Brexit discussion thread III

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

I seem to recall May saying on the subject of a hard or soft Brexit that she wanted 'Red, white & blue Brexit'. Whatever the hell that means... One of the vagaries she has become used to speaking in, I suppose. It seems much more that she's trying to please everyone, and therefore almost no-one in the process. If she was that into a hard Brexit, I'd expect her language to become a bit more direct at some stage, if not already.

Capt'n Midnight

captainspeed wrote: »

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.

Assume anything with enough of a price differential , even if it's nailed down, will be smuggled by all sides on any of the 300 crossings at any time. Even with a Hard Border and customs posts on both sides. Expect closed crossing to be re-opened at the weekend by anyone who has access to a JCB.

If Brexit means UK and EU have different tariffs , or there's export subsidies or people living near the border suffer income loss or there's different VAT or Carbon Tax or grants or subsidies , it's going to happen.

It used to be butter but between 2004-2007 illicit fuel sales in NI were touching 40% market share until the price was similar both sides of the border.


Job Seekers Allowance is up to £73.10 a week. A truck load of coal down here costs about €2,000 more because of carbon tax.

What do you think will happen if you try to do block this with an e-system that is actually an honour system in places where getting one over on the government isn't even seen as illegal or immoral ?

Leroy42

briany wrote: »

I seem to recall May saying on the subject of a hard or soft Brexit that she wanted 'Red, white & blue Brexit'. Whatever the hell that means... One of the vagaries she has become used to speaking in, I suppose. It seems much more that she's trying to please everyone, and therefore almost no-one in the process. If she was that into a hard Brexit, I'd expect her language to become a bit more direct at some stage, if not already.

She is still sticking with the line that "No deal is better than a bad deal" when she had just spent the previous 40+ minutes pointing out how much the UK, and the EU, needed to avoid a no deal.

Whether by design or ineptitude, she has allowed the like of Boris and JRM to lead the line that any movement away from the red lines was akin to stealing from democracy (instead of saying that they will leave the EU, but everything else is open to discussion).

There was no need to cast out the ECJ, that was one of her own pet peeves from being home secretary. There was no need to allow the line that EU citizens could be used as pawns (she has finally relented on that) but it caused damage.

She could have easily set out that Brexit would cause damage, to not let her ministers call into question the bias of the civil service or the reports they provide.

She could have stepped in at any time and laid out the real issues facing the UK, instead of allowing the EU to be painted as punishing the UK etc. Sure, this played out well to her base, but is was always going to be short lived.

You could argue that that is the position she found herself in after the disaster of the GE, but even with that had she taken a stand from day 1, back me of sack me, I doubt anyone would have tried and she would be much stronger for it.

Unfortunately, at every chance, she seems to have chosen the wrong choice, the short term, selfish path.

Whether she was ever ideologically wedded to Hard Brexit is open to debate, but her actions have certainly looked like she is. If not, if she has simply allowed herself to be dragged along, well that is even more depressing

Water John

Wondering will UK be part of Europe when Trump imposes his tariff on European cars?

CelticRambler

Really Interested wrote: »

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

It is all EU external borders not just Schengen.

In its conception, yes, but in its application its EU26+Schengen-associated because the UK & Ireland are opted out. Like with the Eurozone, as a new agency, it's something that any new (or returning) members will have to agree to be part of; Ireland is opted out only because of being shackled to the Cursed Child next door.

Since TM's much ado about nothing on Friday, I read something somewhere (can't remember where now) that there is yet another spanner just waiting to be thrown into the works: if the UK trundles headlong into a hard Brexit, and if it becomes evident that that will be economically disastrous for Northern Ireland, and if the DUP are sidelined by a cross-party populist opposition to being part of a suicide pact, to the extent that a referendum would potentially approve a (re)united Ireland, then the GFA imposes a requirement on Westminster to make it happen.

