 3 players sent off for headbutting bystanders in the crowd. However in the next game (the negotiations) a draw for the UK will leave us in the qualifying positions. It's hard to cheer for a team that self-destructed in the last match but it's best for us. Unfortunately in this match they're playing a team much better than them (The EU, in power terms) and who haven't had a yellow card all season. The UK begin the game by kicking the ball out of play. They constantly get 4 players at a time caught offisde. It's like they don't know or care or understand the rules. While it's best for us for them to somehow scrape a draw it's hard to see how they'll do it and wait a second, ****, one of them just picked up the ball and is running towards his own goal with it.
The opposition are bemused and this bemusement has stopped them progressing as they should against such an inept team, if they knew they were playing such an inept team.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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



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.

Ireland is opposing the UK though, seeing as we are in the EU and our fate is much more tied to them than the UK. So its not just as you want to claim some profound anti-UK sentiment, it is that we have tied our boat to the EU and not the UK. This whataboutery that you are engaged in is just to show that everyone is as bad as the UK, doesn't do much though. If it makes you feel better I guess it works for you.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

Ireland is opposing the UK though, seeing as we are in the EU and our fate is much more tied to them than the UK. So its not just as you want to claim some profound anti-UK sentiment, it is that we have tied our boat to the EU and not the UK. This whataboutery that you are engaged in is just to show that everyone is as bad as the UK, doesn't do much though. If it makes you feel better I guess it works for you.

Good afternoon!

Perhaps I'm just a huge West Brit but I don't perceive Ireland as being "against" Britain and I don't perceive the EU as being more tied to Ireland than the UK is. You'd need to explain in what sense. I personally as someone who was born and raised in Ireland and who lived there for 22 years consider Britain to be much much closer to Ireland on many fronts.

Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me when you speak of my home country.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

That is a fairly inelegant dodging of the issues raised.

Do you want to try again, or can we consider my point conceded?

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

Ireland is opposing the UK though, seeing as we are in the EU and our fate is much more tied to them than the UK. So its not just as you want to claim some profound anti-UK sentiment, it is that we have tied our boat to the EU and not the UK. This whataboutery that you are engaged in is just to show that everyone is as bad as the UK, doesn't do much though. If it makes you feel better I guess it works for you.

it isn't whataboutery, I was challenging an assertion that was made. I know it doesn't fit in well with the echo chamber, but actually the whataboutery came from posters who decided that the UK is just as bad or whatever. It really is as simple as that.

so, because Ireland "Is" the eu, they can do no wrong?

The fact you personally have tied your boat to the eu is obvious, I just hope the eu isn't prepared to cast that particular paddle boat adrift if it suits them.

blanch152

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 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

Well if the terms aren't acceptable, what are the UK proposing?

You see, if the UK don't want the standard terms available, it is up to them to propose something both different and workable. Otherwise, goodbye.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it isn't whataboutery, I was challenging an assertion that was made. I know it doesn't fit in well with the echo chamber, but actually the whataboutery came from posters who decided that the UK is just as bad or whatever. It really is as simple as that.

so, because Ireland "Is" the eu, they can do no wrong?

The fact you personally have tied your boat to the eu is obvious, I just hope the eu isn't prepared to cast that particular paddle boat adrift if it suits them.

You were challenging the assertion by saying, but there are lobbyist in Brussels as well. That doesn't really do anything but prove all governments are at the mercy of the lobbyists as all institutions will have people trying to influence it.

Hence why I don't know what your point is. The EU is just as bad as the UK, great. Both will be played by those that have money and what to influence policy, individuals and corporations. Do I have that right?

So what is your point other than to point out there is problems in the EU as well? Your second point is also a nice little dig at Ireland. Its our problem if the EU wants to enact policies that will hurt Ireland. Your concern is neither here nor there, seeing that if you want the UK government to follow through on Brexit that will hurt us in any case. Maybe opposition to Brexit is more appropriate if you are concerned about Ireland's well being in the EU.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Perhaps I'm just a huge West Brit but I don't perceive Ireland as being "against" Britain and I don't perceive the EU as being more tied to Ireland than the UK is. You'd need to explain in what sense. I personally as someone who was born and raised in Ireland and who lived there for 22 years consider Britain to be much much closer to Ireland on many fronts.

Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me when you speak of my home country.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well considering you'll be campaigning for a hard Brexit in Britain I don't find that credible on the home country front. I personally wouldn't label you an anglophile (I don't like west Brit) as very few anglophiles are actively campaigning to see Britain fall upon the worst possible terms of Brexit.

If I did believe you're an Irish person campaigning for a British Brexit then I'd state that you have very little knowledge of history if you think the EU hasn't benefited Ireland more in the last few decades in terms of our economy. Under British rule we were in abject poverty. The part of Ireland under British rule is the poorest part of the island and the poorest part of the UK too.

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

Well if the terms aren't acceptable, what are the UK proposing?

You see, if the UK don't want the standard terms available, it is up to them to propose something both different and workable. Otherwise, goodbye.

Good afternoon!

It depends on how you understand the word negotiation.

If the word negotiation means as it does traditionally two parties with some differing views sitting to hammer out a common solution then of course it's worth doing.

If the EU have decided that a negotiation is trying to make the other party agree with their aims without compromise then I agree with you. The UK should walk away.

steddyeddy:
So you don't believe me when I say I'm Irish? (Do you want me to PM you my passport :pac:)

Or you don't believe I'm living in Britain? (Do you want to see my UK drivers licence with address on it? :pac:)

I think this is getting a bit silly don't you?

