Brexit discussion thread III

Water John

Cripes, Redmond is worse than Farage, to listen to. Mairead McGuinness is right. TM saying the EU things are very nice and we want to be exactly like them, except in name. BBC Newsnight.

Skedaddle

Blowfish wrote: »

TM has to refer to it as the Belfast Agreement as she's in bed with the DUP and they'll have a fit if she starts calling it the GFA.

The British officials always called it that. Officially it should be referred to as The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement. That's the actual title of the document. However, it's Northern Ireland and the UK, so politically charged use of language is normal.

Leonard Hofstadter

Water John wrote: »

Cripes, Redmond is worse than Farage, to listen to. Mairead McGuinness is right. TM saying the EU things are very nice and we want to be exactly like them, except in name. BBC Newsnight.

And John Redwood says that the UK and May is being extremely generous and basically blaming the EU for the current impasse.

Still on cloud cuckoo land.

Skedaddle

They're always going to blame the EU. That's the whole agenda at the moment. They're basically trying to turn Irish republicanism on Brussels by saying "see: they put up the border. It's totally unreasonable and nothing to so with Brexit."

Also the DUP are being very short sighted. They won't have a powerful position in the next UK government. So, if the Northern Irish border is still an issue and Brexit has happened by then, they'll probably find the majority of British political parties will opt to drop them out of the UK customs zone and into some special status arrangement to deal with the border issue.

They might as well negotiate something sane and practical now as have it sorted out for them by London and Dublin in a couple of years time.

This lack of pragmatism in London won't last long term.

Call me Al

Water John wrote: »

Cripes, Redmond is worse than Farage, to listen to. Mairead McGuinness is right. TM saying the EU things are very nice and we want to be exactly like them, except in name. BBC Newsnight.

Yes, and then to try to claim that Mairead McGuinness didn't really understand the speech.. She understood it perfectly well and I think deep down he knows she did.

Econ_

Water John wrote: »

Ian Dunt puts it excellently:
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/969616141948719104/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Fblog%2Flive%2F2018%2Fmar%2F02%2Fmay-brexit-speech-theresa-may-to-use-her-brexit-speech-to-say-we-cant-have-everything-grayling-says-politics-live

He's part of a podcast that is well worth a listen to - https://audioboom.com/channel/remainiacs-podcast

FrancieBrady

Blowfish wrote: »

TM has to refer to it as the Belfast Agreement as she's in bed with the DUP and they'll have a fit if she starts calling it the GFA.

It's a marker as to what side you are on just like Derry/Londonderry.

No doubt May has been told to refer to it now as the Belfast Agreement by guess who.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Cripes, Redmond is worse than Farage, to listen to. Mairead McGuinness is right. TM saying the EU things are very nice and we want to be exactly like them, except in name. BBC Newsnight.

Redwood is one of John Major's chief "Bastards".

'Affectionately' known as Spock, here is Mr Redwood singing the Welsh national anthem while Secretary of State for Wales.

Leonard Hofstadter

The ironic thing is Redwood (to give the man his correct surname) knows Brexit is a bad thing and has advised clients not to invest in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/13/labour-accuses-john-redwood-of-talking-britain-down

Surprising that he isn't pulled up on this more often, but to be honest having watched newsnight I now see what others have pointed out - the BBC is scared to question the motivations of leavers and call them out on their nonsense.

Sand

From the speech

We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few. We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.

I actually think May genuinely believes this. It is her vision, and presumably what she hopes will (or hoped would) be her legacy. To re-connect the British state with the British voter, get back to basics, restore faith. The problem is though the British state has always been distant from the British voter: Parliament is (or was) sovereign, not the British people. It's an incoherent aim, especially when she is so clearly intimidated by the hard Brexit cabal who clearly prioritise the interests of the wealthy, the mighty, the powerful, the fortunate few.

But it was not a vote for a distant relationship with our neighbours.

Clearly it was, at least a more distant relationship.

We must bring our country back together, taking into account the views of everyone who cares about this issue, from both sides of the debate

Again, I think the tragedy is May believes this honestly. But she is such a poor leader, and so beholden to the hard Brexit cabal that she has deepened division, not healed it. The key problem the UK faces is disunity. Everything else is just a symptom. May is almost 2 years in, and the UK still cannot present a unified and credible position to the EU. So its left to the EU to take the initiative, dictate terms, and set the field where the negotiations will start from.

strengthening the precious union of all our people.

This is a tangent, but both the UK and the EU are multi-national unions. I find this sort of reference to 'our [British] people', singular, very telling in the attitude of British nationalists like May. British nationalists deeply resent the national identities of the Scottish, Welsh, and even Northern Irish. Hence the fight over returning EU powers to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies. The British nationalist wants to centralise power at the Westminster level, not devolve it to the nations forming the UK.

The EU is heavily criticised in the UK for aspiring to the 'ever closer union among the peoples of Europe', plural. There is a recognition of distinct peoples. There is not the expectation of a single European people and identity as there is in British nationalism. Separate national identities are not a threat to the EU as they are in the UK.

the Norway model, where we would stay in the single market, would mean having to implement new EU legislation automatically and in its entirety – and would also mean continued free movement.

No, and not necessarily.

Only a small fraction of EU legislation deals with the single market, roughly 25%. So the UK would only have to implement the EU legislation that affects the function of the Single Market. 75% of EU law falls away. Most of that EU legislation is itself set at the global level: i.e. the EU is itself adopting global laws, so the UK will still have to implement them even outside the Single Market to trade globally.

And the EEA/EFTA model permits states to declare an emergency and limit or halt freedom of movement. If the UK could somehow pull together enough competence to generate some goodwill, I would expect EU protests to be limited.

The Norway model is exactly what the UK should be pursuing, if May was not so pigheaded and so weak.

But it is not good enough to say, ‘We won’t introduce a hard border; if the EU forces Ireland to do it, that’s down to them’. We chose to leave; we have a responsibility to help find a solution. But we can’t do it on our own. It is for all of us to work together. And the Taoiseach and I agreed when we met recently that our teams and the Commission should now do just that.

This is mildly positive on the face of it, but it does make you wonder if the teams are now going to do this, what were they doing previously on the issue? How much time has been wasted?

And in other areas like workers’ rights or the environment, the EU should be confident that we will not engage in a race to the bottom in the standards and protections we set. There is no serious political constituency in the UK which would support this – quite the opposite

I think she's quite wrong on this. There has been quite the campaign against 'Brussels red tape' for decades. The hard Brexit faction are salivating about the prospect of 'improving' legislation on the environment and workers rights.

