Brexit discussion thread II

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. That negotiation alone should take months to agree. Hopefully, the EU will demand an inordinately larger portion of the the quotas on the basis that they are in no hurry to agree anything and they won't allow their farmers to be out of pocket. Or they could simply make it another red line before full trade talks begin. No rush.

The quotas are for imports with lower tariffs; with your meaning EU should push for UK to take a greater share of them instead. There is a larger issue at hand though in that UK will not be able to sign a single trade deal until this is resolved for the simple reason no country will know what they already have to import (i.e. if they consume 30.000 ton of lamb a year and already got a lower tariff quota from NZ of 40.000 ton of lamb it makes no sense for another country to push for lamb as well).

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That article indicates that those countries are more concerned about reduced quotas in to the eu than they are with quotas for the uk.

The article linked says that the eu is facing the prospect of picking a fight with the wto, or with its own farmers.

I think we see other countries wanting some of their cake after eating it. They want the EU to keep the quotas for the 28 countries but want the UK to negotiate more quotas into as well.

I think the main point here is not the quotas, but that other countries are not just going to let the UK and EU do what they need to do, but they will be fighting their corner as well. Now imagine you have to go up against the EU on the one side and the US and the other nations on the other. The UK is very isolated and its not good for anybody except those that want chaos to profit from it.

steddyeddy

Can the UK sign new trade deals during the transition period?

Leonard Hofstadter

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can the UK sign new trade deals during the transition period?

Nope, that would defeat the purpose of the EU allowing them a transition period.

They'll be "allowed" (in so far as nobody can stop them from doing it) to do the legwork so that the deals are 'ready to go' when they are out of the SM (if you believe Liam Fox who supposedly has 40 trade deals in the pipeline despite the fact that some of the countries he said there were going to be deals with are kicking up a fuss at the WTO). But as long as the UK is in either the single market or the customs union then they won't be allowed to sign trade deals with anyone else - that after all is the point of being in the SM/CU (or the reason to leave them if you're delusional and oblivious to reality like those wanting a hard Brexit are).

prinzeugen

captainspeed wrote: »

the reason to leave them if you're delusional and oblivious to reality like those wanting a hard Brexit are).

Can you stop calling pro britex folks delusional please.

We are as educated as anyone else.

I could call you delusional for thinking that the UK is better in the EU.

I don't however as I respect other peoples points of view unlike you.

oppenheimer1

captainspeed wrote: »

Nope, that would defeat the purpose of the EU allowing them a transition period.

They'll be "allowed" (in so far as nobody can stop them from doing it) to do the legwork so that the deals are 'ready to go' when they are out of the SM (if you believe Liam Fox who supposedly has 40 trade deals in the pipeline despite the fact that some of the countries he said there were going to be deals with are kicking up a fuss at the WTO). But as long as the UK is in either the single market or the customs union then they won't be allowed to sign trade deals with anyone else - that after all is the point of being in the SM/CU (or the reason to leave them if you're delusional and oblivious to reality like those wanting a hard Brexit are).

It' interesting that if the EU agreed to this (and I doubt it will) is that they will be substituting one cliff edge for another. Since the transition has to be strictly time limited due to the politics over there, other countries will then use the ticking clock against the UK as it rushes to have trading arrangements in place in advance of the transition period ending.
The rest of the world will be like vultures picking over the carrion that was the UK economy.

Junkyard Tom

prinzeugen wrote: »

I could call you delusional for thinking that the UK is better in the EU.

Based on what?

murphaph

prinzeugen wrote: »

Can you stop calling pro britex folks delusional please.

We are as educated as anyone else.

I could call you delusional for thinking that the UK is better in the EU.

I don't however as I respect other peoples points of view unlike you.

I think it is highly delusional based on the current evidence to think the UK will be better off outside the EU.

What's your take on the whole WTO spat about the import quotas for the UK? Doesn't this cause you grave concern?

IMO if the UK proceeds with leaving the SM and CU then they'll end up having to drop all tariffs on imports to be able to feed themselves in the short term as without an agreement with the other WTO members on quotas for the UK, there can be no FTAs with anyone. This will ensure the anhialation of British farming and no chance of the UK being able the feed itself into the future. A vicious cycle if ever there was one.

Zubeneschamali

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Since the transition has to be strictly time limited due to the politics over there

The EU has not agreed to a transitional period.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

The quotas are for imports with lower tariffs; with your meaning EU should push for UK to take a greater share of them instead. There is a larger issue at hand though in that UK will not be able to sign a single trade deal until this is resolved for the simple reason no country will know what they already have to import (i.e. if they consume 30.000 ton of lamb a year and already got a lower tariff quota from NZ of 40.000 ton of lamb it makes no sense for another country to push for lamb as well).

Good morning!

I understand the concerns of Australia and New Zealand (amongst other countries). They are right to say that simply divvying up the quotas isn't the right solution. It depends on how much gets imported to the UK today versus the other countries in the EU27. If a larger share of New Zealand lamb goes to the UK today than to other countries in the EU27 then it isn't right to simply divvy a share for the UK out of the EU quota.

I agree with the desire of other countries to renegotiate this and I don't think there is anything sinister either about them saying they would do so and about Britain taking in a larger quota. This isn't necessarily what the UK has to import. It's a threshold about how much should be let in on low tariffs. Consumers and suppliers will make their own choices.

I reckon their primary concern is the reduction in the EU quota however.