We need to respect what we're saying about ourselves at face value.

Also Wales is the poorest nation of the United Kingdom.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

mountaintop

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well considering you'll be campaigning for a hard Brexit in Britain I don't find that credible on the home country front. I personally wouldn't label you an anglophile (I don't like west Brit) as very few anglophiles are actively campaigning to see Britain fall upon the worst possible terms of Brexit.

If I did believe you're an Irish person campaigning for a British Brexit then I'd state that you have very little knowledge of history if you think the EU hasn't benefited Ireland more in the last few decades in terms of our economy. Under British rule we were in abject poverty. The part of Ireland under British rule is the poorest part of the island and the poorest part of the UK too.

I fully agree. He's in the same boat as Liam Fox MP who forever tells us about his British heritage and culture but everyone belonging to him is Irish. What is it? The Stockholm affect? On the other hand, the Irish in America wear their Irishness on their hearts. The Irish in Britain, once they adopt the mannerisms, are a completely different case. I was at a wedding recently and cousins of mine living in the UK all admitted voting for Brexit because of immigration. They are all the children of immigrants themselves. I can only shake my head. The EU took Ireland out of the post colonial darkness and allowed Irish people to hold their heads up and make something of their country. Shame on anyone of Irish descent that voted for it, that's my view. And let's not forget the great sleeping dog that is the Northern Irish issue. God, the thoughts of going back to that again...

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Perhaps I'm just a huge West Brit but I don't perceive Ireland as being "against" Britain and I don't perceive the EU as being more tied to Ireland than the UK is. You'd need to explain in what sense. I personally as someone who was born and raised in Ireland and who lived there for 22 years consider Britain to be much much closer to Ireland on many fronts.

Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me when you speak of my home country.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You accept that Brexit is however very damaging to Ireland?

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It depends on how you understand the word negotiation.


Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't think you understand this particular 'negotiation'.

The UK cannot walk away with what it brought into this negotiation. When the negotiation ends it is OUT of the EU. So the minimum deal has already being negotiated and will kick in in March 2017.

If the UK does not improve on this minimum deal what will happen?

• The UK will try and go under WTO rules
• First container arriving in Calais is stopped, and pulled aside for testing. Same with second.
• At some point that day Calais will announce that they wont accept any more UK trucks till backlog cleared.
• TRucks park in Dover etc. That fills. Now trucks start to fill up the slow lane on all motorways between London and Ports
• UK asks WTO to accept same rates as it had under EU
• EU immediately starts a trade dispute
• THis starts a landslide of trade disputes as states smell blood, some genuine, some like Argentina with other aims (Falklands).
• THe live food agrisector cannot export at all as no port exists for the necessary testing. This is a 12 billion industry.
• Testing: Country of origin rules mean that there must be paperwork showing country of origin for every component in a product.
• Any product who do not lose their export business due to delays will ofcourse be hit by WTO rates.
• This isnt just into Europe. But UK loses all its agreements with other countries. Same delays for exports to US, Russia, India etc all of the trade deals and mutual recognition agreements that it enjoyed with the EU are vansished.
• The UK must immediately replace 32 regulatory bodies. EU might agree to keep control of the open skies, after that...
• Qualifications, divorces, any legal UK position dissapears in EU overnight. A vast swath of British legal work gone.
• UK approaches the US for a deal. All the UK trade negotiators are tied up in WTO talks. These are novice UK civil servants facing US career trade negotiators. The US says they want to help and maybe something could be managed in two years. But they point out that the UK is in an historically weak position, unlike anything since WW2. They push across a list of demands: they are horrendous. The UK has wrestled control from the EU only to hand over sovereignty to the first bidder. They capitulate and sign with no other choice.....
• This list is not exhaustive.......

(more or less from Ian Dunts book)


This is what walking away actually means. Do you really think that this is something that the UK can threaten the EU with?

LeinsterDub

murphaph wrote: »

You accept that Brexit is however very damaging to Ireland?

At least the EU are making all the right noises

"What we will never allow is that Ireland will suffer from the British decision to leave the EU," he said.

"That is a commitment that has been made by the European parliament and by the EU as a whole."

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/0921/906424-brexit-verhofstadt/

And his/or the EU's view of the border is very interesting

Mr Verhofstadt added that the Northern Ireland border was not a natural one, it was not a river, or a mountain range, and was an illogical divide which should remain invisible as it is today.

LuckyLloyd

There's a reason Juncker is laughing at May in public. demfad's post is an excellent summation of the realities of the situation and explains which side holds all the leverage.

listermint

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it isn't whataboutery, I was challenging an assertion that was made. I know it doesn't fit in well with the echo chamber, but actually the whataboutery came from posters who decided that the UK is just as bad or whatever. It really is as simple as that.

so, because Ireland "Is" the eu, they can do no wrong?

The fact you personally have tied your boat to the eu is obvious, I just hope the eu isn't prepared to cast that particular paddle boat adrift if it suits them.

Northern Ireland is going to be one of the worst off regions in Britain after all this.

Tell me again why you think this is a good idea?

Honestly. Because the entire region is going to be first up on the hurt train or are you hoping the dup fill all the empty EU money with London money? Because I can't see this flying for the rest of the UK

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It depends on how you understand the word negotiation.

If the word negotiation means as it does traditionally two parties with some differing views sitting to hammer out a common solution then of course it's worth doing.

If the EU have decided that a negotiation is trying to make the other party agree with their aims without compromise then I agree with you. The UK should walk away.

