Brexit discussion thread II

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

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

[removed the non-"unhelpful sneering nonsense" for length]

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.

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.

I saw this at lunchtime and it's been mildly bemusing me since that you saw anything to get offended about in a completely innocuous comment about reading European media. I don't know whether you reckoned it was a dig, but as a matter of fact, it wasn't. It is useful to get a European perspective on international affairs, especially those involving Europe.

I'll take the politicians one, although really, they deserve it.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

Any opinion on the fact that the UK trade figures now show that they export more than 50% to the EU once you take gold out of equation?

I don't know why you keep harping on about the ECJ when you only have your opinion that they are biased because it will be 27 to 1. That is not what biased means in this context and you only have to look at their decisions and whether there has been bias shown on their rulings. Seeing that cannot show this, please stop posting tripe on here.

What the UK really wants is to leave the ECtHR because that is the court that stops them from deporting people. That has nothing to do with the ECJ, which has found in favour of UK arguments when it comes to rulings that they have been involved in.

Capt'n Midnight

Random distractions for Team GB.

Further tariff of 80% imposed on import of C-Series


Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland and Ireland 'are Brexit allies'

Scotland's first minister told business leaders in Dublin she will argue for the Irish border to remain open in the wake of the UK's split from Europe.

Business Live: Pound slides further


UK productivity sees further fall

In contrast, the ONS said, manufacturing output fell while hours grew, so labour productivity in manufacturing declined by 1.3% during the quarter.

On an annual basis, covering the 12 months after the UK voted to leave the EU, hourly output fell 0.3% from June 2016 to June 2017.

But it's OK because
Theresa May says cabinet 'fully behind' her leadership

Conservative MP Nigel Evans told the BBC's Daily Politics that if Grant Shapps "can't get 48 signatures, he should just shut up: "In my chats to MPs at Westminster nobody wants an early leadership election. We just simply don't want that."

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

It seems to me that the UK wants preferential access to the EU markets, it wants financial passporting for the City of London and it wants its citizens to be able to retire to Spain but it doesn't want to pay for these privileges by submitting to the ECJ and joining the Single Market and customs union as well as paying its contributions.

As you say yourself, if the UK doesn't want to pay the price set by the EU, then we can revert to WTO terms.

Professor Moriarty

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

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.

I see where you're coming from but remember that May was advocating Remain prior to the referendum. This makes her cowardly ambition all the more hypocritical and traitorous.

One could see some twisted blind 'bravery' in their silly jingoistic act of self-harm - if it was limited to self-harm. However, there is nothing admirable in a Little Englander elite selfishly endangering the GFA, damaging my country's economy and punching a hole in an institution that has been very good for my country and for Europe in general.

The Rape of Lucretia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but remember that May was advocating Remain prior to the referendum. This makes her cowardly ambition all the more hypocritical and traitorous.

I cant agree there. There is nothing wrong with being a Remainer, yet then moving to PM and implementing the Brexit. In fact, it is quite a thing to take on. Following that logic, would mean any future member of govt must be a Brexit believer ? Nah. Sure, she siezed her opportunity for the top job - who wouldnt. But is applying herself to implementing the mandate. To have taken the job and then operating to reverse out of it would have been the devious cynical thing to do.
She isnt great. But she's alright. I have a certain respect for her. Mad and all as the whole Brexit thing itself is.

(Boris on the other hand....there is an ego on the rampage).

solodeogloria

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I cant agree there. There is nothing wrong with being a Remainer, yet then moving to PM and implementing the Brexit. In fact, it is quite a thing to take on. Following that logic, would mean any future member of govt must be a Brexit believer ? Nah. Sure, she siezed her opportunity for the top job - who wouldnt. But is applying herself to implementing the mandate. To have taken the job and then operating to reverse out of it would have been the devious cynical thing to do.
She isnt great. But she's alright. I have a certain respect for her. Mad and all as the whole Brexit thing itself is.

(Boris on the other hand....there is an ego on the rampage).

Good evening!

I don't know why it is so hard to understand. Theresa May became Prime Minister in the aftermath of Brexit, where the people voted to leave the European Union. Of course she was going to favour the democratic verdict of the people and implement it.