Now that's three significant if's that have to line up, but we've seen opinion polls indicate that there's already a majority in NI prepared to say "yes" to reunification if being in the EU is more beneficial than preserving the Union. And of course there are few in the UK who have any great desire to keep belligerent, problematic Ireland in that particular club. TM's "vision" of a strong four-nation United Kingdom in the future is built on a foundation of shifting sands; and the more I hear the DUP representatives spout the same illogical nonsense as the JRMs and Nigel Farages of Little England, the more I'm convinced that they themselves will trigger the very catastrophe of which they are so afraid.

Charles Babbage

CelticRambler wrote: »

In its conception, yes, but in its application its EU26+Schengen-associated because the UK & Ireland are opted out. Like with the Eurozone, as a new agency, it's something that any new (or returning) members will have to agree to be part of; Ireland is opted out only because of being shackled to the Cursed Child next door.

Since TM's much ado about nothing on Friday, I read something somewhere (can't remember where now) that there is yet another spanner just waiting to be thrown into the works: if the UK trundles headlong into a hard Brexit, and if it becomes evident that that will be economically disastrous for Northern Ireland, and if the DUP are sidelined by a cross-party populist opposition to being part of a suicide pact, to the extent that a referendum would potentially approve a (re)united Ireland, then the GFA imposes a requirement on Westminster to make it happen.

Now that's three significant if's that have to line up, but we've seen opinion polls indicate that there's already a majority in NI prepared to say "yes" to reunification if being in the EU is more beneficial than preserving the Union. And of course there are few in the UK who have any great desire to keep belligerent, problematic Ireland in that particular club. TM's "vision" of a strong four-nation United Kingdom in the future is built on a foundation of shifting sands; and the more I hear the DUP representatives spout the same illogical nonsense as the JRMs and Nigel Farages of Little England, the more I'm convinced that they themselves will trigger the very catastrophe of which they are so afraid.

What is needed is some apprehension about the border poll to encourage the DUP to a more practical approach.

Water John

I think Arlene Foster already has the apprehension, it's just the few in Westminister are drunk on the little bit of power, they have ATM.

joeysoap

Water John wrote: »

I think Arlene Foster already has the apprehension, it's just the few in Westminister are drunk on the little bit of power, they have ATM.

Arlene is from a border constituency, afaik the rest of the DUP MPs aren’t.

If the shinners are so opposed to taking their seats at Westminster why did they contest them so vigorously? With no shinners standing in her constituency Arlene wouldn’t have a seat, and neither would some of the other 11. And we’d have a completely different ball game.

Skedaddle

My concern isn't that the UK will actively seek a Hard Brexit.

Instead, I think the biggest risk is the UK government isn't actually capable of negotiation because it has no real manadate or position on this and isn't able to cut any deals at all.

It's floundering around, relying on pure spin and bluster while fighting with itself. The Labour Party is only marginally better.

My prediction is the UK doesn't negotiate a hard Brexit but it actually crashes out of the EU having failed to negotiate anything at all because of domestic chaos.

And unfortunately, the default position would appear to be a "Hard Brexit" if no alternative is agreed.

I think that's when you'll see a panicked attempt to negotiate after the fact and that's where you'll end up with some kind of barely palatable deal to mitigate complete mayhem.

I really think we are in for a potentially very rough ride.

Leroy42

Some good tweets this morning in relation to the outpouring from the likes of JRM on the cheek of Ireland and the EU looking to protect their own interests when that is exactly what Brexit is all about for the UK.

On a different point, but one I know has been raised before, why is SF continuing to stay so silent in all of this? The DUP are being allowed to speak as if they speak for the whole of NI, when in terms of Brexit, they are the minority. Whey are SF, SDLP not speaking up and demanding that the DUP consult with all before committing NI one way or the other.

It would also help Ireland's position to have a needle within the UK. The UK have clearly, and even more the last few days, set out to try to shake the EU/Ireland unity. SF, IMO, are being very cowardly on this. Its not about not wanting to get in the way of the Irish government, it is about speaking up for the people in NI. They have no voice in Westminster, but that is known before voting, but I cannot understand why they continue to sit on their hands and let the DUP have the field.

It has been suggested that they are happy to let the DUP crash and burn. In doing so, they are helping to bring misery to many thousands, both north and south. It shocking what they are getting away with and there is no criticism of them at all in the media.