But this is a two-way thing, solo. Both sides have been setting red lines. The UK has set a few of its own, and you have generally agreed with them.

Are you now saying that if the UK has decided that the negotiations consist of trying to make the EU agree with its red lines without compromise then the EU should walk away?

Jim2007

demfad wrote: »

I don't think you understand this particular 'negotiation'.

The UK cannot walk away with what it brought into this negotiation. When the negotiation ends it is OUT of the EU. So the minimum deal has already being negotiated and will kick in in March 2017.

If the UK does not improve on this minimum deal what will happen?

• The UK will try and go under WTO rules
• First container arriving in Calais is stopped, and pulled aside for testing. Same with second.
• At some point that day Calais will announce that they wont accept any more UK trucks till backlog cleared.
• TRucks park in Dover etc. That fills. Now trucks start to fill up the slow lane on all motorways between London and Ports
• UK asks WTO to accept same rates as it had under EU
• EU immediately starts a trade dispute
• THis starts a landslide of trade disputes as states smell blood, some genuine, some like Argentina with other aims (Falklands).
• THe live food agrisector cannot export at all as no port exists for the necessary testing. This is a 12 billion industry.
• Testing: Country of origin rules mean that there must be paperwork showing country of origin for every component in a product.
• Any product who do not lose their export business due to delays will ofcourse be hit by WTO rates.
• This isnt just into Europe. But UK loses all its agreements with other countries. Same delays for exports to US, Russia, India etc all of the trade deals and mutual recognition agreements that it enjoyed with the EU are vansished.
• The UK must immediately replace 32 regulatory bodies. EU might agree to keep control of the open skies, after that...
• Qualifications, divorces, any legal UK position dissapears in EU overnight. A vast swath of British legal work gone.
• UK approaches the US for a deal. All the UK trade negotiators are tied up in WTO talks. These are novice UK civil servants facing US career trade negotiators. The US says they want to help and maybe something could be managed in two years. But they point out that the UK is in an historically weak position, unlike anything since WW2. They push across a list of demands: they are horrendous. The UK has wrestled control from the EU only to hand over sovereignty to the first bidder. They capitulate and sign with no other choice.....
• This list is not exhaustive.......

(more or less from Ian Dunts book)


This is what walking away actually means. Do you really think that this is something that the UK can threaten the EU with?

Without an agreement, you'll see the impact as early as next autumn:

- The issues around the open skies agreement will kick in around October
- UK academics and students will find their Erasmus programs etc applications blocked
- Switzerland will begin to reject U.K. 12 month+ work permit applications on the basis that the U.K. will be a third country in 2019. At present it is just a formality to get such permits.
- The use of U.K. products and services in tendering for long term government contracts will become problematic

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

But this is a two-way thing, solo. Both sides have been setting red lines. The UK has set a few of its own, and you have generally agreed with them.

Are you now saying that if the UK has decided that the negotiations consist of trying to make the EU agree with its red lines without compromise then the EU should walk away?

Good morning!

Yes, I agree, but from my impression, I think the UK's position is very reasonable. "We're leaving, but let's have a mutually beneficial partnership in respect to security and trade issues". There's no reason why this shouldn't be compatible with the red lines of the referendum.

The EU's position isn't reasonable from my perspective. "You must fit into a pre-existing box and obey all rules that an EU member has to follow and be subject to our court on every dispute without representation" even though you are leaving whilst ignoring that there are different kinds of boxes for interacting with third countries such as Canada.

Yes, the EU can refuse to consider any other arrangement apart from the Swiss or Norwegian box, but I don't think that's actually reasonable. In fact, it's inherently unreasonable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

breatheme

Did the UK ever say before the referendum, or even afterwards, that they want the Canadian model? Before the referendum, Garage said he wanted either the Norwegian or Swiss models. There has been zero clarity on this issue.

solodeogloria

breatheme wrote: »

Did the UK ever say before the referendum, or even afterwards, that they want the Canadian model? Before the referendum, Garage said he wanted either the Norwegian or Swiss models. There has been zero clarity on this issue.

Good morning!

You can see why I believe the Norwegian and Swiss results are incompatible with the referendum result here. We don't need to repeat ourselves again, and again and again.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

breatheme

I actually agree with you on that. I wasn't bringing that up. I asked: Has the UK said they want the Canadian deal? Yes or no. Have they?

Calina

The UK wants single market membership with three of the four freedoms.

The faffing about is a attempt to square that circle. The EU is dead from telling them they cannot have it.

The reason CETA is being tossed up as a solution is because a lot of people in the UK cannot see that there are core functional differences between single market membership and signing a FTA.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes, I agree, but from my impression, I think the UK's position is very reasonable. "We're leaving, but let's have a mutually beneficial partnership in respect to security and trade issues". There's no reason why this shouldn't be compatible with the red lines of the referendum.

The EU's position isn't reasonable from my perspective. "You must fit into a pre-existing box and obey all rules that an EU member has to follow and be subject to our court on every dispute without representation" even though you are leaving whilst ignoring that there are different kinds of boxes for interacting with third countries such as Canada.

Yes, the EU can refuse to consider any other arrangement apart from the Swiss or Norwegian box, but I don't think that's actually reasonable. In fact, it's inherently unreasonable.

If it only was that easy though. You make it sound as easy as David Davis thought it would be. But what about the border? How do you control immigration and have a open border with the EU? How does that affect trade?

The solutions can seem easy, just have a trade deal that is mutually beneficial. Its when you look at the limits imposed that you run into problems.