Why would you reverse out of what the British people wanted?

It's obvious and I think increasingly it is more and more obvious that Britain wasn't suited to membership of the European Union to begin with.

The more anti-democratic types hoping and praying for staying in the European Union will be sorely disappointed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I cant agree there. There is nothing wrong with being a Remainer, yet then moving to PM and implementing the Brexit. In fact, it is quite a thing to take on. Following that logic, would mean any future member of govt must be a Brexit believer ? Nah. Sure, she siezed her opportunity for the top job - who wouldnt. But is applying herself to implementing the mandate. To have taken the job and then operating to reverse out of it would have been the devious cynical thing to do.
She isnt great. But she's alright. I have a certain respect for her. Mad and all as the whole Brexit thing itself is.

(Boris on the other hand....there is an ego on the rampage).

Boris is a clever fool who happened to be born rich and attend Eton. He has nothing else going for him other than misplaced arrogance.

May is a dishonest hypocrite. She could have stood by her beliefs and let someone else take over. How can a person of principle possibly argue vehemently against Brexit and then, for reasons of personal ambition only, argue vehemently for Brexit one month later? Sorry, such a person has no integrity and doesn't deserve respect.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I don't know why it is so hard to understand. Theresa May became Prime Minister in the aftermath of Brexit, where the people voted to leave the European Union. Of course she was going to favour the democratic verdict of the people and implement it.

Why would you reverse out of what the British people wanted?

It's obvious and I think increasingly it is more and more obvious that Britain wasn't suited to membership of the European Union to begin with.

The more anti-democratic types hoping and praying for staying in the European Union will be sorely disappointed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Democracy involves truth.

Not mistrust collusion and sinister input from third parties and foreign governments.

But sure if that's your version of Democracy you deserve the tory party and all the pain they bring.

But sure won't really matter, handy number heading off back to the EU with a passport when all goes belly up easy exit.

The Rape of Lucretia

listermint wrote: »

Democracy involves truth.

Not mistrust collusion and sinister input from third parties and foreign governments.

But sure if that's your version of Democracy you deserve the tory party and all the pain they bring.

But sure won't really matter, handy number heading off back to the EU with a passport when all goes belly up easy exit.

This is the core of the contradiction in Brexit. It wasnt democratic. It has the illusion of being democratic on the basis of having been one man one vote.

But there was no informed, honest, analysis, or debate of the merits or not of Brexiting. A disservice was done to the British voter on such a complex matter. As I have said before, the British electorate as a whole is not really sophisticated or mature enough to handle democracy (not that I am against them having it despite that). And this was exploited by opportunists who stood to gain personally, by a gutter media exploiting the ignorant to whip up a bit of nationalist zenophobic fervour just for the fun of it, by Empire nostalgists, and by politicians just playing a game. It was a horrendous spectacle. But playing with fire, and the UK has been burnt.
The politicians are by and large still just playing a game of politics.

There was an extraordinarily cynical and manipulative attitude, of the end justifying the means, what ever lies or misinformation are spread - with the get out that is being used now that it has gone indeed belly up - 'well, it was democratic'.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The more anti-democratic types hoping and praying for staying in the European Union will be sorely disappointed

The fact that you make a statement like that shows your complete failure to understand how democracy works!

Positions in a country only change because people campaign to get those positions changed. And the idea that people who campaign for change are somehow undemocratic is total nonsense. It is fundamentally to democracy that everyone plays by the agreed rules - and those people who continue to campaign have an absolute right to do so. The fact that you object clearly indicates that you are the one who is being undemocratic.

If we were to follow your logic then we'd have to conclude that those who support the repeal of article 8 of the Irish constitution are also undemocratic sine we already decided on that issue. But they are not because the Irish constitution makes no provision to prevent the people from considering or reconsidering an issue as often as they want.

Your idea of making up the rules as you go along to suit your position is the exact opposite to democracy!