But UK citizens will still want to work and study in EU countries – just as EU citizens will want to do the same here, helping to shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise.

Well, UK citizens may want to work and study in the EU, but there is a very clear decline of interest by EU citizens in working and studying in the UK. The unfortunate message of Brexit has been received loud and clear. So this is an area where the UK is going to have to buy access.

I have said before I think the EU should be generous with young UK citizens in the 18-25 range, to plant the seeds of a UK return to the EU in 20-30 years time. But it should be unconnected with the Brexit negotiations. It cant be seen as something extracted from the EU, it must be a gift.

There are two areas which have never been covered in a Free Trade Agreement in any meaningful way before – broadcasting and, despite the EU’s own best efforts in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, financial services. But we have some ideas for how we can do this – and it is in all our interests to explore these.

It really isnt though, is it? It's clearly in the interests of the EU for the City of London to be diminished and as much of the financial industry as possible brought to Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris etc.

Econ_

captainspeed wrote: »

The ironic thing is Redwood (to give the man his correct surname) knows Brexit is a bad thing and has advised clients not to invest in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/13/labour-accuses-john-redwood-of-talking-britain-down

Surprising that he isn't pulled up on this more often, but to be honest having watched newsnight I know see what others have pointed out - the BBC is scared to question the motivations of leavers and call them out on their nonsense.

Many of these extreme Brexiteers are motivated by the idea of Britain becoming a low regulation, Singapore-like economy after Brexit. And that is exactly what Britain will become in the event of a hard Brexit because their economic circumstances will force them into it. It is the only way in which they could possibly compete with the EU, particularly with regards competition for the acquiring of financial services investment. May and Davis can deny this all they want but it would simply be an inevitable and logical consequence of a hard Brexit.

John Redwood, Jacob Rees-Mogg et all, who have a wealth of contacts in the business world, will then feather their nests by facilitating investments. Investments attracted by a bonfire of regulatory standards including the rights of workers - workers that will have to endure inflation, overall reduction in employment opportunities and ultimately extreme austerity, caused by the barriers in trade with the EU.

But hey, all in the name of 'the will of the people'.

murphaph

Strongly agree with Sand's point about the EU being magnanimous towards young British people to keep the flame of European union lit within them during what I consider to be a kind of modern dark ages in the UK.

Most of them voted to remain.

Enzokk

Blowfish wrote: »

TM has to refer to it as the Belfast Agreement as she's in bed with the DUP and they'll have a fit if she starts calling it the GFA.

I have always heard it as the Good Friday Agreement. I think even on Question Time before the referendum it was known as the GFA when they ever talked about NI (which was rare). As francie points out, it has been since the marriage of convenience of the DUP that I have seen and heard the Belfast Agreement mentioned.

Water John wrote: »

Cripes, Redmond is worse than Farage, to listen to. Mairead McGuinness is right. TM saying the EU things are very nice and we want to be exactly like them, except in name. BBC Newsnight.

Her speech was interesting, I misjudged it from the previews of it , but it feels like while she was still more realistic about what Brexit will mean for the UK there was still some breadcrumbs for the likes of Redwood and Rees-Mogg.

At least she confirmed what we knew all along as well. If the UK participates in EU Agencies that they will need to operate they will continue paying money to those agencies. This means that other than the Brexit bill there will be continued contributions from the UK to the EU, unless they set up their own agencies to replicate the work of those EU agencies. Either way it will cost them money.

Also it is clear that there will always be ECJ influence on the UK if they have a close relationship with the EU and the ECJ determines what regulations are indeed legal. Those same regulations will be replicated by the UK to ensure that there is no border because the UK wants to uphold the GFA, and the UK doesn't want to break up their own Union.

I find the reference as well that all she is doing is implementing the referendum result a little troubling. It seems to me she has decided already on what her excuse will be when history judges her. "Wasn't my fault, only doing what the people wanted". I wished she would rather stand by her principles and run on what she believes, not what she is told.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

I find the reference as well that all she is doing is implementing the referendum result a little troubling. It seems to me she has decided already on what her excuse will be when history judges her. "Wasn't my fault, only doing what the people wanted". I wished she would rather stand by her principles and run on what she believes, not what she is told.

The one I run with is that the ECJ is against her principles. Everything else is collateral damage.


The baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.
And from a home secretary that was so intent on reducing immigration that she did nothing about using the existing EU rules to send people home.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

At least she confirmed what we knew all along as well. If the UK participates in EU Agencies that they will need to operate they will continue paying money to those agencies. This means that other than the Brexit bill there will be continued contributions from the UK to the EU, unless they set up their own agencies to replicate the work of those EU agencies. Either way it will cost them money.

Here's the thing though; as we're moving rapidly towards a hard brexit the chance EU will let them to remain members is slim to none. Beyond the fact it's clearly cheery picking it also relies on UK keeping up the standards required for certification etc. And as noted multiple times UK is not exactly seen as reliable at the moment nor feel that they are bound by what they agreed to in the first place.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

Here's the thing though; as we're moving rapidly towards a hard brexit the chance EU will let them to remain members is slim to none. Beyond the fact it's clearly cheery picking it also relies on UK keeping up the standards required for certification etc. And as noted multiple times UK is not exactly seen as reliable at the moment nor feel that they are bound by what they agreed to in the first place.

I don't see it as cherry picking if they keep paying into those agencies budgets. They will be giving up a say in the regulations those agencies decide on but will be bound by their regulations and they will need to follow them.

I also don't think the EU will punish the UK by denying them access to the EMA or EURATOM if they want to keep paying for access when the its the UK population that will suffer the consequences. If they want to participate without paying, I agree its cherry picking.

Water John

And where relevant, are they then subject to ECJ?

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

And where relevant, are they then subject to ECJ?

Yes, which Theresa May conceded in her speech as well.

As I said in Munich, if we agree that the UK should continue to participate in an EU agency the UK would have to respect the remit of the ECJ in that regard.

In full: Theresa May's speech on future UK-EU relations

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't see it as cherry picking if they keep paying into those agencies budgets. They will be giving up a say in the regulations those agencies decide on but will be bound by their regulations and they will need to follow them.

They are picking to participate in a limited part of EU they see benefits in remaining part of and choosing not to take the rest of the package. That is by the very definition cherry picking what parts to keep and what parts to discard of the full package of EU membership.

I also don't think the EU will punish the UK by denying them access to the EMA or EURATOM if they want to keep paying for access when the its the UK population that will suffer the consequences. If they want to participate without paying, I agree its cherry picking.

