Brexit discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When the dust of Brexit sett!es it will be really interesting to see how the EU evolves.
I never understood the half hearted UK involvement nor why they were let away with it.

Trade was what attracted them but they've been a very negative presence all along. The others tolerated their recalcitrance in the hope that they could be appeased and accommodated. The mood now seems to be you can leave but here's some payback for all the crap we had to endure. The Tories have left Britain isolated and friendless.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The more and more I've seen from Brussels, the less and less I feel for the European project. It's been a settling time. I used to be a Eurosceptic who wanted the European Union to reform. I've now stopped believing that was ever possible and started to see that if the only reasons people can offer for staying in are fearmongering then it's just better to go.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Humour us with some idea of the reforms that you wanted?

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

if the only reasons people can offer for staying in are fearmongering then it's just better to go.

And of course, when the "fearmongering" comes true, and the predictable inflation, devaluation, investment fleeing overseas, barriers to trade, emigration, living standards erode, the tax take drops, services and the NHS are cut, strikers are on the streets fighting police...

It will all be the EUs fault!

murphaph

Solo...do you accept that Brexit will be damaging for Ireland?

Samaris

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And of course, when the "fearmongering" comes true, and the predictable inflation, devaluation, investment fleeing overseas, barriers to trade, emigration, living standards erode, the tax take drops, services and the NHS are cut, strikers are on the streets fighting police...

It will all be the EUs fault!

It would be nice to think that enough decency remains for people to take responsibility for their own votes, but given how Trump is blamed on the left (?) rather than those that voted for him BY those that voted for him...yeah, that's gonna happen.

Fortunately, at that point the EU won't have to listen to the UK's crap anymore.

And hopefully many of us will still remember what actually happened. Rewriting history will probably continue, but we lived through it and saw what went on. I am going to bloody well remember the various events of 2016 and '17, because the trend of denying that X happened within easy memory of the event itself drives me mad, it really does.

Your vote, your ballot, your choice, your consequences. Putting it on those who argued at the time and after is a coward's trick.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

murphaph wrote: »

Solo...do you accept that Brexit will be damaging for Ireland?

Not necessarily. This is as much dependent on how the EU respond as it is to what the UK propose. I agree with the Prime Minister that if all parties are willing to be creative in respect to the solution that a solution can be found.

I'm still hopeful. But this notion that the EU has no responsibility for the outcome of the negotiations isn't true. Both the UK and the EU bear responsibility.

Samaris wrote: »

Your vote, your ballot, your choice, your consequences. Putting it on those who argued at the time and after is a coward's trick.

I agree with this principle. I disagree with Democrats who are screaming at getting rid of Donald Trump. He won according to the rules that were set out before the election. Therefore he is duly the President of the United States.

Now do I think he was a good choice? No, but he won and the consequences of that result are on those who voted for him.

The same is true for Brexit. I don't believe that it is going to be a disaster. However, you are entirely right that the people bear the consequence of their vote.

This is precisely why people who want to thwart Brexit are in the wrong. The vote needs to be honoured and implemented. Time will tell as to who was right, but the sovereign decision of the people needs to be acted upon.

If it is a mistake (and I certainly don't believe it is) then the British people have the sovereign democratic right to make a mistake in the same way that I believe that the Americans have done.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The Rape of Lucretia

For some perspective on Europe's interest and concern for Brexit, and aside from no one being at Mays speech yesterday, the speech itself and absence of substance therein, is only footnote news in the quality continental papers this morning.



http://www.lemonde.fr
http://www.corriere.it/
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/

You have to do some scrolling and look at the small titles to find them....

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



Not necessarily. This is as much dependent on how the EU respond as it is to what the UK propose. I agree with the Prime Minister that if all parties are willing to be creative in respect to the solution that a solution can be found.

There is a solution which is glaringly obvious and in the UK's best interest. It is called remaining in the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm still hopeful. But this notion that the EU has no responsibility for the outcome of the negotiations isn't true. Both the UK and the EU bear responsibility.

All the responsibility for this mess lies with the UK. The EU may take action to mitigate but they bear no responsibility. This mess comes about because of a UK decision which you are suggesting the UK does not have to take ownership of.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree with this principle. I disagree with Democrats who are screaming at getting rid of Donald Trump. He won according to the rules that were set out before the election. Therefore he is duly the President of the United States.