I'm not massively concerned about this. If anything it shows the consequence of handing over control of trade policy for 40 years.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

The lady doth protest too much. Dissecting the quotas is in itself a mammoth task. Wouldn't be sure there's adequate data there for that because at present we have a single market and customs union. If a container of NZ lamb lands in Hamburg for further distribution across all of the EU, there will be no centralised data about where it all went because there are no further customs checks inside the single market. See the problem? The single market eliminated the need for all that paperwork, so there's no usable records of which country consumed what.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

The lady doth protest too much. Dissecting the quotas is in itself a mammoth task. Wouldn't be sure there's adequate data there for that because at present we have a single market and customs union. If a container of NZ lamb lands in Hamburg for further distribution across all of the EU, there will be no centralised data about where it all went because there are no further customs checks inside the single market. See the problem? The single market eliminated the need for all that paperwork, so there's no usable records of which country consumed what.

Good morning!

Part of the UK leaving the EU means that the UK will deal with its own quotas. That's a good arrangement. I think the UK should extend a generous hand to the concerns of other countries when this gets raised in Geneva to show that genuinely speaking it is seeking to be an outward looking trading nation.

The UK imports about 85,000 tonnes of sheep and goat meat from New Zealand which is 40% of the EU's quota, and over 50% of the entire EU's imports for these products from a report from the NFU (on page 14). There is obviously some way of measuring consumption.

So New Zealand are entirely right to say that divvying out a portion isn't keeping things the same. The quotas need to be done with consideration of current trade.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

prinzeugen wrote: »

Can you stop calling pro britex folks delusional please.

We are as educated as anyone else.

I could call you delusional for thinking that the UK is better in the EU.

I don't however as I respect other peoples points of view unlike you.

He didn't call pro Brexit folks delusional, he called hard Brexit folks delusional. There is a small difference between the two.

A question for you, do you think the UK now having the slowest growing economy of the G7 and the decline of the GBP since the vote was going to happen in any case? Leaving the EU is not the cause of this?

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Part of the UK leaving the EU means that the UK will deal with its own quotas. That's a good arrangement. I think the UK should extend a generous hand to the concerns of other countries when this gets raised in Geneva to show that genuinely speaking it is seeking to be an outward looking trading nation.

The UK imports about 85,000 tonnes of sheep and goat meat from New Zealand which is 40% of the EU's quota, and over 50% of the entire EU's imports for these products from a report from the NFU (on page 14). There is obviously some way of measuring consumption.

So New Zealand are entirely right to say that divvying out a portion isn't keeping things the same. The quotas need to be done with consideration of current trade.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You completely ignored my point after quoting me. There exists a single market at present. Once goods (NZ lamb is just one product of millions) are landed at any port in the customs union they can and are broken down into smaller shipments for onward delivery to wherever, but there are no centralised records kept of what exactly goes to where once it enters the customs union. Lamb can be imported via Hamburg by company X, repackaged in localised packaging and sold on to companies Y and Z in say Ireland and the UK. That's kind of the point of the customs union.

It'll be a mammoth task to accurately assess what share of each (very specific) product category the UK actually consumes.

Samaris

In that case, the EU probably needs to renegotiate for a smaller amount and the UK needs to start from scratch and build up trade deals (God help them) with the various other countries. This will not go well for the UK. Divvying up the quotas actually protected the UK to some extent, by guarenteeing them certain imports for a certain period. If the rest of the world objects though, the UK could be in difficulties.

But this is precisely the problem - the WTO countries do not have to particularly respect the UK's bargaining power, because their bargaining power is bugger-all. None of them are going to "need" a trade deal with the UK nearly as much as the UK needs a trade deal with them. The UK also won't be able to operate purely under WTO rules - http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 From a Leave blog at that, but the info is pretty accurate. Even the pro-leavers get that this is a bad option.

By the way, the EU is the biggest trading bloc, but most countries are in trading blocs by now, be it Mercosur, ASEAN or the African trading blocs. The UK is deliberately setting itself up to be a minnow in a shark tank. And that's fine and their choice - so long as they actually realise that this is what they're doing. They are unlikely to hear it from the omnishambles of a government.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

murphaph:
Again - I don't know why you think this point is hugely significant. Asking other countries what they are seeking and then working from that basis seems like a good way to go. This is a good opportunity for the UK to show the world that it is genuinely interested in being an open player.

People presenting this as if it's some kind of boogeyman for the UK are taking serious liberties.

Yes unravelling 40 years of membership to the European Union and its precursor is difficult but I think this simply highlights just how much control Britain had to hand over. The EU isn't simply a trade bloc but a political union. This is the first step to a new future. I'm still optimistic. The hard work is beginning.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

Could you maybe tell the politicians that the hard work should have begun about two years ago?

Also, the UK could show its genuine interest in sorting themselves out by engaging honestly with the EU negotiators. There is a strong push to make the EU the big bad bogey making things difficult for plucky Britain, but it is simply not true, and anyone following the negotiations knows it.

By the way, it is worth following some of the foreign papers (although Google translate can be a bit entertaining - German papers seem to translate better than French if Le Monde is anything to go by) for what Europeans actually think about the whole thing. There has been a lot of interference with the anglophone media and while there are honest and truthful accounts out there, it is useful to get a perspective from media outside the anglophone bubble.

