Brexit discussion thread III

J Mysterio

I think these soundbytes are intended to placate the Brexiteers. Does nothing for diplomacy though and further reinforces the idea that the British are in a bit of a mess.

blanch152

Really Interested wrote: »

I know the difference between the UK parliament and government there was a recent SC case on the issue.

But that does not take away from the UK saying our HMG really can’t do any deal and even if ratified by parliament we can walk away any time.

It happens all the time.

There are a number of international agreements which Ireland has signed but not ratified.


https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/int-priorities/Agreements-by-Division-and-Dept--signed-not-ratified-as-of-1-Feb-2016-ver2.pdf

66 of them according to this list on 1 Feb 2016

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

It happens all the time.

There are a number of international agreements which Ireland has signed but not ratified.


https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/int-priorities/Agreements-by-Division-and-Dept--signed-not-ratified-as-of-1-Feb-2016-ver2.pdf

66 of them according to this list on 1 Feb 2016

We may not have ratified them but we have not repudiated then either. Davis sounded like he is prepared to repudiate that which he has just agreed to - before the ink is even dry.

Really Interested

blanch152 wrote: »

It happens all the time.

There are a number of international agreements which Ireland has signed but not ratified.


https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/int-priorities/Agreements-by-Division-and-Dept--signed-not-ratified-as-of-1-Feb-2016-ver2.pdf

66 of them according to this list on 1 Feb 2016

That is nothing like entering into a agreement in good faith and then saying to the other side sure we will ignore what we agreed to if we want.

There are two types of countries the type others trust and those they don’t the UK is fast heading for the second type.

We as a country fought a bloody civil war to stand by a treaty, the Davis is saying sure we can agree to everything if we don’t like it we just change it, that is the deal making of a 4 year old.

blanch152

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And there was Leo thinking that Britain's commitment to no hard border were "cast iron and politically bullet-proof". The old phrase 'perfidious Albion' springs to mind.

They are still committed, but that doesn't mean it is guaranteed.

Really Interested

blanch152 wrote: »

They are still committed, but that doesn't mean it is guaranteed.

That is not what Davis said.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Anti-Irish sentiment in the UK was never as virulent as anti-British sentiment in Ireland. I mean they even cheered us on in international sport.

I think you only have to read this thread and its two predecessors to see the naked anti-British sentiment in its full glory.

Well that can't be true if you count the DUP as British. There's also been continuous anti-Irish sentiment in the British media throughout Brexit. The level of vitriole far surpasses our media and politicians. Boris Johnson, Mogg, Arlene Foster and Sammy Wilson have spouted far more bile than anyone on here.

Calling out Britain on past actions or even current follys isn't anti-British sentiment.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

They are still committed, but that doesn't mean it is guaranteed.

Actually several commentators stated that the deal can be changed.

ancapailldorcha

Off-topic posts deleted.

Really Interested

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually several commentators stated that the deal can be changed.

Yes the terms of the final deal can change by agreement also until Parliament and the EU27 agree there is no deal other than no deal.

But it is not any part of EU that is saying if we don’t get our way we pulling anything agreed already.

Leroy42

So the UK agree that Phase 1 needs to be agreed before moving on to Phase 2.

They spend weeks complaining that they really want to move to Phase 2, if only Davies hadn't agreed to negotiate fully Phase 1.

May then makes an attempt at an agreement on P1, which the DUP collapse. Many people, oddly, seem to blame the Irish for letting the cat out of the bag.

May rushes over to Brussels at 4am to agree a deal on Phase 1 and so move on to Phase 2.

UK now say that it doesn't matter what May said at the meeting, they can do whatever up until the final agreement is made. Which sort of makes a mockery of the claim that the Irish were to blame for the Monday mess.

If Monday didn't destroy any credibility May had, todays announcements by Davies destroy it completely.

It is clear that the EU should only agree to a deal when the UK parliament passes it. Of course any legislation can be changed by a parliament at any time, but it means a debate and a vote and it gives a clear signal, well in advance, that it is preparing to do it.

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the UK agree that Phase 1 needs to be agreed before moving on to Phase 2.

They spend weeks complaining that they really want to move to Phase 2, if only Davies hadn't agreed to negotiate fully Phase 1.

