Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

Good morning!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Straight from the airline's mouths. There are no common aviation laws for airlines to fall back on unlike trade which can revert to WTO rules. Planes could be grounded until Britain starts acting sensibly in this negotiation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/20/us-airlines-aviation-regulations-post-brexit-open-skies-agreement-eu

From what I can see the UK is acting sensibly.

The EU on the other hand is being highly unreasonable.

I'd be hoping (and I'm sure this is happening already) that the UK will start discussing aviation arrangements with other countries outside of the EU to avoid this cliff edge.

I agree with the principle that the UK needs to plan for no deal. There's no guarantee that the EU will start being reasonable any time soon.

The UK has a very clear position. When Barnier asks for "clarity" what he means is "submit to our position or else".

If that continues I think the UK should say sod off. The EU are insisting on a vassal state status for the UK and it shouldn't agree to it.

I think let October pass and if the EU continues to be unreasonable plan extensively for no deal with the hope of the EU coming to a reasonable position.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU rules out immediate transition deal talks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-transition-period-single-market-eu-chief-negotiator-michel-barnier-talks-brussels-davis-davis-a7966616.html

See above. I think the UK needs to work on the no deal scenario and start trying to smooth out the runway for landing to use the aviation analogy.

This still doesn't dissuade me from Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'd encourage BA and easyJet to set up European subsidiaries for flights within the EU.

That won't help. Status within the European Aviation Area depends on who the ultimate owners of an airline are, not on where it is incorporated or headquartered.

A subsidiary of Easyjet would be a UK airline because Easyjet itself is a UK airline (quoted on the London Stock Exchange).

What Easyjet will have to do is most likely sell off its EU-27 network to an EU-27 purchaser. But it'll be something of a fire sale, since if the network isn't sold to a qualified purchaser by Brexit day it effectively becomes worthless. Plus, the EU-27 network, without the interoperation with the UK network of the same airline, is significantly less valuable - and the same goes for the UK network. This is pretty much a textbook case of regulation destroying value.

British Airways is a more complex case, because it is itself a subsidiary of IAG, incorporated in Madrid but quoted in London, with a large chunk owned by Qatar airways. (Air Lingus is also a subsidiary of AIG, as is Iberia.) Again, AIG will probably have to demerge, with consequent loss of value on both sides, but particularly for BA. (BA will be much more affected by the loss of access to the EU internal market than Iberia or Aer Lingus will by the loss of access to the Uk internal market.)

(Easyjet share price fell by 30% in the wake of the Brexit vote. This is not a coincidence. IAG fell by the same amount. IAG has since recovered, but Easyjet hasn't.)

solodeogloria wrote: »

Flights from the UK into the EU would still be able to land under a third country arrangement.

Yes, and vice versa. But note that as of now there is no third country arrangement between the EU and the UK; one will have to be negotiated. And, the point is, ruling out ECJ (and EASA) jurisdiction significantly limits what can be negotiated.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Leaving the EU means that the UK cannot receive the same conditions within the EU as if it had elected to stay in. I understand this.

Yes, but you appear to be indifferent as to what the consequences of this may be for the UK. You've adopted a very inflexible line on ECJ jurisdiction without any attempt to work out what this will cost the UK, or how it will affect the UK. Which, we have increasing reason to hope, is not the approach the UK government is likely to take.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ok, sure.

read the article you linked to properly.

is that better?

You mean the article is about the Irish issues with energy post brexit ? I'm aware of that. I was using the article to highlight what the SEM is

https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/staying-connected-key-elements-uk-eu27-energy-cooperation-after-brexit

Remaining fully integrated with the IEM would require the UK’s compliance with current and future EU energy market rules, as well with some EU environmental legislation. The UK government, British companies and other relevant stakeholders will need to maintain an active presence in Brussels and European energy forums, so that constructive and informed engagement can be sustained..

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You mean the article is about the Irish issues with energy post brexit ? I'm aware of that. I was using the article to highlight what the SEM is

https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/staying-connected-key-elements-uk-eu27-energy-cooperation-after-brexit

And nowhere does it mention the uk having to buy more power plants.

The SEM is to do with energy trading and allows all members to act as one combined market. UK producers can sell in to Ireland and French ones in to the uk.

Power generation is something different

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



From what I can see the UK is acting sensibly.

The EU on the other hand is being highly unreasonable.

I'd be hoping (and I'm sure this is happening already) that the UK will start discussing aviation arrangements with other countries outside of the EU to avoid this cliff edge.

I agree with the principle that the UK needs to plan for no deal. There's no guarantee that the EU will start being reasonable any time soon.

The UK has a very clear position. When Barnier asks for "clarity" what he means is "submit to our position or else".

If that continues I think the UK should say sod off. The EU are insisting on a vassal state status for the UK and it shouldn't agree to it.

