Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph

And let's not forget...the UK initiated a lot of these rules!

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

All of those things are entirely within the UKs control. The EU cannot force any of them on the UK.

Of course, they are not trying to. The negotiations are in the context of a country leaving the EU but still wanting something better than the Canadian free trade agreement in respect of access to the market, simpler than the Swiss system and cheaper than the Norwegian one.

You leave the golf club, you don't have to pay membership anymore. But if you still want to play, you pay green fees and you abide by the rules.

Or go join another club. Bye now.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

When it comes to these sort of things the Devil is in the detail. . Remember the day one picture when the EU team had their document folders with bookmarks and pens ? I'm not even sure the UK have gotten that far yet.


It's still talks about talks http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41389498

European Council president Donald Tusk has said not enough progress has been made to move to the next phase of Brexit talks in Brussels.

He said Theresa May's "realistic" speech on Friday showed the UK's "philosophy of having a cake and eating it is finally coming to an end".

But he said "there is not sufficient progress yet".

Thargor

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well there was a sort of logic there. You need to remember that in the UK the people who own the land and the people who farm the land are not one and the same thing, as in Ireland. Many land owners collect sizeable subsidies without even undertaking any farming activities.

Pro BREXIT farmers saw it as an opportunity to discourage further landowner investing in the hope that land prices would fall to a level where they could buy their own farms.

I never even thought of that tbh.

Capt'n Midnight

The EU and US have been involved in the multi-billion Airbus vs Boeing wars for ages now.

The UK will getting involved in this game too Bombardier vs. Boeing.
yes I know NI is in EU now but these things can go for years and years.

It will be interesting to see what sort of influence, if any the special relationship can bring. And May needs to keep the DUP on side. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41392518

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

Just remind me who wants to trade with the market they will not be part of again? If the EU was initiating talks of trade with the UK that is outside of the EU then I would agree that the EU would be seen as unreasonable if they didn't want to accept some compromise. But the UK will be looking to trade with the EU single market. They will be the ones that will want to "join" the trade and market of the other 27 nations in the EU, therefore you would expect the UK to have the weaker hand in the negotiations and will have to give up more to trade with the EU.

Do you accept that?

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.

They have talked big but we will only know if they are serious about their speeches when they actually start being serious at the negotiations. How hard is to keep to the timetable that the UK agreed to? You do understand the UK agreed to start the negotiations like this? The UK is the ones not keeping to the schedule and playing a game of chicken with the EU hoping they will blink and break with the timetable that has been agreed. This is not building trust but it is setting the tone for the upcoming negotiations and the tone being set is not desired for a positive outcome.

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.

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.

As others have pointed out if the UK wants to deliver on leaving the EU it needs to stop asking for a trade deal that will allow it as "frictionless" as possible trade. There is no such thing if the UK leaves the EU without any traces of the EU being in the UK.

There will be no custom union and there will be custom checks. There will be no single market access but a trade deal that will have a negative impact for all involved. And finally there will be consequences so severe for the UK in areas where you didn't even think anything could happen, like aviation or cancer treatments for patients as the UK is so integrated in the EU they have not even thought of how this would effect them.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Quick and short because I've been through this all before and I'm starting to see there's little point posting much further.

Enzokk wrote: »

Just remind me who wants to trade with the market they will not be part of again? If the EU was initiating talks of trade with the UK that is outside of the EU then I would agree that the EU would be seen as unreasonable if they didn't want to accept some compromise. But the UK will be looking to trade with the EU single market. They will be the ones that will want to "join" the trade and market of the other 27 nations in the EU, therefore you would expect the UK to have the weaker hand in the negotiations and will have to give up more to trade with the EU.

Do you accept that?

I don't accept that. Many countries trade into the EU on good terms without paying contributions or accepting freedom of movement.

Enzokk wrote: »

They have talked big but we will only know if they are serious about their speeches when they actually start being serious at the negotiations. How hard is to keep to the timetable that the UK agreed to? You do understand the UK agreed to start the negotiations like this? The UK is the ones not keeping to the schedule and playing a game of chicken with the EU hoping they will blink and break with the timetable that has been agreed. This is not building trust but it is setting the tone for the upcoming negotiations and the tone being set is not desired for a positive outcome.

The UK are serious about the negotiations. They are serious on delivering the Brexit people voted for.

The EU aren't interested in being reasonable. I've explained how and why I believe that to be in previous posts.

Enzokk wrote: »

As others have pointed out if the UK wants to deliver on leaving the EU it needs to stop asking for a trade deal that will allow it as "frictionless" as possible trade. There is no such thing if the UK leaves the EU without any traces of the EU being in the UK.

Read what I said about other countries and trade terms into the EU again.