Now do I think he was a good choice? No, but he won and the consequences of that result are on those who voted for him.

The key issue with this attitude is that you abdicate on recognising that by the rules that enabled him to win, a majority of actual people still voted for a different candidate and the consequences are on those who did not vote for him too. However, that is off topic for this thread.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The same is true for Brexit. I don't believe that it is going to be a disaster. However, you are entirely right that the people bear the consequence of their vote.

The key contribution to it not being a disaster is managing expectations. The lower expectations for Brexit are, the less that people like you will consider it a disaster.

However, the metrics for what constitutes a good Brexit were not set out before Brexit. The taking back of power was a myth because it's being passed not to the people represented by a parliament, but to a cabinet, the result of a pick and mix exercise of the winner of a popularity contest of a subset of the members of a party not all of whom necessarily get to choose their party leader depending on which party is concerned.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is precisely why people who want to thwart Brexit are in the wrong. The vote needs to be honoured and implemented. Time will tell as to who was right, but the sovereign decision of the people needs to be acted upon.

Democracy dictates that people who are against Brexit have the right to fight for that position in exactly the same way as the Brexit supporters fought for 40 plus years for their referendum.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If it is a mistake (and I certainly don't believe it is) then the British people have the sovereign democratic right to make a mistake in the same way that I believe that the Americans have done.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

And the British people who believe it is a stupid idiotic thing to do have the democratic right to fight it too.

It seems to me that people who support Brexit do not understand what democracy it is. It does involve accepting people have different views and may agitate to get a decision changed. IF it was okay for those against the EEC, EC and EU to fight for years to get out after a democratic referendum then it is equally okay for those in favour of staying in the EU to fight for change too.

steddyeddy

Well I'm not going to debate posters who change their story about 5 times a thread. I will however, debate the idiocy and entitlement of the UK's position. Here's the chief negotiator's response to May.

"Six months after the triggering of article 50, it appears that the position of the UK is becoming more realistic. Finally, the UK Government concedes a transition period will be necessary, as the European Parliament already indicated in its resolution of the 5th of April. But this transition or implementation period can only be a continuation of the EU acquis ('acquis communautaire'); it will be impossible to cherry-pick. This means for example, with regard to citizens rights, that a new registration mechanism for EU citizens going to live and/or work in the UK is out of the question. Equally, oversight by the European Court of Justice needs to be secured for the entire transition period. It can never be allowed for the ECJ to be replaced by another dispute settle mechanism during our future relationship.

The European Parliament has made it very clear from the beginning that for us it is: citizens first. We need to be very cautious, and I want to see how, next week, when the negotiations resume, the UK government intends to guarantee that the rulings of the European Court of Justice will be fully taken on board by UK courts. The protection of the rights of our EU citizens living in Britain must be absolute and beyond any doubt. I repeat that the new "settled status", as proposed by the UK Government, is hugely problematic in that respect as it will create an enormous administrative burden and uncertainty for millions of our citizens.

On the financial settlement, Prime Minister May brought some additional clarifications but also here important questions remain. While on the one hand the UK Government speaks of 'honoring all commitments made during membership', on the other hand the Prime Minister suggests payments will be limited until 2020, while the transition period goes beyond 2020 and some commitments will only produce payments after that date. The UK government will have to come up with concrete proposals next week, during the fourth round of negotiations to bring full clarity.

Apart from citizens' rights and the financial settlement, the EU always made clear that the Irish question is one of our priorities. I didn't hear yet how the UK government wants to avoid a hard border or physical checks on the island of Ireland. This only seems possible if Northern Ireland remains part of the Customs Union.

With regards to the future relationship, I heard a lot about what the UK doesn't want (the single market, the customs union, the EEA or an FTA). I hope to hear from them soon how they see the "deep and special partnership" with the EU. I reiterate our opinion that an association agreement is the preferable framework to shape our future relationship. It is foreseen in the Treaty and can cover all sectors: from trade to research, internal and external security. However, full clarity on the essential elements of the withdrawal agreement and positive steps in the negotiations are needed before the Parliament can assess that sufficient progress has been made to open the negotiations on the future relationship"

The EP Brexit Steering Group together with the EU negotiator will make a full assessment of Prime Minister May's intervention, including the preparation of the next negotiation round next Monday at midday.