I think let October pass and if the EU continues to be unreasonable plan extensively for no deal with the hope of the EU coming to a reasonable position.



See above. I think the UK needs to work on the no deal scenario and start trying to smooth out the runway for landing to use the aviation analogy.

This still doesn't dissuade me from Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Hey S. I wasn't actually directing that post at you. Partly for the reasons above in bold. You'd say that no matter what. Also your position has changed several times. I don't think you believe what you're saying.

My best way to debate you is to post facts and articles. I can't debate ideology which changes from post to post.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'd encourage BA and easyJet to set up European subsidiaries for flights within the EU.

Flights from the UK into the EU would still be able to land under a third country arrangement.

Leaving the EU means that the UK cannot receive the same conditions within the EU as if it had elected to stay in. I understand this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A simple subsidiary does not work. The airline must be at least 50% EU owned. That's why Ryanair is buying back shares as we speak from British shareholders.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

A simple subsidiary does not work. The airline must be at least 50% EU owned. That's why Ryanair is buying back shares as we speak from British shareholders.

That's very misleading. Ryanair is buying back shares because it has the cash to do so. Low fuel prices and record passenger numbers has made it relatively cash rich and Brexit has put pressure on its share price (the news of the past few weeks has also helped them buy their shares more cheaply, which is purely a coincidence, surely) so it can this quicker than anticipated. Share holders approved this prior to the Brexit vote, so it is not Brexit related.

As part of this, It is also buying shares owned by US bond holders to comply with eu rules.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And nowhere does it mention the uk having to buy more power plants.

The SEM is to do with energy trading and allows all members to act as one combined market. UK producers can sell in to Ireland and French ones in to the uk.

Power generation is something different

If the UK can't sell to and more importantly buy from Irish and mainland Europe for what ever reason (cost, politics ,regulations) that short fall will need to be made up by UK based generation. Also the inability to sell will mean more ramping up and down on plants which will drive up costs. Given that we've no certainty around anything at the moment this isn't beyond the realms of possibility

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If the UK can't sell to and more importantly buy from Irish and mainland Europe for what ever reason (cost, politics ,regulations) that short fall will need to be made up by UK based generation. Also the inability to sell will mean more ramping up and down on plants which will drive up costs. Given that we've no certainty around anything at the moment this isn't beyond the realms of possibility

The interconnector with France can carry up to 5% of the total UK requirements and the Irish ones only go one way. If anyone needs to worry about this (as the article says) it is Ireland as we could end up being 100% dependent on ESB prices again and go back to having just one provider of electricity.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hey S. I wasn't actually directing that post at you. Partly for the reasons above in bold. You'd say that no matter what. Also your position has changed several times. I don't think you believe what you're saying.

My best way to debate you is to post facts and articles. I can't debate ideology which changes from post to post.

Good morning!

Go on humour me - how has my position changed?

Moreover - if I have changed my mind - why is that an inherently bad thing?

As for "facts". These articles don't contain "facts". They contain X may happen if Y happens. I still don't see the apocalypse. I see at worst a relatively painful adjustment to a new reality. I still maintain that this is probably a price worth paying for taking back control in a meaningful way.

I hope for a beneficial EU trade agreement but in the event that they aren't going to be reasonable I still think the UK needs to make this adjustment and I think that it will be worth it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

From what I can see the UK is acting sensibly.

solodeogloria wrote:

The EU on the other hand is being highly unreasonable.

How is the UK being sensible and the EU unreasonable?
The UK is walking away from the EU, that process will be completed Mar '19, unless an extension is agreed. So it's reasonable to conclude items such as aviation, trade, people's rights etc will change to that of a 3rd country. Now if these are things the UK wants it doesn't seem sensible to leave the EU, if that's what you want.
Did you get your statement backwards? Now that the UK has turned it's back on the EU, if it wants to have a relationship with the EU it should outline it's proposal, if it doesn't then that's the end of it.
The EU isn't going to make proposals to the UK, hard to make a proposal with someone breaking existing relations.

Peregrinus

It's not as though there's a good way to go about implementing Brexit. The idea is a fundamentallly bad one, shockingly ill-thought out, and it can be implemented in ways which have bad outcomes, or in ways which have worse outcomes. That's basically the range of possibilities. Watching the UK develop its Brexit strategy is more or less like watching Baldrick develop a cunning plan. It's amusing, but it won't end well.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'd encourage BA and easyJet to set up European subsidiaries for flights within the EU.

Flights from the UK into the EU would still be able to land under a third country arrangement.

Leaving the EU means that the UK cannot receive the same conditions within the EU as if it had elected to stay in. I understand this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Airline ownership and control is still restricted - BA couldn't just set up a wholly owned EU subsidiary.
The US places a limit of 25% on foreign ownership of its airlines; for Japanese airlines the limit is 33%; and the European Union limits non EU ownership of the airlines of its member states to 49%.
BA however is the British subsidiary of International Airlines Group - a Spanish registered company. It would remain to be seen if the British government would allow foreign ownership of airlines.