In any case, it seems as though Theresa May will give an amount as a divorce bill and single market access fee. I don't know what is so difficult in talking about the commitments owed instead about amounts. If you agree where you owe money it will be easy to get to the amount. Talking amounts just throws out more red lines for people.

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 almost like Michel Barnier is reading your posts

“I am asking myself questions. I’m wondering why – beyond the progress we’ve made on certain points – there is still today major uncertainty on each of the key issues of the first phase.

“To make progress, we are waiting for clear commitments from the UK on these precise issues. We will listen attentively and constructively to Theresa May’s important speech tomorrow in Florence.”

Barnier warned that May would have to make a substantive offer on citizens’ rights and the financial settlement to break the deadlock.

Everyone knows what it required why some in the UK are burying their heads in the sand is beyond me.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/21/eu-tells-britain-to-settle-the-accounts-and-speed-up-brexit-progress

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Yes, I agree, but from my impression, I think the UK's position is very reasonable. "We're leaving, but let's have a mutually beneficial partnership in respect to security and trade issues". There's no reason why this shouldn't be compatible with the red lines of the referendum.

The EU's position isn't reasonable from my perspective. "You must fit into a pre-existing box and obey all rules that an EU member has to follow and be subject to our court on every dispute without representation" even though you are leaving whilst ignoring that there are different kinds of boxes for interacting with third countries such as Canada.

Yes, the EU can refuse to consider any other arrangement apart from the Swiss or Norwegian box, but I don't think that's actually reasonable. In fact, it's inherently unreasonable.

But it is not, and never has been, the EU's position. At no point has the EU said that the UK can have the Norwegian deal or the Swiss deal or nothing. At no point have they said that the UK can't have the Canadian deal, or something like it.

What they have said is that the UK can't cherry-pick the features of EU membership/single market participation which appeal to it, and be excused from the features that don't. For example, if the EU wants to participate in the European Common Aviation Area, a market regulated by European law as interpreted and applied by the ECJ, then in respect of participation in the CAA it has to be subject to the relevant European laws and the jurisdiction of the court.

The EU is emphatically not saying that the UK can have no deal that doesn't involve ECJ jurisdiction. All it's saying is that, if it wants the kind of deal that involves ECJ jurisdiction, well, that involves ECJ jurisdiction. Which, in your own phrase, is a "very reasonable" stance for the EU to take.

Overall, your post confirms my impression that you consider it reasonable for the UK to set red lines from which it will not move, but unreasonable for the EU to do so. You can believe one of these things or the other, but not both.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU's position isn't reasonable from my perspective. "You must fit into a pre-existing box and obey all rules that an EU member has to follow and be subject to our court on every dispute without representation" even though you are leaving whilst ignoring that there are different kinds of boxes for interacting with third countries such as Canada.

So being reasonable in your little world is asking for a whole array of things that are not in any trade deal signed by the EU and expecting to get them because they have trade deals with other nations.... just the usual nonsense we've come to expect!

Fratton Fred

listermint wrote: »

Northern Ireland is going to be one of the worst off regions in Britain after all this.

Tell me again why you think this is a good idea?

Honestly. Because the entire region is going to be first up on the hurt train or are you hoping the dup fill all the empty EU money with London money? Because I can't see this flying for the rest of the UK

err, that's a bit random.

I've never said this is a good idea

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You can see why I believe the Norwegian and Swiss results are incompatible with the referendum result here. We don't need to repeat ourselves again, and again and again.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

With respect, what you are saying is those models are incompatible with your interpretation of the result.
Your interpretation is incompatible with the question asked and any polls since on why people voted as they did.

Fratton Fred

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's a reason Juncker is laughing at May in public. demfad's post is an excellent summation of the realities of the situation and explains which side holds all the leverage.

The reason Juncker is laughing is that the UK were the biggest objectors to his somewhat baffling rise to power in the eu.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

demfad

This is an excerpt Michel Barnier's speech from yesterday which is essential for evaluating May's speech today: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3404_en.htm#_ftn1

To make progress, we are waiting for clear commitments from the UK on these precise issues.
We will listen attentively and constructively to Theresa May's important speech tomorrow in Florence.

1/ On citizens' rights, our priority in this negotiation:
The issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom has not been solved.
It is absolutely necessary that all these citizens, hundreds of thousands of whom are Italian citizens living and working in the United Kingdom, can continue to live as they did before, with the same rights and safeguards.
This is a human and social question, which the European Parliament and its president, Antonio Tajani, are vigilantly watching, and rightly so.
Citizens should be able to enforce their rights directly from the withdrawal agreement. This would prevent any possible dilution of these rights, if the rules implementing them in the UK were to change.
In the same way, we want these rights to be valid in national courts and that national courts have the possibility – or even the obligation – to refer questions related to the interpretation of rights deriving from European law to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Justice would remain the ultimate guarantor of the agreement.
This is for a simple reason: rights need to be effectively guaranteed.
Our citizens have real concerns today – which we share – when the Home Office sends deportation letters or appears to defy High Court orders, as we read in the press.
Our position on this point has been clear since the beginning. We want to provide the strongest safeguards for the rights of citizens on both sides of the Channel. We are waiting for the United Kingdom to express the same wish.

2/ On the financial settlement:
All that is necessary in this negotiation is that everyone honours the commitments that they have made to each other. To settle the accounts. No more, no less.
To settle the accounts in an objective manner, on the basis of all commitments made at 28.
We want to provide – and we must provide – certainty for project managers working in Europe, such as in Italy and its regions, and in other continents, such as Africa, on the basis of the commitment of the 28.
But beyond money, this is a question of trust between the 27 and the United Kingdom, based on the respect of one's signature. And everyone knows that we will need this trust to create a solid relationship in the future.