Samaris

I am concerned about "willing to be creative". We've been seeing a bit too much of that lately, and the UK negotiators are ridiculously hard to nail down to actual facts and proposals.

Look, I actually am very fond of England. I lived there, I have roots there, I have friends there. I don't want to see the UK damaged. I am and I will freely admit to being, absolutely fed up and contemptuous of the political establishment there currently who seem intent on causing as much damage as possible through sheer incompetence. I cannot - I honestly and truly cannot - see this being a wonderful choice, simply because nothing that has happened since the referendum (or during it) encourages me to think that the people in charge have the foggiest idea of what they're doing.

Time will tell, that's true. But I fear for those whose futures are to be sacrificed* to an experiment with no clear plan, a very fuzzy agenda and a refusal to talk specifics, but keep trying to change the topics to trade. People WILL suffer - same as others would continue to suffer whilst staying in the EU. That happens with any major change in how a country is governed, at the least for a time, but usually there will be those that get repeatedly and continuously screwed (generally those with less money and influence). The UK holds as much responsibility to those as it holds to those that voted either way.

This must not be a government for Brexiteers in the same way that Trump's government is a government only for those who voted for him. That is poor governance and shameful for any democratic country. If you are committed to Brexit, you too have a responsibility to fight for those that can and will be marginalised by it, that they may benefit from all the positives that you reckon will come of it.


*In too many cases already, have already been sacrificed to it.

The Rape of Lucretia

Calina wrote: »

There is a solution which is glaringly obvious and in the UK's best interest. It is called remaining in the EU.

This is not a possibility.
Sure, remaining in the EU is in the UK's best interest. But it is a democratic country, and that includes being able to make choices that are not in their best interest, and a significant ignorant and uneducated portion of the UK population has fallen to nonsense such as wanting to have full control of the straightness of their bananas, and being able to reaffirm that wogs begin at Calais and will not be on England's pleasant pastures seen.

All officialdom knows this. If ever a phrase was made for a particular case, it is that of having one's cake and eating it. For that is what the whole body of UK officialdom, politics, business, commerce, and diplomacy knows that they must try to achieve. They must keep everything possible from the EU cake that they can, yet still be able to present to their lower citizens, that they have left the EU cake behind on the table.

Its a tough challenge. And on every point has easy to spot contradictions. And why it is a game of politics, not negotiations, self governance, and 'taking back control'.

For all the proud union jack waving and Britannia ruling the waves over the centuries - much of it entirely merited and they are commended for so much that they have contributed to the world - the irony lost on those still doing that waving, is that this is their lowest and most shameful moment. Possibly ever. And they will pay a very high price for it in the coming decades.

The Rape of Lucretia

Samaris wrote: »

I don't want to see the UK damaged.

The UK has chosen to damage itself. Not all damage has to come from the outside. The politicians do have a very thing path to tread, and I understand the problem they have in not being able to acknowledge this publicly.

steddyeddy

I don't want to see the UK damaged. I do want to see the careers of serial liars and power driven politicians like Farage, Johnson and May damaged. These are the enemies of Britain, not the EU.

Calina

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The UK has chosen to damage itself. Not all damage has to come from the outside. The politicians do have a very thing path to tread, and I understand the problem they have in not being able to acknowledge this publicly.

Strictly speaking, I don't think this is tenable. London, NI, and Scotland all voted to remain within the EU. So part of the UK has chosen to damage itself, and the rest of the UK which does not want to be damaged.

But it has also decided to damage Ireland. And not only that, it does not care that it has decided to do that, but on occasion chooses to try and use the country as a bargaining chip to manipulate people into preventing the UK from having to deal with what it has done to itself and others.

I would argue that remaining in the EU absolutely is possible. It is that no one in the UK has the guts to face up to the fact that it is the primary solution to the problems that they face on an economic front. The fact that "they don't want to" is not the same as "they can't".

The Rape of Lucretia

Calina wrote: »

Strictly speaking, I don't think this is tenable. London, NI, and Scotland all voted to remain within the EU. So part of the UK has chosen to damage itself, and the rest of the UK which does not want to be damaged.