For Easyjet to become European Stelios Haji-Ioannou just has to declare his shares as Cypriot rather than British and move HQ. The problem then becomes internal flights within the UK.

Ryanair has a bit of a problem as most of its shares would be owned by non Europe people or institutions.

Northern Ireland could find itself cut off in different ways with limited flights - the easiest way would be for the UK to not restrict foreign ownership and to be served internally by the newly European airlines (BA, Easyjet and Ryanair)

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not as though there's a good way to go about implementing Brexit. The idea is a fundamentallly bad one, shockingly ill-thought out, and it can be implement in ways which have bad outcomes, or in ways which have worse outcomes. That's basically the range of possibilities. Watching the UK develop its Brexit strategy is more or less like watching Baldrick develop a cunning plan. It's amusing, but it won't end well.

I had an interesting conversation with an American over the weekend. He spoke of differing principles between the British and EU negotiators which is causing an impasse.

In the UK, this principle of "Fair Play" is strong. The people voted to leave the eu and that must be respected and therefore the government is acting on it. The British government expects the eu to understand this and behave in a similar way. The eu doesn't get this and just sees the UK as being unreasonable. They also can't understand (as do a lot of posters on here) why the government is doing something that is not in the best interests of its people.

The eu negotiators also believe that the eu is everything and simply can't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to leave. This is why they insist that their principles are right and is sticking to them, because they simply can't see any alternative due to their entrenched belief that the eu is perfect.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



From what I can see the UK is acting sensibly.

The EU on the other hand is being highly unreasonable.



Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK wants a divorce, fair enough. However, it also want to retain friends with benefits status and a closer relationship than anyone else has.

You call that sensible? And that the EU is unreasonable in rejecting it?

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I had an interesting conversation with an American over the weekend. He spoke of differing principles between the British and EU negotiators which is causing an impasse.

In the UK, this principle of "Fair Play" is strong. The people voted to leave the eu and that must be respected and therefore the government is acting on it. The British government expects the eu to understand this and behave in a similar way. The eu doesn't get this and just sees the UK as being unreasonable. They also can't understand (as do a lot of posters on here) why the government is doing something that is not in the best interests of its people.

That's not it at all. The question of how the UK makes a decision - whether it's made by the government, the Parliament, the people in a referendum, or in some other way, is absolutely no business of the EU's. It's an internal constitutional matter for the UK. The UK doesn't get some kind of pass on reasonableness or fairness on the basis that a particular decision was made by referendum rather than by Parliament or vice versa. The UK wants to leave the EU, which is its right, but they don't have any claim to special treatment because they made that decision by referendum rather than by parliamentary vote or executive decision. Nobody but themselves cares how they make this decision. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it's a decision by the UK, with exactly the same status as any other decision by the UK.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu negotiators also believe that the eu is everything and simply can't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to leave. This is why they insist that their principles are right and is sticking to them, because they simply can't see any alternative due to their entrenched belief that the eu is perfect.

This is nonsense on stilts. Nobody on the EU side has said anything remotely like this. You should stop listening to your US friend because his views are clearly not informed by reality.

The 27 members of the EU who have not decided to leave do not believe that it is perfect, but they do think it is a good thing and they wish to keep it and defend it. They will not wish to see its principles undermined or its structures weakened, and they do not think that "fairness" to the UK requires this.

There's nothing unreasonable or unfair about the EU's position that aspects of
EU membership cannot be cherry-picked. This has been extraordinarily difficult for the UK to grasp, and there are some in the UK (and, apparently, in the US) who haven't quite got there yet. The UK-EU Brexit discourse started after the referendum with loud voices on the UK side insisting that the UK could participate in the single market but not accept free movement of labour, apparently unable to see that this was a fairly basic contradiction in terms, and saying that those who pointed this out were being unfair and unreasonable. At the official level the UK has moved on from this and May now confirms that a rejection of free movement does indeed require withdrawal from the single market, and this is not some unreasonable and arbitrary decree of an EU that considers itself perfect. But the fact is that there are still Brexiters like solo who lay down a series of rigid sweeping red lines that have been adopted without any thought as to their effect or any attempt to calculate what they will cost the UK, and in the same breath denounce the EU as unreasonable and inflexible.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's very misleading. Ryanair is buying back shares because it has the cash to do so. Low fuel prices and record passenger numbers has made it relatively cash rich and Brexit has put pressure on its share price (the news of the past few weeks has also helped them buy their shares more cheaply, which is purely a coincidence, surely) so it can this quicker than anticipated. Share holders approved this prior to the Brexit vote, so it is not Brexit related.

As part of this, It is also buying shares owned by US bond holders to comply with eu rules.