3/ Finally, on Ireland, and the Border in particular, we must act responsibly to respect both the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and the integrity of the Single Market. We are advancing, but there is still more political work to be done.
As I was saying, I am asking myself questions. These questions, as far as I see it, should not be controversial because this is about protecting our citizens, our businesses, our partners, and the credibility of our promises.

If May is serious she will address these points during her Florence speech in a few hours. If it's more cakeism then they are not serious.
Or as Barnier put it: "will UK leave in an orderly fashion with an agreement, or not?"

Apparently Barnier will reply within 15 minutes of the speech.
Very clear on citizens rights above and the other red lines.

The whole speech is well worth a read. May will ask for a two year transition deal. Barnier addresses this:

An important point: this short transition period will be part of the Article 50 withdrawal agreement.
Without a withdrawal agreement, there is no transition. This is a point of law.
I would like to be very clear: if we are to extend for a limited period the acquis of the EU, with all its benefits, then logically "this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply" – as recalled in the mandate I received from the European Council, under the authority of President Donald Tusk.

In other words the transition deal will be under full EU rules.

He also says:

An important point: this short transition period will be part of the Article 50 withdrawal agreement.
Without a withdrawal agreement, there is no transition. This is a point of law.

This rules out the UK trying to use a transition deal as a cushion against a no-deal. No-deal will mean the UK leaves the EU in 2019 with no deal.

Chips Lovell

Yes, I'm finding May's speech to be somewhat underwhelming (at least what's been leaked of it) given all the hype its been given.

She wants to remain in the single market for two years post-exit and will contribute €20 billion to the EU budget for it. That's hardly earth-shattering news.

If that's all there is, I'd agree with demfad and expect the reaction to be "that's all very well, but we need to resolve the three issues in the first strand of negotiations first...."

solodeogloria

demfad wrote: »

This is an excerpt Michel Barnier's speech from yesterday which is essential for evaluating May's speech today: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3404_en.htm#_ftn1

If May is serious she will address these points during her Florence speech in a few hours. If it's more cakeism then they are not serious.
Or as Barnier put it: "will UK leave in an orderly fashion with an agreement, or not?"

Apparently Barnier will reply within 15 minutes of the speech.
Very clear on citizens rights above and the other red lines.

The whole speech is well worth a read. May will ask for a two year transition deal. Barnier addresses this:

In other words the transition deal will be under full EU rules.

He also says:

This rules out the UK trying to use a transition deal as a cushion against a no-deal. No-deal will mean the UK leaves the EU in 2019 with no deal.

Good morning!

I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections. If by "citizens rights" he means involving the ECJ directly, then that is a different issue. That's an issue of jurisdiction. There has been significant progress on citizens rights.

There has been progress on the Northern Ireland border even if it can't be fully resolved until after October.

However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.

If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

Interesting. It seems to me that opens up the possiblity of a transition agreement fulfilling two functions:

1. Provide a period for practical preparation for implementation of the agreed transition deal - recruiting and training staff, devising systems, drafting regulations, engaging in consultation with/communication to affected stakeholderse, constructing facilities, whatever might be needed. During this period the UK continues for most practical purposes to be treated as an EU member, but preparations are made for the different treatment that will commence at the end of the transition.

2. Provide a period during which the UK can negotiate, but not conclude or implement, trade and other deals with third countries. Maximises the chances that at the end of the transition period the UK can transition immediately, or at least with a minimal gap, into at least some of the new trade deals/arrangements that it hopes to conclude.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections . . .

That's why people are still discussing citizens rights. The EU wants them to have the rights that they currently enjoy, and it wants that provided for in the Brexit agreement, rather than simply in UK law. The UK hasn't (yet) agreed to the EU position, and the EU hasn't (yet) agreed to the UK position, so they need to keep talking. Otherwise there will be no agreement.

solodeogloria wrote: »

However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.

If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

As I say, it cuts both ways. You open this post by suggesting that, as the UK has made its position on citizens' rights clear, there is no need for further discussion of citizens' rights. Do you not see the irony here?

Zubeneschamali

I expect that the "transition period" from 2019 will effectively be continued membership of everything under existing rules with some language to placate the Brexiteers.

It may begin with a two-year duration, but there will be a clause in there to extend it if the difficulties with having cake and eating it have not been resolved.

Two extra years will not be enough to get the job done.

Peregrinus

One of the main issues for the UK during the transition period is that, although they'll have the benefits and burdens of membership at the coalface, so to speak, they won't actually be members, and therefore they won't be represented at the Council of Ministers or at EU Summits, they won't be involved in Treaty discussions, they won't have a veto, etc, etc.

They'll want some kind of ejector seat clause, so to speak, that says that if things are done at that level during the transition period they can crash out, so to speak, and leave fully with immediate effect. But that's a nuclear option; it would be hugely damaging to the UK actually to have to use that. So they'll also want a clause that give them some rights to be consulted, to express opinions, yadda, yadda, yadda, so that they can try to head off such developments or, in the worst case, prepare for them. And it gives them a strong incentive to make sure that the transition period isn't any longer than it needs to be.

mountaintop

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections. If by "citizens rights" he means involving the ECJ directly, then that is a different issue. That's an issue of jurisdiction. There has been significant progress on citizens rights.

There has been progress on the Northern Ireland border even if it can't be fully resolved until after October.

However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.


