Brexit discussion thread II

steddyeddy

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.

The DUP-Tory alliance does. Breaks the "rigorous impartialty" agreed on in the GFA.

carrickbally

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.

The GFA has been torn up because the border is being re-imposed in order to prevent the free movement of people and goods which was voted in Brexit.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote:

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.

Yes that looks very likely, not sure on the 60b, could be 30b, but it's a large wedge.

But I don't think the EU will go into an open ended deal, the EU won't want to set a precedence, I guess a time limit on the extension and the extension could be contingent on getting agreements on tasks such as NI border, movement of people etc at set timescales, or the extension would be cancelled.

demfad

This is the type of thing we are seeing more of in the Trump era. Where misogynists are crawling out from under rocks at every turn.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/10/06/rape-victim-attacker-joint-child-custody/106374256/

A girl was abducted and raped as a 12 year over two days. The 19 year old served only 6 months then went on to assault another girl serving 4 years in prison for that.

Women seem to be under attack from all angles in the USA of 2017. No comment needed for the below (not fake):

Christopher Mirasolo, 27, of Brown City was awarded joint legal custody by Judge Gregory S. Ross after DNA testing established paternity of the child, according to the victim’s attorney, Rebecca Kiessling, who is seeking protection under the federal Rape Survivor Child Custody Act. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 25.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

The possibilities now might be:

• No-Deal Brexit: 50:50 chance I think. Discussions break down. UK leaves without an agreement. Disaster followed by desperate bid to rejoin a tarnsition.
• Transition then EFTA: If they (UK) get their act together. Solves all issues. They cant negotiate teh deals they need to otherwise.
• No Brexit: The big red stop button: Authors of A50 say its revocable (by UK parliament), Tusk agrees. More likely as time moves on, probably after referendum.

carrickbally

The Good Friday Agreement was passed by 85% of those who voted in the whole island of Ireland.

By tearing it up the Brexit vote in the UK showed a total contempt for the people of this island.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

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.

The point in bold can be disputed but the point I have constantly made is that Brexit does not de jure breach the GFA and that is undisputed.

What the UK does with EU citizens is meaningless because the GFA confers dual citizenship on people born in Northern Ireland meaning they have a right to remain in the UK because of where they are born. It is one of the biggest lies of Brexit that it affects people born in Northern Ireland.

As for the ECHR, GFA requires that certain rights be afforded to people, it doesn't mandate that those rights be enforced by the ECHR, anyway Brexit has absolutely ZERO to do with the ECHR.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

The point in bold can be disputed but the point I have constantly made is that Brexit does not de jure breach the GFA and that is undisputed.

What the UK does with EU citizens is meaningless because the GFA confers dual citizenship on people born in Northern Ireland meaning they have a right to remain in the UK because of where they are born. It is one of the biggest lies of Brexit that it affects people born in Northern Ireland.

As for the ECHR, GFA requires that certain rights be afforded to people, it doesn't mandate that those rights be enforced by the ECHR, anyway Brexit has absolutely ZERO to do with the ECHR.

You really don't seem to care about the border and how it might break the spirit of the GFA and the effect that might have on peace in Northern Ireland.

Unless of course, that border is in the sea and Northern Ireland's in the single market. Then you erupt with a passionate post about how that' impossible despite being infinitely more beneficial to Northern Ireland than a land border.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

You really don't seem to care about the border and how it might break the spirit of the GFA and the effect that might have on peace in Northern Ireland.

Unless of course, that border is in the sea and Northern Ireland's in the single market. Then you erupt with a passionate post about how that' impossible despite by infinitely more beneficial to Northern Ireland than a land border.

Anybody not even familiar with our economics and political history can see instantly that a land border would be disastrous for this island.
But the DUP having sacrificed the north to Brexit - just because they did not want to be on the same side (and immediately rowed back on it when it surprisingly passed) - will now refuse to take the less damaging option ( a sea border) for the exact same reasons - foolish and stubborn pride.

carrickbally

Repeat.

The Good Friday Agreement was passed by 85% of those who voted in the whole island of Ireland.

By tearing it up the Brexit vote in the UK showed a total contempt for the people of this island.

carrickbally

demfad wrote: »

The possibilities now might be:

• No-Deal Brexit: 50:50 chance I think. Discussions break down. UK leaves without an agreement. Disaster followed by desperate bid to rejoin a tarnsition.
• Transition then EFTA: If they (UK) get their act together. Solves all issues. They cant negotiate teh deals they need to otherwise.
• No Brexit: The big red stop button: Authors of A50 say its revocable (by UK parliament), Tusk agrees. More likely as time moves on, probably after referendum.