Even if the decision was made before Brexit, Brexit makes it compulsory.

Quite apart from ownership rules and fifth freedoms and whatnot, there's also the immense problem that the UK doesnot have an equivalent to EASA. It would need to set one up to certify UK airline maintenance regimes etc. or British planes would not be allowed to fly to anywhere.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Even if the decision was made before Brexit, Brexit makes it compulsory.

Quite apart from ownership rules and fifth freedoms and whatnot, there's also the immense problem that the UK doesnot have an equivalent to EASA. It would need to set one up to certify UK airline maintenance regimes etc. or British planes would not be allowed to fly to anywhere.

There are many regulatory agencies which the UK is going to have to set up and staff quick-smart. It's issues like that that have forced them into a recognising the need for a transitional period.

(In fairness, I think that the new for new regulatory agencies is something the British always realised, even if not everybody appreciated the magnitude of the task.)

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I had an interesting conversation with an American over the weekend. He spoke of differing principles between the British and EU negotiators which is causing an impasse.

Is there a reason this American's opinion carries more weight than the man on the street?

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are many regulatory agencies which the UK is going to have to set up and staff quick-smart. It's issues like that that have forced them into a recognising the need for a transitional period.

(In fairness, I think that the new for new regulatory agencies is something the British always realised, even if not everybody appreciated the magnitude of the task.)

IMO these duplicate agencies will eat the lion's share of the current UK contribution to the EU budget. The task is so immense. The EU food standards agency alone has people all over the world in inspecting cattle and meat in abattoirs for example. Is the UK going to send Peter to stand beside Pierre to carry out these tasks on behalf of the UK? Or will they just hope the stuff rejected by Pierre doesn't get put in a box marked "Ship to Southampton".

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

IMO these duplicate agencies will eat the lion's share of the current UK contribution to the EU budget. The task is so immense. The EU food standards agency alone has people all over the world in inspecting cattle and meat in abattoirs for example. Is the UK going to send Peter to stand beside Pierre to carry out these tasks on behalf of the UK? Or will they just hope the stuff rejected by Pierre doesn't get put in a box marked "Ship to Southampton".

Honestly this is the type of things if UK had any brains they would "lease" from EU to do for them; it's clearly a case of scale benefits in action and it would most likely cost a lot less to pay EU for the data / checks compared to doing it all from scratch. But that would mean they would need to adhere to EU's higher standards and not be able to buy chlorinated chicken etc. so that's a no go.

cantwbr1

But that would mean they would need to adhere to EU's higher standards and not be able to buy chlorinated chicken etc. so that's a no go.[/quote]

It would also mean acknowledging that the EU is also providing something of value to the UK

murphaph

Nody wrote: »

Honestly this is the type of things if UK had any brains they would "lease" from EU to do for them; it's clearly a case of scale benefits in action and it would most likely cost a lot less to pay EU for the data / checks compared to doing it all from scratch. But that would mean they would need to adhere to EU's higher standards and not be able to buy chlorinated chicken etc. so that's a no go.

I'm against this pick n mix stuff personally. The EU should make it clear that it's full membership or a Norway option or proper third country status with basic FTA (I'd expedite the FTA for the sake of old friends). No more Swiss type deals with messy bilateral agreements. I think the EU is against another Swiss job already.

blanch152

murphaph wrote: »

IMO these duplicate agencies will eat the lion's share of the current UK contribution to the EU budget. The task is so immense. The EU food standards agency alone has people all over the world in inspecting cattle and meat in abattoirs for example. Is the UK going to send Peter to stand beside Pierre to carry out these tasks on behalf of the UK? Or will they just hope the stuff rejected by Pierre doesn't get put in a box marked "Ship to Southampton".

They will cost a lot more than the lion's share of the current UK contribution to the EU budget. All the scale savings will be lost.

ambro25

murphaph wrote: »

I'm against this pick n mix stuff personally. The EU should make it clear that it's full membership or a Norway option or proper third country status with basic FTA (I'd expedite the FTA for the sake of old friends). No more Swiss type deals with messy bilateral agreements. I think the EU is against another Swiss job already.

I agree with your sentiment about nixing the pic-n-mix approach, but I don't think the EU needs to make that clear, and thereby help paint themselves as the intractable and undemocratic bad guy punishing the UK...

...the smarter political play is to let the UK continue to snooker itself de facto between those 3 choices given the oncoming Art.50 term, through its own time-wasting feet-dragging

Jaggo

murphaph wrote: »

Even if the decision was made before Brexit, Brexit makes it compulsory.

Quite apart from ownership rules and fifth freedoms and whatnot, there's also the immense problem that the UK doesnot have an equivalent to EASA. It would need to set one up to certify UK airline maintenance regimes etc. or British planes would not be allowed to fly to anywhere.