May then makes an attempt at an agreement on P1, which the DUP collapse. Many people, oddly, seem to blame the Irish for letting the cat out of the bag.

May ridges over to Brussels at 4am to agree a deal on Phase 1 and so move on to Phase 2.

UK now say that it doesn't matter what May said at the meeting, they can do whatever up until the final agreement is made. Which sort of makes a mockery of the claim that the Irish were to blame for the Monday mess.

If Monday didn't destroy any credibility May had, todays announcements by Davies destroy it completely.

It is clear that the EU should only agree to a deal when the UK parliament passes it. Of course any legislation can be changed by a parliament at any time, but it means a debate and a vote and it gives a clear signal, well in advance, that it is preparing to do it.

It is just more of the UK posturing that they are in control in some way. It is rather pathetic and sad really. Davis is trying to verbally mirror that Express article.
Like May rushing over to deal at 4am, they will tow the line when it comes to it.

Samaris

Yep, that sums up this last week pretty accurately. Although I have to add this quote about the reaction to it all from the Brexiter MPs.

‘They can smell a rat. But they are keeping quiet for now because they are not yet sure which rat it is they can smell.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/10/brexit-deal-theresa-may-arlene-foster

flaneur

I'm not sure how the EU, or anyone else, can negotiate which this kind of lack of ability to be taken at their word.

It really does not bode well.

Leroy42

flaneur wrote: »

I'm not sure how the EU, or anyone else, can negotiate which this kind of lack of ability to be taken at their word.

It really does not bode well.

You have to call into question the point of negotiations at all. The UK are either hell bent on a hard brexit (some are but not all but we don't know how much influence they have) while they also appear to want to talk but then today they come out and say that it is just talk until they get want they want.

flaneur

But even beyond the EU. If the agreements they come to aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, why would anyone bother dealing with them on a serious basis ?

They’re behaving like a dodgy used car salesman.

It also shows why Ireland would be insane to leave the EU and rely on the UK as a trade partner. It would be a case of throwing us overboard as soon as it didn’t suit them.

MPFGLB

Davide davies and SKY news are deluded ....they think they can get this great deal from EU and not even stand by what they agreed

SKY claiming Friday was a victory for May and Ireland/EU just politiclal point scoring
Also UK can cherry pick the trade deals they will get with EU

WTF madness

One Tory even saying they wont pay the bill and use the money for NHS instead
Dotn they know they need to pay Farages pension

PropJoe10

flaneur wrote: »

So the whole thing that was done on Friday is all just "statement of intent" and basically a load of lies, spin and waffle, according to Davis anyway.

How the heck do they expect anyone to ever do a deal with them on anything if they just agree to things and then claim that they weren't agreements at all.

This government is destroying the UK's credibility.

Who is going to want to do deals with them if they won't keep them and are totally duplicitous?

It seems you couldn't trust anything they say.

Davis seems utterly brainless and seems intent on trying to demonstrate that the UK somehow have the upper hand and final say in these Brexit negotiations, when in fact they're completely at the mercy of Ireland and the EU. It's quite entertaining but also slightly worrying as to what's going to happen with this.

Tell me how

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Davis seems utterly brainless and seems intent on trying to demonstrate that the UK somehow have the upper hand and final say in these Brexit negotiations, when in fact they're completely at the mercy of Ireland and the EU. It's quite entertaining but also slightly worrying as to what's going to happen with this.

I find it very hard to believe that Davis is the best available in political or civil service circles over there. When he was speaking to the committee last week about not having done any detailed analysis, it sounded like he had a boiled sweet or chewing gum in his mouth.

I wonder is he so smart to be able to play the fool for a bigger picture that someone has devised?

PropJoe10

Tell me how wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that Davis is the best available in political or civil service circles over there. When he was speaking to the committee last week about not having done any detailed analysis, it sounded like he had a boiled sweet or chewing gum in his mouth.

I wonder is he so smart to be able to play the fool for a bigger picture that someone has devised?

I'm not in any way qualified or well informed on politics or these discussions but I'd have said that building some sort of mutual trust between the parties in these negotiations is pretty much the key to them progressing well for both sides.

Not sure how Davis thinks that stating the agreement from last week was only a "statement of intent" fits into that. He's either incredibly arrogant, deluded, or not very bright, it seems. How does he expect phase 2 of the negotiations to proceed in good faith if there's no trust between the British team and the EU?