Enzokk wrote: »

There will be no custom union and there will be custom checks. There will be no single market access but a trade deal that will have a negative impact for all involved. And finally there will be consequences so severe for the UK in areas where you didn't even think anything could happen, like aviation or cancer treatments for patients as the UK is so integrated in the EU they have not even thought of how this would effect them.

I don't believe there's a realistic prospect of the UK not being able to land flights. This is fearmongering. Third countries have landing arrangements with the EU.

I suspect third countries also have nuclear agreements with the EU. I could be wrong though.

As for access to the single market this is again the point about third countries and trade access.

In a worst case scenario the average WTO tariff is quite low.

If the EU don't want to be reasonable I think the UK needs to plan for no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

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.

Solo your running a parallel universe. In the one I'm in the EU is trying to figure out how to allocate responsibilities between the EU and UK. Nothing else at the moment, their not looking for the UK to stay, they have zero opinion on future trade or people's movement. It's just about the split.
In universe UK, they make up figures, 100bn, 30bn, 60bn and the latest 20bn. The UK like numbers. Then the UK declare that all other countries are minos, and as such the EU should be lucky to have a deal with super power UK, now they think the EU is unreasonable for not engaging trade negioations.
When universe UK aligns with reality and acknowledges that the first order of business is the breakup, then the split won't go well for the UK or Europe.

Nate--IRL--

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't accept that. Many countries trade into the EU on good terms without paying contributions or accepting freedom of movement.

If the UK seeks to trade with the EU on the same terms as some other 3rd countries do, then all is well, an agreement can be reached.

Nate

Sand

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

The EU is not being unreasonable. It is a rules based organisation, and it has a clear requirement to uphold those rules. Its been extremely clear and consistent that the UK must present practical solutions to the Irish border/GFA, the protection of the rights of EU and UK citizens post-Brexit, and the calculation of the total UK liabilities to the EU which have already been agreed. It has been telling the UK this for at least 5 months. Its not the task of the EU to save the UK from Brexit, only to represent the interests of the EU27.

The UK position by contrast has been highly unreasonable. The UK has created this Brexit problem, and then abdicated responsibility for proposing any practical solution to the very clear problems that it causes. The UK has refused to listen to the EU, and refuses to acknowledge or take seriously the EU's positions. The UK particularly refuses to accept that the EU could have any interests other than economic ones.

The UK is hopelessly divided over Brexit - it has no clear plan of how to achieve its objective of becoming a third country, and absolutely no idea of how to solve all the problems that arise. Brexit policy-making continues to be a internal Tory feud, where party definitely takes priority over country and no one in that particular feud is prepared to be honest with themselves or the British people about the very real costs of Brexit. All of the UK so-called 'red lines' are just arbitrarily and wilfully imposed interpretations of a a simple answer ('Leave the EU') to imply very precise policies on the authority of the ECJ or freedom of movement which simply weren't on the voting slips. These are political red lines that the Tories chose for the reasons of internal Tory politics. They have no value or purpose beyond any other pronouncement by a politician. They can and should be reversed by a further reinterpretation of the Brexit result to resolve the contradictions in the UK positions.

A reckoning is coming. Come March 2019, the UK will be out of the EU, the single market, the customs union and will be trading under WTO terms. There will be no transitional or implementation agreement without prior settlement of the EU's initial three priorities. And the UK government has simply no practical solutions for any of the problems it has caused. Its very possible May may try to resolve this impasse by staging a walkout in October, demonstrating yet again that the UK is completely misreading the EU and its interests. And its own interests to boot.

breatheme

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening! 

I don't accept that. Many countries trade into the EU on good terms without paying contributions or accepting freedom of movement.

You have consistently ignored this question every time I've asked it but here it goes again: What third country model does the UK want? Norway? Switzerland? Iceland? Liechtenstein? Canada? Turkey? Andorra?

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

The EU is not being unreasonable. It is a rules based organisation, and it has a clear requirement to uphold those rules. Its been extremely clear and consistent that the UK must present practical solutions to the Irish border/GFA, the protection of the rights of EU and UK citizens post-Brexit, and the calculation of the total UK liabilities to the EU which have already been agreed. It has been telling the UK this for at least 5 months. Its not the task of the EU to save the UK from Brexit, only to represent the interests of the EU27.

The UK position by contrast has been highly unreasonable. The UK has created this Brexit problem, and then abdicated responsibility for proposing any practical solution to the very clear problems that it causes. The UK has refused to listen to the EU, and refuses to acknowledge or take seriously the EU's positions. The UK particularly refuses to accept that the EU could have any interests other than economic ones.