When Michael O'Leary was interviewed by Newsnight he said something about this, something along the lines that they were aware about the 50% ownership, but it would not be a problem by the time Brexit came around.
It does suggest a plan, possibly the repurchase of stock.

Another point he made was that a number of airlines were not pushing the issue as they would benefit from the disruption in airline services. If Ryanair or Easyjet cannot make certain flights, the prices would increase etc.

blanch152

ambro25 wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment about nixing the pic-n-mix approach, but I don't think the EU needs to make that clear, and thereby help paint themselves as the intractable and undemocratic bad guy punishing the UK...

...the smarter political play is to let the UK continue to snooker itself de facto between those 3 choices given the oncoming Art.50 term, through its own time-wasting feet-dragging

You can see it now, the UK come along and say we want passporting for UK financial services, the EU says, that's ok so long as you accept ECJ jurisdiction over your financial laws and we also want some other concessions over here.

All is fair in love and negotiations.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

...the smarter political play is to let the UK continue to snooker itself de facto between those 3 choices given the oncoming Art.50 term, through its own time-wasting feet-dragging

That only works if you think the UK side are smart enough not to crash out with no deal.

And if they were that smart, they wouldn't be leaving.

Nate--IRL--

Jaggo wrote: »

When Michael O'Leary was interviewed by Newsnight he said something about this, something along the lines that they were aware about the 50% ownership, but it would not be a problem by the time Brexit came around.
It does suggest a plan, possibly the repurchase of stock.

Another point he made was that a number of airlines were not pushing the issue as they would benefit from the disruption in airline services. If Ryanair or Easyjet cannot make certain flights, the prices would increase etc.

Funny that their share price plummeted recently, due to a self inflicted debacle..... and that they also repurchased a lot of stock in the last while......

Nate

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That only works if you think the UK side are smart enough not to crash out with no deal.

In fairness, that is the last and only (unsaid-) alternative beyond these 3 choices: the UK chose to put itself between the devil of the crash out scenario, and the deep (European-)blue sea of the EU27's red lines guidelines, the very second Ms May triggered Article 50 TEU.

You break it, you've bought it and all that.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And if they were that smart, they wouldn't be leaving.

Smarts doesn't come into it: it's always been, and still is, all about domestic politics (EDIT: and yes, I'll buy Armanijeanss' theory that, insofar as Labour/Corbyn are concerned, Brexit is an opportunity providing an out of their existential fight with the EU for continuing political relevance - see post #3560).

Beyond that, as already oft-repeated in here, (i) people get the governments they deserve, and (ii) where Brexit and the 52% and the <it's democracy so shurrup innit> brigade are concerned, they're never going to even begin to smarten up, until Brexit starts eating into their pension/benefits cheques and the scale and availability of NHS services.

So, well...let them learn how nutritious their democratic cake is, says I

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I had an interesting conversation with an American over the weekend. He spoke of differing principles between the British and EU negotiators which is causing an impasse.

In the UK, this principle of "Fair Play" is strong. The people voted to leave the eu and that must be respected and therefore the government is acting on it. The British government expects the eu to understand this and behave in a similar way. The eu doesn't get this and just sees the UK as being unreasonable. They also can't understand (as do a lot of posters on here) why the government is doing something that is not in the best interests of its people.

The eu negotiators also believe that the eu is everything and simply can't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to leave. This is why they insist that their principles are right and is sticking to them, because they simply can't see any alternative due to their entrenched belief that the eu is perfect.

Fred the EU might have good reason to doubt this. During the campaign prominent politicians, the media, tabloids and broadsheet made up damaging lies about the EU. People were sad to see the UK go, but what was much worse was the fact that the public bought these lies and seen the EU as the bad guy.

The EU have a responsibility to protect EU citizens. This includes the divorce bill so the EU 27 don't have to take up the slack, the Irish border as the GFA has to be respected and the status of EU citizens. The EU isn't being unreasonable.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

Even if the decision was made before Brexit, Brexit makes it compulsory.

It was compulsory anyway, because Ryanair was more than 50% owned by non eu shareholders pre Brexit. Brexit is completely irrelevant to this, ergo, your post was misleading.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's not it at all. The question of how the UK makes a decision - whether it's made by the government, the Parliament, the people in a referendum, or in some other way, is absolutely no business of the EU's. It's an internal constitutional matter for the UK. The UK doesn't get some kind of pass on reasonableness or fairness on the basis that a particular decision was made by referendum rather than by Parliament or vice versa. The UK wants to leave the EU, which is its right, but they don't have any claim to special treatment because they made that decision by referendum rather than by parliamentary vote or executive decision. Nobody but themselves cares how they make this decision. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it's a decision by the UK, with exactly the same status as any other decision by the UK.

it doesn't mean it requires anything different, just that the two parties are approaching the negotiations from a different perspective. The British from a pragmatic "This has to be done" perspective, the eu team from a "Why are you breaking up with me" perspective.