Skedaddle

You have to remember you're dealing with a group of politicians who see no other interests other then their own. It's not about building relationships, partnerships and networks. It's just about some blind and undefined notion of sovereignty above all else.

You would have better luck discussing something with a brick wall

If these are the kinds of attitudes the UK intends to bring to the table in future trade negotiations with other countries as they rebuild after Brexit, they'll have a very painful lesson to learn in what their real power and position is in a globalised market.

For all their talk, I see zero evidence of negotiation or diplomatic skills - just a whole pile of arrogance.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Wondering will UK be part of Europe when Trump imposes his tariff on European cars?

Anyone who expects the UK to not get hurt from a US - EU trade war is dreaming. It's in the interest of the US to undermine the UK so they'll have to accept whatever is offered in a trade deal later. Look at the Anglo-American loan to see just how that works.

British politicians expected that in view of the United Kingdom's contribution to the war effort, especially for the lives lost before the United States entered the fight in 1941, America would offer favourable terms. Instead of a grant or a gift, however, Keynes was offered a loan on favourable terms.
...
The loan was made subject to conditions, the most damaging of which was the convertibility of sterling
...
The rapid loss of dollar reserves also highlighted the weakness of sterling, which was duly devalued in 1949 from $4.02 to $2.80.

Unless there is a Trade deal between the EU and the US then it's WTO terms and so Most Favoured Nation means both sides have to impose any new tariffs on the UK.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm

Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

Or if it's non-tariff route then the UK will be caught with trying to align to EU or US regulations or both.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states/

Given the low average tariffs (under 3%), the key to unlocking this potential lies in the tackling of non-tariff barriers. These consist mainly of customs procedures and behind the border regulatory restrictions.

The non-tariff barriers come from diverging regulatory systems (standards definitions notably), but also other non-tariff measures, such as those related to certain aspects of security or consumer protection.

Bigus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Some good tweets this morning in relation to the outpouring from the likes of JRM on the cheek of Ireland and the EU looking to protect their own interests when that is exactly what Brexit is all about for the UK.

On a different point, but one I know has been raised before, why is SF continuing to stay so silent in all of this? The DUP are being allowed to speak as if they speak for the whole of NI, when in terms of Brexit, they are the minority. Whey are SF, SDLP not speaking up and demanding that the DUP consult with all before committing NI one way or the other.

It would also help Ireland's position to have a needle within the UK. The UK have clearly, and even more the last few days, set out to try to shake the EU/Ireland unity. SF, IMO, are being very cowardly on this. Its not about not wanting to get in the way of the Irish government, it is about speaking up for the people in NI. They have no voice in Westminster, but that is known before voting, but I cannot understand why they continue to sit on their hands and let the DUP have the field.

It has been suggested that they are happy to let the DUP crash and burn. In doing so, they are helping to bring misery to many thousands, both north and south. It shocking what they are getting away with and there is no criticism of them at all in the media.

It's a bit like why the IRA didn't shoot Paisley , they're doing more than enough damage to themselves , so let the DUP at it for the long game, it's more effective.

Leroy42

Bigus wrote: »

It's a bit like why the IRA didn't shoot Paisley , they're doing more than enough damage to themselves , so let the DUP at it for the long game, it's more effective.

But it could have serious and lasting impacts on the economies of both NI and RoI. They are looking at their own political future rather than the future of the people they represent. That is the point I am making.

I fully understand, and appreciate, the unified (or at least non confrontational) approach taken by the parties in the ROI, helped by the fact that FG & FF are both in government, but this is more about why they are staying so quite in NI.

Water John

Cannot understand the positives people see in TM speech. It is positive only, in that it's an improvement on the nonsense that has been spewed out, before this.
It has stolen her, a bit of time. That is until, in 3 weeks time the EU put their full documents, on the table.
The best analysis that expresses how I see it is, the Opinion piece in The Observer today. Cannot say I disagree with one sentence in it. It also reflects her speech feels overall to me.
As a number of the journalists at the speech asked, in various ways, what's the point? Esp in last paragraph, below.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/04/the-observer-view-on-theresa-mays-brexit-speech


Be in no doubt. Theresa May’s watershed Brexit speech on Friday was a sobering defeat for the UK. It was a defeat for the Leavers’ vision of a sovereign country freed from the constraints imposed by European politicians, laws and regulations. It was a defeat for those who voted Remain and hoped against hope that Britain would, at the last moment, draw back from this gross act of national self-harm.