Enzokk

murphaph wrote: »

You completely ignored my point after quoting me. There exists a single market at present. Once goods (NZ lamb is just one product of millions) are landed at any port in the customs union they can and are broken down into smaller shipments for onward delivery to wherever, but there are no centralised records kept of what exactly goes to where once it enters the customs union. Lamb can be imported via Hamburg by company X, repackaged in localised packaging and sold on to companies Y and Z in say Ireland and the UK. That's kind of the point of the customs union.

It'll be a mammoth task to accurately assess what share of each (very specific) product category the UK actually consumes.

You have to wonder what the motivation of those states that signed the letter is. Do they just want to protect their trade quotas that have been negotiated over years or is there a desire to increase the quotas and take advantage of the situation? I could very easily see a country looking at it as a way to ensure the EU quotas will stay the same and new quotas for the UK will need to be negotiated, hence they have their cake already and with the UK they want to eat it.

It seems to me that the UK has committed that other nations at the WTO would not be worse off due to Brexit. I don't know how they could have done this as they wouldn't have known the outcome of the negotiations.

Link to the letter sent to the WTO

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I understand the concerns of Australia and New Zealand (amongst other countries). They are right to say that simply divvying up the quotas isn't the right solution. It depends on how much gets imported to the UK today versus the other countries in the EU27. If a larger share of New Zealand lamb goes to the UK today than to other countries in the EU27 then it isn't right to simply divvy a share for the UK out of the EU quota.

The split quotas were based on UK's share of consumption over the last 3 years vs. EU so that was already done. What they are objecting to is that if UK stops eating Lamb for example (economy tanking, scary news about treatment from Greenpeace etc.) they could previously shift the volume to France or Germany instead to compensate. With the split quotas they can't move the volume out from UK to another country instead which puts them in a worse position compared to now and they are trying to push not only EU to keep the original quotas but add on top of this another new share for UK as well (i.e. 110% of current quotas let's say, 100% EU and another new 10% UK but no increase on their side on what EU/UK can export to them).

The problem is EU has no reason to accept that but UK can't get a WTO trade deal signed until it's resolved for the reasons stated above. This is what makes it an UK issue and Brexit related because all those trade deals will be on hold until it's resolved.

ambro25

murphaph wrote: »

The lady doth protest too much. Dissecting the quotas is in itself a mammoth task. Wouldn't be sure there's adequate data there for that because at present we have a single market and customs union. <...>

Whitehall has been at that since February 2017 at least.

That was the job of the guy whom I mentioned in that post back then (quoted below), and he was already predicting back then that AU/NZ (and others) would be running interference with the quota/WTO issues:

I attended an event the day before yesterday, at which a Whitehall senior type in charge of the trade side of Brexit (in a previous appointment, the head of the UK team at the WTO in Geneva) was speaking 'informally' (as in: this is what's been going on, this is what's going to happen, this is what you'll hear in the press, this is the end result we're after, but no promises - and no names please).

So, views from the hands-on and nitty-gritty Department for International Trade side, not from the political and more wishy-washy Department for Exiting the EU side.

Pursuant to which, what is being worked on in Whitehall, is no different from what the reasonably educated and attentive on here already know.

The UK will go into negotiations with the EU, on the basis of a tariff schedule replicating long-honoured WTO-/EU-sanctioned tariff levels as currently applied by UK as an EU member state: 0-ish% on approx 30% of traded goods; rest at somewhere between 1 and 5%, with cars at 10% and some rare exceptions (e.g. cream) at up to 55%.

And then hope and pray the EU and the rest of the world agrees, because "surely no one will want to rock the trading boat" (I kid you not).

The hardest will be working out and agreeing the UK's share of the EU quotas for agricultural and other 'tariff-tiered' products. The UK may get into disputes about proposed rates with the Commonwealth (NZ, AU), rather than the EU, but nothing that can't eventually be solved with a rate or quantity adjustment.

There is no planning whatsoever about the (non-tariffed) service sectors yet (because they're not tariffed), and no planning or taskforce concerned with NTBs: Whitehall is still only just inviting ad hoc submissions, through Chambers of Commerce and the like (of the sort I've been posting about IP in here) to "gain an understanding of the scale" and, in the meantime, "trusting that something will get sorted out in negotiations".

FUBAR, tbh. I ended up flooring a couple of questions from the audience about European and global IP for him (e.g. someone believing that Brexiting will somehow relieve UK exporters to the US from US trademark rights, LOL!), and another guy ended up flooring the questions of the audience about practical customs clearance procedures (including Kyoto Customs Agreement/Convention-related queries). They just don't have a clue. And they're the apolitical side of the government (supposedly) managing this at the coalface.

Samaris

I suspect that the other countries are also not-so-gently putting the boot in to indicate that they aren't going to be treated as just agreeing to whatever the UK and EU come up with if it affects them too. They are demanding a say in the whole matter as they're not going to be left holding the baby if the UK then finds it can't afford to import their specific quotas. As they point out, at current if one country's market takes less [lamb, say], the quota can just be reshuffled to another European country. If the UK market takes less, then it presumably rots.

It seems to me that the UK has committed that other nations at the WTO would not be worse off due to Brexit. I don't know how they could have done this as they wouldn't have known the outcome of the negotiations.