The UK is hopelessly divided over Brexit - it has no clear plan of how to achieve its objective of becoming a third country, and absolutely no idea of how to solve all the problems that arise. Brexit policy-making continues to be a internal Tory feud, where party definitely takes priority over country and no one in that particular feud is prepared to be honest with themselves or the British people about the very real costs of Brexit. All of the UK so-called 'red lines' are just arbitrarily and wilfully imposed interpretations of a a simple answer ('Leave the EU') to imply very precise policies on the authority of the ECJ or freedom of movement which simply weren't on the voting slips. These are political red lines that the Tories chose for the reasons of internal Tory politics. They have no value or purpose beyond any other pronouncement by a politician. They can and should be reversed by a further reinterpretation of the Brexit result to resolve the contradictions in the UK positions.

A reckoning is coming. Come March 2019, the UK will be out of the EU, the single market, the customs union and will be trading under WTO terms. There will be no transitional or implementation agreement without prior settlement of the EU's initial three priorities. And the UK government has simply no practical solutions for any of the problems it has caused. Its very possible May may try to resolve this impasse by staging a walkout in October, demonstrating yet again that the UK is completely misreading the EU and its interests. And its own interests to boot.

This should be an article in a British newspaper.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't accept that. Many countries trade into the EU on good terms without paying contributions or accepting freedom of movement.

Which countries ?

or more to the point if you exclude countries where there is little overlap on import and exports , like raw materials in and high tech out, which countries ?

In a worst case scenario the average WTO tariff is quite low.

As low as the margins in the automotive and steel industries ?

jm08

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The EU and US have been involved in the multi-billion Airbus vs Boeing wars for ages now.

The UK will getting involved in this game too Bombardier vs. Boeing.
yes I know NI is in EU now but these things can go for years and years.

It will be interesting to see what sort of influence, if any the special relationship can bring. And May needs to keep the DUP on side. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41392518

Surprise, surprise - US agency finds in favour of Boeing. America first

The United States Department of Commerce has found Bombardier Aerospace guilty of dumping its C Series aircraft in the US. The decision threatens the future of up to 4,500 jobs in Belfast, where wings for the aircraft are made.

This is going to hit NI very hard.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/bombardier-ni-jobs-at-risk-as-us-finds-against-aircraft-maker-1.3235094

Junkyard Tom

jm08 wrote: »

This is going to hit NI very hard.

It came up on my twitter feed that it's unlikely to change much because Boeing don't compete in the C-series size market. Also, Boeing have some cheek crying about unfair advantages when they get massive multi-billion dollar contracts from the US DoD and corporate tax-breaks.

The aerospace giant has received more state and local subsidy dollars than any other corporation in America, according to newly released data compiled by Good Jobs First, a policy resource center on subsidy data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/17/the-united-states-of-subsidies-the-biggest-corporate-winners-in-each-state/?utm_term=.09d1bb6eafdc

oppenheimer1

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It came up on my twitter feed that it's unlikely to change much because Boeing don't compete in the C-series size market. Also, Boeing have some cheek crying about unfair advantages when they get massive multi-billion dollar contracts from the US DoD and corporate tax-breaks.

The aerospace giant has received more state and local subsidy dollars than any other corporation in America, according to newly released data compiled by Good Jobs First, a policy resource center on subsidy data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/17/the-united-states-of-subsidies-the-biggest-corporate-winners-in-each-state/?utm_term=.09d1bb6eafdc

The import duty for Bombardier aircraft to the USA will be an eyewatering 219%, if the preliminary finding is upheld. If that doesn't lead to Delta cancelling their order for the C series and Bombardier folding I will be extremely surprised

Peregrinus

breatheme wrote: »

You have consistently ignored this question every time I've asked it but here it goes again: What third country model does the UK want? Norway? Switzerland? Iceland? Liechtenstein? Canada? Turkey? Andorra?

They don't want an off-the-shelf model; they want a tailor-made one. So they don't want to replicate any existing model.

Which is fair enough. But there are three corollaries. First, they need to specify in detail the model they are looking for; it's not the EU's job to invent it for them. Secondly, they need to propose a model which is coherent, rational and consistent with the principles that underpin the EU and its relationships with third countries; there is no point in proposing a model with the EU is bound to reject. And, thirdly, having proposed a model, they need to be flexible if they hope to move from proposal to actual agreement. The EU is not bound to accept whatever the UK cares to propose; it has its own interests and its own objectives to advance in these discussions, and the more the UK's proposal is a "take it or leave it" proposal, the more likely it is that the EU will leave it.

Which is the problem with red lines. They have the merit of simplifying the choices facing the UK, but they have the demerit of limiting its options. If you rule out free movement, you also rule out any relationship of which free movement would be an integral part, from the EU perspective. If you rule out ECJ jurisdiction, same goes. And so on.

So, be careful about your red lines. Don't lay down red lines (or, be ready to walk back from red lines) that have the effect of ruling out features of the model that you actually want to have.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Third countries have landing arrangements with the EU.

I suspect third countries also have nuclear agreements with the EU. I could be wrong though.

As for access to the single market this is again the point about third countries and trade access.

In a worst case scenario the average WTO tariff is quite low.