May’s speech, signalling a fundamental parting of the ways, was a defeat for the business people, trade unionists and community leaders who rightly fear for the country’s future prosperity, cohesion and jobs. It was a defeat for young people, British and European, who, more so than older generations, will perforce inhabit an ugly new world of harder borders, work permits, bureaucracy and pervasive state intrusion.
Looked at in a wider context, May’s speech marked a moment of British retreat from the shared ideals and principles of collaborative internationalism that have guided the western democracies since 1945. It presaged a historic abdication of leadership that many in Europe and beyond will neither understand nor quickly forgive...

The gaunt post-Brexit future towards which May is stubbornly leading us will make Britain a poorer, meaner, lonelier and shabbier place, hostile to immigrants yet badly in need of their skills, struggling to maintain its trade across the barriers we ourselves erected, and exploited by the world’s big economies whose governments and multinationals, imposing unequal trade treaties, will take what they want and leave the rest.
When May said she wanted to be “straight” with people and that Britain had to face the “hard facts” of Brexit, it seems she was talking first and foremost to herself. For her, finally, it was wake-up time. This sudden dawn of pragmatic realism is welcome. But at this point a basic question becomes unavoidable: what on earth is she trying to achieve? Given the emerging shape of this unfavourable, damaging and overly complex “EU lite” deal, is Brexit, as now envisaged, really worth the trouble? Better, perhaps, to admit we made a mistake in 2016 and humbly ask for time to reconsider.

Econ_

Leroy42 wrote: »

She is still sticking with the line that "No deal is better than a bad deal"

Her own governments impact assessments show that a 'bad deal' (Canada style agreement) is significantly better than 'no deal' (WTO terms).


Canada deal = -5% GDP growth

WTO terms = -8% GDP growth





It is a total failure by UK politicians and media not to point magnify this and show clearly the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' rhetoric is, was and always has been a big fat lie.

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

Some good tweets this morning in relation to the outpouring from the likes of JRM on the cheek of Ireland and the EU looking to protect their own interests when that is exactly what Brexit is all about for the UK.

On a different point, but one I know has been raised before, why is SF continuing to stay so silent in all of this? The DUP are being allowed to speak as if they speak for the whole of NI, when in terms of Brexit, they are the minority. Whey are SF, SDLP not speaking up and demanding that the DUP consult with all before committing NI one way or the other.

It would also help Ireland's position to have a needle within the UK. The UK have clearly, and even more the last few days, set out to try to shake the EU/Ireland unity. SF, IMO, are being very cowardly on this. Its not about not wanting to get in the way of the Irish government, it is about speaking up for the people in NI. They have no voice in Westminster, but that is known before voting, but I cannot understand why they continue to sit on their hands and let the DUP have the field.

It has been suggested that they are happy to let the DUP crash and burn. In doing so, they are helping to bring misery to many thousands, both north and south. It shocking what they are getting away with and there is no criticism of them at all in the media.

SF are being heard, I would have no doubt of that.

The devolved governments have been told very forcefully that they have to toe the UK as a whole line. None of their First Ministers are even involved with the Brexit committee.
Despite thinking they are wagging the dog the DUP have been unable to avert a Sea Border being the only solution on the table if the UK want a deal that sees them leaving the CU.
They huffed and they puffed, walked out but were effectively batted aside and ignored.

They better hope the current arrangement lasts.

Skedaddle

Bear in mind May's track record as home secretary was to expand "purvasive state intrusion". She was a pretty right wing home secretary, by any standards. I would suspect she likes the idea of more control, more borders, more security. That's always the impression I have had of her.

That's why I never understand people think she's some kind of sensible, centrist moderate. I never, ever saw her like that. She's a party loyalist who wouldn't ever vote against the PM and technically supported remain and only just.

She's absolutely not John Major and frankly I even think Margaret Thatcher was more of a pragmatist!