Frankly, I find this argument nonsense. They are the one democratic country. Where do you draw the line. London voted to stay - should they remain ? Do you do it by county? Should every individual be able to decide they are or not EU members ? Scotland only recently decided to 'remain' in the UK - they cannot, again, 'have their cake and eat it'.
That is democracy - while different people chose differently, the group, as a whole, chose to leave. And the rest must go with that.
The referendum was not 'Scotland, do you want to leave or remain', 'London, do you want to leave or remain', it was everyone as part of the UK at that time, to decide together, to all leave, or all remain.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Calina wrote: »

There is a solution which is glaringly obvious and in the UK's best interest. It is called remaining in the EU.

This is simply your position, what the Government is concerned with is with the view expressed in the election result. That's what I'm interested in seeing delivered.

Calina wrote: »

All the responsibility for this mess lies with the UK. The EU may take action to mitigate but they bear no responsibility. This mess comes about because of a UK decision which you are suggesting the UK does not have to take ownership of.

I don't accept this.

If the EU is an all benevolent institution in respect to its member states then it bears some responsibility in respect to what happens in Ireland.

The UK bears responsibility in respect to implementing the result of the referendum.

Calina wrote: »

The key issue with this attitude is that you abdicate on recognising that by the rules that enabled him to win, a majority of actual people still voted for a different candidate and the consequences are on those who did not vote for him too. However, that is off topic for this thread.

You cannot retrospectively change the rules because you don't like the result.

This is the behaviour of despots.

Calina wrote: »

Democracy dictates that people who are against Brexit have the right to fight for that position in exactly the same way as the Brexit supporters fought for 40 plus years for their referendum.

The decreasing number of hard remainers have their work cut out.

Calina wrote: »

And the British people who believe it is a stupid idiotic thing to do have the democratic right to fight it too.

It seems to me that people who support Brexit do not understand what democracy it is. It does involve accepting people have different views and may agitate to get a decision changed. IF it was okay for those against the EEC, EC and EU to fight for years to get out after a democratic referendum then it is equally okay for those in favour of staying in the EU to fight for change too.

Opposing the majority will of the people isn't respecting democracy.

Yes by all means put in the incredibly hard slog if convincing the British people that they should be part of an increasingly power-hungry Brussels political machine.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

Calina wrote: »

Strictly speaking, I don't think this is tenable. London, NI, and Scotland all voted to remain within the EU. So part of the UK has chosen to damage itself, and the rest of the UK which does not want to be damaged.

But it has also decided to damage Ireland. And not only that, it does not care that it has decided to do that, but on occasion chooses to try and use the country as a bargaining chip to manipulate people into preventing the UK from having to deal with what it has done to itself and others.

I would argue that remaining in the EU absolutely is possible. It is that no one in the UK has the guts to face up to the fact that it is the primary solution to the problems that they face on an economic front. The fact that "they don't want to" is not the same as "they can't".

This ^

The Tory Little Englanders don't give a damn about any other country or its people. It's fine if peace crumbles in the North or Ireland's economy is damaged as long as they fulfill their dream of a 1950s chocolate box England that never existed.

murphaph

Yeah it's clear as day Brexit is highly likely to damage Ireland's economy. Attempting to offload responsibility to the EU for mitigating against this is pretty cheeky.

You'd need some kind of blind faith in Brexit to genuinely think it's not likely to damage Ireland.

Moodys of course downgraded the UK's credit rating last night. Perhaps May's speech wasn't as inspiring to them as it was to Solo.

The Rape of Lucretia

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah it's clear as day Brexit is highly likely to damage Ireland's economy. Attempting to offload responsibility to the EU for mitigating against this is pretty cheeky.

You'd need some kind of blind faith in Brexit to genuinely think it's not likely to damage Ireland.

Moodys of course downgraded the UK's credit rating last night. Perhaps May's speech wasn't as inspiring to them as it was to Solo.