It is not punishment but simple a consequence of them deciding to leave the EU; you are either in EU with all the benefits & responsibilities that comes with an EU membership or you are outside EU and don't have the benefits like every other third party country in the world. You don't get to pick for which benefits you want to keep and pay for and which once you want to skip and not pay for; that's the whole point of EU membership and that's the whole point of EU not allowing cherry picking. Saying it's ok because they paid for it does not make it any less cherry picking what parts they want to keep and what parts they don't want to keep. And this is assuming that they come to a deal in the first place which let's be honest is getting less and less likely for every day since phase 1 has not even been settled yet.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

They are picking to participate in a limited part of EU they see benefits in remaining part of and choosing not to take the rest of the package. That is by the very definition cherry picking what parts to keep and what parts to discard of the full package of EU membership.

It is not punishment; you are either in EU with all the benefits & responsibilities that comes with an EU membership or you are outside EU and don't have the benefits like every other third party country in the world. You don't get to pick for which benefits you want to keep and pay for and which once you want to skip and not pay for; that's the whole point of EU membership and that's the whole point of EU not allowing cherry picking. Saying it's ok because they paid for it does not make it any less cherry picking what parts they want to keep and what parts they don't want to keep.

If it only was that black and white we could have been finished with Brexit one day after it started. If the UK had to choose whether participating in one EU agency meant EU membership we would have been done already as they voted to leave the EU. That doesn't help us here at all and it doesn't help the EU. I don't care what it does to the UK on its own if we are untouched, but that is not the reality.

So what benefit is there to limit the UK to choosing either EU membership in all but name or nothing? What will the EU gain by this? If the UK decides to continue paying into budgets for agencies that the UK will now have no say in what happens in them, how does it help anyone by not not allowing this?

What agencies will there be that the UK would not want to pay for that some companies/government departments will need the use of? I would assume that it would be all of the EU agencies that they will continue using, just because the cost of paying for access will be less than setting up their own agency and paying their own staff to do the same work.

Panrich

Enzokk wrote: »

If it only was that black and white we could have been finished with Brexit one day after it started. If the UK had to choose whether participating in one EU agency meant EU membership we would have been done already as they voted to leave the EU. That doesn't help us here at all and it doesn't help the EU. I don't care what it does to the UK on its own if we are untouched, but that is not the reality.

So what benefit is there to limit the UK to choosing either EU membership in all but name or nothing? What will the EU gain by this? If the UK decides to continue paying into budgets for agencies that the UK will now have no say in what happens in them, how does it help anyone by not not allowing this?

What agencies will there be that the UK would not want to pay for that some companies/government departments will need the use of? I would assume that it would be all of the EU agencies that they will continue using, just because the cost of paying for access will be less than setting up their own agency and paying their own staff to do the same work.

I'd say that the benefit to the EU is in the negotiation capital that it gives. For example, the UK REALLY need to sign up for aviation or planes will be grounded and both sides know this.

If it looks like the UK is dragging it's heels on NI or immigration rights, then withholding agency participation is a very big stick to have. The EU will get a lot of concessions for this.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

If it only was that black and white we could have been finished with Brexit one day after it started. If the UK had to choose whether participating in one EU agency meant EU membership we would have been done already as they voted to leave the EU. That doesn't help us here at all and it doesn't help the EU. I don't care what it does to the UK on its own if we are untouched, but that is not the reality.

The whole point of it being if they would choose for example the Norway option they would still have access to said agencies. Do I really need to bring back the power point slide over the options UK had to choose between and where they ended up due to their red lines? That's the point of the 2 year period for UK to decide what relationship they wish to have after leaving the EU and formalize that relationship. They have now chosen to become third party country which means they are at the same level as Colombia, Russia or China in terms of accessing said agencies. They are all equal third party countries as far as EU is concerned.

So what benefit is there to limit the UK to choosing either EU membership in all but name or nothing? What will the EU gain by this? If the UK decides to continue paying into budgets for agencies that the UK will now have no say in what happens in them, how does it help anyone by not not allowing this?

For the same reason that they can't offer to pay another billion and skip out on the free movement part of being an EU member but still have full access to the single market like an EU member. As for what EU gains by this? It's very existence or every country will leave and only choose the parts they happen to agree with instead of having to take the good with the bad and follow all the rules.

What agencies will there be that the UK would not want to pay for that some companies/government departments will need the use of? I would assume that it would be all of the EU agencies that they will continue using, just because the cost of paying for access will be less than setting up their own agency and paying their own staff to do the same work.

You seem to have forgotten that May wants to have a three basket approach and only align in certain areas; others such as finance they want to go their own way and set their own rules. They want to be able to set their own laws but cherry pick which laws they are going to follow. Let's take EURATOM as an example; as part of it's job it provides projects and verification for the Horizon 2020 program which is a EU wide research program giving out a couple of hundred million euros in grants. How do you see UK paying into the Horizon 2020 funds which are specifically to drive EU projects which is part of the budget cycles? Now UK would need to contribute not only for the agency but to the research program in EU and all of what that entails so things are way more complicated than simply claiming they can pay for the agency costs alone.

The number of issues and complications arising from it all (even before we talk about issues such as most favoured trading nation disputes in WTO) are insane. And all of this because you want UK to be allowed to cherry pick which parts of EU membership they will keep in and which parts they are to be allowed to decide what ever they want. Will it have downsides compared to now? Heck yes; for the same reasons as not getting a trade deal in place will have downsides as well; however on the one side we have EUs reason to exist and on the other you have the small benefits from letting UK cherry pick; that's not a hard choice to make and EU has made that very clear. UK thinks this is a negotiation but for EU this is about following the law and policy. UK thinks they can get a "better deal" but EU will go through the process step by step and once UK is out they will be treated like any other third party country; be that Russia, China, Nigeria or the UK as they are all equal to EU at that stage. And that is the part you appear to miss; by UK deciding to become a third world country to EU they lose everything related to being part of EU. They might get a trade deal in the end but that's a third party country trade deal ala Canada or Korea; not access into EUs agencies.

Strazdas

^^ None of this could ever be allowed by the EU under any circumstances. You're either a member of the Single Market and following its rules or you are not. You cannot be half in and half out. It's a solution designed to please the hard Brexit nuts and nobody else.

How many years after calling a referendum on EU membership will UK politicians understand what EU Membership is/isn't, and what exactly the EU is?

5?

15?

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

How many years after calling a referendum on EU membership will UK politicians understand what EU Membership is/isn't, and what exactly the EU is?

5?

15?

It took over 40 years to decide they did not like it. So I would imagine it will take another 40 years, or some major calamity, to change their minds.

briany

Getting more worried that it's the cliff-edge crowd who have their hands most on the wheel of the Brexit bus. If I was Theresa May, I'd be waiting for some large dramatic event in the whole process to resign over so that I'd only have to claim partial responsibility for the whole fiasco.