Far too optimistic.

The breakdown before Christmas and the long term economic war is the most likely outcome.

First Up

carrickbally wrote:

By tearing it up the Brexit vote in the UK showed a total contempt for the people of this island.

I'd guess that the GFA was a factor in approximately feck all of Brexit voters' decisions.

carrickbally

First Up wrote: »

I'd guess that the GFA was a factor in approximately feck all of Brexit voters' decisions.

All of which proves my point.

They did not care that 85% of voters on this island supported the GFA and that Brexit was tearing it up.

Enzokk

Here is a website that lists the myths that has been printed in the UK press about the EU and what they actually wanted to achieve.

Euromyths A-Z index

You have all the favourites on there, including hairdressers being banned from using high heels to yoghurt not being named yoghurt any longer.

The one where the EU wanted to "ruin" British jam is interesting, where the press had stories about how the EU wanted to cut the minimum sugar content to 50% from 60% in November 2013. Yet in March 2013 the story was the EU was straggling UK producers of jam by red tape and not allowing them to cut the minimum sugar to 50% from 60%. So in a few months the EU was blamed for stopping UK suppliers from cutting the sugar content, and then a few months later for telling them to cut the sugar content.

If you are the EU you cannot win in the UK, I think that is very clear.

solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Good evening!

The EU are being intransigent when the Prime Minister has given key compromises to the EU, in respect to the shape of the transition, in respect to contributions, in respect to citizens rights and how they will be protected in British law (direct effect).

There are two things the EU could do tomorrow to progress discussion:
1) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will accept supremacy of the ECJ over Britain's laws.
2) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will agree a large payment with no transitional terms in return.

The Danish are starting to make murmurings in agreement.

The idea that the UK is going to indefinitely stay in transition is nonsense. The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

carrickbally

The London media is telling the rest of the world that tearing up a treaty signed with nearly thirty other countries in the European Union by voting for Brexit is a good thing.

carrickbally

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The EU are being intransigent when the Prime Minister has given key compromises to the EU, in respect to the shape of the transition, in respect to contributions, in respect to citizens rights and how they will be protected in British law (direct effect).

There are two things the EU could do tomorrow to progress discussion:
1) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will accept supremacy of the ECJ over Britain's laws.
2) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will agree a large payment with no transitional terms in return.

The Danish are starting to make murmurings in agreement.

The idea that the UK is going to indefinitely stay in transition is nonsense. The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Look you voted to tear up the agreement with the citizens of the democracies of the rest of the EU.

So just get to hell out of the EU in the morning.

In addition just put up with the consequences

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The EU are being intransigent when the Prime Minister has given key compromises to the EU, in respect to the shape of the transition, in respect to contributions, in respect to citizens rights and how they will be protected in British law (direct effect).

There are two things the EU could do tomorrow to progress discussion:
1) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will accept supremacy of the ECJ over Britain's laws.
2) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will agree a large payment with no transitional terms in return.

The Danish are starting to make murmurings in agreement.

The idea that the UK is going to indefinitely stay in transition is nonsense. The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There is one thing the UK could do to facilitate that. Give up on the ridiculous idea of being in the single market while wanting to avoid the above in bold.

flutered

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The EU are being intransigent when the Prime Minister has given key compromises to the EU, in respect to the shape of the transition, in respect to contributions, in respect to citizens rights and how they will be protected in British law (direct effect).

There are two things the EU could do tomorrow to progress discussion:
1) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will accept supremacy of the ECJ over Britain's laws.
2) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will agree a large payment with no transitional terms in return.

The Danish are starting to make murmurings in agreement.

The idea that the UK is going to indefinitely stay in transition is nonsense. The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

the eu claims that the ball is in the uk court, so its their turn to serve

solodeogloria

flutered wrote: »

the eu claims that the ball is in the uk court, so its their turn to serve

Good evening!

Is this seriously the standard of posting we've arrived at?

What do you expect me to say to you in reply, "Well Theresa May said it's in their court"?

Cop on, we can do better than this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flutered

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.

what will the opinion be of the 26 eu countrys be of tearing up an agreement that they were co signitures to

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Is this seriously the standard of posting we've arrived at?