Sure, Brexit will damage Ireland.
But while we are desperate to minimise this, I cannot object to their right to do so, nor that they expect the EU to mitigate this damage rather than themselves to do so.
They are entitled to make their own decisions, and arent obliged to consider us. They have no obligation to us particularly, and are correct to try to get the best exit deal they can from the EU - within which is the UK compensating ireland's loss as little as they can.
Thats all fair game, and I wouldnt fault them for that element.

murphaph

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Sure, Brexit will damage Ireland.
But while we are desperate to minimise this, I cannot object to their right to do so, nor that they expect the EU to mitigate this damage rather than themselves to do so.
They are entitled to make their own decisions, and arent obliged to consider us. They have no obligation to us particularly, and are correct to try to get the best exit deal they can from the EU - within which is the UK compensating ireland's loss as little as they can.
Thats all fair game, and I wouldnt fault them for that element.

Fine. But don't complain when our true friends in the EU27 who DO seem to care about us use their might to minimise damage to us, regardless of the consequences for the UK. All's fair in love and war, right?

Professor Moriarty

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Sure, Brexit will damage Ireland.
But while we are desperate to minimise this, I cannot object to their right to do so, nor that they expect the EU to mitigate this damage rather than themselves to do so.
They are entitled to make their own decisions, and arent obliged to consider us. They have no obligation to us particularly, and are correct to try to get the best exit deal they can from the EU - within which is the UK compensating ireland's loss as little as they can.
Thats all fair game, and I wouldnt fault them for that element.

By the same token, the UK should stop whinging about the EU's demands and instead deal with, and take full responsibility for, the consequences of a breakdown in peace in the North and the economic and political isolation that Brexit will bring.

Water John

So TROL, the Scottish people can decide on one constitutional issue, but not on another, very strange democracy?
Also, when the Irish voted for candidates to set up our own Government in 1918 you too would have sent in the British army. So should Spain today send the army into Catalonia?

If 'creativity' means breaking the laws of the EU Member states with regards to the Single Market, or breaking the rules on 3rd Country as understood by the WTO, I'm afraid I'm wholly behind the EU being as boring and creative as possible.

The Rape of Lucretia

Water John wrote: »

So TROL, the Scottish people can decide on one constitutional issue, but not on another, very strange democracy?
Also, when the Irish voted for candidates to set up our own Government in 1918 you too would have sent in the British army. So should Spain today send the army into Catalan?

I dont really follow your point here : they were given a democratic vote to choose or not to make future decisions as a coherent block with the greater UK. And choose to be part of that greater block, not self determining. So despite the drill down analysis of the voting results from the Brexit referendum, it is unarguable that Scotland voted to Brexit. Again, there was no 'Scotland, do you want to Brexit, or Remain ?'. There was a UK choice, which Scotland reaffirmed only a few years earlier was they way they wished their democracy to be exercised.

Water John

Your showing a very specific mindset. 'They were given'.
Basically the Tories, who had 1 seat in Scotland decided.

Panrich

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Sure, Brexit will damage Ireland.
But while we are desperate to minimise this, I cannot object to their right to do so, nor that they expect the EU to mitigate this damage rather than themselves to do so.
They are entitled to make their own decisions, and arent obliged to consider us. They have no obligation to us particularly, and are correct to try to get the best exit deal they can from the EU - within which is the UK compensating ireland's loss as little as they can.
Thats all fair game, and I wouldnt fault them for that element.

So what are these shared challenges that Teresa May made plenty of mention of yesterday? The UK can't have it both ways. Either the EU/UK work together on the shared problems brought on by Brexit or they don't. Making your own decisions without regard for the consequences is fine if you don't want to have an ongoing productive relationship with other affected parties.

Jim2007

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They are entitled to make their own decisions, and arent obliged to consider us. They have no obligation to us particularly, and are correct to try to get the best exit deal they can from the EU - within which is the UK compensating ireland's loss as little as they can.
Thats all fair game, and I wouldnt fault them for that element.

Of course they are entitled to make their own decisions, but they also have to accept that their decisions has consequences and that the we/EU will act to protect our interests. And complaining when we do is just silly.

And at the rate they are going they may well find that the path to full membership of the WTO is blocked and consequently their ability to do trade deals with the other WTO members is blocked, the possibility of a trade deal with the EU is blocked, the possibility of an open skies deal it blocked etc...

murphaph

Jim2007 wrote: »

Of course they are entitled to make their own decisions, but they also have to accept that their decisions has consequences and that the we/EU will act to protect our interests. And complaining when we do is just silly.