I just see May as being very much on the Brexit agenda but coming at it from a fortress Britian kind of perspective rather than an economic one.

The Tories have also seemingly broken the link between the party and business and they're completely ignoring the CBI, economists, the banks and so on.

They seem to be just gone into a mode that's very similar to Donald Trump and the GOP - both driving and chasing people's fears and a rather toxic populist platform. It's not about leadership as much as it is about consolidation of power.

Capt'n Midnight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The devolved governments have been told very forcefully that they have to toe the UK as a whole line. None of their First Ministers are even involved with the Brexit committee.
Despite thinking they are wagging the dog the DUP have been unable to avert a Sea Border being the only solution on the table if the UK want a deal that sees them leaving the CU.

The devolved governments are a tad miffed that The Great Repeal Bill will take over many devolved powers.

It's almost like they don't trust central government to hand them back afterwards.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The devolved governments are a tad miffed that The Great Repeal Bill will take over many devolved powers.

It's almost like they don't trust central government to hand them back afterwards.

With good reason.

Question: Why there is no devolved government for England?

Answer: Because the British Government (HofC) considers itself as the devolved government for England.

England always considered itself as the centre of the universe, with the Church of England leading it in prayer, the Bank of England looking after the pennies, The Queen of England ruling over the Empire.

What else could there be?

briany

Sam Russell wrote: »

With good reason.

Question: Why there is no devolved government for England?

Answer: Because the British Government (HofC) considers itself as the devolved government for England.

England always considered itself as the centre of the universe, with the Church of England leading it in prayer, the Bank of England looking after the pennies, The Queen of England ruling over the Empire.

What else could there be?

If English politicians want to keep on with the line that it was all of the UK who voted, therefore it'll be all of the UK who are leaving, they're going to face another tide of regionalism, and one I'm not sure the union will weather.

Brexit is bringing up the question once again - A union of equals, or England and its vassals?

Water John

But it's all about the interpretation of what the people voted for. Claiming CU and SM leaving were central or key to the arguments or decision making by each individual is totally disingenious.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

But it's all about the interpretation of what the people voted for. Claiming CU and SM leaving were central or key to the arguments or decision making by each individual is totally disingenious.

Unfortunately, there was no Referendum Commission, directed by a High Court Judge, to make sure facts were checked, the implication of voting one way or the other was clearly explained in a leaflet sent to every house hold, and that everyone was clear on the issues.

Now, everyone is claiming votes were cast for reasons that support their own views.

Referendums do not work for complex issues like Brexit.

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

Referendums do not work for complex issues like Brexit.

Well, referendums as currently carried out do not work. It should not be beyond the wit of man to enable a system to work down through a series of votes to distill the actual wants.

So, after the 1st Brexit is passed, hold a follow up on the options available (I accept that even now the UK doesn't seem to understand this part).

Capt'n Midnight

Skedaddle wrote: »

Bear in mind May's track record as home secretary was to expand "purvasive state intrusion". She was a pretty right wing home secretary, by any standards. I would suspect she likes the idea of more control, more borders, more security. That's always the impression I have had of her.

The Digital Rights ship has been torpedoed in the UK.

Snoopers Charter

From May all UK access to adult sites will require age verification.
Adult content will be opt-in.
Also you'll get up to 10 years for copyright infringement.

BTW Lots of ISP's here are UK owned or route traffic via the UK.

It's like the sort of stuff you'd see in one of the -istan countries.

trellheim

Referendums do not work for complex issues like Brexit.

This is because even the name is wrong . Brexit is the UK leaving , not just Britain.

You can leave the EU and still hold to the SM, CU and have the same immigration laws, 4 freedoms and so on, and still be correctly following the Referendum

- because all it said/decided was let's "Leave the EU". There was no further detail. For many this is the sticking point as "Brexit" means whatever you want it to mean

As Humpty Dumpty ( if ever a mascot for this ) said ( Lewis Carroll "through the Looking Glass"

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

On a different point, but one I know has been raised before, why is SF continuing to stay so silent in all of this?
....

They have no voice in Westminster, but that is known before voting, but I cannot understand why they continue to sit on their hands and let the DUP have the field.