Nody

On a slight different topic but James O'Brien who's against Brexit and is a radio show host has been taking calls by pro brexiteers asking them to explain why they voted and challenging them to actually name for example what economics where said it would be a good idea, what laws from Brussels do you not like etc. It's staggering to see how the people who voted pro brexit still can't actually articulate any facts behind it "Oh but there were lies on both sides, "Oh but there were economics saying things would be good as well", "Well I'll survive the cost increase" etc. It's long so more something to listen to in the background but it's always good to get the view of people outside of boards as well

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

The logical conclusion of walking away is that you will not get WTO terms, even Davis gets that. You are going to have to deal with the exact same states and expecting them to agree your full membership status, while failing to comply with the agreements you have already made with them, is kindergarten behaviour. It is just not going to happen.

Even the countries that the UK were expecting to sign quick trade agreements with are not objecting to the trade schedules: US, Canada, New Zealand etc. There is no way that say Trump for instance is going go around claiming he is making America great again by giving up part of its trade quota to the UK. It is just not going to happen.

I gather one of New Zealand's concern about splitting the EU trade quotas is that if the UK is unable use up the quota because of the weak pound for instance they will loose out because they will be unable use it up in the EU as is currently the case.

These are the realities of international trade, a reality that the UK seems very unprepared for.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

The more anti-democratic types hoping and praying for staying in the European Union will be sorely disappointed.

despite all the problems brexit is bringing to IRL and the EU, I'm glad the UK is leaving. Your right to say the UK isn't suited to such a union. Now I wouldn't let the UK stay and I'd bet my opinion isn't alone.
The agreement the UK made was first to agree how the breakup bill would be settled, then maybe move to a trade negioation. So over a yr and a half since the vote and over 6 mths since triggering A50, has the UK given a position paper on how they see the separation bill being calculated. Have they even indicated when they might issue, say the first paragraph...the introduction and index maybe?

Without this first step the UK is blocking the EU from starting negioations on trade, not very fair of the UK.

Water John

Oddly, the UK Govn't only see the present plays as skirmishes. The word at the Tory party con was that serious talks would start in the new year.
Nothing like, taking your time.

Gerry T

Water John wrote:

Oddly, the UK Govn't only see the present plays as skirmishes. The word at the Tory party con was that serious talks would start in the new year. Nothing like, taking your time.

I think your right, problem is they think their a big player, maybe 100 yrs ago but not today. Most Europeans don't think about brexit, it's not on their radar. It will affect IRL which affects me, so I wish they would get the finger out and engage.

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

Oddly, the UK Govn't only see the present plays as skirmishes. The word at the Tory party con was that serious talks would start in the new year.
Nothing like, taking your time.

Seeing that if they were taking it seriously up to now it would be extremely worrying it makes sense to put this narrative forward. As you allude to, they have to start taking it seriously as time is running out. This is what happens when you have people making decisions when it will not affect them either way, there is no sense of urgency. All these ministers will be fine in the event of a hard Brexit so their not that worried either way.

Samaris

Water John wrote: »

Oddly, the UK Govn't only see the present plays as skirmishes. The word at the Tory party con was that serious talks would start in the new year.
Nothing like, taking your time.

Great, so they're openly admitting they're just wasting time - their own and other peoples', while the economy starts to shudder under the weight of uncertainty.

And people are still arguing that this particular lot are competent or able to make the biggest change in British life since 1973. Actually, probably longer, their joining was at least organised.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the best solution from a political point of view to appease some republicans, but it is not in the economic interest of Northern Ireland.

So leaving the single market is economically better than a sea border?

steddyeddy

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/news.sky.com/story/amp/france-and-germany-deal-blow-to-theresa-mays-brexit-transition-deal-plans-11070500

France and Germany block the UK's attempts at a transition deal until the other issues like the bill and border are sorted first.

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

So leaving the single market is economically better than a sea border?

The sea border is unfeasible. A central party of the DUP-Conservative confidence-and-supply deal is that Northern Ireland must be treated in exactly the same manner as the rest of the UK.

mickoneill31

steddyeddy wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/news.sky.com/story/amp/france-and-germany-deal-blow-to-theresa-mays-brexit-transition-deal-plans-11070500

France and Germany block the UK's attempts at a transition deal until the other issues like the bill and border are sorted first.