Sounds familiar. It's a more erudite form of "it will be so amazing, it will be the best deals, you will be tired of winning", tbh.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

. I'm still optimistic. The hard work is beginning.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

To be blunt there is a major difference between optimistic and delusional

No deal with the EU, No deal with the WTO, Economic growth a blip due to the gold exodus, banks who have hedged their bets are starting to double down

Goldman Sachs the latest global bank to take up more office space in Frankfurt

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1005/909986-frankfurt-bank-jobs/

We've stopped talking soft and hard Brexit and shifted to hard or very hard. If WTO can't be sorted it will shift again from very hard to nuclear brexit

Plan for a very hard Brexit, German firms told

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41509198

Can you tell me why your optimistic?

Edit : Also don't forget no deal on the border and possible return to the troubles

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'm chopping off the unhelpful sneering nonsense at the start and the end of this post. We could really do with much less of this.

Samaris wrote: »

Also, the UK could show its genuine interest in sorting themselves out by engaging honestly with the EU negotiators. There is a strong push to make the EU the big bad bogey making things difficult for plucky Britain, but it is simply not true, and anyone following the negotiations knows it.

The UK have put forward a reasonable position in respect to all 3 issues. The UK reasonably doesn't want to put itself under EU jurisdiction after Brexit, and the UK reasonably wants to tie payments to transition.

If the EU doesn't want to compromise on anything at all I'm entirely of the principle that the UK should leave irrespective. If the EU think that playing hardball will make the British people want to crawl back to membership they need to think again.

I don't think it's untrue at all to say that the EU are being highly unreasonable to date.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

LeinsterDub wrote: »

To be blunt there is a major difference between optimistic and delusional

No deal with the EU, No deal with the WTO, Economic growth a blip due to the gold exodus, banks who have hedged their bets are starting to double down
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1005/909986-frankfurt-bank-jobs/

We've stopped talking soft and hard Brexit and shifted to hard or very hard. If WTO can't be sorted it will shift again from very hard to nuclear brexit

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41509198

Can you tell me why your optimistic?

Edit : Also don't forget no deal on the border and possible return to the troubles

These news links, and those of yesterday-

Trump opposes EU-UK WTO deal in blow to May’s Brexit plans.

UK car sales down 10%, first drop since the last recession

City firms give No.10 until Xmas to arrange a transition deal with the EU before they start moving jobs

Two thirds of Hammond's £26bn 'Brexit' war chest facing wipeout by OBR

-strongly suggest to me that the real Article 50 clock (i.e. the one that matters: real businesses' patience, and their contingency plans' start dates) is just about run-out, and that the Brexit vote consequences are now starting to snowball unstoppably, no matter what.

I've been working in the same firm in the UK for 9 years -through the GFC- and am absolutely convinced that an economic downslide in the UK began a while back (about 6 to 9 months ago, based on my Real Life™ business experience and indicators since 2016, increasingly echoed by independent Real Life™ local sources in many different walks of business life), but it's now getting to the stage where the slide is gaining its own momentum and becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Indicators of which are coming out ever more frequently and can't be suppressed anymore.

Very simply, it's the economic aftermath in the UK of the growth hiatus caused by too many domestic and foreign businesses and investors sitting on their hands since June 2016.

Nobody else but Leave voters and politicians (all of them, but not forgetting the pro-Leave politicians' backers as well) caused that: prior to June 2016, the UK was the strongest G7 performer.

swampgas

Samaris wrote: »

By the way, it is worth following some of the foreign papers (although Google translate can be a bit entertaining - German papers seem to translate better than French if Le Monde is anything to go by) for what Europeans actually think about the whole thing. There has been a lot of interference with the anglophone media and while there are honest and truthful accounts out there, it is useful to get a perspective from media outside the anglophone bubble.

As an example, German website http://www.dw.com is in English, and today has nothing about Brexit on its front page. It's pretty clear that Germany like many other EU countries is far more concerned with the threat from Russia. I scanned the rest of the top stories, Brexit wasn't visible at all, although right at the very bottom of the page there is an old story about how Theresa May's days are numbered.

The UK is doing a wonderful job of marginalising itself.

ambro25

Samaris wrote: »

By the way, it is worth following some of the foreign papers (although Google translate can be a bit entertaining - German papers seem to translate better than French if Le Monde is anything to go by) for what Europeans actually think about the whole thing.

I'm in the lucky position of being able to read French and German news in the authentic lingo, without Google translate. And which I do daily.

Bearing the respective, general political affiliation (or lack thereof) of the papers in mind (e.g. Libé, left; Le Monde, centrist; Figaro/Parisien, right), their 'comments' sections are as revealing of the street mood about Brexit over there, as the 'comments' sections of British newspapers here in the UK.

The general feeling from Brit comments sections is all-out verbal war between remainers and leavers, with non-trivial post counts, and the volume of one side relative to the other varying in proportion to the political bias of the newspaper.

The general feeling from Continental comments sections is 'yawn', with a small helping of 'good riddance', with trivial post counts.

Whilst the EU has its numerous detractors of course (usual xenophobes/FN/AfD types, same as found in e.g. the Express comments section), Brexit itself just doesn't appear divisive at all over there. Anti-EUs are generally quiet on Brexit articles, with perhaps taking an opportunity to bash the EU, but on the whole silent about the UK's handling of its exit.

[I believe I've related that in a few posts on here already ]

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm chopping off the unhelpful sneering nonsense at the start and the end of this post. We could really do with much less of this.



The UK have put forward a reasonable position in respect to all 3 issues. The UK reasonably doesn't want to put itself under EU jurisdiction after Brexit, and the UK reasonably wants to tie payments to transition.