If this was all the UK wanted, to be a 3rd country like Canada, the negotiations would be over already.

But they don't. May stated just the other day that she will do much better than Canada.

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

All of the UK so-called 'red lines' are just arbitrarily and wilfully imposed interpretations of a a simple answer ('Leave the EU') to imply very precise policies on the authority of the ECJ or freedom of movement which simply weren't on the voting slips.

Corbyn and Labour are lining up an alternative brexit policy which tramples all over these red lines. When Tory party infighting brings down the Government and there is an election, Labour will wipe the floor with them.

This is why the UK team are so vague about everything in negotiations - they are not trying to negotiate with the EU, the real disagreement is inside the UK.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If this was all the UK wanted, to be a 3rd country like Canada, the negotiations would be over already.

But they don't. May stated just the other day that she will do much better than Canada.

And she should aspire to do much better than Canada.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is why the UK team are so vague about everything in negotiations - they are not trying to negotiate with the EU, the real disagreement is inside the UK.

This.

The truth is that there are sharp divisions within the Tory party, and even within the Tory cabinet, about this. They're fighting like cats in a bag, and in some respects the "have cake and eat it" approach is just May trying to placate all the cats, and offend none.

To continue the metaphor, the EU is - wisely - not about to open the bag and stick its hand in. Sooner or later, that task falls to May (or, perhaps, her successor in office); she will have to decide which of the UK's objectives she will built her desired Brexit deal around, and which she will compromise. And, when she does, some of the cats in the bag are going to become very, very angry.

I'm not convinced, though, that Labour have their own developed and sensible Brexit strategy. Labour have their own divisions on this, and if those divisions seem less acute that's only because Labour are not in office, and therefore do not have quite the same responsibility to come up with a cunning plan. Having sniffed the wind, Labour is vaguely orienting itself towards a softer Brexit than the Tories, judging that that will have a greater appeal to a wider sector of the electorate. But when push comes to shove they'll find nailing their colours to specific masts just as difficult, and just as painful, as the Tories are finding it.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

And she should aspire to do much better than Canada.


This.

The truth is that there are sharp divisions within the Tory party, and even within the Tory cabinet, about this. They're fighting like cats in a bag, and in some respects the "have cake and eat it" approach is just May trying to placate all the cats, and offend none.

To continue the metaphor, the EU is - wisely - not about to open the bag and stick its hand in. Sooner or later, that task falls to May (or, perhaps, her successor in office); she will have to decide which of the UK's objectives she will built her desired Brexit deal around, and which she will compromise. And, when she does, some of the cats in the bag are going to become very, very angry.

I'm not convinced, though, that Labour have their own developed and sensible Brexit strategy. Labour have their own divisions on this, and if those divisions seem less acute that's only because Labour are not in office, and therefore do not have quite the same responsibility to come up with a cunning plan. Having sniffed the wind, Labour is vaguely orienting itself towards a softer Brexit than the Tories, judging that that will have a greater appeal to a wider sector of the electorate. But when push comes to shove they'll find nailing their colours to specific masts just as difficult, and just as painful, as the Tories are finding it.

Exactly. Labour are even more annoying because they fail to state their position clearly. All the waffle about a jobs based Brexit is infuriating to hear.

Corbyn is not a fan of the EU. Never was. He knows though, I think, that leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ completely would be devastating for the UK on many levels. But he doesn't have the courage to admit it publicly.

If Labour announced in plain language that they would try (it's not the UK's decision, the EU has to grant the wish) to remain in the SM and CU then given the clear implications for the border, the DUP would come under huge pressure to withdraw their support for the Tories and force a general election, which I believe would result in a change of government.

Brexit was a game to the DUP but the sh1t is getting real now. The actual implications of a hard border are becoming apparent.

murphaph

@solo...your posts are totally disingenuous. You suggest the UK is asking for something easy. The UK is not satisfied with a Canada type deal. It wants to be quasi in the single market but without the common oversight of the ECJ. It doesn't work like that. There is no country in the world which the UK can point to as an example of what they want because there isn't one. The UK still wants to have its cake and eat it! Not going to happen. The reckoning is indeed coming.

steddyeddy

It gets worse. Now the US has announced that Bombardier will be forced to pay anti-dumping duties of 220% on all the C Series jets it constructs. This ruling could cost thousands of jobs in Northern Ireland. Theresa May said to be bitterly dissapointed at Trump's decision. Trump ws described as being the UK's closest ally during Brexit. Another myth destroyed.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/27/punitive-export-tariff-placed-on-planes-made-in-northern-ireland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

The Rape of Lucretia

Peregrinus wrote: »

They don't want an off-the-shelf model; they want a tailor-made one.