Panrich

A warning from George Mitchell

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/03/brexit-warning-us-senator-brokered-northern-ireland-peace-george-mitchell

“The open border has meant people travelling back and forth, a degree of social interaction, of commerce, of people working together. “If you reinstate a hard border, you go back to the delays when stereotyping resumes, demonisation resumes, and people turn inward as opposed to outward and they lose the benefits that come from open borders.”

Strazdas

Panrich wrote: »

A warning from George Mitchell

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/03/brexit-warning-us-senator-brokered-northern-ireland-peace-george-mitchell

“The open border has meant people travelling back and forth, a degree of social interaction, of commerce, of people working together. “If you reinstate a hard border, you go back to the delays when stereotyping resumes, demonisation resumes, and people turn inward as opposed to outward and they lose the benefits that come from open borders.”

The Brexiteers are looking at it purely from the point of view of economics and physical infrastructure and ignoring the psychological and cultural aspects.

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

The Brexiteers are looking at it purely from the point of view of economics and physical infrastructure and ignoring the psychological and cultural aspects.

Which is ironic, since Brexit itself is completely mad from the point of view of economics and physical infrastructure, and entirely motivated by psychological and cultural factors.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

The whole point of it being if they would choose for example the Norway option they would still have access to said agencies. Do I really need to bring back the power point slide over the options UK had to choose between and where they ended up due to their red lines? That's the point of the 2 year period for UK to decide what relationship they wish to have after leaving the EU and formalize that relationship. They have now chosen to become third party country which means they are at the same level as Colombia, Russia or China in terms of accessing said agencies. They are all equal third party countries as far as EU is concerned.

Okay, so the idea is that they will have to have soft Brexit like Norway or they cannot make use of EU agencies? Is that where we stand right now? They will need to duplicate all the EU agencies that has any impact on the UK if they don't go for the EEA option, if the EEA countries will accept them into the EEA.

Nody wrote: »

For the same reason that they can't offer to pay another billion and skip out on the free movement part of being an EU member but still have full access to the single market like an EU member. As for what EU gains by this? It's very existence or every country will leave and only choose the parts they happen to agree with instead of having to take the good with the bad and follow all the rules.

I don't think anyone has ever mentioned they could pay to avoid going being part of the EU pillars. I don't know whether the European Medicines Agency is regarded with the same respect and protected as strongly as the Free movement of goods and labour.

Nody wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that May wants to have a three basket approach and only align in certain areas; others such as finance they want to go their own way and set their own rules. They want to be able to set their own laws but cherry pick which laws they are going to follow. Let's take EURATOM as an example; as part of it's job it provides projects and verification for the Horizon 2020 program which is a EU wide research program giving out a couple of hundred million euros in grants. How do you see UK paying into the Horizon 2020 funds which are specifically to drive EU projects which is part of the budget cycles? Now UK would need to contribute not only for the agency but to the research program in EU and all of what that entails so things are way more complicated than simply claiming they can pay for the agency costs alone.

The number of issues and complications arising from it all (even before we talk about issues such as most favoured trading nation disputes in WTO) are insane. And all of this because you want UK to be allowed to cherry pick which parts of EU membership they will keep in and which parts they are to be allowed to decide what ever they want. Will it have downsides compared to now? Heck yes; for the same reasons as not getting a trade deal in place will have downsides as well; however on the one side we have EUs reason to exist and on the other you have the small benefits from letting UK cherry pick; that's not a hard choice to make and EU has made that very clear. UK thinks this is a negotiation but for EU this is about following the law and policy. UK thinks they can get a "better deal" but EU will go through the process step by step and once UK is out they will be treated like any other third party country; be that Russia, China, Nigeria or the UK as they are all equal to EU at that stage. And that is the part you appear to miss; by UK deciding to become a third world country to EU they lose everything related to being part of EU. They might get a trade deal in the end but that's a third party country trade deal ala Canada or Korea; not access into EUs agencies.

It will be complicated to get what both parties are satisfied with. With regards to research funding within a EU agency, if some of the UK funds goes towards that I would guess they would miss out on getting some research grants themselves, seeing that they wanted to leave the EU. But they will still need to participate in those EU agencies for vital services. It is the UK's choice to leave the EU and the consequences of that, for me, would be they still pay to those agencies but if there are grants given by those agencies the UK will not participate. There is the drawback for the UK in that.

If another third country wants the same I am sure the EU would oblige them the request. Don't know what good it would do Canada to be part of the EMA though.

We also have to remember that while the UK will be a third country, the history will mean that its not a typical third country deal. There will be some things they will need/get access to that other third countries will not be party to. This is not a slight against those countries or trying to keep them out of any benefits, its just the way it is with the history of the UK having been in the EU and well integrated.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that May wants to have a three basket approach and only align in certain areas; others such as finance they want to go their own way and set their own rules. They want to be able to set their own laws but cherry pick which laws they are going to follow.

And no guarantee that they won't want to move things between baskets whenever they feel like.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

Okay, so the idea is that they will have to have soft Brexit like Norway or they cannot make use of EU agencies? Is that where we stand right now? They will need to duplicate all the EU agencies that has any impact on the UK if they don't go for the EEA option, if the EEA countries will accept them into the EEA.

Yes like every other country in the world does; that's what being outside EU means that you got to look after that stuff yourself and that has been mentioned several times as an example how the claim of 350MM a week was even more false as they did not account for any additional cost due to Brexit for civil servants etc. (for example it's estimated UK needs another 5.000 customs people for border checks) . UK gets back 100% of the control and they get to run the show with their agencies setting up the requirements for all relevant parts going into UK. Same way EU has zero say in how Russia or South Africa runs their agencies but neither are either country expecting to get a shared agency deal with EU.

I don't think anyone has ever mentioned they could pay to avoid going being part of the EU pillars. I don't know whether the European Medicines Agency is regarded with the same respect and protected as strongly as the Free movement of goods and labour.

It's the same principle of cheery picking out the parts you like and pay only for that; paying for agencies or paying for not having to take in people is the same principle of only cherry picking what you want. And that's exactly what EU has said from day 1 that they will not allow. Each tier of access from Norway, Switzerland down to South Korea has certain benefits and certain restrictions; with the red lines May outlined agency access is not in scope of what she can get.

If another third country wants the same I am sure the EU would oblige them the request. Don't know what good it would do Canada to be part of the EMA though.

You mean beyond the right to certify the goods meets all EU standards with their own inspectors and not have them inspected when entering the EU's single market at the border? I'd say that's a pretty strong reason to want to be part of it.