If the EU doesn't want to compromise on anything at all I'm entirely of the principle that the UK should leave irrespective. If the EU think that playing hardball will make the British people want to crawl back to membership they need to think again.

I don't think it's untrue at all to say that the EU are being highly unreasonable to date.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sneering nonsense shouldn't be tolerated as you point out.

However, pure nonsense, as you seem to be currently posting, shouldn't be tolerated either. The only people that think the EU are unreasonable are rabid Brexiteers.

Anyone else with half a brain realises that the EU is acting rationally to protects its own interests. The EU owes the UK nothing now that the UK has decided to leave. The rest of the world owes the UK nothing either.

In the grand scheme of things, with little or no oil left, the empire long gone, the US having assumed cultural superiority and the Leave decision having crippled London as a financial centre, the UK is probably at its weakest in the last thousand years, just as it starts out on its own to negotiate trade deals. Those are the facts, my friend, and people in the UK really need to wake up to them.

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have put forward a reasonable position in respect to all 3 issues. The UK reasonably doesn't want to put itself under EU jurisdiction after Brexit, and the UK reasonably wants to tie payments to transition.

If the EU doesn't want to compromise on anything at all I'm entirely of the principle that the UK should leave irrespective. If the EU think that playing hardball will make the British people want to crawl back to membership they need to think again.

I don't think it's untrue at all to say that the EU are being highly unreasonable to date.

The EU don't want to compromise on the fundamental structure of the EU. That's their position, they simply don't think it's reasonable to risk the EU system for the sake of a break-away country that is doing so for internal party political reasons rather than anything else. What's rather perplexing is that Brexiters think that they can dictate what's reasonable to the other 27 EU countries, especially after spending many years denigrating the EU and blaming it for much of the UK's woes.

The UK used to have a name for realpolitik. That seems to have disappeared, the current UK government seems driven almost purely by ideology. It's as if a cult has taken over the running of the state.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else on boards thinks is reasonable - what matters is what the EU-27 consider to be reasonable. And it doesn't look like the UK is being in any way successful in their efforts to win the EU-27 over to their way of thinking. If anything their amateurish, inept and arrogant approach has had the opposite effect, they are alienating the very people they need to negotiate with.

Nody

Lord Kerr thinks it's a coin flip if UK will leave EU with a deal or not; for those not aware Lord Kerr was the UK diplomat who wrote the article 50 and obviously has quite deep knowledge of how EU works and the legislation itself.

Professor Moriarty

swampgas wrote: »

The EU don't want to compromise on the fundamental structure of the EU. That's their position, they simply don't think it's reasonable to risk the EU system for the sake of a break-away country that is doing so for internal party political reasons rather than anything else. What's rather perplexing is that Brexiters think that they can dictate what's reasonable to the other 27 EU countries, especially after spending many years denigrating the EU and blaming it for much of the UK's woes.

The UK used to have a name for realpolitik. That seems to have disappeared, the current UK government seems driven almost purely by ideology. It's as if a cult has taken of the running of the state.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else on boards thinks is reasonable - what matters is what the EU-27 consider to be reasonable. And it doesn't look like the UK is being in any way successful in their efforts to win the EU-27 over to their way of thinking. If anything their amateurish, inept and arrogant approach has had the opposite effect, they are alienating the very people they need to negotiate with.

While ideology plays a part, it is the overweening ambition of May, Davis, Johnson and other Tories that is driving Brexit. They have placed personal advancement and party above country. Traitors.

solodeogloria

swampgas wrote: »

The EU don't want to compromise on the fundamental structure of the EU. That's their position, they simply don't think it's reasonable to risk the EU system for the sake of a break-away country that is doing so for internal party political reasons rather than anything else. What's rather perplexing is that Brexiters think that they can dictate what's reasonable to the other 27 EU countries, especially after spending many years denigrating the EU and blaming it for much of the UK's woes.

The UK used to have a name for realpolitik. That seems to have disappeared, the current UK government seems driven almost purely by ideology. It's as if a cult has taken over the running of the state.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else on boards thinks is reasonable - what matters is what the EU-27 consider to be reasonable. And it doesn't look like the UK is being in any way successful in their efforts to win the EU-27 over to their way of thinking. If anything their amateurish, inept and arrogant approach has had the opposite effect, they are alienating the very people they need to negotiate with.

Good morning!

Your point about the fundamental structure of the EU would apply if Britain was going to stay (like Cameron's 2016 negotiation).

Britain is leaving the EU so the question is about relating to the EU as a third party. Therefore stuff like ECJ jurisdiction is unreasonable. The UK is leaving the EU - being subject to a EU court is obviously out of the question.

The UK have made several moves so far in response to concerns. The EU on the other hand are insisting on quasi-EU membership. That's inherently unreasonable.

The UK aren't dictating anything to anyone they are simply saying that there are things that are unreasonable for a non-EU country in the EU's proposals.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

swampgas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

While ideology plays a part, it is the overweening ambition of May, Davis, Johnson and other Tories that is driving Brexit. They have placed personal advancement and party above country. Traitors.

Interesting point. IMO the ideology of Brexit was just a convenient bandwagon for Johnson, however I think May and Gove genuinely want out. The EU constrains their ability to ride roughshod over the rights of their fellow citizens, and their instinct seems to be to strive for absolute authoritarian rule. With them and Tory Party friends in the driving seat of course.