That ideal tailor made one being everything that EU membership involves today (the problem May and co are having is that everything they study about the current model is actually good and will be costly to jettison), but disguised in a wrapping that hides this reality from the poorly educated Little Englander portion of the UK that mistakes EU membership as the source of all their ills, and the politicians who have cynically latched on to them.
If leaving the Eu were truly a good thing bringing benefits to the country as a whole - there would be no problem! It would be an easy negotiation! Just get out as quickly as possible and reach The Promised Land.
But no. The paradox they are trying to solve, and never will, is how to leave the EU but staying in the EU.
The UK are a world laughing stock at the moment.

whatstherush

steddyeddy wrote: »

It gets worse. Now the US has announced that Bombardier will be forced to pay anti-dumping duties of 220% on all the C Series jets it constructs. This ruling could cost thousands of jobs in Northern Ireland. Theresa May said to be bitterly dissapointed at Trump's decision. Trump ws described as being the UK's closest ally during Brexit. Another myth destroyed.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/27/punitive-export-tariff-placed-on-planes-made-in-northern-ireland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

It's also a timely reminder for those lexit folk, who think free of the EU, they are going to state aid their way to a socialist utopia. You exporting that ****, its going to get tarrifed to ****!

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

@solo...your posts are totally disingenuous. You suggest the UK is asking for something easy. The UK is not satisfied with a Canada type deal. It wants to be quasi in the single market but without the common oversight of the ECJ. It doesn't work like that. There is no country in the world which the UK can point to as an example of what they want because there isn't one. The UK still wants to have its cake and eat it! Not going to happen. The reckoning is indeed coming.

Good morning!

I think Theresa May's point is that the UK cannot simply take the Norwegian or the Canada model because the UK is different to Norway or Canada.

I'm in broad agreement that the UK's opening gambit will not be what it receives at the end. I'm also in broad agreement that the UK cannot receive the same benefits as being in the single market. However, this means that the UK cannot have the same obligations either.

However, the EU have said that they won't discuss any further terms when it is obvious that the best and easiest way of ensuring covering the financial shortfall of the UK's departure is by offering transitional terms for it. It isn't politically feasible for it to be presented in any other way in the UK.

The ECJ is a red line that the UK won't move on. Therefore the EU should say what it is willing to offer in light of the red lines the UK have in place.

Stagnating the talks despite clear progress isn't a reasonable approach.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The ECJ is a red line that the UK won't move on. Therefore the EU should say what it is willing to offer in light of the red lines the UK have in place.

Well, they have suggested the Canada deal, or something very like it, as a starting point.

That's not what the UK wants, which is fair enough. But I think the onus is now on the UK to come back with a counter-offer and make their own suggestion. Most of their statements so far have been about what they don't want - the red lines - but round about now would be a good time for them to put suggestions on the table for what they do want. And I suspect the principal obstacle to doing that is the bag of cats in Westminster.

murphaph

Barnier has already said there can be no cherry picking. No ECJ means no single market. What remains is third country status and at best a FTA. Agreed?

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Barnier has already said there can be no cherry picking. No ECJ means no single market. What remains is third country status and at best a FTA. Agreed?

Good morning!

It seems like you've heavily misunderstood my position so far if you thought I wanted anything other than an FTA on trade terms.

I've been crystal clear. I do not support the UK remaining in the single market after the Brexit transition.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It seems like you've heavily misunderstood my position so far if you thought I wanted anything other than an FTA on trade terms.

I've been crystal clear. I do not support the UK remaining in the single market after the Brexit transition.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I want the bank to give my a large loan at a rate that i decide because hey im a customer of theres for decades and have paid everything in time so they should enjoy my business.

The difference is the bank holds all the cards, so i guess they decide the rate i dont get to choose.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think Theresa May's point is that the UK cannot simply take the Norwegian or the Canada model because the UK is different to Norway or Canada.

That's just Brexit means Brexit meaningless, decoupled from reality.

Notionally, once outside the EU, the UK is a third party country which -according to the trend inherent to its official proclamations over time- wants better trading terms with the EU than WTO terms. There's plenty of historical precedents, some of which closer to the EU (EEA 4, Turkey, Ukraine), some of which farther from the EU(Korea, Canada, Japan), and the balance farthest.

Amongst the balance, there's also a queue, some of which getting close to the arrival line (incl.US), others just starting.

It is for the UK to indicate where they see themselves on that axis by 01 April 2019, and how they see themselves getting there. They have yet to do so.

The EU has long indicated that it is happy to fast-track the UK on the queue to reach a trade agreement by that date, so long as the UK first addresses the orderly termination of its existing obligations as a full club member until that date.

The proverbial ball is, and always was, in the UK camp. The fact that it's been stuck there ever since the negotiations started (to say nothing of the hiatus between the game start time and the first tap of the ball), lies entirely at the UK's initiative.