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is nonsense on stilts. Nobody on the EU side has said anything remotely like this. You should stop listening to your US friend because his views are clearly not informed by reality.

The 27 members of the EU who have not decided to leave do not believe that it is perfect, but they do think it is a good thing and they wish to keep it and defend it. They will not wish to see its principles undermined or its structures weakened, and they do not think that "fairness" to the UK requires this

I didn't say the 27 member states did I, I said the negotiators. Barnier and Verhofstadt are more or less federalists. They believe in more and more integration, Brexit doesn't fit in with their beliefs. It's like asking a Loyalist to understand a Republican.

to think otherwise is just stupidity, or nonsense on stilts.

And I'll keep listening to him thanks, because he isn't a patronising, self righteous prick.

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Is there a reason this American's opinion carries more weight than the man on the street?

He lives in Dublin, I presume on a street.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Fratton Fred banned for uncivil posting. Please dont reply to any of his posts until a week has passed.

The Rape of Lucretia

The people voted to leave the eu and that must be respected.

I dont think one could respect it as such - acknowledge sure, their right to implement it, but respect, no.
What tge result shows is the British immaturity and inability to hold such a referendum. Whether Cameron should have held one, in a country whose voters, political leaders, and media were unable to examine, evaluate, and debate the issue as rational adults, is itself debatable. But that people were given a choice to make on a topic that was beyond their grasp is clear. And a serious collective failure from a supposed modern democracy. In this we pity rather than respect their decision. It does raise questions on the responsibilities of leaders to only allow people democracy if they are fit to handle it - or, their responsibilities as genuine leaders and providers of answers, rather than as potentially reckless enablers of self harm - however 'democratic' that self harm seem.

solodeogloria

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I dont think one could respect it as such - acknowledge sure, their right to implement it, but respect, no.
What tge result shows is the British immaturity and inability to hold such a referendum. Whether Cameron should have held one, in a country whose voters, political leaders, and media were unable to examine, evaluate, and debate the issue as rational adults, is itself debatable. But that people were given a choice to make on a topic that was beyond their grasp is clear. And a serious collective failure from a supposed modern democracy. In this we pity rather than respect their decision. It does raise questions on the responsibilities of leaders to only allow people democracy if they are fit to handle it - or, their responsibilities as genuine leaders and providers of answers, rather than as potentially reckless enablers of self harm - however 'democratic' that self harm seem.

Good afternoon!

So let's get this straight - when people don't vote the way you want it shows that they are unable to have a referendum?

Come on - surely you know this is just silly nonsense?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So let's get this straight - when people don't vote the way you want it shows that they are unable to have a referendum?

Come on - surely you know this is just silly nonsense?

It was silly nonsense how that referendum was conducted. The people should have been presented with the likely consequences of their votes whether it was to leave or remain.

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So let's get this straight - when people don't vote the way you want it shows that they are unable to have a referendum?

Come on - surely you know this is just silly nonsense?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Regardless of the result, the referendum was poorly defined, poorly managed and occurred in an environment with huge amounts of disinformation and outright lies. It's silly nonsense (IMO) to give undue respect to the outcome when the process that created it was so very flawed.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So let's get this straight - when people don't vote the way you want it shows that they are unable to have a referendum?

Come on - surely you know this is just silly nonsense?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The Rape of Lucretia raises important and valid points to at least ponder, but better still discuss. Your strawman tactics in the above are really poor form. Have you no shame?

The Rape of Lucretia: I actually think that yes, it does need respecting.

Not because people voted in a non-binding referendum on 24 June 2016.

But because the people's duly elected and convened delegates, its Members of Parliament, effectively repeated that decision, with a far larger majority, in the binding context of a Parliamentary vote after debate on 13 March 2017.

And accessorily because the people then again returned a Parliamentary majority(-ish) in June 2017, on a campaign of implementing those 2 earlier votes.

Whether that decision is worthy of respect (in a moral sense) or not: quite clearly, it's what they as a people want, under all British constitutional checks and balances. So it has to be 'respected' (in an obligatory sense now).

EDIT: all the same, with this being the sovereign expression of the British people, naturally only their government and State apparatus is obligated to respect and carry out these wishes; UK votes create no obligations nor liabilities whatsoever upon third parties, including upon the EU27 people.

Water John

Thought the 'common man' was on the Clapham bus?

Professor Moriarty

jm08 wrote: »

It was silly nonsense how that referendum was conducted. The people should have been presented with the likely consequences of their votes whether it was to leave or remain.

Exactly. An utterly meaningless question. For all its relevance, they might as well have been asked whether they were for or against unicorns.

Akrasia

ambro25 wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia: I actually think that yes, it does need respecting.

Not because people voted in a non-binding referendum on 24 June 2016.