I'd be no great fan of SF, but I say they're playing this exactly right. What could they possibly say that would achieve anything meaningful? The DUP is fully aligned with the Kamikaze Party, and they are the ones making all the decisions ... well, talking about making decisions. No other party in the UK is able to affect that narrative - not the SNP, not Plaid Cymru, not the Lib Dems.

So the one and only reaction that SF could elicit would be "aye, just what you'd expect from them Fenian bastards". By sitting on their hands and not saying anything, for once in their history, they're allowing the political debate to take place on a field free from sectarianism. Look at the reaction to the DUP's involvement: it's not really the fact that they're a Protestant sect that's attract criticism, it's their dodgy financial dealings with the Tories, and their un-crossable orange lines that look even redder than Theresa's.

trellheim

State of the parties House of Commons

Con 316
LAB 259
sNP 35
Lib Dem 12
DUP 10
Sinn Fein 6
( other parties have less )

Total Number of seats 650

Con + DUp = 326 and therefore a majority

Lab+SNP+Lib Dem = 306 I think , you'd need 11 conservative rebels to cross over to beat any division.

However the fact remains - Corbyn and McDonnell are hardline anti-EU themselves , some of the hardest opposers anywhere so I can't see this train stopping at Sanity Station any time soon

Capt'n Midnight

trellheim wrote: »

However the fact remains - Corbyn and McDonnell are hardline anti-EU themselves , some of the hardest opposers anywhere so I can't see this train stopping at Sanity Station any time soon

Single seat first past the post means lots of safe seats. Safe seats means they don't need to compromise.

Here parties split when there's an ideological divide that can't be bridged. And merge when they get too small to survive. It's a safety valve that allows consensus. It means TD's don't need to worry about left vs right flip-flop politics and can carry on with the important business of lining up more votes than their running mates while not making it too obvious.

Sam Russell

trellheim wrote: »

State of the parties House of Commons

Con 316
LAB 259
sNP 35
Lib Dem 12
DUP 10
Sinn Fein 6
( other parties have less )

Total Number of seats 650

Con + DUp = 326 and therefore a majority

Lab+SNP+Lib Dem = 306 I think , you'd need 11 conservative rebels to cross over to beat any division.

However the fact remains - Corbyn and McDonnell are hardline anti-EU themselves , some of the hardest opposers anywhere so I can't see this train stopping at Sanity Station any time soon

Only 9 Tory rebels would be needed, but that assumes all other MPs vote against the Gov. That is possible, but if that was likely, the Gov have, in the past folded and accepted the issue. They cannot do that on a vote of No Confidence.

Skedaddle

I think the issue is also there's a lack of perspective from Ireland.

The majority in Westminster are less concerned about Brexit than they should be. There's a lot of "oh sure we're here now - how bad could it be? Let's just make the most of it" type attitudes emerging in England.

You have to realise that they think they're going to be fine regardless of what they do and they're in a much bigger bubble than we ever are because the country's reasonably large and self absorbed in its own media.

It feels a bit like Ireland before the economic meltdown in 2008 when all the nasty experts were forecasting exactly what was going to happen and a majority in Ireland were still saying : Nah! It's grand! You're all scaremongering!

Most people (including most MP I suspect) haven't a clue about macroeconomics, trade, how the EU works. They'll just go with the flow and at the moment that's very much towards a hard Brexit.

I really don't see this being stopped. I just see a horrible case of buyers' remorse developing sometime after March 2019 when it's all too late.

Leroy42

May has again stated that passporting for CoL financial services will not be part of Brexit, as it will result in the UK being a "Rule-Taker".

What are peoples opinions on what effect this might have on the CoL? Since May has signalled that the UK are willing to accept many other areas of the EU, what is the thinking behind ruling this out (IMO, this is the one area that they could have easily accepted the EU rules without many voters really caring, and the benefit of losing nothing from such an important part of their economy).

Are they going with the thinking that the CoL is simply too important and that the EU will simply have to accept it as they can't survive without it?

Sam Russell

Skedaddle wrote: »

I really don't see this being stopped. I just see a horrible case of buyers' remorse developing sometime after March 2019 when it's all too late.