Fratton Fred

Samaris wrote: »

I suspect that the other countries are also not-so-gently putting the boot in to indicate that they aren't going to be treated as just agreeing to whatever the UK and EU come up with if it affects them too. They are demanding a say in the whole matter as they're not going to be left holding the baby if the UK then finds it can't afford to import their specific quotas. As they point out, at current if one country's market takes less [lamb, say], the quota can just be reshuffled to another European country. If the UK market takes less, then it presumably rots.

Import Quotas are maximum limits, not minimum ones. If you agree a quota, there is no obligation to buy that amount, just that you will not apply tariffs until that level has been imported.

To me, this looks more like the other countries are putting the boot as much in to the eu as they are the UK, in fact, maybe even less so, as the eu is notoriously restrictive when it comes to food import quotas.

If the eu keep the same quotas, then this means they are obliged to allow the same amount of cheap imports in, but covering a much smaller market, which puts eu food producers at risk. Hence why the article says that the eu could face a show down with either the eu, or its own farmers.

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

Your point about the fundamental structure of the EU would apply if Britain was going to stay (like Cameron's 2016 negotiation).

Britain is leaving the EU so the question is about relating to the EU as a third party. Therefore stuff like ECJ jurisdiction is unreasonable. The UK is leaving the EU - being subject to a EU court is obviously out of the question.

The UK have made several moves so far in response to concerns. The EU on the other hand are insisting on quasi-EU membership. That's inherently unreasonable.

The UK aren't dictating anything to anyone they are simply saying that there are things that are unreasonable for a non-EU country in the EU's proposals.

I'd be more inclined to agree if the UK didn't seem to be wanting to hang onto many of the benefits of full EU membership. They're not looking for an FTA, they're looking for EU-lite.

They won't even accept the fact that a hard border is a likely consequence of pulling NI out of the SM and CU. It's hard to negotiate with people who simply won't face reality.

LeinsterDub

ambro25 wrote: »

These news links, and those of yesterday-......

Solo between this post and mine there have been 15 likes(at the time of writing) in about 3 hours . People are clearly interested so I'm going to push you again to answer the question why are you optimistic?

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Part of the UK leaving the EU means that the UK will deal with its own quotas. That's a good arrangement. I think the UK should extend a generous hand to the concerns of other countries when this gets raised in Geneva to show that genuinely speaking it is seeking to be an outward looking trading nation.

The UK imports about 85,000 tonnes of sheep and goat meat from New Zealand which is 40% of the EU's quota, and over 50% of the entire EU's imports for these products from a report from the NFU (on page 14). There is obviously some way of measuring consumption.

So New Zealand are entirely right to say that divvying out a portion isn't keeping things the same. The quotas need to be done with consideration of current trade.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

40% (2014) of UK produced lamb goes to the EU (mainly France). This is seen as an opportunity for Irish farmers to claim that French market.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/leaving-eu-would-be-major-threat-to-sheep-industry

As far as I know, NZ got such a large EU quota because of its association with UK as a former colony. The issue for NZ now is that they know the UK will not be importing lamb as UK will have lost their EU premium (fresh) lamb market and will be looking for countries to export to rather than import.

swampgas

Fratton Fred wrote: »

To me, this looks more like the other countries are putting the boot as much in to the eu as they are the UK, in fact, maybe even less so, as the eu is notoriously restrictive when it comes to food import quotas.

Honestly, did anyone expect it to be any different? International politics and trade is cut-throat. The UK has put itself into a terribly weak position, and is going to be hammered for it.

Smaller countries understand this implicitly. Is the UK only now starting to realise that being a member of the EU isn't so bad after all?

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Your point about the fundamental structure of the EU would apply if Britain was going to stay (like Cameron's 2016 negotiation).

Britain is leaving the EU so the question is about relating to the EU as a third party. Therefore stuff like ECJ jurisdiction is unreasonable. The UK is leaving the EU - being subject to a EU court is obviously out of the question.

The UK have made several moves so far in response to concerns. The EU on the other hand are insisting on quasi-EU membership. That's inherently unreasonable.

The UK aren't dictating anything to anyone they are simply saying that there are things that are unreasonable for a non-EU country in the EU's proposals.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

His point is absolutely relevant. For the EU, preserving the structure when one country leaves is an absolute redline, otherwise other countries will want to leave.

So we have some redlines held by 27 countries, and different redlines held by one country. Can anyone guess where the balance of negotiating power lies?

Gerry T

Good point, the deal other countries have done is with the EU, so if the EU drops it's quota then those countried will want to drop theirs. That's prob the outcome, but the EU will export less with the UK gone, so in the end it will be a zero sum change. But there will be extensive negioations the EU will have to do to agree the new low tarrif quotas with 3rd countries.
The big challenge for the UK is their bargaining power is so far less as the amount they import is far less unless they decide to greatly increase the % of low tarrif imports they take to "buy" low tarrifs for their exports. All the UK need is to employ a load of experienced trade negioators to get that done quickly.

breatheme

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The UK have put forward a reasonable position in respect to all 3 issues. The UK reasonably doesn't want to put itself under EU jurisdiction after Brexit, and the UK reasonably wants to tie payments to transition.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK have put forward a somewhat reasonable proposal on one issue: EU citizens' rights. (Whether you agree or disagree with the proposal, that's another issue. But it is a concrete proposal with points that can be debated and that I personally think is ok. Not stellar, but ok.)
They have not proposed anything reasonable on the Irish border at all. It's one thing to say "we'd like to keep an open border" but they haven't answered the question: "how?" 
Nor have they proposed anything (reasonable or unreasonable) regarding the exit bill. There hasn't even been a position paper on the issue. The EU have said that they expect the settlement to include the UK's participation in the EU budget, the termination of the UK's participation in EU institutions and in other activities/funds/facilities/projects/etc. Let's add them up and call this number x. The UK have not said "we are willing to pay x" but they also haven't said "we think x is too high" they haven't even disagreed and said "we won't pay x, but we're willing to pay..." they have said nothing, nothing on the issue. I'd even invite May's government to disagree and retaliate, because hey, at least it gets the ball running, but they have been consistently silent on the matter.