We also have to remember that while the UK will be a third country, the history will mean that its not a typical third country deal. There will be some things they will need/get access to that other third countries will not be party to. This is not a slight against those countries or trying to keep them out of any benefits, its just the way it is with the history of the UK having been in the EU and well integrated.

Yes but once again you're forgetting that once UK becomes a third party country the WTO rules kick in. One of those primary rules is the most favoured country rule which means anything EU gives to UK (that is not enshrined in a trade deal or similar bi/multilateral deal that are allowed under WTO rules) they have to offer to every other country that is a member of WTO as well. That means China has the right to request access to the EMA and produce medicines that will be shipped directly to EU without any controls allowed by EU for example. Why? Because EU gave that right to UK and hence every other WTO country has the same rights as well.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

It will be complicated to get what both parties are satisfied with.

It would be impossible, so best not to pretend to try. Just hand the UK a "this or nothing" deal, and prepare for nothing.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

It's the same principle of cheery picking out the parts you like and pay only for that; paying for agencies or paying for not having to take in people is the same principle of only cherry picking what you want. And that's exactly what EU has said from day 1 that they will not allow. Each tier of access from Norway, Switzerland down to South Korea has certain benefits and certain restrictions; with the red lines May outlined agency access is not in scope of what she can get.

I am not sure if you answered but realistically which agencies will the UK opt out of of the current EU agencies, just so we are aware of what would actually be of discussion. If there are none then it is a moot point seeing as they will participate and pay for access to all EU agencies currently doing work for them. That seems less cherry picking than just continuing the same thing and paying for it but not having a say, which is what everyone told them would happen.

I also note that Iceland is a member of EASA but observers of EFSA and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the European Union Intellectual Property Office. So how are they able to do that, but the UK will have to participate in all of the EU agencies or none?

Agencies of the European Union

Nody wrote: »

Yes but once again you're forgetting that once UK becomes a third party country the WTO rules kick in. One of those primary rules is the most favoured country rule which means anything EU gives to UK (that is not enshrined in a trade deal or similar bi/multilateral deal that are allowed under WTO rules) they have to offer to every other country that is a member of WTO as well. That means China has the right to request access to the EMA and produce medicines that will be shipped directly to EU without any controls allowed by EU for example. Why? Because EU gave that right to UK and hence every other WTO country has the same rights as well.

Will the work of the agencies fall under trade? Will the WTO get involved with the work of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work? What benefit is the same agency to the EU?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It would be impossible, so best not to pretend to try. Just hand theUK a "this or nothing" deal, and prepare for nothing.

And yet there are EU agencies that not every state participate in.

European Border and Coast Guard Agency

I am sure there is a reasonable explanation why Ireland and the UK doesn't participate in an EU agency, but it does show that it is not impossible. Also see EASA and Iceland being a member of the agency and only being observers with other agencies and not participating in most others at all. It seems to me it can be done if the will is there.

CelticRambler

Enzokk wrote: »

And yet there are EU agencies that not every state participate in.

European Border and Coast Guard Agency

I am sure there is a reasonable explanation why Ireland and the UK doesn't participate in an EU agency, but it does show that it is not impossible.

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency ... is an agency of the European Union headquartered in Warsaw, Poland, tasked with border control of the European Schengen Area, in coordination with the border and coast guards of Schengen Area member states. Source: Wikipedia

So no, it's not impossible, but serves as a good example of how Ireland is one step removed from the full European integration that is (arguably) supported by our electorate only because of our historic connection with the UK.

If a hard Brexit results in the imposition of border checks on people crossing into NI, then a major justification for the Republic remaining outside the Schengen area disappears. That in itself would open up some new opportunities, e.g. for places like Waterford Airport that could reinstate direct flights to regional airports in France without any need for passport control at either end.

Leroy42

The question is what is the UK offering the EU to make the EU amend its current operations/rules of membership?

May has already compromised on quite a number of issues. Pretty much her red lines are gone. Why has she done this? Because she wants to be friends? No, she and the cabinet know that they need EU and are moving, albeit slowly, to the position that only the softest of Brexits can possibly stop there being massive negative impact to the UK.

The only issue now is how far with reality is she willing to go before she admits that Brexit is brexit in name only,

One other line that seems to have passed almost unnoticed is the acceptance by May that passporting of finance will be lost. She could only say that it is in the EU's interest to come up with a solution.

There have been many posts on here, and certainly nothing was ever said during the campaign, that the current CoL operational setup was in significant danger of being lost.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

I am not sure if you answered but realistically which agencies will the UK opt out of of the current EU agencies, just so we are aware of what would actually be of discussion. If there are none then it is a moot point seeing as they will participate and pay for access to all EU agencies currently doing work for them. That seems less cherry picking than just continuing the same thing and paying for it but not having a say, which is what everyone told them would happen.

Except one part of being part of those agencies is the possibility to certify that goods meet a certain EU required standard; a requirement written into said agencies and law that only an EU country based agency can do. Hence what you're proposing is that EU rewrites it's laws, treaties and agency rules to make it work for UK to make their life easier and let them save some money.

Enzokk wrote:

I also note that Iceland is a member of EASA but observers of EFSA and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the European Union Intellectual Property Office. So how are they able to do that, but the UK will have to participate in all of the EU agencies or none?

In addition to the member states of the union, the countries part of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), i.e. Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, have been granted participation under Article 66 of the Basic Regulation and are members of the Management Board without voting rights.There are also numerous working relationships with other authorities.

The Advisory Forum advises the Executive Director, in particular in drafting a proposal for the EFSA's work programmes. It is composed of representatives of national bodies responsible for risk assessment in the Member States, with observers from Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and the European Commission.

Which is why UK does not qualify in the future but would have as EEA member in a Norwegian style deal. Once again referring back to the previous comment on the options slide EU showed over what UK can and can not get with the red lines they set. Because they are outside the relevant bodies in Europe that would allow them agency access they will not have any access as a third party country. They have to choose one or the other and May decided third party country and then expect EU to change all rules and regulations to suit her visions of how things should be. Except EU stated from day 1 that is not going to happen and will not happen May still thinks she can emulate Thatcher and slam a hand bag in the table to make it so.

Will the work of the agencies fall under trade? Will the WTO get involved with the work of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work? What benefit is the same agency to the EU?

No agencies does not fall under trade; that falls under country regulation which means EU has to allow all other countries in the world the same access as already pointed out and why this would be a really really bad idea for EU.

And yet there are EU agencies that not every state participate in.

European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Already answered by the post above.