But because the people's duly elected and convened delegates, its Members of Parliament, effectively repeated that decision, with a far larger majority, in the binding context of a Parliamentary vote after debate on 13 March 2017.
And accessorily because the people then again returned a Parliamentary majority(-ish) in June 2017, on a campaign of implementing those 2 earlier votes.

Given that acts of parliament can be repealed by parliament, the decision by the elected representatives is still open to debate as long as there are important matters at stake.

The opposition in terms of the parliament, as well as civil society who oppose brexit have a very important role to play in order to shape the version of brexit that will ultimately occur.

If the elected representatives are unable to negotiate a reasonable brexit, they should be prepared to do whatever it takes to negotiate more time, or a softer transition or whatever is deemed in the best interest of all parties without being encumbered by the 'will of the people' whatever that meant.

The Brexit referendum was akin to a referendum calling for Britain to go to war. The will of the people is that the British should declare war but if the war goes badly and there is no hope of victory, the vote to wage war should not get in the way of an armistice or even a negotiated surrender if the alternative is to be totally defeated.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

The Brexit referendum was akin to a referendum calling for Britain to go to war.

Or perhaps to bring back hanging.

Polls have always shown that Brits would vote to bring back hanging if anyone let them, which is why nobody lets them vote on this.

ambro25

Akrasia wrote: »

Given that acts of parliament can be repealed by parliament, the decision by the elected representatives is still open to debate as long as there are important matters at stake.

The opposition in terms of the parliament, as well as civil society who oppose brexit have a very important role to play in order to shape the version of brexit that will ultimately occur.

If the elected representatives are unable to negotiate a reasonable brexit, they should be prepared to do whatever it takes to negotiate more time, or a softer transition or whatever is deemed in the best interest of all parties without being encumbered by the 'will of the people' whatever that meant.

I do not disagree with your points and sentiments, but remark that they hinge on 'ifs' that are all conditional outcomes of [attempting to] 'respecting' that vote in the first place, which was my only point (in the context of TRoL and solo's preceding posts).

That MPs "should be prepared to do whatever it takes to negotiate more time, or a softer transition or whatever is deemed in the best interest of all parties" if they are "unable to negotiate a reasonable brexit", or not, is still fully on the people who elected them: it's the component of personal responsibility, inherent to the choice of MP at the ballot box, still carried thereafter.

Akrasia wrote: »

The Brexit referendum was akin to a referendum calling for Britain to go to war. The will of the people is that the British should declare war but if the war goes badly and there is no hope of victory, the vote to wage war should not get in the way of an armistice or even a negotiated surrender if the alternative is to be totally defeated.

The analogy is somewhat sensationalist, which does not help: let's be clear here, calamitous as it would be, crashing out would not "kill" the UK to the extent of a total (military) defeat. It would just leave the UK very severely impaired in socio-economic terms.

I daresay the UK needs to take that medicine, to cure its political ills durably. Hopefully to the extent of addressing the FPTP system.

I'm confident the EU(27) will vigil by the bedside all along, and be the first to lend a hand when the UK gets better.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's nothing unreasonable or unfair about the EU's position that aspects of
EU membership cannot be cherry-picked. This has been extraordinarily difficult for the UK to grasp, and there are some in the UK (and, apparently, in the US) who haven't quite got there yet. The UK-EU Brexit discourse started after the referendum with loud voices on the UK side insisting that the UK could participate in the single market but not accept free movement of labour, apparently unable to see that this was a fairly basic contradiction in terms, and saying that those who pointed this out were being unfair and unreasonable. At the official level the UK has moved on from this and May now confirms that a rejection of free movement does indeed require withdrawal from the single market, and this is not some unreasonable and arbitrary decree of an EU that considers itself perfect. But the fact is that there are still Brexiters like solo who lay down a series of rigid sweeping red lines that have been adopted without any thought as to their effect or any attempt to calculate what they will cost the UK, and in the same breath denounce the EU as unreasonable and inflexible.

Good evening!

The EU are being unreasonable. The best evidence is in the EU's insistence that the UK should remain under its jurisdiction despite voting to leave. More evidence can be seen in respect to its stance on payments despite the willingness of the UK to compromise in this area.

The UK have been extremely flexible so far within the red lines that have arisen since the referendum. The speech in Florence showed the same. If the EU's position is to rigidly insist that the UK bend to its will or else I think the UK should start planning for no deal.

The UK needs to deliver on the results of the referendum and the priorities by which it was won. Irrespective of whether or not the EU are willing to give the UK an alternative arrangement with consideration of the UK Government's position in respect to the single market and the customs union. (I.E a free trade agreement). The UK isn't looking for single market membership and therefore it is unreasonable to insist that it should be subject to the conditions of it.

If the EU aren't willing to move from their position and make similar compromises to the UK then I would suggest that the negotiations are a waste of time and money.