And at the rate they are going they may well find that the path to full membership of the WTO is blocked and consequently their ability to do trade deals with the other WTO members is blocked, the possibility of a trade deal with the EU is blocked, the possibility of an open skies deal it blocked etc...

This is all fair enough too if the UK says "f*** Ireland. We'll do what's best for us". They will learn pretty quickly what being outside the club means if the EU decides to make their lives difficult because they've thrown a member state (Ireland) right under the bus.

First Up

murphaph wrote:

This is all fair enough too if the UK says "f*** Ireland. We'll do what's best for us". They will learn pretty quickly what being outside the club means if the EU decides to make their lives difficult because they've thrown a member state (Ireland) right under the bus.

Both Barnier and Verhofstadt have made it very clear in the last few days that the EU has no intention of letting the UK do any such thing.

What this means is that whatever deal is done between the EU and the UK, it will not result in any disadvantage to Ireland's relations with and access to the rest of the EU.

It remains to be seen how that impacts on Northern Ireland and cross border traffic but the UK has been left in no doubt that Ireland is not a bargaining chip in this.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

Both Barnier and Verhofstadt have made it very clear in the last few days that the EU has no intention of letting the UK do any such thing.

What this means is that whatever deal is done between the EU and the UK, it will not result in any disadvantage to Ireland's relations with and access to the rest of the EU.

It remains to be seen how that impacts on Northern Ireland and cross border traffic but the UK has been left in no doubt that Ireland is not a bargaining chip in this.

I think we're seeing who our true friends are for sure. Verhofstadt in particular is a powerful ally IMO. The European Parliament must give its ascent to any deal or it's sunk.

May does know that WTO terms (if the EU even allows that to happen... it's not clear if the UK has an automatic right to their quotas!) is not an option. Otherwise she'd have gone for them already. That's what she's like. If the UK messes with Ireland, they may find it impossible to trade with any WTO member!

It's in the EU's hands.

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Opposing the majority will of the people isn't respecting democracy.

By which argument, canvassing for an opposition party prior to an election is undemocratic.

Opposing the majority will of the people is what minorities do. How the bloody hell are you supposed to persuade the majority of the validity of your position if you're going to be shouted down as an enemy of democracy for having the temerity to disagree?

I've complained about the mindless worship of democracy many times on this forum, but I've never seen it taken to quite such a ridiculous extreme. If you were in the minority of a group in which the majority voted to commit suicide, would you feel honour-bound to top yourself? Or would you suddenly find it in your heart to stop "respecting democracy"?

I'll have a lot more respect for democracy when its blind adherents stop coming out with stupid platitudes that amount to little more than "the majority has spoken so SHUT UP".

steddyeddy

Watching May's speech and Question Time the other night I was struck by the amount of entitlement the leave voters and the UK in general have towards the EU. May in her speech suggested that a deal like the Canadian-EU deal wouldn't be good enough for Britain. She talked about what the UK needs in terms of a trade deal and then followed with a few lines about how the UK doesn't like the EU.

So in other words you have to do a trade deal with us, but just to remind you, we don't really like the EU.

murphaph

steddyeddy wrote: »

Watching May's speech and Question Time the other night I was struck by the amount of entitlement the leave voters and the UK in general have towards the EU. May in her speech suggested that a deal like the Canadian-EU deal wouldn't be good enough for Britain. She talked about what the UK needs in terms of a trade deal and then followed with a few lines about how the UK doesn't like the EU.

So in other words you have to do a trade deal with us, but just to remind you, we don't really like the EU.

And the UK press seems to believe a transitional period is a given, should the UK request it! The EU would of course need to agree to it but without a direction, a plan, there is perhaps less appetite for this in Brussels than UK politicians might believe.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

And the UK press seems to believe a transitional period is a given, should the UK request it! The EU would of course need to agree to it but without a direction, a plan, there is perhaps less appetite for this in Brussels than UK politicians might believe.

Well at the very least we'd want to know what they are transition to....

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

May does know that WTO terms (if the EU even allows that to happen... it's not clear if the UK has an automatic right to their quotas!) is not an option.