And then, all of the above said, technically all that the EU has to negotiate under Article 50, is an agreement about the arrangements for the UK withdrawal. That is because the "framework for the UK's future relationship with the EU" is already defined and known as standard WTO terms by default, since Davis agreed to it de facto when he approved the EU's negotiating agenda.

solodeogloria wrote: »

However, the EU have said that they won't discuss any further terms when it is obvious that the best and easiest way of ensuring covering the financial shortfall of the UK's departure is by offering transitional terms for it. It isn't politically feasible for it to be presented in any other way in the UK.

That is 100% the UK politicians' problem, notwithstanding that your point about the financial shortfall runs entirely contrary to the EU27's best interests.

In the above, you are effectively acknowledging that those UK politicians now have to rely heavily on the EU's goodwill to help then sell Brexit at home: it might have been wiser of them, to refrain from door-slamming, cake-eating and whistling-going messages, don't you think?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The ECJ is a red line that the UK won't move on. Therefore the EU should say what it is willing to offer in light of the red lines the UK have in place.

The above put aside (i.e. the fact that it is for the UK to say what they actually want, since all the UK has said so far is what it doesn't want), if I was the EU and hard pressed to answer, I'd say: no better than Korea/Canada/Japan. So, call it 'WTO plus'.

You happy with that?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Stagnating the talks despite clear progress isn't a reasonable approach.

See above. Close to a week after Florence, the EU is still waiting on the UK to get its proverbial thumb out of its ar5e.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It seems like you've heavily misunderstood my position so far if you thought I wanted anything other than an FTA on trade terms.

I've been crystal clear. I do not support the UK remaining in the single market after the Brexit transition.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Your government wants a lot more than a typical FTA like CETA.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

....Stagnating the talks despite clear progress isn't a reasonable approach....

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK has agreed to the timeline to these negotiations: Ireland, Divorce Bill, Citizens rights sorted in phase one before discussion of future trade relationship. The UK has not offered concrete proposals on any of these.

On Ireland, if it doesn't want the EU to police it's external border it must indicate how it intends to achieve regulatory compatibility to allow the EU to do so.
It hasn't: all it has given is vague wishes on seamless borders and definate red lines about staying outside SM and CU. Both positions seem incompatible.
Therefore the UK stagnates the talks themselves by not adhering to the timelines it has itself agreed on.

The Rape of Lucretia

The UK arrogance on this topic is breath taking - by a significant portion of the population, and some of their politicians : the EU holds ALL the cards on Brexit. The UK behaves as if they do, or at best, as if it is an equal negotiation. It is not, yet they truly dont seem to realise this.

The Uk has decided to Brexit - so whats its bottom line position - not to Brexit? That would suit the EU fine. So the UK will Brexit. Whatever. Which means it has no bargaining position. Yet has the audacity to throw responsibility onto the EU, whose position, negotiating terms, and internal politics are not in turmoil, to come up with solutions for Britain. It really is extraordinary. Do they even realise what they are at ? I think not.
I remember hearing, I think, Eamon Ryan describing the time of the 2010 bailout, and the atmosphere in govt being one of absolute panic, fear and confusion, and likening it to being in a lunatic asylum. The UK govt seems to be in a long draw out version of the same.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I do not support the UK remaining in the single market after the Brexit transition.

Nor does May. But she doesn't want a deal like Canada's FTA either, she wants something better for the UK. We don't know how it is better exactly, because she hasn't told us what it is, but from context, she wants freer trade than Canada gets.

But not to be in the customs union, which would be freer trade than Canada gets.

More cake and eat it stuff.

The Rape of Lucretia

The UK arrogance on this topic is breath taking - by a significant portion of the population, and some of their politicians : the EU holds ALL the cards on Brexit. The UK behaves as if they do, or at best, as if it is an equal negotiation. It is not, yet they truly dont seem to realise this.

The Uk has decided to Brexit - so whats its bottom line position - not to Brexit? That would suit the EU fine. So the UK will Brexit. Whatever. Which means it has no bargaining position. Yet has the audacity to throw responsibility onto the EU, whose position, negotiating terms, and internal politics are not in turmoil, to come up with solutions for Britain. It really is extraordinary. Do they even realise what they are at ? I think not.
I remember hearing, I think, Eamon Ryan describing the time of the 2010 bailout, and the atmosphere in govt being one of absolute panic, fear and confusion, and likening it to being in a lunatic asylum. The UK govt seems to be in a long draw out version of the same.

First Up

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The UK arrogance on this topic is breath taking - by a significant portion of the population, and some of their politicians : the EU holds ALL the cards on Brexit. The UK behaves as if they do, or at best, as if it is an equal negotiation. It is not, yet they truly dont seem to realise this.