Strazdas

Theresa May to tell Ireland 'nothing is agreed' on terms of Brexit as row over deal intensifies. The Prime Minister will say in the House of Commons on Monday that although she is optimistic that a deep and special future deal can be agreed, last week's agreement is contingent on such an outcome. (Tomorrow's Telegraph)

This is getting rather dodgy. The Irish government thought they had a cast iron guarantee for the future re. the border.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

You have to call into question the point of negotiations at all. The UK are either hell bent on a hard brexit (some are but not all but we don't know how much influence they have) while they also appear to want to talk but then today they come out and say that it is just talk until they get want they want.

If the UK really is bent on a hard brexit there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that Ireland or the EU can do to prevent that. Hard brexit is the one possible outcome from these negotiations that the UK can achieve unilaterally, without the assent or agreement of any other party.

And this is true whether they secretly want a hard brexit now, and are just stringing everyone else along, or if they actually do want a deal now but at any later time change their mind and decide to go for a hard brexit. Either way, they get their hard brexit.

That doesn't mean, though, that the negotiations are pointless. The reality is that they don't want a hard brexit, and they are unlikely to want one in the future. Hard brexit would be catastrophic for the UK; all of the remainers, and I think the substantial middle ground of the leavers, understand this. The UK needs a brexit deal.

And what the negotations have acheived thus far is to lay down clear markers for what brexit deal is feasible, and what is not. Specifically, a feasible brexit deal has to avoid a hard border in Ireland. The UK now understands, and has acknowledged, that there is absolutely no point in proposing to the EU a brexit deal which will result in a hard border in Ireland. From our point of view that's a big step forward.

It's still possible that the UK could decide to go for a hard brexit. As noted above, I don't think that's what the majority of the people, or the majority of the policital establishment, would want, but the UK constitution can at times work to deliver power to a minority on the (relatively) far right or the (relatively) far left of UK politics. We can hypothesize a scenario in which May loses the party leadership to be replaced by a hard Brexiter, and a combination of reliance on the DUP and Corbynophobia spooks the parliamentary Tory party into going along with a withdrawal from the Brexit negotiations, and a strategy of implementing a no-deal Brexit. It's not very plausible, in my view, but it's conceivable.

But, even here, the agreements we have made so far would still have benefit. The lunatics will not be in charge of the asylum for ever. Sooner or later, there's be a new government and, when there is, Corbyn the new Prime Minister will approach the EU and say "can we get back to talking about a deal?" And the answer will be "Certainly. You know what a deal has to deliver in order to be attractive to us. We hammered all that out back in December '17, remember?" And then we're back to where we are today.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

Theresa May to tell Ireland 'nothing is agreed' on terms of Brexit as row over deal intensifies. The Prime Minister will say in the House of Commons on Monday that although she is optimistic that a deep and special future deal can be agreed, last week's agreement is contingent on such an outcome. (Tomorrow's Telegraph)

This is getting rather dodgy. The Irish government thought they had a cast iron guarantee for the future re. the border.

We have as cast-iron a guarantee as we ever could have.

The British are still fudging this. Realistically, they have to. May has committed to a number of things which conflict with one another to satisfy different constituencies on whom she is dependent, and now she has to compromise on some or all of her own commitments in order actually to make a real-world decision. The best way of carrying that off is with a large dollop of fudge.

I'd analyse it this way:

1. Commitment to the EU; there will be no hard border.

2. Commitment to Tory europhobic leavers; the UK will leave the SM and the CU.

3. Commitment to the DUP: there will be no regulatory divergence between NI and GB.

She can deliver any two of these commitments in full-blooded form, but not all three. So one (or more) of them has to be relaxed a bit.

The hardest one to relax is commitment no. 1, since that commitment is given to the EU. The UK has a long term strategic interest in retaining the trust and goodwill of the EU which does not depend on which UK party is in power, or which faction of which UK party is currently dominant. Plus, the cost of welshing on commitments to the EU is that there will be no Brexit deal, which is disastrous for the country and not merely for the party. It results in long-term disadvantage for the UK, terminating only with humiliation when the UK has to go back and look for a better deal from the EU, the price of which will still be no hard border in Ireland.