Its expected.
I've heard people talking about the transition extending the time for negotiations and I have a feeling that's what the UK is looking for.
If it was me I'd say negotiations will be finished by Brexit day and then the transition period will have a hard end date. It seems obvious to me but I've spoken to a couple of people that disagree.
And that's if a transition is allowed. The EU don't have to agree to it, so if it's not in our best interest why bother. Although from Ireland's point of view a transition period will be beneficial.
It'd give us a couple of extra years to bigger against whatever shock Brexit is bringing.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The sea border is unfeasible. A central party of the DUP-Conservative confidence-and-supply deal is that Northern Ireland must be treated in exactly the same manner as the rest of the UK.

It's only unfeasible because the Tories have a deal with fanatics. Leaving the single market is unfeasible for Northern Ireland.

Samaris

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Its expected.
I've heard people talking about the transition extending the time for negotiations and I have a feeling that's what the UK is looking for.
If it was me I'd say negotiations will be finished by Brexit day and then the transition period will have a hard end date. It seems obvious to me but I've spoken to a couple of people that disagree.
And that's if a transition is allowed. The EU don't have to agree to it, so if it's not in our best interest why bother. Although from Ireland's point of view a transition period will be beneficial.
It'd give us a couple of extra years to bigger against whatever shock Brexit is bringing.

Ireland and to a reasonable extent France. It's not as important to them as it is to Ireland, but it's a concern.

Calina

Article 50 provides for an extension to Article 50 exit negotiating period - the infamous 2 years. I find it fascinating that the UK is more interested in what they call a transition or implementation period which isn't provided for anywhere in legislation AFAIK - and not for an extension to the Article 50 negotiation period.

That extension requires a unanimous yes from the remaining 27 members - I wonder if there is some idea that a transition period might get through on QMV? It would be interesting to understand the rationale if there is any indepth rationale there.

As an interesting point there's a quote from an unnamed EU ambassador knocking around Twitter which is interesting in one respect:

We are not here to save the Tory party.

which apparently is from the FT here.

This leads me to wonder how things would look if the UK side of the negotiating table changed away from the Tories.

Nody

Calina wrote: »

This leads me to wonder how things would look if the UK side of the negotiating table changed away from the Tories.

Assuming a Labour government as that's the only current alternative they might get an extension through to negotiate longer but since Labour are about as split as Tories and have no idea on what they want (nor what EU actually allows; see limited freedom of movement to "avoid salary dumping" while being in EU) they would most likely end up in a similar state shortly there after.

Water John

That might be one reason for the EU to agree to the extension. The Tories are only going one way, downhill. Play the waiting game.
Agree the sea being the border is probably only feasible once the DUP don't have the Tories by the short and curlies. Everyone plays for time.

Calina

Water John wrote: »

That might be one reason for the EU to agree to the extension. The Tories are only going one way, downhill. Play the waiting game.
Agree the sea being the border is probably only feasible once the DUP don't have the Tories by the short and curlies. Everyone plays for time.

For me, the problem is many individual human beings don't have the time to play for. That gets forgotten. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK in particular who are massively uncertain given HO behaviour. For those in the EU, they are tending for the most part to go through the motions to get paperwork where dual citizenship is allowed (NL is an exception) if they fulfill the remit.

solodeogloria

Gerry T wrote: »

despite all the problems brexit is bringing to IRL and the EU, I'm glad the UK is leaving. Your right to say the UK isn't suited to such a union. Now I wouldn't let the UK stay and I'd bet my opinion isn't alone.
The agreement the UK made was first to agree how the breakup bill would be settled, then maybe move to a trade negioation. So over a yr and a half since the vote and over 6 mths since triggering A50, has the UK given a position paper on how they see the separation bill being calculated. Have they even indicated when they might issue, say the first paragraph...the introduction and index maybe?

Without this first step the UK is blocking the EU from starting negioations on trade, not very fair of the UK.

Good afternoon!

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

There are paths to progression here but the EU are refusing to move forward. That's on them.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Gerry T

ancapailldorcha wrote:

The sea border is unfeasible. A central party of the DUP-Conservative confidence-and-supply deal is that Northern Ireland must be treated in exactly the same manner as the rest of the UK.