If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I'm curious. You say you are Irish but you talk like you are an English man. You have been asked about the damage to your home country (Ireland) but you waffle on about trade pacts, etc, etc. It's an never ending merry go round. From your emotional heart, can you not be objective and see the economic damage and yes, the possible loss of life this Brexit you are so fully behind is going to cause here. I mean, think about it. Ireland is prosperous, it is at peace: PEACE! Does that count for nothing. And please don't quote the Daily Telegraph again.

Chips Lovell

Crikey, even Conservative MPs aren't too clear about the whole thing:

Although May claims to have united the cabinet, some backbench Tory Eurosceptics will not be happy with the idea of any more payments to the EU after the point of departure.

Peter Bone, a Brexit supporter, told Sky: “Any divorce bill would be too much for me ... If you ask my constituents, in Wellingborough we want an urgent care centre. We’ve been campaigning for years, and it’s a few million pounds. And we are told there is not enough money for that.

“If we’re then told we’re giving £20bn to subsidise Romania and Poland, I think my constituents, and I think constituents around the country, would be furious about that.”

Someone needs to tell him that the proposed €20 billion payment is for two more years membership of the single market and that the exit settlement -what he terms the "divorce bill" is something entirely different.

solodeogloria

mountaintop wrote: »

I'm curious. You say you are Irish but you talk like you are an English man. You have been asked about the damage to your home country (Ireland) but you waffle on about trade pacts, etc, etc. It's an never ending merry go round. From your emotional heart, can you not be objective and see the economic damage and yes, the possible loss of life this Brexit you are so fully behind is going to cause here. I mean, think about it. Ireland is prosperous, it is at peace: PEACE! Does that count for nothing. And please don't quote the Daily Telegraph again.

Good morning!

You do realise that one can be Irish and be a Eurosceptic? I personally have no desire in the slightest in conforming to your personal shibboleth of what it means to be Irish.

I can see benefits of standing outside of the European Union, and plenty of them. I'm convinced that they will involve some cost up front, but I think being outside of the European Union is definitely the right option for the UK long term. I'm still hopeful of a good trade deal, but this requires goodwill in Brussels.

I don't get emotional at all about the European Union really. I'm not passionate at all about it. The people have spoken. That's what I care about politically - democracy - delivering the peoples vote.

I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative. Perhaps you should consider the role of the British government in resolving the peace process? Or the roles of Bill Clinton and others from the US? You could argue EU funding, but that's really just UK taxpayers money redistributed by Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

Fantastic article by Simon Kuper at the Financial Times today about the problems with the referendum and British politics in general:

The British chemist Sir Humphry Davy (born 1778) liked dangerous experiments. He was fired from his job as an apothecary for causing constant explosions. Later, as a chemist, he enjoyed inhaling the gases he worked with. This helped him discover that nitrous oxide (laughing gas) was a potent anaesthetic. “Unfortunately,” notes a short guide to his career from Oxford University Press, “the same habit led him to nearly kill himself on many occasions and the frequent poisonings left him an invalid for the last two decades of his life.” It was probably worth it: Davy isolated substances including calcium and strontium, identified the element iodine and made the first electric light.

Much like Davy, the UK is now experimenting on itself for the benefit of humanity. Advanced societies rarely do anything so reckless, which is why the Brexit experiment is so valuable. In between self-poisonings, Brexit keeps producing discoveries that surprise both Leavers and Remainers. Here are some early lessons for other countries:

When you focus on a wedge issue, you divide society. The Brexit vote has introduced unprecedented rancour into a traditionally apolitical country. Insults such as “enemies of the people”, “saboteurs”, “racists” and “go home to where you came from” are now daily British fare. Brexit rows split generations at family weddings and Christmas. All this was avoidable: until the referendum, few Britons had strong views on the EU, just as few Americans thought about transgender bathroom habits until their politicians discovered the issue. If you have to address wedge issues, best to aim for compromise rather than a winner-take-all solution such as a referendum.

All countries need real-time election regulators. There have always been people who lied to win votes. But now they have social media. Every slow, understaffed, 20th-century election regulator must therefore retool itself into a kind of courtroom judge who can call out falsehoods instantly. The model is the UK Statistics Authority’s reprimand of Boris Johnson last Sunday, after he repeated the nonsense that leaving the EU would free up £350m a week for the National Health Service.

Revolutionaries invariably underestimate transition costs. Maybe if you have a blank slate, being out of the EU is better than being in it. But the calculation changes once you’ve been in the EU for 43 years. All your arrangements are then predicated on being in, and suddenly they become redundant. The cost of change is a classic conservative insight, though it’s been forgotten by the Conservative party.

Almost every system is more complex than it looks. Most people can’t describe the workings of a toilet, writes Steven Sloman, cognitive scientist at Brown University. The EU is even more complicated, and so leaving it has countless unforeseen ramifications. Most Britons had no idea last year that voting Leave could mean closing the Irish border, or giving ministers dictatorial powers to rewrite law. Because of complexity, so-called common sense is a bad guide to policy making. Complexity is also an argument against direct democracy.

Immigrants fulfil a role. Any society in which they live comes to depend on them. Britain’s NHS and the City of London would buckle without them. You may calculate that your distaste for immigrants is worth some lost functioning, but you have to acknowledge the trade-off.

You have to choose who to surrender your sovereignty to. Brexiters are right to say that the EU has usurped some of British sovereignty. But as John Major, former British prime minister, remarks, in a connected world the only fully sovereign state is North Korea. All other countries are forever trading away bits of sovereignty. For instance, the trade deal that the UK hopes to sign one day with the EU will entail adopting the EU’s standards on everything from cars to toys. You can decide to give away your sovereignty in new ways but, in practice, you can’t decide to keep it.