Commitment no. 3 can be relaxed, basically, once there is a government in Westminster which is not dependent on the DUP, a state of affairs which will almost certainly result from the next general election. There's still be some political cost to be paid for relaxing it, but not huge; nobody in GB gives a stuff about NI, and rage against them in NI does not matter to either of the major UK parties, since they have no NI seats to lose. But, until the next election, the Tories are stuck with the DUP. And of course the Tories have no desire to accelerate the next election. So in the short term commitment no. 3 is hard to relax very much.

Commitment no. 2 can be relaxed if the europhobic wing loses influence and relevance, which is likely as reality increasing takes hold. Or, it lends itself to being fudged - the UK can withdraw from membership of the SM/CU and then negotiate a new association with them which looks quite strikingly like your actual membership, but isn't. Thus, face can be saved and honour satisfied.

My guess it that commitment no. 2 will be, um, reimagined in a way that makes it possible to deliver on commitments no. 1 and 3. Part of enabling this, ironically, is really strong rhetoric which enables everybody to pretend that commitment no. 2 is being delivered - that the UK really is leaving the SM and the CU and that this is the central achievement of Brexit and that if this doesn't happen, everything that has been agreed with Europe is all off. But in fact this will just be a device to conceal the extent to which the decision to leave the CU and the SM has been compromised and modified.

Peregrinus

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I'm not in any way qualified or well informed on politics or these discussions but I'd have said that building some sort of mutual trust between the parties in these negotiations is pretty much the key to them progressing well for both sides.

Not sure how Davis thinks that stating the agreement from last week was only a "statement of intent" fits into that. He's either incredibly arrogant, deluded, or not very bright, it seems. How does he expect phase 2 of the negotiations to proceed in good faith if there's no trust between the British team and the EU?

He's trying to built the trust of Tory europhobes, and hopes that the EU negotiators understand the need for him to do so.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Admittedly I don't like the term "europhobe". Scepticism and opposition in respect to the European Union and its institutions doesn't mean that there is a phobia to the European continent.

At the end of the day on the arrangements. They need to allow for more freedom than the status quo. I definitely don't agree to paying €40-50bn for the same restrictions as single market and customs union membership. There needs to be an increased scope for free trade arrangements, control of free movement and an end to continued contributions. The UK needs to push hard on that in phase 2.

I agree that there's no point in Brexit at all if there isn't a genuine taking back of control.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flaneur

Peregrinus wrote: »

He's trying to built the trust of Tory europhobes, and hopes that the EU negotiators understand the need for him to do so.

I can assure you they don't. Patience is all but gone at this stage.

What's going on at the moment looks like double-crossing and lies and will likely result in an exasperated response from a lot of people.

As I've said, negotiations are based on trust. If the UK is acting in bad faith, nobody can negotiate with it or take it at its word.

steddyeddy

The thing is Davis is a Tory europhobe. He has repeatedly come out top in terms of fantastical statements about the EU..

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I definitely don't agree to paying €40-50bn for the same restrictions as single market and customs union membership. There needs to be an increased scope for free trade arrangements, control of free movement and an end to continued contributions. The UK needs to push hard on that in phase 2.

You keep posting this. This is not payment for a deal or for access to a deal. This is a commitment, like Nigel Farage's pension, that the UK committed to paying already.

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

At the end of the day on the arrangements. They need to allow for more freedom than the status quo. I definitely don't agree to paying €40-50bn for the same restrictions as single market and customs union membership. There needs to be an increased scope for free trade arrangements, control of free movement and an end to continued contributions. The UK needs to push hard on that in phase 2.

The UK need to get real and stop pretending that there are options of a hot brexit, cold brexit, brexit sunny side up etc.

Britain will get the same trade deal as any other third country. That means goods, not sure what it includes in terms of services and no financisl passporting. If UK want EEA, maybe they'll get a Norway deal. They will not get a Norway style deal without meeting all obligations of this. The EU is not going to suffer from a stupid deal with the British that gets the bloc done by the rest of the world. The same thing will happen with any other country Britain wants to trade with. No country is going to knuckle under the UK and take trade disputes from everyone else for the honour of trading with Britain. Thst would be intensely stupid and counter productive.