They could put it to a vote in the north. Stay in the common market with border controls at the coast. Ignoring if it were accepted, is it workable

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

There are paths to progression here but the EU are refusing to move forward. That's on them.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU are not looking for payments from the UK for 'transition' but for what the UK has committed to already. If the UK wish to extend their membership of the EU, then there should be additional payments.

Also, transition suggests and end point. No such suggestion of an end point has been made by the UK - so no transition agreement yet.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU are not looking for payments from the UK for 'transition' but for what the UK has committed to already. If the UK wish to extend their membership of the EU, then there should be additional payments.

Also, transition suggests and end point. No such suggestion of an end point has been made by the UK - so no transition agreement yet.

Good afternoon!

My point is simple. The likelihood of getting agreement on payment with nothing in return from the UK is zero in the current political climate.

There are two things that could get movement if the EU were able to see it:
1) acknowledge the need for an alternative arbitration mechanism for upholding the agreement.
2) acknowledge that the best way to get the funds for continued obligations is to tie it to transitional terms.

Both would be reasonable moves. I genuinely think the only other option is no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

Gerry T wrote: »

They could put it to a vote in the north. Stay in the common market with border controls at the coast. Ignoring if it were accepted, is it workable

They can't. It's party of the DUP's agreement with the Tories. Why would they support it? Why would Westminster?

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41534552

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has urged colleagues to "get behind" the PM because "people are fed up with this malarkey".

The problem is that some of the people behind the PM suffer from chronic backstabbing disorder.

A week is a long time in politics and there are lots of weeks to go before the Brexit deadline.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

There are paths to progression here but the EU are refusing to move forward. That's on them.

The UK have agreed on the sequence of negotiations.

Brexit: UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks

But the two later published agreed “terms of reference” that made no mention of trade. Davis put a brave face on their relative lack of progress during a joint press conference where he sought to channel historic moments of national adversity.

There is nothing else for the EU to do but wait for the UK to stick to their word. If they cannot keep their word at the start of the negotiations then what trust is there for the future?

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is simple. The likelihood of getting agreement on payment with nothing in return from the UK is zero in the current political climate.

There are two things that could get movement if the EU were able to see it:
1) acknowledge the need for an alternative arbitration mechanism for upholding the agreement.
2) acknowledge that the best way to get the funds for continued obligations is to tie it to transitional terms.

Both would be reasonable moves. I genuinely think the only other option is no deal.

Where has the EU demanded money from the EU for nothing? Please supply quotes for this as you keep mentioning it. The EU wants the UK to make a list of what they have agreed to pay. Its not the EU wanting money from the UK for nothing, but what the UK thinks they have committed to pay for.

The UK has said they want to pay for a transitional period, the EU hasn't asked for any funds from the UK other than what the UK has agreed to. Why it takes the UK so long to confirm this makes no sense to me. Do you think you know why it will take the UK so long to confirm what agreements they have made?

Zerbini Blewitt

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is simple. The likelihood of getting agreement on payment with nothing in return from the UK is zero in the current political climate.

Translated:- the likelihood of the UK paying what it owes is zero.

Er, ok!

There are two things that could get movement if the EU were able to see it:
1) acknowledge the need for an alternative arbitration mechanism for upholding the agreement.
2) acknowledge that the best way to get the funds for continued obligations is to tie it to transitional terms.

Both would be reasonable moves. I genuinely think the only other option is no deal.

That would not be remotely reasonable.

It (or any similar spoiling tactics) would be seen as a deliberate calculated effort to derail the agreed exit negotiation sequencing (and subsequently the trade/potential transition talks).

In any case, that would appear to be at least 5 negotiation steps ahead of where even Davis & May are now.

They promised in late August to come up with the UK calculation methodology for the exit bill sometime in October (as somebody linked to the other day on this thread).

This macho ‘walk out/no deal’ drumbeat holds absolutely no fear for the EU. Barnier will simply shrug his shoulders (with mostly indifference plus a little communal well-being concern) and bid Davis et al Au Revoir (but I’d agree that it is probably the UK’s strongest negotiating card).

jm08

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They can't. It's party of the DUP's agreement with the Tories. Why would they support it? Why would Westminster?