A government can only handle one massive project at a time. This is at best, and only if the whole government agrees on it. There simply isn’t the staff or head space to do much more. Carrying out Brexit means not fixing what Johnson in February 2016 called “the real problems of this country — low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc — that have nothing to do with Europe”. (See my colleague Martin Sandbu’s recent demolition of Johnson’s inconsistencies.)

Negotiations get harder when you lose your counter-party’s trust. That’s what Greece discovered during its negotiations with the EU, says Greek economic analyst Paris Mantzavras of Pantelakis Securities. Mocking the other side in public — as Greece’s Yanis Varoufakis did, and as British politicians now do regularly — is therefore a losing tactic.

There is no reset button in human affairs. The UK cannot return to its imagined pre-EU idyll, because the world has changed since 1973. Nor can Britons simply discard the Brexit experiment if it goes wrong, and revert to June 22 2016. The past is over, so it’s a poor guide to policymaking.

These lessons come too late for the UK itself, so please consider them our selfless gift to the world, like football.

Source

mountaintop

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You do realise that one can be Irish and be a Eurosceptic? I personally have no desire in the slightest in conforming to your personal shibboleth of what it means to be Irish.

I can see benefits of standing outside of the European Union, and plenty of them. I'm convinced that they will involve some cost up front, but I think being outside of the European Union is definitely the right option for the UK long term.

I don't get emotional at all about the European Union really. I'm not passionate at all about it. The people have spoken. That's what I care about politically - democracy - delivering the peoples vote.

I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative. Perhaps you should consider the role of the British government in resolving the peace process? Or the roles of Bill Clinton and others from the US? You could argue EU funding, but that's really just UK taxpayers money redistributed by Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You didn't answer my question, whatever 'Shibboleth' means. You'll get dizzy on that jargon merry-go-round of yours. 'I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative', what does that mean? Waffle. And then you say 'perhaps you should consider the role of the British government in resolving the peace process?' And what does that mean? And is there a Freudian slip in there: 'Resolving the Peace Process'. That's the last thing we want, to have the peace process resolved!

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can see benefits of standing outside of the European Union, and plenty of them.

Yet you are strangely unable to point them out to us.

(Cue solo's mantra that he has done so many times here and we should consult his collected works.)

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fantastic article by Simon Kuper at the Financial Times today about the problems with the referendum and British politics in general:

Source

Good afternoon!

I'm not convinced it is excellent. Here's why.

Almost every system is more complex than it looks. Most people can’t describe the workings of a toilet, writes Steven Sloman, cognitive scientist at Brown University. The EU is even more complicated, and so leaving it has countless unforeseen ramifications. Most Britons had no idea last year that voting Leave could mean closing the Irish border, or giving ministers dictatorial powers to rewrite law. Because of complexity, so-called common sense is a bad guide to policy making. Complexity is also an argument against direct democracy.

He presents this as a negative to Brexit, but the inherent complexity of the bureaucracy that is the Brussels political union machine is a problem with the European Union. It is a problem that has been pointed out time and time again.

As a software engineer - simple, clean solutions tend to be best. The European Union is no such solution. The answer it presents to every single problem is more unnecessary complexity in the name of further integration to God knows what. The answer is actually simplicity. It is always simplicity.

The UK would have never left a looser union that supported nation states in an effective way.

Any society in which they live comes to depend on them. Britain’s NHS and the City of London would buckle without them. You may calculate that your distaste for immigrants is worth some lost functioning, but you have to acknowledge the trade-off.

This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.

The UK cannot return to its imagined pre-EU idyll, because the world has changed since 1973. Nor can Britons simply discard the Brexit experiment if it goes wrong, and revert to June 22 2016. The past is over, so it’s a poor guide to policymaking.

This is another silly strawman. The reason why I support Brexit is because it allows the UK to effectively engage with a growing world around it rather than being chained to the policies of the European Union in respect to trade in particular. It is a response to a world that is changing.

You have to choose who to surrender your sovereignty to. Brexiters are right to say that the EU has usurped some of British sovereignty. But as John Major, former British prime minister, remarks, in a connected world the only fully sovereign state is North Korea. All other countries are forever trading away bits of sovereignty. For instance, the trade deal that the UK hopes to sign one day with the EU will entail adopting the EU’s standards on everything from cars to toys. You can decide to give away your sovereignty in new ways but, in practice, you can’t decide to keep it.

Again, would you believe it? Yet another strawman.

The UK doesn't object to collaboration with other nations. It objects to the terms of European Union membership. It demands control that the British people thought went too far.

The terms of being a member of NATO for example are much less demanding than membership of the European Union. No other bloc on the face of the earth that I can think of demands so much control from its member states.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections. If by "citizens rights" he means involving the ECJ directly, then that is a different issue. That's an issue of jurisdiction. There has been significant progress on citizens rights.

There has been progress on the Northern Ireland border even if it can't be fully resolved until after October.

However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.

If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The fundamental flaw in all your posts, and it seems in the general thinking of the UK is that you and they appear to believe firstly, that they are negotiating as equals and that secondly, a Brexit deal is as important to the EU as it is to the UK. Neither of those beliefs are true.

The UK is negotiating with 27 countries who have banded together for extra negotiating strength. In any such negotiation, it is clear who has a weak hand and who has a strong hand. Outcomes reflect this.