Some reality a year in would be nice in this situation. Britain has no right to what it demands, it has red lines about meeting those obligations that would allow for it, but it wants all the benefits for free. Currently, the main people involved are saying they were lying about committments that would even allow for a basic third country deal.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Admittedly I don't like the term "europhobe". Scepticism and opposition in respect to the European Union and its institutions doesn't mean that there is a phobia to the European continent.

At the end of the day on the arrangements. They need to allow for more freedom than the status quo. I definitely don't agree to paying €40-50bn for the same restrictions as single market and customs union membership. There needs to be an increased scope for free trade arrangements, control of free movement and an end to continued contributions. The UK needs to push hard on that in phase 2.

I agree that there's no point in Brexit at all if there isn't a genuine taking back of control.

Hi solo

We’re still grappling with the trade-off between regulatory freedom on the one hand, and trade integration on the other.

What has changed since last week is that the space within which that trade-off must occur has narrowed considerably. The UK is committed to “its guarantee of avoiding a hard border”, defined to include “any physical infrascture or related checks and controls”. it means to achieve that through a trade deal but, if that’s not possible (i.e. if there isn’t going to be a trade deal) it will “propose specific solutions” (I think this is a reference to technological wizardry) but they, too, are dependent on EU agreement. Finally, “in the absence of agreed solutions” if all else fails the UK will “maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement”.

That’s a commitment to, even in the absence of any agreement, a sweeping degree of regulatory alignment. That involves a corresponding diminution in the degree of regulatory freedom that the UK can pursue. The UK may be leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market, but as far as I can see its commitment to avoiding a hard border pretty well require it to align its own regulations with SM regulations in relation to all traded goods. (If only some traded goods were covered, then there would need to “checks and controls” to identify whether goods traded across the border were covered or not covered.) It might be oversimplifying to say that these commitments require them to mirror the Single Market regulations for goods but not for services, but I don’t think it’s too far from the truth.

Hopefully there will be an EU/UK trade deal which provides for zero customs tariffs in both directions but, if there’s no trade deal, then the commitment to “maintain full alignment with those rules of . . . the Customs Union”, as far as I can see, will prevent the UK from setting lower customs tariffs with respect to third countries than the Customs Union sets. So that also sets a significant limitation on the degree of regulatory freedom the UK will have with respect to customs tariffs as well.

And, of course, the option of confining all this “regulatory alignment” to NI, while exercising greater regulatory freedom in GB, is now off the table thanks to our friends in Dundela Avenue.

All-in-all, it looks to me as though the UK has taken a signficant step towards the painful task that was always before them, of reconciling their aspirations regarding regulatory freedom with their aspirations regarding trade integration. And they have done that in a way which signficantly subordinates regulatory freedom to trade integration.

This is good for Ireland and for the EU. I also happen to think its good for the UK, so this is a win-win. But, whether or not it’s good for the UK, it is the choice they seem to be making.

Peregrinus

steddyeddy wrote: »

The thing is Davis is a Tory europhobe. He has repeatedly come out top in terms of fantastical statements about the EU..

You say he's a europhobe, but look at what he has just signed up to.

The hard Brexit position was never a very realistic one, and I think the way that hard Brexiters will be reconciled with reality is by accepting realistic solutions and compromises while stoutly maintaining that they deliver control, independence, etc, etc. This involves a certain disconnected between the reality and the rhetoric. Davis is leading the way, and the fact that Gove, Johnson and others are staying on board (instead of having Farage-type conniptions) suggest that, thus far, he is leading the way successfully. If we end up with regulatory alignment and an open border, I'm happy with hard Brexiters saying whatever they have to say to save face.

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Admittedly I don't like the term "europhobe". Scepticism and opposition in respect to the European Union and its institutions doesn't mean that there is a phobia to the European continent.

At the end of the day on the arrangements. They need to allow for more freedom than the status quo. I definitely don't agree to paying €40-50bn for the same restrictions as single market and customs union membership. There needs to be an increased scope for free trade arrangements, control of free movement and an end to continued contributions. The UK needs to push hard on that in phase 2.

I agree that there's no point in Brexit at all if there isn't a genuine taking back of control.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Salutations and greetings,


The 40-50 billion is nothing to do with and future trade deal. Such trade deal may or may not involve future payments to the EU and may or may not involve like any trade deal the agreement to have the same laws as each other in certain areas.