It has to be approved by Westminister first of all and I don't think the Tories would have any problem pulling the plug on it if it suited them. The Tories didn't need the DUP - they had their support anyway.

steddyeddy

Germany's biggest industry body tells German businesses to prepare for a very hard Brexit. Collectively German industry in the UK employs 400 thousand people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41509198

flutered

Nody wrote: »

Assuming a Labour government as that's the only current alternative they might get an extension through to negotiate longer but since Labour are about as split as Tories and have no idea on what they want (nor what EU actually allows; see limited freedom of movement to "avoid salary dumping" while being in EU) they would most likely end up in a similar state shortly there after.

how about this, false news or not The EU's holding Brexit talks with Jeremy Corbyn amid fears Theresa May's government could crumble

flutered

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

There are paths to progression here but the EU are refusing to move forward. That's on them.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

https://www.thelocal.de/20171005/prepare-for

ancapailldorcha

flutered wrote: »

https://www.thelocal.de/20171005/prepare-for

If you're going to post a link, please provide a comment on its content instead of just pasting it.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is simple. The likelihood of getting agreement on payment with nothing in return from the UK is zero in the current political climate.

Is not about getting something for nothing, it is about honouring your commitments. And I doubt that anyone on the EU side is too concerned about the political climate in a third country, it is there issue.

Davis is not going to get any kind of face saving deal from the EU, despite what he may think. The whole point of the EU's refusal to conduct the talks in secret was to ensure he wouldn't be in a position to spin something at home and the EU would have to remain silent on it.

Water John

It seems the UK Govn't was given legal advice, that it could withdraw Article 50 notification, anytime before March 2019.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/07/theresa-may-secret-advice-brexit-eu

This is very diff from what people have been told. They actually have the option of staying in the EU, with their present arrangements.

solodeogloria

Jim2007 wrote: »

Is not about getting something for nothing, it is about honouring your commitments. And I doubt that anyone on the EU side is too concerned about the political climate in a third country, it is there issue.

Davis is not going to get any kind of face saving deal from the EU, despite what he may think. The whole point of the EU's refusal to conduct the talks in secret was to ensure he wouldn't be in a position to spin something at home and the EU would have to remain silent on it.

Good evening!

This is how the EU have chosen to spin it.

However, the payments for the 2020 programme are what Britain would have paid if they were still a member. On that basis it seems entirely reasonable to tie it to transition. It's also worth pointing out that the language of "owing" is wrong. It isn't that Britain "owes" anything. It's that Britain has committed to contribute to the European Union budget. I think they should follow that through but not without transitional terms.

My point is simple, there are ways out of the impasse if the EU are willing, but they aren't willing to compromise.

In which case, if the EU aren't willing to be reasonable, I'd much much rather that that UK used the additional funds to prepare for no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/spilt-milk-how-brexit-threatens-bailey-s-and-dubliner-cheese-1.3242752

We probably need to get ourselves in gear for a hard Brexit too, and of all European countries, it's going to hit Ireland worst (UK itself aside). Varadkar has made noises about a fallback plan, but no clarification as to what it is.

Water John

Yeah, saw that piece by Tony Conneely, good read and research. Seems to part of a larger piece or book by him
Both Dairygold and Carbery are very worried at it. I think it's Dairygold export the 20KG cheese blocks to the UK.
Agriculture could get a fair wollop, from a hard Brexit.

Leonard Hofstadter

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This is how the EU have chosen to spin it.

However, the payments for the 2020 programme are what Britain would have paid if they were still a member. On that basis it seems entirely reasonable to tie it to transition. It's also worth pointing out that the language of "owing" is wrong. It isn't that Britain "owes" anything. It's that Britain has committed to contribute to the European Union budget. I think they should follow that through but not without transitional terms.

My point is simple, there are ways out of the impasse if the EU are willing, but they aren't willing to compromise.

In which case, if the EU aren't willing to be reasonable, I'd much much rather that that UK used the additional funds to prepare for no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Britain is only offering to pay what it had previously agreed to pay.