It is already clear that in any hard Brexit, the UK will suffer a huge amount, Northern Ireland even more, Ireland will suffer too but a good bit less than the UK and the EU will have a slight hiccup.

solodeogloria

mountaintop wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, whatever 'Shibboleth' means. You'll get dizzy on that jargon merry-go-round of yours. 'I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative', what does that mean? Waffle. And then you say 'perhaps you should consider the role of the British government in resolving the peace process?' And what does that mean? And is there a Freudian slip in there: 'Resolving the Peace Process'. That's the last thing we want, to have the peace process resolved!

Good afternoon!

Here's a definition of shibboleth. It's a word in English borrowed from Hebrew. It's a word, expression or custom used to differentiate in groups from out groups.

The shibboleth that you added to the conversation is that I am not in the Irish in group because I support Brexit. I couldn't care less about what you think about my national identity.

Your claim that the EU is somehow contingent to peace in Ireland is manipulative. It is intended to say that by supporting Brexit I support the return of violence to Ireland. That's not true, it's obviously manipulative language.

My point about the British government is that they played a key role in the peace negotiations, as did the Americans. Yet, the EU is central to peace? I don't agree with this assumption.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

He presents this as a negative to Brexit, but the inherent complexity of the bureaucracy that is the Brussels political union machine is a problem with the European Union. It is a problem that has been pointed out time and time again.

Bureaucracy is ubiquitous. It is by no means a uniquely Brussels problem. I don't know why you've presented it as if it were. If one looks at the Lord Ashcroft polls I linked to recently, one can see that Sovereignty and Immigration twinned account for over 80% of the Leave vote. Bureaucracy, if it is a problem is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the British economy is heavily intertwined with the single market and undoing 43 years of economic integration is going to take a lot more than 2 years hence the widespread acceptance of the need for a transition period.

solodeogloria wrote: »

As a software engineer - simple, clean solutions tend to be best. The European Union is no such solution. The answer it presents to every single problem is more unnecessary complexity in the name of further integration to God knows what. The answer is actually simplicity. It is always simplicity.

The European Union is not a piece of software. Why you're bringing this up is beyond me.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.

So why does non-EU immigration count for more than 50%. Why has this not been reduced?

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is another silly strawman. The reason why I support Brexit is because it allows the UK to effectively engage with a growing world around it rather than being chained to the policies of the European Union in respect to trade in particular. It is a response to a world that is changing.

It isn't. The EU and immigrants were widely and wrongfully blamed for stagnant wages, soaring house prices and strained public services. If one accepts this premise then implementing the solution of leaving should solve all this. But of course the real world is much more complicated hence my earlier befuddlement at your software analogy above.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, would you believe it? Yet another strawman.

You deny that globalisation is happening?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK doesn't object to collaboration with other nations. It objects to the terms of European Union membership. It demands control that the British people thought went too far.

The terms of being a member of NATO for example are much less demanding than membership of the European Union. No other bloc on the face of the earth that I can think of demands so much control from its member states.

Surrendering the decision as to whether or not to go to war at the other side of the world sounds like a serious loss of control to me.

breatheme

solodeogloria;104751412

No other bloc on the face of the earth that I can think of demands so much control from its member states.

No other bloc allows such levels of trade amongst its member states.

mountaintop

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.

That's very nice of you but excuse me, aren't you an immigrant yourself? Or have you forgotten that? Have you now morphed into believing you are British and someone has to remind you that you are not, that you are Irish. Your remarks, forgive me, smack of condescension. Remember where you came from, have some empathy for those who still 'take the boat' for a better life, like millions of your forebearers did.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The European Union is not a piece of software. Why you're bringing this up is beyond me.

The principles are the same. Simple structures are better than overly complicated structures. A simpler union would have meant that the terms of its membership would have been easier to swallow, or even many different "unions" with the opportunity to opt in and out of particular forms of cooperation.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So why does non-EU immigration count for more than 50%. Why has this not been reduced?

I've discussed this already at length. Non-EU immigration is inherently different to EU immigration. We don't need to repeat ourselves.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It isn't. The EU and immigrants were widely and wrongfully blamed for stagnant wages, soaring house prices and strained public services. If one accepts this premise then implementing the solution of leaving should solve all this. But of course the real world is much more complicated hence my earlier befuddlement at your software analogy above.

How is this a response to my point about Brexit being a response to a changing world? It definitely is. The share of global economic growth outside of the EU is only going to get bigger and bigger. Binding your economic policy to the EU isn't sensible when there are clear economic opportunities to trade with the wider world.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You deny that globalisation is happening?

No, I don't deny cooperation with other countries. I deny that being bound to a heavily restrictive bloc is the right way to deal with it.

Again, Brexit is a result of a desire to deal with the world, not to be chained to EU specific policy.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surrendering the decision as to whether or not to go to war at the other side of the world sounds like a serious loss of control to me.

Believe it or not, it's far less than the amount of control that the EU demand. At least NATO doesn't mandate that the UK has to accept free movement from all of it's members and trade with the trade partners that only they approve of.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Mezcita

solodeogloria wrote: »

I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative.

Hardly. The moment anything resembling a hard border between the north and south emerges will inevitably lead to guys with explosives thinking that it's a good idea to let off a few bombs to make their point. They've done it before and would do it again.

Once again though I think this has already been factored into the UK's approach to this. If a few people end up dying it's not really that important in the whole scheme of things.

Personally delighted that Barnier has highlighted the importance of the border situation being resolved. The UK can ignore it all they like but it's not going to go away.