Trade deals involving tariffs are easy the difficult deals are the ones where both sides agree on regulation where in effect both sides give up some regulation and control.


Yours in understanding of Brexit.

Samaris

Problem is though, Per, that no-one can really blame the other side of the negotiating table if it all falls through because the UK leadership is publicly reassuring itself that it means nothing.

Deals just cannot be committed to when there is a strong (and not unjustified) sense that the other side is not negotiating in good faith. If the government is to weak to be even able to admit to what it has committed to, how does anyone expect them to do work that will be unpopular and expensive after they are out?

A trade bloc works by keeping external borders strong so internal borders can be lowered. The EU bloc has made a pretty significant concession to Ireland in allowing some fuzz between us and the UK. But it cannot work if the UK are going to play silly buggers with it.

Calina

I think the UK is completely screwed here. Solo keeps talking about the money for a trade deal and cannot understand it has nothing to do with that and is more a closing of accounts. And I don't blame them for this because that is the message various politicians and commentators keep passing out.

If the politicians and commentators are going to engage in not being accurate with the people of the UK, then hard times are coming as they encounter reality the hard way. It won't just be the money for a trade deal. Or FoM. It is everything. A lot of British people are not clear on things like how their democracy operates, how their economy interacts with the wider world. A worrying number of them appear not to understand the extent of what they don't understand.

And this needs to be fixed from the top down. This is not a Christmas movie.

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

Problem is though, Per, that no-one can really blame the other side of the negotiating table if it all falls through because the UK leadership is publicly reassuring itself that it means nothing.

Deals just cannot be committed to when there is a strong (and not unjustified) sense that the other side is not negotiating in good faith. If the government is to weak to be even able to admit to what it has committed to, how does anyone expect them to do work that will be unpopular and expensive after they are out?

A trade bloc works by keeping external borders strong so internal borders can be lowered. The EU bloc has made a pretty significant concession to Ireland in allowing some fuzz between us and the UK. But it cannot work if the UK are going to play silly buggers with it.

If the EU doesn't think that the Her Majesty's Government is negotiating in good faith then, I agree, there's no point in having negotiations at all.

But that's a conclusion that the EU will be very reluctant to come to. You terminatate the negotiations at this point, that's a hard Brexit guaranteed. That's bad for the EU (and disastrous for Ireland). Why would we rush to get to that point?

So, you trust the good faith of HMG. Yes, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, but there are explanations for this which do not involve them displaying bad faith to the EU. The first is incompetence and cluelessness; we have learned this week that they have no real idea what they hope to achieve out of these negotiatons; they haven't discussed that yet. That goes a long way to explaining the, um, diverse things said by different members of HMG, or by the same members at different times. The second is that they have a difficult domestic situation, which is that there is no political consensus within the UK on what they should be doing in these negotiations, so to keep the show on the road they have to say different things for consumption by different constituencies.

Their hope, I suspect, is that in time some of these constituencies can be brought around to HMG's way of thinking, or political developments will make them less relevant, so HMG can afford to offend them in ways that at present it cannot. But the one interlocutor whom HMG cannot hope to bring around, and who will certainly not become less relevant, is the Commission. So HMG's strategy is very unlikely to be one of stringing the Commission along.

But what if it turns out that it is? What if, in six or twelve months, we find out that HMG does not intend to deliver (or is simply unable to deliver) an open border? Then the negotiations collapse, and hard Brexit ensues. Which, as I say, would be a disaster for us. But we would still be in no worse a situation than we would be if we collapsed the talks now. (Slighly better, in fact, since it would be HMG who had reneged on their previous position and collapsed the talks).

So we need to assume the good faith of HMG with respect to the EU. We have nothing to lose by doing this, and everything to lose by not doing it. The key thing is to make it clear at all time that we (and by "we" I mean the EU) are in complete good faith when we say we want an open border in Ireland, and the day that's taken off the table by HMG, either explicitly or as an inevitable consequence of any position adopted by HMG, is the day the negotiations stop.