Hence to repeat it again; by UK deciding to go third country on EU they lose access to agencies and pretty much everything else. How ever in return they get the freedom and "regained sovereignty" to set their own rules and regulations as they see fit, monitor them as they see fit and staff them as they see fit. That is UK's problem and not EU's problem going forward.

flutered

briany wrote: »

Getting more worried that it's the cliff-edge crowd who have their hands most on the wheel of the Brexit bus. If I was Theresa May, I'd be waiting for some large dramatic event in the whole process to resign over so that I'd only have to claim partial responsibility for the whole fiasco.

she requiers power, plus the limelight, she will not give up easily, btw she has no pretenders to her crown

Nody

flutered wrote: »

she requiers power, plus the limelight, she will not give up easily, btw she has no pretenders to her crown

I'd argue plenty of wannabies but no one with enough support to make a grab for it and be successful which has all groupings blocking the other from going for it at the moment. It's a perfect mix of paranoia that's keeps her in power rather than her abilities or power in and of itself.

Leonard Hofstadter

I might be going against the general thinking here, but I don't have a problem with them wanting to be in Euratom or the EMA or anything like that if that's what they want to do.

Obviously this is conditional on them making the appropriate contribution towards the running of said agencies and accepting the remit of the ECJ, but if they're willing to pay their way, play their part and abide by the rules then I don't see what the issue is.

I don't believe in being petty and being out to spite them for no good reason - we all benefit from co-operating on Euratom and the EMA and they have compromised on the ECJ (a small bit). Stuff like this doesn't affect trade anyway - which they simply cannot be allowed to have their cake and eat it (otherwise there would be no point in being in the EU and it would disintegrate - and the UK is nowhere near as important for our trade as the EU, so I would rather a hard Brexit and lose UK trade than a soft Brexit and risk the EU disintegrating).

The main issue I have with May's speech is I still haven't a clue how the border issue can be resolved based on their current approach. We cannot let talks on a trade deal go any further until this is nailed down.

Really Interested

CelticRambler wrote: »

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency ... is an agency of the European Union headquartered in Warsaw, Poland, tasked with border control of the European Schengen Area, in coordination with the border and coast guards of Schengen Area member states. Source: Wikipedia

So no, it's not impossible, but serves as a good example of how Ireland is one step removed from the full European integration that is (arguably) supported by our electorate only because of our historic connection with the UK.

If a hard Brexit results in the imposition of border checks on people crossing into NI, then a major justification for the Republic remaining outside the Schengen area disappears. That in itself would open up some new opportunities, e.g. for places like Waterford Airport that could reinstate direct flights to regional airports in France without any need for passport control at either end.

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/agencies/frontex_en

It is all EU external borders not just Schengen.

Really Interested

captainspeed wrote: »

I might be going against the general thinking here, but I don't have a problem with them wanting to be in Euratom or the EMA or anything like that if that's what they want to do.

Obviously this is conditional on them making the appropriate contribution towards the running of said agencies and accepting the remit of the ECJ, but if they're willing to pay their way, play their part and abide by the rules then I don't see what the issue is.

I don't believe in being petty and being out to spite them for no good reason - we all benefit from co-operating on Euratom and the EMA and they have compromised on the ECJ (a small bit). Stuff like this doesn't affect trade anyway - which they simply cannot be allowed to have their cake and eat it (otherwise there would be no point in being in the EU and it would disintegrate - and the UK is nowhere near as important for our trade as the EU, so I would rather a hard Brexit and lose UK trade than a soft Brexit and risk the EU disintegrating).

The main issue I have with May's speech is I still haven't a clue how the border issue can be resolved based on their current approach. We cannot let talks on a trade deal go any further until this is nailed down.

I am unaware of any person saying they can’t be a member of a particular agency. But that will require at the least contributions also in some acceptance of Directives and regulations and in issue of dispute the ruling of ECJ. So once they willing to pay follow laws that they have no input and accept judgement when they have no judge or Accocate General then cool.

Nody

captainspeed wrote: »

I might be going against the general thinking here, but I don't have a problem with them wanting to be in Euratom or the EMA or anything like that if that's what they want to do.

Obviously this is conditional on them making the appropriate contribution towards the running of said agencies and accepting the remit of the ECJ, but if they're willing to pay their way, play their part and abide by the rules then I don't see what the issue is.

Let me make it clear once again:

• The agencies are set up via treaties which do not allow third party countries to join - ergo all laws, treaties etc. needs to be rewritten.
• The agencies DO certify products (see for example Chemicals agency) to certify what goes into them etc. and certify this. This currently by law is required to be done by an EU country and adding third party access opens this up for every country in the world to request the right to certify their goods meet EU regulation to ensure they don't need to (or can) be checked at the border.
• That level of certification through mutual recognition is currently very very limited in use on a very very limited number of products and countries. UK wants it across the board.
• The certification would be done by UK staff; staff who no longer fall under the ECJ remit and the laws they have to follow are UK laws. That means all UK law has to be 100% aligned with EU at all times which is what May has stated she does not wish to do. Ergo this opens up certification for goods coming into EU which does not meet EU legislation by meets the EU requirement for certification due to the UK agency signed them off according to UK law.
• Hence the rights UK seeks is very much eating cake and keeping it as they will sign off goods according to UK law which may not meet EU law and there would be nothing EU can do about it. Why? Because May has clearly stated that she does not, and will not, accept EU law but want us to trust them that it will be same anyway.

In short what UK asks for is not something EU does; nor is it something EU will ever do because it will destroy the whole concept of the single market being an EU only access. What UK does ask for is the right to sell into the single market and certify all goods themselves as if they were an EU member without the actual EU laws being in play or enforceable.

I don't believe in being petty and being out to spite them for no good reason - we all benefit from co-operating on Euratom and the EMA and they have compromised on the ECJ (a small bit). Stuff like this doesn't affect trade anyway - which they simply cannot be allowed to have their cake and eat it (otherwise there would be no point in being in the EU and it would disintegrate - and the UK is nowhere near as important for our trade as the EU, so I would rather a hard Brexit and lose UK trade than a soft Brexit and risk the EU disintegrating).

It is not about being petty, punishing them etc. and it does have a very significant effect on trade and being able to cherry pick access into the market. It may sound differently but there are huge issues with what they are asking for and the reasons are outlined above.

The main issue I have with May's speech is I still haven't a clue how the border issue can be resolved based on their current approach. We cannot let talks on a trade deal go any further until this is nailed down.