What do you expect me to say to you in reply, "Well Theresa May said it's in their court"?

Cop on, we can do better than this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Quite frankly yes, it is. You're posts consists of inconsistencies with former posts and empty platitudes about the EU being unreasonable. You're unable to provide any substance.

PeadarCo

solodeogloria wrote:

What do you expect me to say to you in reply, "Well Theresa May said it's in their court"?

Well that seems to be what UK government has been saying for since brexit started. The UK has decided its leaving. Please over us the deal we want. The EU can't and isn't going to stop the UK from leaving. The EU has said if you want to have a trade agreement that goes beyond WTO rules there's our demands. If they are unacceptable to the UK, it leaves and goes trading under WTO rules ( assuming it gets over the objections of other WTO members)

The analogy made be crude but it sums up the situation. The UK badly needs some sort of deal. Its the reason there is so much debate and division in the UK over it. For the EU no politician will lose their job. It is up to the UK to offer a deal that's acceptable to the EU not the other way around.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Is this seriously the standard of posting we've arrived at?

What do you expect me to say to you in reply, "Well Theresa May said it's in their court"?

Cop on, we can do better than this.

I agree we can be better on here, like answering posts that you replied to. Any opinion that the UK makes very little from the gold exports, even if it shows as exports on the books?

Any answer to my post here where I asked where you got your figures from? Also, any opinion on the job losses in Northern Ireland alone, could be 4000, when Boeing employs around 2000 employees in the UK as a whole?

mickoneill31

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The EU are being intransigent when the Prime Minister has given key compromises to the EU, in respect to the shape of the transition, in respect to contributions, in respect to citizens rights and how they will be

What compromise in terms of transition? They asked for a transition. That's not a compromise. That's a request.

And in respect to contributions? They said they'd continue making payments during the transition period. That's big of them.

steddyeddy

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree we can be better on here, like answering posts that you replied to. Any opinion that the UK makes very little from the gold exports, even if it shows as exports on the books?

Any answer to my post here where I asked where you got your figures from? Also, any opinion on the job losses in Northern Ireland alone, could be 4000, when Boeing employs around 2000 employees in the UK as a whole?

Enzokk I don't know why you bother. You won't get one that makes sense.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are being intransigent when the Prime Minister has given key compromises to the EU, in respect to the shape of the transition, in respect to contributions, in respect to citizens rights and how they will be protected in British law (direct effect).

The EU is not being "intransigent", it is very skilfully negotiating on behalf of 27 Member States. You're just not seeing the skill for your bias.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are two things the EU could do tomorrow to progress discussion:
1) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will accept supremacy of the ECJ over Britain's laws.
2) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will agree a large payment with no transitional terms in return.

The EU has already done that to an extent, with its "the ball is actually in the UK Court" pre-emptive strike of today.

Which, pragmatically, confirms that there isn't going to be any trading or transition talks this side of 2018.

See, negotiations are progressing :pac:

Now what, solo?

[I really should stop asking you more uncomfortable questions which you're just going to ignore like all the others

flutered

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Is this seriously the standard of posting we've arrived at?

What do you expect me to say to you in reply, "Well Theresa May said it's in their court"?

Cop on, we can do better than this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

the quote i use was given this morning before the uk premier could ask the question she was supposed to ask, i did not ask you anything, you are asuming, something the uk goverment is doing quite a lot of in recent months, the uk agreed on a road map, they require this changed, because they ask it to be changed, its like an old tv program called it will be all right on the night

The Rape of Lucretia

An interesting twist : confirmed that Brexit can be reversed by the UK govt :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-latest-stopped-secret-legal-advice-a7990716.html

flutered

mickoneill31 wrote: »

What compromise in terms of transition? They asked for a transition. That's not a compromise. That's a request.

And in respect to contributions? They said they'd continue making payments during the transition period. That's big of them.

both are something the uk think they can withdraw when and if the like to, but they cannot as the eu is taking every offer as correct, not as in a game the uk seem to be playing

flutered

the following link give one a better view of the uk goverments position on brexit, the are looking to the populance for ideas
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-pleads-ideas-apos-no-170306416.html

Enzokk

flutered wrote: »

the following link give one a better view of the uk goverments position on brexit, the are looking to the populance for ideas
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-pleads-ideas-apos-no-170306416.html

Seems very late in the day to start asking for advice from business on what can be done. I think the Vote Leave leader was correct that triggering article 50 was a mistake, especially with so little preparation done from the UK side.