Nody

breatheme wrote: »

They have not proposed anything reasonable on the Irish border at all. It's one thing to say "we'd like to keep an open border" but they haven't answered the question: "how?" 
Nor have they proposed anything (reasonable or unreasonable) regarding the exit bill. There hasn't even been a position paper on the issue. The EU have said that they expect the settlement to include the UK's participation in the EU budget, the termination of the UK's participation in EU institutions and in other activities/funds/facilities/projects/etc. Let's add them up and call this number x. The UK have not said "we are willing to pay x" but they also haven't said "we think x is too high" they haven't even disagreed and said "we won't pay x, but we're willing to pay..." they have said nothing, nothing on the issue. I'd even invite May's government to disagree and retaliate, because hey, at least it gets the ball running, but they have been consistently silent on the matter.

Sorry to say this but you're actually wrong on that one; UK has presented a position but it's not public and they have spent time telling EU what they think they should not pay based on EU's position. They have not however presented an alternative to EU's position paper on what should be included to my knowledge but the above has been acknowledged.

Gerry T

Nody wrote:

Sorry to say this but you're actually wrong on that one; UK has presented a position but it's not public and

Nody wrote:

Sorry to say this but you're actually wrong on that one; UK has presented a position but it's not public and

Reading the article it was a presentation picking holes in the EU paper without presenting their own position. It also doesn't mean the presentation details are factual, this is the UK we're talking about, so that presentation I'm guessing is more fiction than fact. So it would seem the UK didn't (that link is from A month back) and still doesn't have a position paper.

breatheme

Nody wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

They have not proposed anything reasonable on the Irish border at all. It's one thing to say "we'd like to keep an open border" but they haven't answered the question: "how?" 
Nor have they proposed anything (reasonable or unreasonable) regarding the exit bill. There hasn't even been a position paper on the issue. The EU have said that they expect the settlement to include the UK's participation in the EU budget, the termination of the UK's participation in EU institutions and in other activities/funds/facilities/projects/etc. Let's add them up and call this number x. The UK have not said "we are willing to pay x" but they also haven't said "we think x is too high" they haven't even disagreed and said "we won't pay x, but we're willing to pay..." they have said nothing, nothing on the issue. I'd even invite May's government to disagree and retaliate, because hey, at least it gets the ball running, but they have been consistently silent on the matter.

Sorry to say this but you're actually wrong on that one; UK has presented a position but it's not public and they have spent time telling EU what they think they should not pay based on EU's position. They have not however presented an alternative to EU's position paper on what should be included to my knowledge but the above has been acknowledged.

Your own link backs me up: "Brexit negotiations at an impasse over the issue of the divorce bill, with the UK refusing to name a figure."
So, uh, thanks for the support, I guess?

Nate--IRL--

breatheme wrote: »

Your own link backs me up: "Brexit negotiations at an impasse over the issue of the divorce bill, with the UK refusing to name a figure."
So, uh, thanks for the support, I guess?

And further down...

"Negotiations were not over specific figures, but on the way that the final sum will be calculated."

Nate

breatheme

But again, what is the UK's position? "The EU is wrong" is a bit of a start I guess, but... how do they propose to calculate the final sum? To be fair, the article does state the UK said they cannot give a figure "till October at the earliest" so it should be coming soon... so I'll wait to see what they have to say about that. The main point though, is that they haven't settled down the three main issues.

Enzokk

breatheme wrote: »

Your own link backs me up: "Brexit negotiations at an impasse over the issue of the divorce bill, with the UK refusing to name a figure."
So, uh, thanks for the support, I guess?

My guess is that you are wrong to say that they have said nothing. All they have said is that the EU's proposal is wrong and gone through it line by line on why they think it is wrong. You are correct that other than that they haven't done much in regards to the Brexit bill. They haven't proposed their own method of calculating the bill which is what they agreed to do.

Its amazing how the Conservatives are paying now for the past 7 years and they probably wished they didn't need to be in power to deal with the problems on the horizon. George Osborne was quick to blame Labour for the economy and proposed and set up the OBR and its forecasts would play a role in his budgets. Now that they have overestimated the past 7 years of growth it is the current Chancellor that has to deal with the fall out.

Britain is facing a budget 'bloodbath' due to slow growth

This story was linked by Ambro earlier today as well.

According to the FT, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) will next Tuesday release new analysis showing that it has drastically overestimated productivity in recent years, which in turn will lead it to offer more pessimistic than expected forecasts of growth at November's budget.

This will wipe out Hammond's ability to set aside money to smooth Britain's exit from the EU. Hammond last year pledged to build up a £27 billion war chest to help boost growth during Brexit. But if growth is slower, there will be less money collected in tax receipts and therefore less to set aside.