The answer was there; 'technology solution that currently does not exist anywhere and is to be implemented in under two years somehow.

briany

If I were May and the Conservatives, I'd call another election and let the chips fall where they may. Anything to either get rid of that ball and chain that is the DUP, and be able to go ahead with granting special economic status to Northern Ireland, or else be rid of the responsibility of negotiating Brexit altogether. At some point they have to accept that this fiasco won't be doing any favours to the party's popularity, long-term.

But just so I have this straight in my own head,

Hard NI Border - Angers the Irish Nationalists, the EU and violates the GFA (?)

Soft NI Border - Irritates/Angers Irish Unionists depending on whether this is combined with special status. Also violates the GFA (?)

Norway Solution - Means the free movement of people. A red line for the Brexit wing.

The "Ala Carte" solution for trade - The EU says you can't pick and choose your regulations, and we don't trust you to enforce them anyway.

Yeah, I can't really see a way forward. Someone's going to have to back down in a major way.

Nody

briany wrote: »

If I were May and the Conservatives, I'd call another election and let the chips fall where they may. Anything to either get rid of that ball and chain that is the DUP, and be able to go ahead with granting special economic status to Northern Ireland, or else be rid of the responsibility of negotiating Brexit altogether. At some point they have to accept that this fiasco won't be doing any favours to the party's popularity, long-term.

The problem with this idea is that you assume they think first of all about the people, secondly of their party and third have a long term view. They have very much shorter term view of staying around in the next election and the later it is the further away is their personal risk of losing their seat esp. as disastrous as they did in the last election. Hence while I agree with your sentiment and thought process I find it highly unlikely to ever happen because there is simply to much risk to the individuals currently in power in doing so; that gamble was the previous election after all.

Only to add; there is no NI border solution that meets all requirements today except that somehow a technical solution that currently does not exist anywhere inc. the systems to manage it, the data sharing laws etc. in place to run it and all of that in 2 years basically. In short it's magic black box with technology written on it to solve the problem according to May but it's impossible to actually do in practice and that means someone somewhere will be unhappy with the solution. It is yet another lofty ambition; no connection to reality solution from the UK government to solve a self inflicted problem of Brexit.

Enzokk

captainspeed wrote: »

I might be going against the general thinking here, but I don't have a problem with them wanting to be in Euratom or the EMA or anything like that if that's what they want to do.

Obviously this is conditional on them making the appropriate contribution towards the running of said agencies and accepting the remit of the ECJ, but if they're willing to pay their way, play their part and abide by the rules then I don't see what the issue is.

I don't believe in being petty and being out to spite them for no good reason - we all benefit from co-operating on Euratom and the EMA and they have compromised on the ECJ (a small bit). Stuff like this doesn't affect trade anyway - which they simply cannot be allowed to have their cake and eat it (otherwise there would be no point in being in the EU and it would disintegrate - and the UK is nowhere near as important for our trade as the EU, so I would rather a hard Brexit and lose UK trade than a soft Brexit and risk the EU disintegrating).

The main issue I have with May's speech is I still haven't a clue how the border issue can be resolved based on their current approach. We cannot let talks on a trade deal go any further until this is nailed down.

I also don't see a problem if the UK wants to use EU agencies that it is currently members of. As long as this is acceptable to the EU and as long as they pay for access, which Theresa May has said they will do. Now if the EU finds that it is a all in one deal then the UK will have to decide to take it or not.

Nody wrote: »

Except one part of being part of those agencies is the possibility to certify that goods meet a certain EU required standard; a requirement written into said agencies and law that only an EU country based agency can do. Hence what you're proposing is that EU rewrites it's laws, treaties and agency rules to make it work for UK to make their life easier and let them save some money.

No I am not and I am not sure why you think I am proposing this. Where have I said the EU will have to rewrite its laws to accommodate the UK? What I have seen with the speech of Theresa May is a softening in her approach to the EU. The red lines are most definitely more pink than red right now. There is still pie in the sky stuff in there, but she is being realistic with regards to paying more money other than the Brexit bill to the EU and accepting the rulings of the ECJ in those agencies. I may have misread her speech, but here is the quotes:

The second hard fact is that even after we have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ, EU law and the decisions of the ECJ will continue to affect us.

For a start, the ECJ determines whether agreements the EU has struck are legal under the EU's own law - as the US found when the ECJ declared the Safe Harbor Framework for data sharing invalid.

When we leave the EU, the Withdrawal Bill will bring EU law into UK law. That means cases will be determined in our courts. But, where appropriate, our courts will continue to look at the ECJ's judgments, as they do for the appropriate jurisprudence of other countries' courts.

And if, as part of our future partnership, Parliament passes an identical law to an EU law, it may make sense for our courts to look at the appropriate ECJ judgments so that we both interpret those laws consistently.

As I said in Munich, if we agree that the UK should continue to participate in an EU agency the UK would have to respect the remit of the ECJ in that regard.

This for me is a climb down from refusing to have the ECJ have any sort of say in the UK after Brexit.

And on the agencies she had this to say:

We will also want to explore with the EU, the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution.

As I posted there is still a lot of cake eating in her speech, but it is a huge step back from her previous speeches before.

Nody wrote: »

Which is why UK does not qualify in the future but would have as EEA member in a Norwegian style deal. Once again referring back to the previous comment on the options slide EU showed over what UK can and can not get with the red lines they set. Because they are outside the relevant bodies in Europe that would allow them agency access they will not have any access as a third party country. They have to choose one or the other and May decided third party country and then expect EU to change all rules and regulations to suit her visions of how things should be. Except EU stated from day 1 that is not going to happen and will not happen May still thinks she can emulate Thatcher and slam a hand bag in the table to make it so.

I am still unclear how certain countries are not part of certain agencies of the EU. There doesn't seem to be a blanket rule that all countries of EFTA is part of the same agencies. Norway is the only country outside of the EU that participates in the European Railway Agency. Liechtenstein doesn't seem to participate in the The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training, but Switzerland does.

So you will have to talk me through how some of the same members of the same Associations have different levels of participation in certain agencies. I am sure there are valid reasons for most of them, but it does seem that it is possible, if there is a will, for the UK to participate in the agencies that they want to once a trade agreement is reached.