Theresa May just did her speech as reported in the press and the EU Commission already replied to her speech. So you had the situation where she was claiming that the ball was in the EU's court after the EU already said its not. So why did she say it then when she already knew the answer? Will she ignore the answer because it was given before her speech?

Then on a question from Ed Miliband about how the transition period she talked about would differ from EU membership the answer was that after March 2019 the UK would no longer be members of the single market or customs union, but that they should be able to operate on the same rules and regulations. I think his reaction to the answer says it all to be honest,

https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/917450952143200256
"Whats that mean?"

So we are still no clearer to what the UK wants, how they want it or how they will go about it. All we know is that the ball is in the EU's court to allow the UK to start discussing trade and to get a deal that suits both parties.

Government Pleads For Ideas For ‘No Deal’ Brexit Customs Arrangements

BoatMad

So we are still no clearer to what the UK wants, how they want it or how they will go about it. All we know is that the ball is in the EU's court to allow the UK to start discussing trade and to get a deal that suits both parties.

The fact remains , the UK has no leverage , was nuts in triggering Article 50 without a worked up plan , still has no worked up plan

If the UK wishes to remain in the Customs union, for a period, thats fine, but it cant cherry pick what rules it wishes to apply and who has jurisdiction over dispute resolutions

also 2 years is nonsense, any meaningful plan needs about 6-8 years , The idea that you can dismantle 40 years in 2 is bonkers

The " ball isnt in the EU court ", the ball isnt in a court at all, the UK Gov is entirely delusional and dysfunctional at present. I predict a GE before Brexit anyway

Nody

Here's the thing UK don't appear to get; let's say EU goes ahead and starts talking FTA with them. They get the best FTA in the world with free banking access, no tariffs and the whole nine yards. That FTA is still not going to be approved until the basic 3 questions have been resolved to EU's satisfaction level. It's one package and no amount of cherry picking attempts is going to change that so why not simply grow a pair, meet weekly and hammer it out once and for all?

BoatMad

Nody wrote: »

Here's the thing UK don't appear to get; let's say EU goes ahead and starts talking FTA with them. They get the best FTA in the world with free banking access, no tariffs and the whole nine yards. That FTA is still not going to be approved until the basic 3 questions have been resolved to EU's satisfaction level. It's one package and no amount of cherry picking attempts is going to change that so why not simply grow a pair, meet weekly and hammer it out once and for all?

not to mention any agreement is subject to all 27 member states ratification and in ireland that means a referendum

The Rape of Lucretia

BoatMad wrote: »

not to mention any agreement is subject to all 27 member states ratification and in ireland that means a referendum

At least with our referendums they let us sit repeats when we give the wrong answer.

Rain Ascending

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are two things the EU could do tomorrow to progress discussion:
1) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will accept supremacy of the ECJ over Britain's laws.
2) Agree that there isn't a likelihood that the UK will agree a large payment with no transitional terms in return.

The second item listed, the question of payments, is a question of the right dance steps being made in this negotiation tango. Remember that we have two basic principles to follow in the negotiation:
(a) Substantive progress is needed on the three issues before moving to other aspects of the post-Brexit relationship.
(b) Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

A possible way forward would be

1. Barnier makes very positive noises about being in favour of a transition period, assuming we can get beyond the three issues.
2. Davis and the UK negotiation team engage more fully on what are the accepted liabilities and what are not.
3. The gap between the UK and EU positions start to close, allowing Barnier to claim substantive progress, but not complete agreement.
4. Davis and Barnier then hammer out the terms of the transition period.
5. Deadlock occurs on the final details of both the transition agreement and the divorce payment.
6. Compromises are made at the twelfth hour (around September next year) on both sides.
7. Both sides claim victory.

On your first item, namely the UK getting out from being answerable to the ECJ, I don't think that will be a problem after the transition period. It may limit what EU elements the UK can sign up to (e.g. Horizon 2020, Erasmus, Euratom, etc.), but I don't think that any serious players in the EU27 misunderstand where the current UK government wants to end up.

During the transition period, May already accepted today that the ECJ's role won't change. From the Guardian:

...the prime minister said a transition deal “may mean we will start off with European court of justice still governing rules we’re part of for that period”.