The EU did try to open this discussion with the WTO in regard to the reallocation of tariff free quotas and not surprisingly none of the other member were happy to have to share their already allocations. So that is already not very positive.

And of course if they walk await with not deal, it is very likely that the EU could tie their application up for years.

Zubeneschamali

Jim2007 wrote: »

And of course if they walk await with not deal, it is very likely that the EU could tie their application up for years.

...and since we all know they will loudly and constantly blame the EU for their misfortunes which they bring upon themselves, even if the EU tries their best to help...

...why try to help? Why not kick them when they are down? They would do the same.

Hell, they are trying to kick us while we are still up, for no damn reason except internal Tory party politics.

Alan_P

murphaph wrote: »

And the UK press seems to believe a transitional period is a given, should the UK request it! The EU would of course need to agree to it but without a direction, a plan, there is perhaps less appetite for this in Brussels than UK politicians might believe.

That point occured to me this morning, when I saw headlines along the lines of "May delays departure", "Brexit delayed for 2 years". May in fact was requesting an extension :- I concur that there may be significant resistance to granting one.

The simple fact is that a number of the EU27 simply don't have a lot of skin in this game,aren't particularly interested, don't care a whole lot and may conclude that a no deal Brexit on the original deadline is the simplest, cleanest option. What's the point of an extension if they're just going to be dealing with the same British nonsense at the end of it ? Better just to throw them out on the original, Article 50 deadline.

The Rape of Lucretia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

...and since we all know they will loudly and constantly blame the EU for their misfortunes which they bring upon themselves, even if the EU tries their best to help...

That will be old-man-yells-at-cloud country though - it wont matter. The EU will have moved on and not care.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

...and since we all know they will loudly and constantly blame the EU for their misfortunes which they bring upon themselves, even if the EU tries their best to help...

...why try to help? Why not kick them when they are down? They would do the same.

Hell, they are trying to kick us while we are still up, for no damn reason except internal Tory party politics.

Because it's the right thing to do.

Morals is not about doing what's right when it's easy but when it's hard and the simple fact is there's no need to kick UK because they are doing an excellent job on their own of doing so. You can call it moral high ground or what ever but simply acting as mature adults doing our part and trying to help will go a lot longer beyond Brexit in the long term. Not only will it smooth a future transition back but it will also show that EU are not acting as children with a tantrum even if our counterpart does and will continue to be adults at the discussion table.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Both Barnier and Verhofstadt have made it very clear in the last few days that the EU has no intention of letting the UK do any such thing.

What this means is that whatever deal is done between the EU and the UK, it will not result in any disadvantage to Ireland's relations with and access to the rest of the EU.

It remains to be seen how that impacts on Northern Ireland and cross border traffic but the UK has been left in no doubt that Ireland is not a bargaining chip in this.

I think we're seeing who our true friends are for sure. Verhofstadt in particular is a powerful ally IMO. The European Parliament must give its ascent to any deal or it's sunk.

May does know that WTO terms (if the EU even allows that to happen... it's not clear if the UK has an automatic right to their quotas!) is not an option. Otherwise she'd have gone for them already. That's what she's like. If the UK messes with Ireland, they may find it impossible to trade with any WTO member!

It's in the EU's hands.

WTO doesn't have quotas.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

WTO doesn't have quotas.

It does. It's why Tate & Lyle came out in favour of Brexit. The WTO treats the EU as a single nation so any quota is spread across the bloc.

Water John

I think Davis has to step up to the mark at the next round of talks and put flesh on the bones of what May said.
Wonder will Mogg articulate further his belief that being subject to the ECJ over the transition was a red line for him? Will he take that to the party conference?

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

WTO doesn't have quotas.

It does. It's why Tate & Lyle came out in favour of Brexit. The WTO treats the EU as a single nation so any quota is spread across the bloc.

It doesn't.  The WTO  is working to have quotas eliminated.  Quotas are set by countries (and the EU for some items). The WTO has intervened in disputes about quotas but it has no role (or desire to be involved) in setting or enforcing them.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It does. It's why Tate & Lyle came out in favour of Brexit. The WTO treats the EU as a single nation so any quota is spread across the bloc.

Good evening!

Tate & Lyle opposed the EU common tariff on sugar cane to protect European sugar beet producers. Not quotas.