Nody wrote: »

Let me make it clear once again:

• The agencies are set up via treaties which do not allow third party countries to join - ergo all laws, treaties etc. needs to be rewritten.
• The agencies DO certify products (see for example Chemicals agency) to certify what goes into them etc. and certify this. This currently by law is required to be done by an EU country and adding third party access opens this up for every country in the world to request the right to certify their goods meet EU regulation to ensure they don't need to (or can) be checked at the border.
• That level of certification through mutual recognition is currently very very limited in use on a very very limited number of products and countries. UK wants it across the board.
• The certification would be done by UK staff; staff who no longer fall under the ECJ remit and the laws they have to follow are UK laws. That means all UK law has to be 100% aligned with EU at all times which is what May has stated she does not wish to do. Ergo this opens up certification for goods coming into EU which does not meet EU legislation by meets the EU requirement for certification due to the UK agency signed them off according to UK law.
• Hence the rights UK seeks is very much eating cake and keeping it as they will sign off goods according to UK law which may not meet EU law and there would be nothing EU can do about it. Why? Because May has clearly stated that she does not, and will not, accept EU law but want us to trust them that it will be same anyway.

In short what UK asks for is not something EU does; nor is it something EU will ever do because it will destroy the whole concept of the single market being an EU only access. What UK does ask for is the right to sell into the single market and certify all goods themselves as if they were an EU member without the actual EU laws being in play or enforceable.

It is not about being petty, punishing them etc. and it does have a very significant effect on trade and being able to cherry pick access into the market. It may sound differently but there are huge issues with what they are asking for and the reasons are outlined above.

The answer was there; 'technology solution that currently does not exist anywhere and is to be implemented in under two years somehow.

The UK is still asking for the impossible, but they have moved significantly in my view. It will be only a matter of time I believe, unless JRM or a hard Brexiter takes over, they decide that the Norway model actually suits them the best of all.

I think we are talking about different things here as you seem to suggest that the UK will be a third country after they leave. I think that while they will be a third country like South Africa to the EU, they will have a deal ready to sign after the transition for them to be seen as more than just a third country and the WTO rules will not apply regarding most favoured nation rules.

I agree with you if they don't do this then they will not be allowed to participate in these agencies nor will they get anything like a good trade deal. But that is counting our chickens before they hatch. I think once reality hits most moderate Brexit MPs in the HOC and they realize what will happen if they cannot participate in those EU agencies we are talking about they will very quickly warm up to the EU. You will still have your outliers, but they will be an absolute minority who will have no influence at all.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK is still asking for the impossible, but they have moved significantly in my view. It will be only a matter of time I believe, unless JRM or a hard Brexiter takes over, they decide that the Norway model actually suits them the best of all.

I think a Norway "brexit" would be the best option for the country but with 62 MPs stating they want a hard Brexit I simply don't think it will happen. The problem here is that the Hard Brexit crew can get their will simply by stalling it out until 30th March next year; the other alternatives require an active PM who pushes it through the parliament and with 62 MPs ready to vote down any Tory PM doing so it means a new government is required. The problem with a new government is the next government would be a Tory government (since they would not risk losing seats by calling a new general election) and the cycle starts all over again. All the while the Hardcore Brexit crew simply buys themselves more time to crash out with out a deal as the chaos reigns.

That is what's giving me nightmares; I honestly don't see a possible solution out of the current impasse that is going to work short of May suddenly growing a spine and calling a snap election out of the blue to give the power to Labour. However this would go completely against her record and how she's acted to date and seeing how risk averse she is (she was apparently the last person to agree to the last GE because she felt there was no need to risk it with a 20 percentage point lead in the polls) I simply don't see that happening. That means either DUP has to abandon the idea of a hard brexit (and seeing how they are even stronger ideology married to the idea than the Tories are that will not happen) or the Hardcore Brexit crew somehow needs to have 20 odd people changing side between now and March 30th to let May take a softer route which once again I simply don't see happening as this is gospel over facts from their side. Hence the most likely solution is hard brexit without any deal through incompetence; and that is the worst possible outcome for all parties but that's the most likely outcome because there is simply no way to match the Hardcore brexiteers requirements with EU limitations and come up with even a half baked acceptable solution both sides will swallow.

briany

Nody wrote: »

The problem with this idea is that you assume they think first of all about the people, secondly of their party and third have a long term view. They have very much shorter term view of staying around in the next election and the later it is the further away is their personal risk of losing their seat esp. as disastrous as they did in the last election. Hence while I agree with your sentiment and thought process I find it highly unlikely to ever happen because there is simply to much risk to the individuals currently in power in doing so; that gamble was the previous election after all.

Only to add; there is no NI border solution that meets all requirements today except that somehow a technical solution that currently does not exist anywhere inc. the systems to manage it, the data sharing laws etc. in place to run it and all of that in 2 years basically. In short it's magic black box with technology written on it to solve the problem according to May but it's impossible to actually do in practice and that means someone somewhere will be unhappy with the solution. It is yet another lofty ambition; no connection to reality solution from the UK government to solve a self inflicted problem of Brexit.

I don't think that David Cameron was thinking about the people when he resigned but that he couldn't reconcile his vision for his country with that of his party and the electorate, and he didn't want anything more to do with it.

Theresa May, having been a Remain advocate, is, I think, doing what she can to give her country a soft landing in all this. However, the options on doing this are either dwindling or were never a goer to begin with. So the question becomes whether it's worth it to her, and this would be a decision with a big element of selfishness to it (I don't use that in its negative sense). Is it worth it to be at the helm as the Brexit bus tumbles over the cliff. Is that what she wants to be remembered for?

So, I think she either resigns when she finds her vision of Brexit being irreconcilable with the voice around her and quits, or she uses the possibility of a GE and Corbyn getting in as a means to silence dissent from the Brexit wing and the DUP, to get a bit leverage. Somethings going to have to give, here.

Leroy42

briany wrote: »

I don't think that David Cameron was thinking about the people when he resigned but that he couldn't reconcile his vision for his country with that of his party and the electorate, and he didn't want anything more to do with it.

Theresa May, having been a Remain advocate, is, I think, doing what she can to give her country a soft landing in all this. However, the options on doing this are either dwindling or were never a goer to begin with. So the question becomes whether it's worth it to her, and this would be a decision with a big element of selfishness to it (I don't use that in its negative sense). Is it worth it to be at the helm as the Brexit bus tumbles over the cliff. Is that what she wants to be remembered for?

So, I think she either resigns when she finds her vision of Brexit being irreconcilable with the voice around her and quits, or she uses the possibility of a GE and Corbyn getting in as a means to silence dissent from the Brexit wing and the DUP, to get a bit leverage. Somethings going to have to give, here.

Really? Ever since she became PM she has aligned herself to the hard brexit brigade. She laid out her red lines from the start, she allowed Davies etc to demonise Hammond.

Now she is trying to give people the hard facts? After what? 18 months of fantasy. If she is finally coming to the position to try to get a softer brexit, it is only because she has been left with little other option

Water John

TM called a GE when she didn't need to. I was a surprise to many in the Tory Party.
If you are waiting now for JRM impramatur for each move, you are paralysed.