All this depends on neither side painting themselves into a corner ... or having done so, being unwilling to get one's feet a bit messy during the walk back out of said corner...

Nate--IRL--

BoatMad wrote: »

not to mention any agreement is subject to all 27 member states ratification and in ireland that means a referendum

Are you sure? Does ratifying Brexit require a constitutional amendment?

Nate

BoatMad

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

At least with our referendums they let us sit repeats when we give the wrong answer.

sure every few years we have to revise the constitution , take thing out we just put in etc , go out and confirm the same bunch of politicians,etc

Terrible thing democracy , asking people the same question every so often , never catch on.

carrickbally

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

At least with our referendums they let us sit repeats when we give the wrong answer.

Well no they recognise that in a democracy people change their minds.

BoatMad

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Are you sure? Does ratifying Brexit require a constitutional amendment?

Nate

believe so in Ireland , its a mod to the treaties

Nate--IRL--

BoatMad wrote: »

believe so in Ireland , its a mod to the treaties

I'm sure some legal finesse will be employed to allow the Dail to ratify. That said, I'd find Brexit ultimately in the hands of the Irish electorate highly amusing.

Nate

steddyeddy

No they haven't agreed to a transition, but the UK's under the assumptions that the EU will give them whatever they want.

carrickbally

Heading in the Daily Telegraph says it all.

Britain has a strong Brexit hand. Planning for no deal helps the Government play it
Telegraph View

murphaph

steddyeddy wrote: »

No they haven't agreed to a transition, but the UK's under the assumptions that the EU will give them whatever they want.

The UK seems to see the hypothetical transition as some sort of concession to the EU, when it would obviously be the EU doing the UK a massive favour.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

The UK seems to see the hypothetical transition as some sort of concession to the EU, when it would obviously be the EU doing the UK a massive favour.

The biggest mystery is how they can get the EU 27 to agree to a transition deal when they publically stated freedom of movement stops on March 2019. Transition means freedom of movement.

Water John

Not sure we have to have a ref on this. Article 50 as an option document is already in the Treaties and agreed to. All that has happened is, the UK has pulled it off the shelf and blown the dust off it.

A Little Pony

Jim2007 wrote: »

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.

Once any obligation period is over then that is it. I have seen no evidence that any deal is going to happen. Actually from what I have been reading and the vibe is the government is preparing for a no deal, probably actually expecting it which is what I think is going to happen.

Leonard Hofstadter

A Little Pony wrote: »

Once any obligation period is over then that is it. I have seen no evidence that any deal is going to happen. Actually from what I have been reading and the vibe is the government is preparing for a no deal, probably actually expecting it which is what I think is going to happen.

I think so as well, it's perfectly normal for a bit of playing to the gallery in any big political thing and then at the 11th hour we have some sort of 'breakthrough' and it's all miraculously resolved. We only have to look at the budget tomorrow - of course it will be passed - nobody wants an election and no political party wants to be blamed for causing an election as that will go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.

But I do think we're a bit beyond this and it really is best to plan for no deal, the upper echelons of the Tory party and the hard Brexiters are still operating under the delusion that they have the upper hand over the EU when they most clearly don't.

A genuine question: can the EU block the UK from joining the WTO? The UK after is a member at present via the EU but they will need to go in as their own country post-Brexit. If they can then that is quite a trump card the EU has over the UK (in addition to all the other trump cards they have).

Sam Russell

captainspeed wrote: »

I think so as well, it's perfectly normal for a bit of playing to the gallery in any big political thing and then at the 11th hour we have some sort of 'breakthrough' and it's all miraculously resolved. We only have to look at the budget tomorrow - of course it will be passed - nobody wants an election and no political party wants to be blamed for causing an election as that will go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.

But I do think we're a bit beyond this and it really is best to plan for no deal, the upper echelons of the Tory party and the hard Brexiters are still operating under the delusion that they have the upper hand over the EU when they most clearly don't.

A genuine question: can the EU block the UK from joining the WTO? The UK after is a member at present via the EU but they will need to go in as their own country post-Brexit. If they can then that is quite a trump card the EU has over the UK (in addition to all the other trump cards they have).

Don't mention Trump. They have enough trouble with Boeing.

Talking of Boeing, would the EU intervene and use some muscle to help out our new Canadian best friends? Would they be more likely if the UK was not leaving the EU?