What you/Britain thinks is "reasonable" is what I consider merely to be honouring something they previously agreed.

The reason the EU haven't been what you think is 'reasonable' is because of the arrogance and delusion of the UK - nothing more and nothing less. The UK is still busy trying to have its cake and eat it, the Government really doesn't get it at all. What they've offered is nowhere near enough - sure what Mrs May offered in Italy is a significant leap forward, but then we saw what BoJo was up to and then we've had the Tory party conference. How can we possibly know if what May offered Europe is what the British Government actually intends on doing - she may not even be PM in a few weeks time?

The EU have consistently said they're not trying to 'punish' the UK but they (rightly) want every last penny off the UK that they are legally entitled to. It is telling that despite the UK's insistence that the EU's figures are somehow 'wrong' that they have failed to provide an alternative.

If the UK can't get even the basics right then what hope is there for other countries wanting to do trade deals, when they don't even know if they can trust the UK to deliver on legal agreements?

Those wanting a hard Brexit seem to think it's perfectly OK to not pay a penny more to the EU and yet somehow everyone else is going to queue up and do deals with a law breaking country.

We already saw the reality that awaits Britain with the WTO tariffs fiasco during the week - and that was somewhere that (for once) the UK and the EU had come to an agreement on. The first people to say 'we don't like this' were the UK's supposed 'friends' in the US, Canada and other English speaking former British colonies.

Also I'm beyond curious how you've chosen not to comment on the antics of the US towards Northern Ireland with the tariffs on Bombardier (which were only the other day increased another 80% to 300%) and how this augers for a UK-US trade deal (one of the many supposed 'benefits' of Brexit, which, like everything else about Brexit, is complete and utter garbage) despite being asked to by other boardsies on numerous occasions.

So perhaps you might finally address this?

carrickbally

What are the chances of a complete breakdown in Brexit negotiations sooner rather than later?

Is that not what many Brexiteers want?

Consequences?

According to the quotes from many of them the attitude is what consequences.

Leonard Hofstadter

carrickbally wrote: »

What are the chances of a complete breakdown in Brexit negotiations sooner rather than later?

Is that not what many Brexiteers want?

Consequences?

According to the quotes from many of them the attitude is what consequences.

That's pretty much it in my view. Nothing but the hardest of hard Brexits will satisfy them along with having their cake and eating it with regards to Europe. Everyone knows that the EU is going to be blamed by these clowns no matter what goes wrong, we will see the right wing press say absolute bolderdash like 'it's the EU's fault that the UK got such a bad deal' and 'this proves why we (the UK) were right to leave the EU'. Now that may be great for selling newspapers and stirring the soul of the hard Brexiters but whatabout the average British person who is going to suffer big time, the fall in the value of sterling means we have higher inflation and holidays abroad are more expensive and yet despite this theoretical advantage to the UK's competitiveness we find that the UK's growth is the slowest of all the G20 nations and far behind the EU (which we were assured before the referendum by the Brexit serial liars was dying a death and holding Britain back), so all the evidence shows that Brexit is an act of economic suicide by Britain.

They've no interest in what's good for the long term future of the UK or trying to soften the blow of Brexit to business (which is what I find the most surprising, and disturbing, thing of all, since we all know the Tories are the party in the lapdogs of business - this is one of the times where I wish they'd pay more attention to what the majority of British businesses want).

The whole thing is complete infighting at the top levels of the Conservative party.

Ironically one of the reasons Mrs May has lasted this long (and despite everything, is likely to last a bit longer I think) is because the leavers are terrified that someone who wants a softer Brexit will replace her while the remainers are terrified of the exact opposite.

Gerry T

ancapailldorcha wrote:

They can't. It's party of the DUP's agreement with the Tories. Why would they support it? Why would Westminster?

If you mean "they" as in the DUP, yes they wouldn't like a change. I was thinking put a vote to all in the North. Let them as a group decide their faith. If they want to align with the UK then that prob means a hard border with south, but the majority might decide a sea border with EU lite membership is best for them.
The north is a special case, I would think UE lite is available to them, I don't think the Scots or Welsh would have the same opportunity.