But will it all be too late? Will the EU have a contingency deal for the crash out? A take it or leave it that is CU/SM Norway type deal.

trellheim

The only parallel I can think of is Switzerland where the swiss had to fold in the end ref the Free movement thing

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will the EU have a contingency deal for the crash out? A take it or leave it that is CU/SM Norway type deal.

No, I think the contigency deal on offer will be Canada-style.

The UKs redlines on CU/SM/ECJ/Immigration mean Norway is right out.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

May has again stated that passporting for CoL financial services will not be part of Brexit, as it will result in the UK being a "Rule-Taker".

Good luck.

Any alternative arrangement relies on complying with EU rules. Just like goods have to be CE compliant. And deals take time and there's always EU red tape. And UK data protection laws are diverging from EU's. There's so many ways this can go pearshaped for the UK.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/09/passporting-remains-the-best-option-for-uk-financial-services-industry-post-brexit-or-new-york-may-have-the-last-laugh/

The banking passport relies on two key pieces of EU legislation: the Capital Requirement Directive (CRD) IV and the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID). CRD IV allows banks to provide deposit-taking, lending and payment services, while MiFID allows them to provide advisory services, investment services and portfolio management across the EEA from a base in London.

Essentially, wholesale banking is done via CRD IV and investment banking via MiFID.

As it stands, the CRD IV legislation does not allow for equivalence, or meaningful third-party access.

It won't affect all of UK services, but yeah billions of lost taxes won't help the post-Brexit economy.

CelticRambler

Supposedly TM says the CoL will be protected by having financial services included in the Great British Frictionless Trade Deal that she's going to negotiate (according to the Guardian's account of her Andrew Marr interview this morning).

Funny how the Swiss never managed to get that kind of access, even though they're part of Schengen, caved in on the free movement thing after their own referendum, and accept plenty of other EU rules that are still in TM's no-can-do basket.

J Mysterio

Nice article here from Ian Dunt on Politics.co.uk:

N.Ireland isn't being 'annexed' - Brexit chickens are coming home to roost

He seems to be quite good generally. Came across him following a mention in todays IT.

Nody

CelticRambler wrote: »

Funny how the Swiss never managed to get that kind of access, even though they're part of Schengen, caved in on the free movement thing after their own referendum, and accept plenty of other EU rules that are still in TM's no-can-do basket.

The Swiss don't have a female PM to slam her handbag in the table to get them what they want.

There was also an interview on BBC how she explains what she asked for is doable it only required EU to do a long list of things they have not done with any other country in a deal (and she's the one outlining the list!) but that's fully reasonable to May that UK would get that done in 6 months and sign such a deal with EU.

J Mysterio

'The irony is that her three market model isn't actually all that different to the existing EEA agreement enjoyed by Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. After all, they are in EU agencies. They have their own Efta court decide whether they are sticking to the EU regulations, but otherwise they maintain autonomy. They can veto new EU regulations, which has the consequence of extracting them from the relevant part of the EEA agreement, a system which is similar to how May imagined her alignment basket operating. They have areas - again, like May, agriculture and fisheries - where they have nothing to do with the EU."

"But this is based on an arrangement where countries want to work together to find solutions. It is one where they accept all the responsibilities of the EU - including, yes, free movement - as a way of getting all the freedoms. Far from butting heads, the Efta court and the ECJ have increasingly begun taking each others' judgements as precedents, in a much more egalitarian relationship than any British political analyst would have predicted. None of the countries involved have ever triggered that veto. Why? It's partly because they don't want to lose access to the market. But it's also because these countries operate collegiately as part of a shared initiative. They are not stuck in the mire of emotional identity politics and reactionary nationalism, in which cooperation with other countries is seen principally through the prism of 19th Century naval warfare. Basically, they have not gone mad."

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/03/02/the-snowed-in-speech-may-pedals-furiously-down-a-dead-end

:pac: :pac: :pac:

J Mysterio

Andrew Marr Theresa May interview

Bigus

Good article below about how EU workers have repopulated the Scottish highlands and how Brexit is going to make a balls of this regeneration.