The Uk has decided to Brexit - so whats its bottom line position - not to Brexit?  That would suit the EU fine. So the UK will Brexit. Whatever. Which means it has no bargaining position. Yet has the audacity to throw responsibility onto the EU, whose position, negotiating terms, and internal politics are not in turmoil, to come up with solutions for Britain. It really is extraordinary. Do they even realise what they are at ? I think not.
I remember hearing, I think, Eamon Ryan describing the time of the 2010 bailout, and the atmosphere in govt being one of absolute panic, fear and confusion, and likening it to being in a lunatic asylum. The UK govt seems to be in a long draw out version of the same.

Under pressure from his loony right, Cameron tried to use the threat of an in/out referendum to put pressure on the EU.  The EU called his bluff.  He was then stuck with his referendum.
The reality is that even if Cameron had got ALL his requests from Brussels, there's enough little Englanders  to  have voted out anyway.
Leave them at it.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

I've been crystal clear. I do not support the UK remaining in the single market after the Brexit transition.

So what is it you see if not the Single Market, is it a UK/EU agreement where goods can be bought and sold without tariffs and possibly under UK courts with advisory representation from EU. And a token agreement that products will meet EU standards but where the EU have to police that?

steddyeddy

whatstherush wrote: »

It's also a timely reminder for those lexit folk, who think free of the EU, they are going to state aid their way to a socialist utopia. You exporting that ****, its going to get tarrifed to ****!

This could potentially lead to the loss of 4000 jobs in Northern Ireland. A region which will be very badly hit by Brexit. From the Independent. For all May's schmoozing with Trump a significant portion of jobs could be lost in the UK. This could also mean the end of the DUP-Tory love in.

Theresa May has declared herself “bitterly disappointed” by the decision of the US Department of Commerce to slap a 220 per cent import tariff on aircraft, notably the C-series airliner, made by Bombardier. The Canadian firm employs more than 4,000 workers in Northern Ireland and one imagines they will not only be “bitterly disappointed” but also fretting for their livelihoods.

Also “bitterly disappointed” will be the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which agreed to prop up May’s government after June’s disastrous election in return for a billion quid and, more broadly, help from Downing Street to ensure Northern Ireland’s economic prosperity.

In the immediate term, it is the DUP relationship which will concern the Government most. After all, let’s not forget that the party’s small phalanx of MPs can at any time pull the rug from beneath May and co. The failure of the Prime Minister personally to persuade the Americans to back down in the Bombardier-Boeing dispute might easily start alarm bells ringing in Belfast, where the DUP will be wondering if Theresa May is spending too much time trying to find a way through Brexit negotiations and not enough thinking about a key part of Ulster’s industrial output.

True, the Prime Minister faces a tricky dilemma. Boeing, for its part, employs over 16,000 workers elsewhere in the UK, as it recently and pointedly reminded May. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Boeing could shift its supply chain elsewhere. But ultimately parliamentary mathematics mean that the Conservatives are more reliant on the DUP than on Boeing, which goes some way to explaining quite why the PM’s reaction to the Department of Commerce’s ruling was so strong.

Yet for Arlene Foster, the DUP’s leader, tough talking from her compromised chum in Number 10 may not be enough. Sure enough, the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, has already hinted that Boeing’s future defence contracts with Britain could be in jeopardy if it does not back down. Foster will surely press the government to ramp up such threats if necessary. That could leave Theresa May with an unenviable choice between the continued support of the Democratic Unionists and a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States.

In any event, the decision by the American authorities is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who made a personal appeal to Donald Trump on the issue during their recent meeting in New York. For one thing, Britain is presently engaged in the most important series of diplomatic and trade negotiations in its modern history, as ministers grapple with the realities of EU withdrawal. If Theresa May is unable to bring her influence successfully to bear on a single corporate wrangle, however significant, then it hardly inspires confidence that her Government will bag a good deal from Brussels over a vast range of essential and complex questions.

Secondly, May has done her utmost to re-energise talk of Britain’s “special relationship” with America. Yet it is surely now quite clear – if it was not already – that when the man in the White House is as protectionist in his outlook as President Trump, the relationship is unlikely to be evenly balanced. The idea beloved of Brexiteers that the UK would be able to line up a preferential trade deal with the US once we had extricated ourselves from the EU increasingly looks like pie in a Boeing-filled sky. For Trump, it is America first, second and third.

There are certainly strong arguments against Boeing’s pursuit of its complaint against Bombardier over the question of subsidies. There are good arguments too against the decision of the US authorities to impose such a whopping tariff on the company’s imports. But none of that will undo the impression that the Prime Minister should have been able by her personal intervention to persuade the Americans to take a different course. That she could not may have serious consequences for her Government; for with Bombardier’s C-series grounded, there is more space for the circling crows.

ArmaniJeanss

steddyeddy wrote: »

It gets worse. Now the US has announced that Bombardier will be forced to pay anti-dumping duties of 220% on all the C Series jets it constructs. This ruling could cost thousands of jobs in Northern Ireland. Theresa May said to be bitterly dissapointed at Trump's decision. Trump ws described as being the UK's closest ally during Brexit. Another myth destroyed.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/27/punitive-export-tariff-placed-on-planes-made-in-northern-ireland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

The first cannon-fire in the great post-brexit USA/NIR trade-war?