I support delivering the result of the referendum and taking back control. I'm not supportive of ending up in a state of EU membership in all but name. The UK must genuinely be out.

I think the assessment of Fratton Fred's friend is rather perceptive.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

For god's sake..."flexible within the red lines". You can just as easily say the EU is being flexible within its red lines.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

For god's sake..."flexible within the red lines". You can just as easily say the EU is being flexible within its red lines.

Good evening!

I can't see that in respect to the EU but I can in respect to the UK.

Moreover, I think the British red lines are a heck of a lot more reasonable. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be subject to its court. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be considering prolonged payments to it. A county leaving the EU certainly shouldn't be considering allowing free movement carte blanche.

The UK recognise this means that the UK will not enjoy the same benefits in respect to the EU as were had previously.

The UK have made clear movements in all three areas stopping short of being directly subject to EU jurisdiction. The EU are the inflexible party.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The EU are being unreasonable. The best evidence is in the EU's insistence that the UK should remain under its jurisdiction despite voting to leave.

The EU is not insisting on this. If the UK want to leave and acquire the status of a third country, they are free to do so and stay outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and if that is what the UK wants, they should have the balls to say so. We can then get down to negotiating a free trade deal or opt for WTO rules.

If the UK wants to keep aspects of the EU, it must keep aspects of the ECJ. So a simple choice for the UK, nobody on the EU is being unreasonable or insisting on anything. If you want to go, just go, stop looking for friends with benefits.

solodeogloria wrote: »

More evidence can be seen in respect to its stance on payments despite the willingness of the UK to compromise in this area.

The EU is being absolutely fair on this one. Let us agree what you owe based on the UK's previous promises and commitments and pay up as a sign of trust. Of course, as the UK wishes to welch on its commitments, it refuses to do this, instead making offers of derisory sums. The amount is unknown until the UK admits to its promises.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have been extremely flexible so far within the red lines that have arisen since the referendum. The speech in Florence showed the same. If the EU's position is to rigidly insist that the UK bend to its will or else I think the UK should start planning for no deal.

Red lines are not flexible. End of.

There are options for the UK - EEA, EFTA, Norway, Canada, Turkey etc. Pick one off the shelf.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK needs to deliver on the results of the referendum and the priorities by which it was won. Irrespective of whether or not the EU are willing to give the UK an alternative arrangement with consideration of the UK Government's position in respect to the single market and the customs union. (I.E a free trade agreement). The UK isn't looking for single market membership and therefore it is unreasonable to insist that it should be subject to the conditions of it.

The US needs North Korea to disarm, don't see it happening myself.

What one country needs to deliver is completely irrelevant in international diplomacy. The art of the possible, i.e. making the best of what is available, is the essence of diplomacy. So far, the UK negotiators have shown zero indication that they understand what is possible.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU aren't willing to move from their position and make similar compromises to the UK then I would suggest that the negotiations are a waste of time and money.

I support delivering the result of the referendum and taking back control. I'm not supportive of ending up in a state of EU membership in all but name. The UK must genuinely be out.

I think the assessment of Fratton Fred's friend is rather perceptive.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well then, we know your position then. Hard Brexit with WTO tariffs is your preferred outcome as you are not willing to compromise on the so-called UK redline issues.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I can't see that in respect to the EU but I can in respect to the UK.

Moreover, I think the British red lines are a heck of a lot more reasonable. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be subject to its court. A country leaving the EU definitely shouldn't be considering prolonged payments to it. A county leaving the EU certainly shouldn't be considering allowing free movement carte blanche.

The UK recognise this means that the UK will not enjoy the same benefits in respect to the EU as were had previously.

The UK have made clear movements in all three areas stopping short of being directly subject to EU jurisdiction. The EU are the inflexible party.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Then leave the EU, but don't ask for a soft border in Ireland, don't ask for preferential access to the markets, don't ask for financial passporting to continue, don't ask for your elderly pensioners to be allowed access health care in Spain, just leave and close the door behind you.

Jaggo

Funny enough it is the wisdom of Liam Fox that we should all bow too.
The man was right when he said that this should be the easiest negotiations of all time.

The UK had people working in and with the EU, observing all the EU's intentions, objectives and reasoning behind the creation of the single market. They could see why regulations were necessary, why customs were standardized, why borders were important etc. The UK had the rule book for the EU and all the EU laws.
They had the entire bargaining position of the EU mapped out in front of them. All they had to do was match up the UKs objectives with what was possible with the EU's needed to protect the single market. It should have been easy.

And then instead of dealing with anything common sense... it comes up a manual on how to eat cake. They are still living on a different planet.

A summary of the UK Plan
"Why don't we have a 'Single market' with two markets. Why not have two jurisdictions governing the two markets in the single market with a third market where we both have jurisdiction. Then we can let third countries export into our part of the single market but don't worry they won't trade into your market unless of course, they meet our rules."