Most telling though for me is the comments section, the populace seems to be finally coming to their senses regarding how stupid Brexit is.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/04/shortbread-nhs-scotland-fears-loss-workers-after-brexit

Capt'n Midnight

Fine Gael MEP Mairead McGuinness could be the new president of the European Parliament, pending the results of this weekend's Italian election.
Berlusconi is barred for the next 6 months because laws and being found guilty and stuff. So Tajani might quit his job and front him for a while.


Just wondering if the Brexiteers have any opinion on how having an EU president who comes from an Irish border county will help their case ?

Capt'n Midnight

J Mysterio wrote: »

Nice article here from Ian Dunt on Politics.co.uk:

N.Ireland isn't being 'annexed' - Brexit chickens are coming home to roost.

And the clueless response.

Christopher Hillidge
Of course, an obvious solution to the so-called 'Irish Border Problem' would be for the
Irish Republic also to leave the EU - as net contributors to the EU, yet with the UK and the USA as by far their largest trading partners it would make perfect economic sense
for them to do so..

The reality of the situation is
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0509/873610-eu_poll/

A new poll suggests that 88% of Irish people think Ireland should remain in the European Union, while 99% of full-time students also share this view.

Jim2007

trellheim wrote: »

The only parallel I can think of is Switzerland where the swiss had to fold in the end ref the Free movement thing

It is not the same thing at all. Swiss referenda often have low turn outs when the outcome is known... except this time it turned out different than expected! The majority of the people were not in favour of breaking the bilateral agreement and so the government needed to find a solution until we get around to having another referendum.

So the current 'gentleman's agreement' is that we give priority to all permanent residents, regardless of nationality, and only then consider EU/EEA citizens. We will have a referendum in the coming years to 'fix' the problem. This is a fairly common situation in Switzerland.

briany

Hands up who thinks the U.S. and U.K. would offer mutually beneficial trade deals to Ireland.

(Insert Young Ones scene here)

Somebody should say to Christopher Hillidge that his solution is as unworkable as simply booting NI out of the UK.

J Mysterio

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And the clueless response. The reality of the situation is
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0509/873610-eu_poll/

I'm more interested in what they think in the North at present, we're all agreed here for the most part, which is great. I'm very happy with our political unity and leadership.

On the North though, I think a Border Poll is inevitable, and will come sooner rather than later, due to Brexit. I see a United Ireland in the near future. Possible further break up of the UK too with Scotland to look at her options. The right timing is everything for the poll though.

CrabRevolution

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And the clueless response. The reality of the situation is
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0509/873610-eu_poll/

It reminds me of the BNP manifesto where they proposed to "solve" the issue of Irish nationalism by having Ireland rejoin the UK.

Sam Russell

J Mysterio wrote: »

I'm more interested in what they think in the North at present, we're all agreed here for the most part, which is great. I'm very happy with our political unity and leadership.

On the North though, I think a Border Poll is inevitable, and will come sooner rather than later, due to Brexit. I see a United Ireland in the near future. Possible further break up of the UK too with Scotland to look at her options. The right timing is everything for the poll though.

My understanding, for what it is worth, is that, should NI vote for a UI, (and Ireland does), that NI would simply cede to Ireland, with no baggage like a share of the huge National Debt. The annual subvention from the UK Gov could well be continued on a tapered basis with perhaps the EU assisting.

Scotland, on the other hand, would be required to take a share of National Debt as part of a 'Divorce Settlement', should they vote for independence. They could of course shout that the English Gov could go whistle for it.

Oh, the irony.

Havockk

Sam Russell wrote: »

My understanding, for what it is worth, is that, should NI vote for a UI, (and Ireland does), that NI would simply cede to Ireland, with no baggage like a share of the huge National Debt. The annual subvention from the UK Gov could well be continued on a tapered basis with perhaps the EU assisting.

Scotland, on the other hand, would be required to take a share of National Debt as part of a 'Divorce Settlement', should they vote for independence. They could of course shout that the English Gov could go whistle for it.

Oh, the irony.

I would love to see that, just to see the look on the faces of Boris et al.