Jeffrey Donaldson said if "that's the route America decides to choose, they need to remember that it's a big world, that they export a lot of their goods around the world and that American companies do a lot of business in the UK."
Mr Donaldson added that Boeing should "wind your neck in, remember that you need to do business around the world, that there's a big market, a global market that Boeing needs to sell aircraft into."


This is actually from rte though it reads like something from Waterford Whisperer.

ancapailldorcha

I've actually met Jeffrey Donaldson. Nice chap. I can't say that I envy his current predicament, mind. He's going to have a lot of trouble squaring this with the DUP's voters and that's before one factors in the fact that Northern Ireland voted remain.

Nody

No idea why May is so disappointed; with Brexit around the corner and Boris as foreign minister they will be able to negotiate great trade deals with other countries to sell the planes to; after all that's the plan for EU so why not US as well? Don't they have some faith in their own plan any more?

jm08

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The first cannon-fire in the great post-brexit USA/NIR trade-war?

Jeffrey Donaldson said if "that's the route America decides to choose, they need to remember that it's a big world, that they export a lot of their goods around the world and that American companies do a lot of business in the UK."
Mr Donaldson added that Boeing should "wind your neck in, remember that you need to do business around the world, that there's a big market, a global market that Boeing needs to sell aircraft into."


This is actually from rte though it reads like something from Waterford Whisperer.

Someone should have told Jeffrey that Boeing probably do a lot more business with the ROI (Ryanair & all those aircraft leasing companies).

Samaris

Nody wrote: »

No idea why May is so disappointed; with Brexit around the corner and Boris as foreign minister they will be able to negotiate great trade deals with other countries to sell the planes to; after all that's the plan for EU so why not US as well? Don't they have some faith in their own plan any more?

Like Madman Theory, some plans only work if you're the only one carrying out that plan.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've actually met Jeffrey Donaldson. Nice chap. I can't say that I envy his current predicament, mind. He's going to have a lot of trouble squaring this with the DUP's voters and that's before one factors in the fact that Northern Ireland voted remain.

Well neither do I, but then again he led the charge for Brexit in the North. I'm sympathetic to those who will suffer, but not those who caused the mess.

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well neither do I, but then again he led the charge for Brexit in the North. I'm sympathetic to those who will suffer, but not those who caused the mess.

Oh, it's a bed of his own making. I'm not suggesting otherwise but I think the size of the role played by the DUP in bringing Brexit about was infinitesimal.

Junkyard Tom

Jeffrey Donaldson said if "that's the route America decides to choose, they need to remember that it's a big world, that they export a lot of their goods around the world and that American companies do a lot of business in the UK .... wind your neck in, remember that you need to do business around the world, that there's a big market, a global market that Boeing needs to sell aircraft into".

The level of delusion in those utterances is astonishing, he thinks he can threaten the world's largest aerospace firm backed by the world's largest economy with by-far the world's largest military? What are you going to threaten them with Jeffrey? A Lambeg drum and a few flute players?

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've actually met Jeffrey Donaldson. Nice chap. I can't say that I envy his current predicament, mind. He's going to have a lot of trouble squaring this with the DUP's voters and that's before one factors in the fact that Northern Ireland voted remain.

There's also the squaring of the Billion Pounds that hasn't arrived yet and may not, and the Cash for Ash thing.

Yes the UK govt is reminding Boeing of how it spends with them, but the US govt spends a lot with BAE Systems. And the US govt throws insane amounts of money at Boeing.

They are part of ULA who got an $11 Billion rocket deal , even though SpaceX offer similar launches at less than a quarter of the price SpaceX use new American technology. ULA uses legacy tech from US, and former Soviet republics and then gets paid to develop new US tech to replace it.

Boeing are also the main contractor for SLS and get billions a year to re-invent rockets that were already flight proven on over a hundred Space Shuttle launches. Nice work if you can get it.

Junkyard Tom

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well neither do I, but then again he led the charge for Brexit in the North. I'm sympathetic to those who will suffer, but not those who caused the mess.

I've come to the conclusion that the DUP are incapable of taking responsibility for anything, they will always have an external actor to blame.

It doesn't matter how bad it gets in the north the DUP will blame Boeing, the EU, Ireland for 'poaching investment', communists, gay people, a pan-nationalist conspiracy, the British government, pixies, whatever, they're irredeemable.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Oh, it's a bed of his own making. I'm not suggesting otherwise but I think the size of the role played by the DUP in bringing Brexit about was infinitesimal.

Well it certainly contributed to Brexit voters in NI voting for Brexit. I know hwat you mean though, the smaller regions in the UK were pulled out against their will.