Funny that this is exactly what the Tories blamed Labour for 7 years ago,

Mr Osborne said the newly formed independent Office for Budget Responsibility would publish economic and fiscal forecasts, rather than the government - the first of which would come out before the Budget.

He predicted it would create a "rod for my back down the line and for future chancellors" but said the current system did not produce "good Budgets", and Labour's economic forecasts had mostly been wrong and "almost always in the wrong direction".

Osborne to give details of £6bn spending cuts next week

So this will probably mean no public sector pay rises as the people were expecting/hoping for. This would mean less tax receipts which again will mean less money for the next budget, and so the spiral continues.

At the same time as the domestic turmoil they have to deal with Brexit which will put pressure on the economy and will impact their future forecasts. So is this just a small bump in the road or the start of the spiral that will have an eventual impact on the way Brexit is approached?

The Rape of Lucretia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

While ideology plays a part, it is the overweening ambition of May, Davis, Johnson and other Tories that is driving Brexit. They have placed personal advancement and party above country. Traitors.

Johnson yes, but I think that misreads May and others.

There is a masochistic, stiff upper lip as we go over the top, syndrome at play there with some. May and others know that they are doing the wrong thing for Britain, but are trying to do that wrong thing, as best as they can.
They know also that there is no glory going for it - on the contrary their legacy will be likely widely condemned even by those who support them today. But here too, they are driven by a sense of duty to carry out the will of the people, and be democratic as they see it, no matter what, and their brief is to serve the people of the UK, helping them shoot themselves in the head, because that is what they decided collectively that they wanted to do.
Its admirable in a sad way.

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain is leaving the EU so the question is about relating to the EU as a third party. Therefore stuff like ECJ jurisdiction is unreasonable. The UK is leaving the EU - being subject to a EU court is obviously out of the question.

The UK have made several moves so far in response to concerns. The EU on the other hand are insisting on quasi-EU membership. That's inherently unreasonable.

The UK aren't dictating anything to anyone they are simply saying that there are things that are unreasonable for a non-EU country in the EU's proposals.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

1) Being subject to an EU court is neither obviously nor obscurely out of the question. The UK can choose to abide by its decisions in return for certain accesses to the EU.

2) As we have discussed several times, the UK has made no moves. It has hardly even outlined where it would move from, let alone to. The EU is not insisting on anything. In return for some of the UK requests, it put a price on them, which is only fair, and because those prices relate to what full members of the EU would pay, of course, then, it is 'quasi-EU' membership. But only because the EU want quasi-Eu membership in the first place. To accuse the EU of this is entirely warped.

3) The UK can decline any elements it doesnt like in the EU's proposals. It is a negotiation - to which either can say 'no thanks' - which is not being unreasonable. If the UK doesnt like the EU's offers, then it declines them. It should not whine about it being unreasonable not to be offered an option that they would like.

The Rape of Lucretia

swampgas wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to agree if the UK didn't seem to be wanting to hang onto many of the benefits of full EU membership. They're not looking for an FTA, they're looking for EU-lite.

They won't even accept the fact that a hard border is a likely consequence of pulling NI out of the SM and CU. It's hard to negotiate with people who simply won't face reality.

This is why there is no true negotiation going on. The UK side, quite apart from in-fighting in the tory party, opportunist power searchers, the tory party still fighting a non-existant contest with labour/Corbin because that is their autonomic reflex at this stage - their negotiation team and political leadership is like a group of shell-shocked soldiers.
And still struggling to come to terms the reality of the horror that the Brexit vote imposed on their country. They see the horror ahead. They are on a treadmill of still driving things in that direction. They know they are part of it yet cannot stop themselves. It is a waking nightmare that is traumatising themselves. It is no wonder there is no sense or logic to the events one would normally call 'negotiations'.

solodeogloria

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

1) Being subject to an EU court is neither obviously nor obscurely out of the question. The UK can choose to abide by its decisions in return for certain accesses to the EU.

2) As we have discussed several times, the UK has made no moves. It has hardly even outlined where it would move from, let alone to. The EU is not insisting on anything. In return for some of the UK requests, it put a price on them, which is only fair, and because those prices relate to what full members of the EU would pay, of course, then, it is 'quasi-EU' membership. But only because the EU want quasi-Eu membership in the first place. To accuse the EU of this is entirely warped.

3) The UK can decline any elements it doesnt like in the EU's proposals. It is a negotiation - to which either can say 'no thanks' - which is not being unreasonable. If the UK doesnt like the EU's offers, then it declines them. It should not whine about it being unreasonable not to be offered an option that they would like.

Good evening!

1) It is obviously out of question because it is incompatible with the UK taking back control of its own laws. Being subject to the ECJ effectively means that the UK hasn't really left the European Union. The European Union still don't seem to have understood that the UK isn't looking for quasi-EU membership.

2) This isn't true. You know it's not true. The UK gave agreed to give direct effect to EU nationals to appeal to the Supreme Court where any changes are attempted to the legislation. The UK have also proposed joint arbitration. They have also said that there will be no budgetary shortfall for member states until 2020 provided that transitional terms are given. These are highly reasonable and constitute significant progress in my view.

The EU are insisting on ECJ oversight of the UK (unreasonable) and the UK paying large sums of money for nothing in return (unreasonable).

3) A negotiation should involve two parties willing to compromise (the UK has very clearly) to come to common terms. The EU seems to want to dictate terms to the UK. I think there either has to be a new attitude in Brussels or the UK has to say sod off and work towards WTO terms.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria