Brexit discussion thread II

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

Protectionism is bad

Brexit is protectionism.
Protectionism is bad.
Brexit is bad !


We agree !

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

The issue with Bombardier and Boeing is an issue between the US and Canada. It isn't primarily an issue between the US and the UK.

Without the DUP there is no Tory majority.


It isn't an issue except that Bombardier is the largest private sector employer in NI and "The firm represents around 10% of our total exports and about 40% of the direct manufacturing jobs in Belfast with its impacts on the wider manufacturing and supply chain being felt right across Northern Ireland."

The DUP will be in a difficult position if those jobs go while they hold the balance of power in Westminster.

The billion pounds from the pact still hasn't arrived and is still subject to approval.

And there's still the cash for ash thing.

And the clock is ticking on a deal for Stormont. Going back to direct rule in an economy going down the tubes might just simplify the whole border situation.

Nody

In August 2017:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Usually when people prophesy armageddon I ask for a justification. The problem with this thread and it's precursor is people have been prophesying it without any good justification at all.

I have to agree with Fratton Fred that a lot of it comes down to jingoistic little Irelanders.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

I personally don't believe passporting will be removed from London under MiFID II. I don't see the apocalypse that others see here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

In September 2017:

solodeogloria wrote: »

If China is investing in this way now, the opportunities will be better when trade terms are less restrictive. Harnessing and expanding non-EU trade will allow for easier trade flows between the UK and China meaning more of the same.

America is the obvious option. It and China together are about half of the entire exports to the EU. It's a no brainer. Expand both these markets with liberal trade terms and substantial increases in trade are on the cards.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Some posters were nearly insisting that America would be a kind of great Satan if the UK was going to do trade with it. This is just irrational paranoia.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Beginning of October 2017:

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think leaving the EU is a "mess". I'm certain that in 10 - 15 years that Britain will benefit from the flexibility of being outside. Come 2019 Britain should leave come what may. If there's no deal there's no need for ratification either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's amazing how your opinion has swung in literally speaking 3 months and we're not even on the home stretch yet for Brexit; we're only getting warmed up as 2018 is the year when **** will really hit the fan.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's a common criticism of politicians that they don't employ long term solutions that work in favour of short termism. Short termism is a problem in politics. It isn't the definition of politics as you seem to believe.

I actually agree with your point about short term thinking. I have shown that Theresa May is thinking short term and you have confirmed this is not good politics. I think we can agree that having someone thinking short term in charge is not ideal. The other person who may take over, Boris Johnson, had 2 articles written about which side he will support. He is also playing the short term game. So where does this leave Brexit, in your mind? We have two high profile players who are playing the short term game.

solodeogloria wrote: »

My position is entirely based on the UK Government implementing the result of the referendum.

I also don't believe the nonsense of "hard" versus "soft" Brexit. There is Brexit, and not really Brexit.

No, just wanting the UK to implement Brexit doesn't seem to be your position. Your position is more anti-EU than just wanting the government to implement the result of the referendum.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Exports are exports. Ignoring parts of the export figure isn't helpful.

Really? What money does the UK make from "exporting" someone else's gold? If gold that is held in the UK is owned by a bank, what value does it have for the UK export market?

How gold takes the shine off Britain's trade balance

They're melted down again and refined until they're more than 99% pure, and then they're flown to London. Why? Because it turns out Britain is the world capital for the trade of physical gold.

The chances are if a bar of gold is to be bought, sold or stored, it will happen in London. The world's accepted standard for bullion production - London Good Delivery - is, as the name would suggest, a British hallmark.

Be it historical accident or the result of long-term strategy, London is at the very heart of the gold trade.

In some senses this is rather odd, given Britain has no major gold mines. It has only one surviving refinery, mostly melting down scrap metal.

The vast majority of the world's gold is, of course, mined elsewhere: in the US, South Africa, Australia and elsewhere.

But sitting underneath the ground in warehouses inside the M25 are vaults containing well over half a million bars of bullion, worth a grand total of around $300bn (£223bn) - roughly the equivalent of £9,000 for every household in the country.

Unfortunately for us, this gold, much of which sits inside the Bank of England's vaults, isn't owned by the British people or the Government or the Bank itself.

Instead, it is stored on behalf of other central banks, financial groups and wealthy investors. In much the same way as the Square Mile has long been the world's favourite place to invest your money, it has also long been the world's favourite place to store gold.

When it comes to value added, gold storage and transportation comes a very distant second to the production of the actual metal. For all the allure of the glistening metal and the conspiracy theories that surround it, much of this activity is actually deeply unsexy.

Moving and storing a gold bar is really just a logistics job, albeit with slightly higher insurance premiums. And such is the secrecy and security in the trade that most of the participants would rather you didn't realise it was going on at all.

So the amount gets added to the export number, say £35m GBP export, yet the UK only makes say £300 000 (made up number) from the storage of the gold. You find no reason to be concerned at all about this?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The issue with Bombardier and Boeing is an issue between the US and Canada. It isn't primarily an issue between the US and the UK.

Boeing also employ nearly 19,000 people in the UK either directly or in a supply chain. They also spent £2.1bn with British suppliers last year.

Protectionism is bad, but to have the simplistic interpretation that you and others hold isn't helpful. We need the whole picture.

How many of those workers are in Northern Ireland though? And will voters in Northern Ireland care when they lose 4000 jobs but England gets to keep theirs?

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Protectionism is bad

Well protectionism is bad in only once sense - economic. But socially, globalisation has been an absolute disaster! One only has to look at the social unrest in the UK and the UK to conclude that. The world is not as one dimensional as you seem to think.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

I actually agree with your point about short term thinking. I have shown that Theresa May is thinking short term and you have confirmed this is not good politics. I think we can agree that having someone thinking short term in charge is not ideal. The other person who may take over, Boris Johnson, had 2 articles written about which side he will support. He is also playing the short term game. So where does this leave Brexit, in your mind? We have two high profile players who are playing the short term game.




No, just wanting the UK to implement Brexit doesn't seem to be your position. Your position is more anti-EU than just wanting the government to implement the result of the referendum.




Really? What money does the UK make from "exporting" someone else's gold? If gold that is held in the UK is owned by a bank, what value does it have for the UK export market?

How gold takes the shine off Britain's trade balance




So the amount gets added to the export number, say £35m GBP export, yet the UK only makes say £300 000 (made up number) from the storage of the gold. You find no reason to be concerned at all about this?





How many of those workers are in Northern Ireland though? And will voters in Northern Ireland care when they lose 4000 jobs but England gets to keep theirs?

4,000 plus another 9,000 supply chain jobs. A total of 13,000 jobs. Pro rata, it would be the equivalent of England losing 377,000 jobs.

The Rape of Lucretia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

4000 plus another 9000 supply chain jobs. A total of 13000 jobs. Pro rata, it would be the equivalent of England losing 377000 jobs.

You cannot look at it like that though - thats just playing with statistics. Brexit, and the UKs foreign trade deals concern the Uk as a whole, not NI. You could say 130000 jobs from Belfast. That equates to 1.76 million jobs in England! Calamity!
But really, both are just over dramatically misrepresenting how bad the loss would be.

steddyeddy

Nody wrote: »

In August 2017:



In September 2017:



Beginning of October 2017:
It's amazing how your opinion has swung in literally speaking 3 months and we're not even on the home stretch yet for Brexit; we're only getting warmed up as 2018 is the year when **** will really hit the fan.

You're forgetting the best turn around.

Voted remain --》 I was a reluctant remainer ----》I'm campaigning for a hard Brexit.

It's not a change of opinion. It's just a changing of the narrative to fit what posters are saying.

Professor Moriarty

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You cannot look at it like that though - thats just playing with statistics. Brexit, and the UKs foreign trade deals concern the Uk as a whole, not NI. You could say 130000 jobs from Belfast. That equates to 1.76 million jobs in England! Calamity!
But really, both are just over dramatically misrepresenting how bad the loss would be.

What's wrong the figures? I'm not sure what your point is.

steddyeddy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You cannot look at it like that though - thats just playing with statistics. Brexit, and the UKs foreign trade deals concern the Uk as a whole, not NI. You could say 130000 jobs from Belfast. That equates to 1.76 million jobs in England! Calamity!
But really, both are just over dramatically misrepresenting how bad the loss would be.

It would be a lot worse for Northern Ireland, a black hole economy, to lose more investment. It won't survive Brexit.

Jim2007

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear there. I meant that it just takes one of the parliaments of the countries within the EU to stop any agreement. Doesn't really change either of our points though-The "Brussels Bad" concept being put forward vastly oversimplifies the reality of the situation.

Yes, but my point is that even if they all agree to a transition, it still can't happen without the agreement of the EEA/CH members. In that respect, the Swiss will want their issues addressed visa via the UK, otherwise the introduction of checks at the Swiss borders will cause havoc for not just the UK. It is their main bargaining chip after all.

Bigus

The way things are working out the EU might have another 66 million economic refugees to deal with in a few short years ......... from the uk

Jim2007

A Little Pony wrote: »

A deal is never going to happen, the government is already planning behind closed doors for the possibility, they know it's not going to happen but have to give the illusion at this time of it being possible. I'd have already had us out of the EU by now. It's wasting everyone's time and the sooner we leave the better.

By planning you mean:
- Publishing extra ferry time tables
- Guides to exporting to the 12 island nations that are not WTO members
- Guides on how to apply for a Schengen visa
- Guides to exporting to as a non WTO member state
- ...

The idea that you can walk away from your commitments and expect that the 27 member states will agree to your application for full WTO membership etc... is beyond delusional.

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

It would be a lot worse for Northern Ireland, a black hole economy, to lose more investment. It won't survive Brexit.

NI is really screwed. Apart from its economic vulnerability, it has deep sectarian divisions that won't be healed any time soon. If the GFA unravels and violence starts again then the economy will be even worse. In that scenario, an already struggling England will cut NI adrift. Can't see anyone wanting to take responsibility for NI when that happens as it will be a basket case.

GalwayMark

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

NI is really screwed. Apart from its economic vulnerability, it has deep sectarian divisions that won't be healed any time soon. If the GFA unravels and violence starts again then the economy will be even worse. In that scenario, an already struggling England will cut NI adrift. Can't see anyone wanting to take responsibility for NI when that happens as it will be a basket case.

They could use it as a distraction for their economic woes. Mark my words the place may become a geopolitical landmine which may concern all parties.
Most securocrats in the tory party will need it for political gain or use it as leverage to pry the rest of Ireland into leaving Europe.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Boeing also employ nearly 19,000 people in the UK either directly or in a supply chain. They also spent £2.1bn with British suppliers last year.

Where do you get the 19 000 employees from? You have to be very careful with that figure as it includes the phrase, "supply chain" which means they count Rolls Royce employees that supply them engines. These "employees" count towards Airbus as well and I would guess most of the employees that are in the supply chain for Boeing will be in the supply chain for Airbus and most likely Bombardier as well.

Boeing themselves only had 2000 direct employees in the UK in 2016 and they listed 12 700 in the supply chain. So the 19 000 figure is interesting.

Boeing in the UK

Boeing has more than 250 suppliers in the United Kingdom and spent £1.8 billion ($2.65 billion) with them in 2015.

Research in 2015 by Oxford Economics on Boeing’s 2014 figures – when Boeing spent £1.4 billion with our suppliers - found that 12,700 jobs in the UK supply chain were supported by Boeing's activities. This research also found that 1,516 people were employed directly by Boeing in 2014 and this has grown to more than 2,000 by early 2016. On average, Boeing hired a new employee per day in 2015 and this growth continued in 2016, Boeing’s centenary year, and into 2017.

The supply chain in the UK is important to the success of Boeing and vice versa. For example, on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner fitted with Rolls-Royce engines alongside significant contributions from other UK suppliers, the 787 is 25% by value made by UK companies.

In contrast there are more than 4 000 people employed by Bombardier directly in Northern Ireland. So about double more direct employees. Then its estimated another 9 400 indirect jobs will be affected in Northern Ireland as well. So almost the same amount of jobs will be affected in Northern Ireland alone that all of the employees that Boeing seem to claim.

US ruling on Bombardier risks thousands of Northern Irish jobs, Union claims

More than 4,000 people are employed in Belfast by the Canadian multinational and thousands more jobs in Northern Ireland are supported through the manufacturer's supply chain, according to trade unionists.

...Another 9,400 supply chain jobs could be wiped out in Northern Ireland on top of those directly employed at the plant, Mr Murdoch warned.

Granted these numbers are from the union so take that as you want. What I can find is on the Bombardier website that they have 800 suppliers in the UK and Northern Ireland.

Suppliers in UK - Bombardier

Supply Chain

Bombardier Aerospace, Belfast has a European supply chain of 900 approved suppliers. More than 800 are based in the UK and Ireland and, in 2013, we awarded them work worth £284 million.

So it seems that this is a real blow to the UK and Northern Ireland, whatever Boeing may claim. This is really a sad indictment of this situation and really its worse than I first thought.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're forgetting the best turn around.

Voted remain --》 I was a reluctant remainer ----》I'm campaigning for a hard Brexit.

It's not a change of opinion. It's just a changing of the narrative to fit what posters are saying.

Good morning!

It obviously is a change of mind but it's a change of mind I'm allowed to have. I've offered a clear explanation several times on this thread as to why I've changed my mind.

People are allowed to change their minds and it's a good thing for people to re-evaluate their thinking.

I'm starting to question the value of the echo-chamber at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

cantwbr1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It obviously is a change of mind but it's a change of mind I'm allowed to have. I've offered a clear explanation several times on this thread as to why I've changed my mind.

People are allowed to change their minds and it's a good thing for people to re-evaluate their thinking.

I'm starting to question the value of the echo-chamber at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But if people change their mind and want to remain in the EU it is undemocratic

solodeogloria

cantwbr1 wrote: »

But if people change their mind and want to remain in the EU it is undemocratic

Good morning!

This is fine but to suggest ignoring the referendum isn't "democratic". Dozens of people on this thread have been asking parliament or even the monarch to ignore the people.

They know it isn't democratic to suggest this, and you do too.

Nobody is being fooled.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

cantwbr1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This is fine but to suggest ignoring the referendum isn't "democratic". Dozens of people on this thread have been asking parliament or even the monarch to ignore the people.

They know it isn't democratic to suggest this, and you do too.

Nobody is being fooled.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you have no issue with people changing their mind and calling for a new referendum

Beechwoodspark

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It obviously is a change of mind but it's a change of mind I'm allowed to have. I've offered a clear explanation several times on this thread as to why I've changed my mind.

People are allowed to change their minds and it's a good thing for people to re-evaluate their thinking.

I'm starting to question the value of the echo-chamber at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good morning!!!

Of course you are "allowed" to have a change of mind.

The British people likewise are allowed to re evaluate their thinking on Brexit. As it stands their country is divided almost 50-50.

Much thanks(?!)

Beechwoodspark

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It obviously is a change of mind but it's a change of mind I'm allowed to have. I've offered a clear explanation several times on this thread as to why I've changed my mind.

People are allowed to change their minds and it's a good thing for people to re-evaluate their thinking.

I'm starting to question the value of the echo-chamber at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fantastic. Polls show the UK people have changed their mind.. Another ref please.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It obviously is a change of mind but it's a change of mind I'm allowed to have. I've offered a clear explanation several times on this thread as to why I've changed my mind.

People are allowed to change their minds and it's a good thing for people to re-evaluate their thinking.

I'm starting to question the value of the echo-chamber at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you can change your mind 180 degrees on the issue but it wouldn't be ok to ask everyone else in a referendum if they haven't had a change of heart in the opposite direction, having seen the slow motion car crash unfold?

Edit: I replied before reading the posts above. Seems almost everybody sees the issue. There is clearly enough doubt surrounding Brexit that a referendum held tomorrow could easily throw up a remain result. Solo thinks it's undemocratic to agitate for such a second referendum.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is fine but to suggest ignoring the referendum isn't "democratic".

I doubt that you can call the UK government actions of the past 16 months 'ignoring the referendum', somehow.

By the same token, putting an end to these actions to reflect a changing majority sentiment in the UK, is no more undemocratic than overturning a Parliamentary majority at a next or anticipated General Election.

But by all means, enlighten me as to why this may not be so.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Dozens of people on this thread have been asking parliament or even the monarch to ignore the people.

And that is what democracy is all about.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Nobody is being fooled.

Considering the extent of your personal u-turn since the 2016 referendum, I think it's safe to increase that count by one at least

Enzokk

Theresa May will make a speech to the House of Commons today as the negotiations continue again. This is the last opportunity for talks to progress enough for the EU to be convinced that trade can be discussed with the next meetings. Seeing that her speech apparently calls for more of the same, "spirit of friendship and co-operation", and she also seems to think the ball is in the EU's court for some reason.

In her first address to parliament since she outlined her plans in Florence, Mrs May will describe the government's ambition for a "new, deep and special partnership between a sovereign United Kingdom and a strong and successful European Union."

"Achieving that partnership will require leadership and flexibility, not just from us but from our friends, the 27 nations of the EU.

"And as we look forward to the next stage, the ball is in their court. But I am optimistic we will receive a positive response."

I still struggle to see where the flexibility from the UK side is though, they have not budged much on either the Brexit bill and a solution to the border is non-existent as it has not been brought up yet. Seems like solo seems to suggest the UK has put its foot down and will only discuss the border along with trade talk, in which case they have not been very flexible themselves there. But it seems to be the thing to do these days, accuse your opponent of the very thing you are guilty of and hope the gullible fall for it.

Theresa May: 'We can prove Brexit doomsayers wrong'

LeinsterDub

Theresa May is expected on Monday to tell other EU countries that the “ball is in their court” in the Brexit negotiations, as she pushes to make progress in talks that have been deadlocked.

https://www.ft.com/content/0617608a-ac30-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4

Great sound bite from May and I'm sure that it play well in the express and other Brexit newspapers but the fact remains we've not even gotten an opening gambit from the UK on 2 of the 3 core issues.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Great sound bite from May and I'm sure that it play well in the express and other Brexit newspapers but the fact remains we've not even gotten an opening gambit from the UK on 2 of the 3 core issues.

Unnamed sources at the Tory conference last week were saying that this is all just theatre, and the real negotiations will begin after Christmas.

May knows full well that putting the ball in the EUs court means no progress will be made. This is entirely for the benefit of UK voters, PR spin.

steddyeddy

Enzokk wrote: »

Theresa May will make a speech to the House of Commons today as the negotiations continue again. This is the last opportunity for talks to progress enough for the EU to be convinced that trade can be discussed with the next meetings. Seeing that her speech apparently calls for more of the same, "spirit of friendship and co-operation", and she also seems to think the ball is in the EU's court for some reason.



I still struggle to see where the flexibility from the UK side is though, they have not budged much on either the Brexit bill and a solution to the border is non-existent as it has not been brought up yet. Seems like solo seems to suggest the UK has put its foot down and will only discuss the border along with trade talk, in which case they have not been very flexible themselves there. But it seems to be the thing to do these days, accuse your opponent of the very thing you are guilty of and hope the gullible fall for it.

Theresa May: 'We can prove Brexit doomsayers wrong'

This is infuriating, both as a resident of the UK and an EU citizen.

How stupid does she think people are? All her speeches around "speeding up" negotiations revolves around ignoring the issues of border, divorce and citizens rights and saying to the EU "we want you to show imagination and flexibility. This will be the second time she said that in such a speech.

The have laid out the negotiation style in simple terms. Make progress on the divorce, border and citizens rights and then we'll talk trade.

The UK's negotiation strategy involves pretending they didn't hear that and repeatedly asking for the EU to present another strategy. Well I can safely say other countries will be queuing up around the block to do a trade deal with the UK when they see that negotiation style.

Complete and utter delusion. A serious measure of reality is now needed.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is fine but to suggest ignoring the referendum isn't "democratic". Dozens of people on this thread have been asking parliament or even the monarch to ignore the people.

As usual you show a complete lack of understanding of how British democracy works! On the one hand you want to take back control - a sovereign parliament and supremacy of British law and on the other hand when that is applied as in the Miller case or in PMs being urged to exercise their sovereign rights and it is not to your liking it is undemocratic! At the end of the day, democracy in the U.K. is underpinned by a sovereign parliament not a sovereign people (as in Denmark, France or Ireland for instance) and the fact that BREXIT supports do not get that, suggests they are ill prepared to act in the best interests of their country.

Enzokk

steddyeddy wrote: »

This is infuriating, both as a resident of the UK and an EU citizen.

How stupid does she think people are? All her speeches around "speeding up" negotiations revolves around ignoring the issues of border, divorce and citizens rights and saying to the EU "we want you to show imagination and flexibility. This will be the second time she said that in such a speech.

The have laid out the negotiation style in simple terms. Make progress on the divorce, border and citizens rights and then we'll talk trade.

The UK's negotiation strategy involves pretending they didn't hear that and repeatedly asking for the EU to present another strategy. Well I can safely say other countries will be queuing up around the block to do a trade deal with the UK when they see that negotiation style.

Complete and utter delusion. A serious measure of reality is now needed.

Agreed, but seeing solo's replies on this thread it obviously has gained traction with people. I would guess when you are looking for someone to blame and it is offered to you on a plate you just go with the flow.

I am interested to see if there will be movement in the negotiations on the other issues or if as David Davis has said it will still be all about the Brexit bill and only about that.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Unnamed sources at the Tory conference last week were saying that this is all just theatre, and the real negotiations will begin after Christmas.

Well as an Italian colleague of mine put it: the problem with the Brits is that they don't understand that when Europeans say not they actually mean it!

carrickbally

The ball is in the UK court since they voted to tear up the agreement they signed with the nearly thirty democracies that make up the EU.

The ball is in the UK court since they voted to tear up the Good Friday Agreement they signed with this country.

The logic of their position is to get out of the negotiations forthwith and put up with the consequences.

The alternative is change their mind and stay members of the EU.

Wishing all the problems away and blaming everyone else when they are the first movers is so much bovine faeces.

Gerry T

carrickbally wrote:

The alternative is change their mind and stay members of the EU.

Im not sure that's an option now, as A50 is triggered I doubt it can be withdrawn. Plus I doubt there's an appetite to get back into bed with the UK.
If that were a possibility, I think their terms would need changing, no special allowances such as they move to the euro currency etc..

Mr.Micro

What is clear, May et all do not have a clue. The NI issue was clearly never even considered when the Brexit campaign started. There is no solution to it as things stand. Still May and Johnson will just muddle on. They are so messed up that idealism has replaced practicality and reality.

Enzokk

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What is clear, May et all do not have a clue. The NI issue was clearly never even considered when the Brexit campaign started. There is no solution to it as things stand. Still May and Johnson will just muddle on. They are so messed up that idealism has replaced practicality and reality.

And to add to the mix you have the DUP who actively campaigned for Brexit and whose campaign is against the will of the people in Northern Ireland, but they are the party of influence in Westminster.

I find it interesting that the will of the people is important, but not when it comes to Northern Ireland. Their parties can do what they think it right, by voting for Brexit, but other politicians must do what their constituents voted for even if it is against their own personal opinion.

Seems to me that following the will of the people is only important if it is your will as well.

Enzokk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/0617608a-ac30-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4

Great sound bite from May and I'm sure that it play well in the express and other Brexit newspapers but the fact remains we've not even gotten an opening gambit from the UK on 2 of the 3 core issues.

And the response is predictable from the EU Commission,

EU: ‘Brexit ball is in Britain’s court’

The European Commission has said the Brexit “ball is entirely in the UK’s court” as the next round of formal negotiations kicks off in Brussels today.


“There’s a clear sequencing of these talks and there’s been so far no solution found on step one. So the ball is entirely in the UK court for the rest to happen”, said the spokesman.

So the response is in before the speech is made, is this one of the first time where a speech is made and its already out of date?

demfad

Enzokk wrote: »

And the response is predictable from the EU Commission,

EU: ‘Brexit ball is in Britain’s court’




So the response is in before the speech is made, is this one of the first time where a speech is made and its already out of date?

Yes. Barnier said post her Florence speech that her words needed to be reflected by meaningful negotiation by the British team. That would be the test.

The worry was that the Florence speech was just a stunt to pretent the UK were being reasonable to justify a 'no-deal'. Still a worry.

Fratton Fred

carrickbally wrote: »

The ball is in the UK court since they voted to tear up the Good Friday Agreement they signed with this country.

when did this happen?

Was it in the news? I didn't read about it

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

when did this happen?

Was it in the news? I didn't read about it

Don't be silly now Fred. The GFA is underlined by common membership of the EU.

blanch152

carrickbally wrote: »

The ball is in the UK court since they voted to tear up the Good Friday Agreement they signed with this country.

I have little or no sympathy for the British position, they haven't a clue what they have let themselves in for.

Yet I cannot let this lie stand. Posters on here have repeatedly been asked as to which provisions of the GFA have been or will be broken by Brexit, even a hard Brexit.

The most prominent of the posters on this backed down to Brexit breaching the "spirit" of the Agreement, whatever that is. There have been other dark mutterings about a return to violence etc., but there is still yet to be seen a single line of the GFA that somebody can point to and state that this will be broken by Brexit.

blanch152

murphaph wrote: »

Don't be silly now Fred. The GFA is underlined by common membership of the EU.

Common membership of the EU helps the GFA, but it is not essential to the GFA, nor is it a pre-condition, nor is it a requirement of the GFA and Brexit does not breach any provision of the GFA.

Call me Al

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Unnamed sources at the Tory conference last week were saying that this is all just theatre, and the real negotiations will begin after Christmas.

May knows full well that putting the ball in the EUs court means no progress will be made. This is entirely for the benefit of UK voters, PR spin.

"Events dear boy, events" should be ringing in their ears.
Do they expect the internal Tory power play and the meanderings of the Brexit media to follow a pre-determined path into 2018?
I expect that these unnamed sources are speaking more out of hope than expectation.

murphaph

blanch152 wrote: »

Common membership of the EU helps the GFA, but it is not essential to the GFA, nor is it a pre-condition, nor is it a requirement of the GFA and Brexit does not breach any provision of the GFA.

There is no way the GFA would have come about if there had been a hard land border all along. The IRA and their loyalist opposite numbers would still be murdering people to this day IMO.

It's clear that fudging the border which became a possibility with the advent of the single market and customs union paved the way for the GFA.

Legally the IRA should not have been murdering anyone but they did. There is a difference between the letter and the spirit of the agreement. The UK should have given the GFA much more prominence in the Brexit debate.

FrancieBrady

Brexit does not technically breach the GFA but it most certainly changes it. As all reference and involvement of the EU will go.
It also has the potential to wreck the GFA which has been stagnant for some time already. Despite what some believe, it was intended to be a framework for a process, not an end in itself.
It will take only one of two dissident attacks to usher in a fortified border. Then we are in a new game.
Those who sat back last time when responsible government was required, because they frankly had an acceptable level of violence threshold, need to be sidelined this time.

LeinsterDub

Speaking to business leaders in Brussels, John Bruton accused the British government of being hopelessly divided, and offering only a vague and impractical vision of what might come once the UK leaves the bloc in 2019.

If it got into detail, the disagreement between cabinet members is so deep that the Conservative party would split and the government would fall,” Bruton told the Institute of Directors.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

Bruton's reading of the situation is very similar to the reading of the situation many of us here have suggested. We are see internal party politics played out on the international stage.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

So the response is in before the speech is made, is this one of the first time where a speech is made and its already out of date?

Well you can include this comment from today's press conference as putting the shoe in before the excuses come up:

Asked about Mr Davis’s absence – which is apparently for parliamentary duties -the European Commission spokesperson said the pace of talks would depend on the availability of British negotiators.

“The European Commission article 50 team is available 24/7, the timing of talks depends on the availability of our UK partners. We are always here and we are ready,” he said.

“As far as the Secretary of State’s agenda is concerned you may like to check directly with him.”

Hence clearly the limiting factor here is UK in the negotiations and no one else.

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

I have little or no sympathy for the British position, they haven't a clue what they have let themselves in for.

Yet I cannot let this lie stand. Posters on here have repeatedly been asked as to which provisions of the GFA have been or will be broken by Brexit, even a hard Brexit.

The most prominent of the posters on this backed down to Brexit breaching the "spirit" of the Agreement, whatever that is. There have been other dark mutterings about a return to violence etc., but there is still yet to be seen a single line of the GFA that somebody can point to and state that this will be broken by Brexit.

Lets take just on Strand of the GFA: North South Cooperation

Implementation bodies:

• Language Body
• Special EU Programmes
• InterTradeIreland
• Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights
• Waterways Ireland
• Food Safety Promotion Board

Having the EU, customs Union and particularly single market as a base allows these bodies to do what they need to do.
The special EU programme's would obviously be gone.
IntertradeIreland would now have to concentrate solely in limiting the affects of disastrous trade/non trade barriers/delays at border/Country of origin Issues, non recognition of qualification issues, movement of workers issues, legal differences.
Legal differences would now complicate waterways operations out of practicality. Food safety would need to concentrate on regulatory divergence rather than: food safety.

Let's look at areas of Significant progress in these strands and how Brexit undermines, changes, destroys them.

• Trade and Business Development:
  Enough said here.
• Roads and Road Safety
  Legal uncertainty, EU funding gone.
• Child Protection
  Legal uncertainty, regulatory divergence
• Health
  Legal uncertainty, regulatory divergence
• Animal Health and Welfare
  Movement of animals cross border complicated and prohibited by CO rules.
• Environment
  One environmental policy via EU shaterred. Every indication that UK will need to reduce environmental regulations to allow the big corpos in via the US deal. No agreement in thsi vital issue.
• Tourism
  Legal uncerainty, delays, complication.
• Inland Waterways & Loughs
• EU Structural Funds
  Gone.
• Cross Border Mobility
  No longer mobile. Hard border most likely.

This is but one Strand of what the GFA was set up to IMPROVE on this Island.
This is the tangible output of the benefits of the GFA.
With Brexit, North/South cooperation/integration is set back to a place worse than before the GFA was signed. Except now there are legal, trade, social and political barriers to getting back.
The function of many of these bodies changes to trying to reduce the adverse
affects of Brexit rather than doing what they were set up to do.

This is not looking at the legal aspects of the GFA which will be challenged I am sure. We simply don't know legally if the GFA has been breached.

What we can say is that Brexit will in effect destroy it. The GFA was designed for an Island/Islands wholly inside the single market with regulatory and legal equivalence to base cooperation and progress on.

Brexit renders that design obsolete.

Zubeneschamali

Call me Al wrote: »

Do they expect the internal Tory power play and the meanderings of the Brexit media to follow a pre-determined path into 2018?

Well, yes, I think they expect the Tory party to be too busy with infighting and party politics to do any real negotiating, and the media to be faithfully blaming the EU for any lack of progress.

This is not to say they will be in a better position in January 2018, but they certainly cannot now agree to pay, say, a 60 billion divorce bill, agree an open-ended "transitional period" including freedom of movement, budget contributions and EU court oversight.

This is what they will agree to eventually (or Corbyn will), but they can't admit it right now.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

Lets take just on Strand of the GFA: North South Cooperation

Implementation bodies:

• Language Body
• Special EU Programmes
• InterTradeIreland
• Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights
• Waterways Ireland
• Food Safety Promotion Board

Having the EU, customs Union and particularly single market as a base allows these bodies to do what they need to do.
The special EU programme's would obviously be gone.
IntertradeIreland would now have to concentrate solely in limiting the affects of disastrous trade/non trade barriers/delays at border/Country of origin Issues, non recognition of qualification issues, movement of workers issues, legal differences.
Legal differences would now complicate waterways operations out of practicality. Food safety would need to concentrate on regulatory divergence rather than: food safety.

Let's look at areas of Significant progress in these strands and how Brexit undermines, changes, destroys them.

• Trade and Business Development:
  Enough said here.
• Roads and Road Safety
  Legal uncertainty, EU funding gone.
• Child Protection
  Legal uncertainty, regulatory divergence
• Health
  Legal uncertainty, regulatory divergence
• Animal Health and Welfare
  Movement of animals cross border complicated and prohibited by CO rules.
• Environment
  One environmental policy via EU shaterred. Every indication that UK will need to reduce environmental regulations to allow the big corpos in via the US deal. No agreement in thsi vital issue.
• Tourism
  Legal uncerainty, delays, complication.
• Inland Waterways & Loughs
• EU Structural Funds
  Gone.
• Cross Border Mobility
  No longer mobile. Hard border most likely.

This is but one Strand of what the GFA was set up to IMPROVE on this Island.
This is the tangible output of the benefits of the GFA.
With Brexit, North/South cooperation/integration is set back to a place worse than before the GFA was signed. Except now there are legal, trade, social and political barriers to getting back.
The function of many of these bodies changes to trying to reduce the adverse
affects of Brexit rather than doing what they were set up to do.

This is not looking at the legal aspects of the GFA which will be challenged I am sure. We simply don't know legally if the GFA has been breached.

What we can say is that Brexit will in effect destroy it. The GFA was designed for an Island/Islands wholly inside the single market with regulatory and legal equivalence to base cooperation and progress on.

Brexit renders that design obsolete.

Again, all very well, but none of that is directly from the terms of the GFA.

Brexit will change the manner in which the GFA is implemented. Brexit will change the topics for that Strand of the GFA, but nothing in Brexit will breach the GFA.

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, all very well, but none of that is directly from the terms of the GFA.

Brexit will change the manner in which the GFA is implemented. Brexit will change the topics for that Strand of the GFA, but nothing in Brexit will breach the GFA.

How do you know this? Surely you wont know until (for example) cases are taken against the British Government after Brexit.

If the UK decides to deport EU citizens or not allow anyone EU citizen status in the UK this could breach GFA. What If the UK ceases using the ECHR for arbitration or replaces it with a fundamentally different body?

You dont know, and you should stop saying you do.

In the case of a hard Brexit the GFA is fundamentally altered in ALL STRANDS, and is no longer fit for the purpose for which it was created.
Hard Brexit de facto destroys the GFA.

That is why Ireland and the EU are protecting it.