Most people accept that this common tariff will have to be a part of WTO schedules when Britain joins, but there is no reason why it couldn't be relaxed after Britain is fully a member.

This is another reason why localised tariff policies could benefit the UK after Brexit, because the UK will be able to consider what will benefit Britain specifically rather than the EU as a whole.

oscarBravo wrote: »

By which argument, canvassing for an opposition party prior to an election is undemocratic.

Opposing the majority will of the people is what minorities do. How the bloody hell are you supposed to persuade the majority of the validity of your position if you're going to be shouted down as an enemy of democracy for having the temerity to disagree?

I've complained about the mindless worship of democracy many times on this forum, but I've never seen it taken to quite such a ridiculous extreme. If you were in the minority of a group in which the majority voted to commit suicide, would you feel honour-bound to top yourself? Or would you suddenly find it in your heart to stop "respecting democracy"?

I'll have a lot more respect for democracy when its blind adherents stop coming out with stupid platitudes that amount to little more than "the majority has spoken so SHUT UP".

If you had read my whole post you wouldn't be making this argument.

I've said people can clearly campaign for whatever they want. Hard remainers have their work cut out. Meanwhile, the result of the referendum is being implemented.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Tate & Lyle opposed the EU common tariff on sugar cane to protect European sugar beet producers. Not quotas.

Most people accept that this common tariff will have to be a part of WTO schedules when Britain joins, but there is no reason why it couldn't be relaxed after Britain is fully a member.

This is another reason why localised tariff policies could benefit the UK after Brexit, because the UK will be able to consider what will benefit Britain specifically rather than the EU as a whole.

Except of course for any exports that includes sugar in any form in the product to EU which now needs to calculate the exact amount of sugar to add the relevant tariffs (and yes I've been involved in that process and to call it painful and complex would be an understatement) which goes from Cadbury chocolate over drinks to cookies to cakes etc. I'm sure Tayte will be happy but I'm willing to bet there's a whole lot bigger market who're not going to be very happy about that idea (well except UK dentists since the sugar content can now be increased cheaply again).

murphaph

Your average German Facebook poster does not seem too impressed with the latest post by HM Government lol...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159299397600394&id=408582579294175

It's interesting that the UK government feels the need to try to speak directly to the German public via Facebook! No deal is clearly not an option!

Leonard Hofstadter

murphaph wrote: »

Your average German Facebook poster does not seem too impressed with the latest post by HM Government lol...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159299397600394&id=408582579294175

It's interesting that the UK government feels the need to try to speak directly to the German public via Facebook! No deal is clearly not an option!

Indeed, my limited knowledge of German suggests that most posters either can't understand why the UK is leaving (something I also still can't understand - and I live in the UK!) or else are saying what Mrs Merkel and others in the EU27 are saying - no more having cake and eating it.

Also, the Torygraph is reporting that Boris has said there will be no more EU rules from 2019 so we've barely managed a day of cabinet unity after all of that.

I don't know how anyone - be they leave or remain voters, can have any faith in what the Tories are up to.

I wouldn't mind but I actually had some hope after yesterday, it was great to see (at long long last) them slowly starting to orbit back into planet Earth and I thought most of what Mrs May said was eminently sensible (apart from the glaring omission about the border).

Water John

Yes Boris looking to, book end May's Florence speech.
It's a fight between the right and far right for the Tory heart.
Jacob and Boris setting out red lines, hoping to catch a wave.

Who are the EU talking to?

Junkyard Tom

Cameron facilitated a referendum to placate the lunatic-fringe of the Tory Party and all it has achieved is an emboldening of them. What's going on in Britain is absolutely remarkable to watch - like a car crash in slow motion.

steddyeddy

Water John wrote: »

Yes Boris looking to, book end May's Florence speech.
It's a fight between the right and far right for the Tory heart.
Jacob and Boris setting out red lines, hoping to catch a wave.

Who are the EU talking to?

The last time two Tory Etonians had a fight the UK left the biggest single market in the world and now faces its greatest economic threat in decades.

If the UK's voters had any sense they would stop voting for people like Jacob and Boris. People from Eton with no idea of what it is to actually have to work as hard as the rest of us do, who instead fill their time with power plays that destroy the British economy for hard working people.