Enzokk

I just can't get around the fact that agreeing to pay their commitment is somehow tied to getting a "gold plated" trade deal. The UK is in effect telling the EU, we will keep paying EU MP's like Nigel Farage's (and other UK staff that work/worked for the EU) pension and as a reward we will take a great trade deal. I would guess if it came down to keep paying Nigel Farage but keep the EU in tact, versus having the UK pay his pension but lead to a weakening of the EU, the choice would be to support NF. They have been supporting his lifestyle since 1999, I doubt the few extra years will be much of a burden to the EU.

The ultimate hypocritical stance. I want the EU to disintegrate, but please keep paying me my benefits while I worked to undermine and break up the institution that I will depend on when I get old. You really cannot make this up.

flaneur

Unfortunately, I think we are seeing emerge what many people predicted, an incompetent mess that hasn't got sufficient majority, cohesion or legitimacy to negotiate the lunch menu, never mind Brexit.

The UK is still basically negotiating with itself and still hasn't really begun proper negotiations with the EU because it's incapable of having a coherent position due to all the in fighting. There isn't a single British government position. It's more like dealing with a bar brawl. They're all prepared to issue statements that aren't in line with government positions. The cabinet seems do be dysfunctional and the PM apparently has no authority.

The EU (including Ireland) had moved into the specifics and the technicalities while the UK is basically stuck on "Brexit means Brexit!!"

steddyeddy

Peregrinus wrote: »

You say he's a europhobe, but look at what he has just signed up to.

The hard Brexit position was never a very realistic one, and I think the way that hard Brexiters will be reconciled with reality is by accepting realistic solutions and compromises while stoutly maintaining that they deliver control, independence, etc, etc. This involves a certain disconnected between the reality and the rhetoric. Davis is leading the way, and the fact that Gove, Johnson and others are staying on board (instead of having Farage-type conniptions) suggest that, thus far, he is leading the way successfully. If we end up with regulatory alignment and an open border, I'm happy with hard Brexiters saying whatever they have to say to save face.

The constraints reality places on these guys during the negotiations dictated their actions, not some europhillia IMHO. Davis' views in general aren't very realistic.

lawred2

Strazdas wrote: »

Theresa May to tell Ireland 'nothing is agreed' on terms of Brexit as row over deal intensifies. The Prime Minister will say in the House of Commons on Monday that although she is optimistic that a deep and special future deal can be agreed, last week's agreement is contingent on such an outcome. (Tomorrow's Telegraph)

This is getting rather dodgy. The Irish government thought they had a cast iron guarantee for the future re. the border.

Time to start polishing that veto

ancapailldorcha

lawred2 wrote: »

Time to start polishing that veto

Knock off the one liners please. You've already been warned about this.

Peregrinus

flaneur wrote: »

Unfortunately, I think we are seeing emerge what many people predicted, an incompetent mess that hasn't got sufficient majority, cohesion or legitimacy to negotiate the lunch menu, never mind Brexit.

They are gradually pulling together a position and, happily, it's not the worst possible position from our point of view. The last thing we want right now is to disrupt that process, or see it disrupted. The tide may be flowing with sludge-like slowness, but it is flowing our way.

Remember, this is how the EU works. This is how it is supposed to work. Grindingly slowly, painfully, people talk and talk and talk and eventually hammer out something that works. It's not glamorous and it's not exciting and it's often like watching paint dry, but it defuses conflict and avoids war, which is the whole idea.

If the UK are still saying things that we cannot accept, then we need to get them to stop saying those things. Terminating the negotiations because of the mixed messages coming from the UK might in some ways be very satisfying, but it has zero chance of producing the outcome that we want and need, so we must resist the temptation. Instead we should ask ourselves, why the UK is finding it necessary to say those things? What has to change if that necessity is to be removed? Is there anything we can do to promote that change? Etc, etc.

Peregrinus

steddyeddy wrote: »

The constraints reality places on these guys during the negotiations dictated their actions, not some europhillia IMHO. Davis' views in general aren't very realistic.

Oh, I don't think he's a europhile. But I think he is, or is becoming, a realist. And if he signs up to a realistic deal, and can secure at least the assent, if not the support, of the likes of Gove and Johnson, I'm prepared to put up with a bit of blustery rhetoric to save people's faces.

lawred2

flaneur wrote: »

Unfortunately, I think we are seeing emerge what many people predicted, an incompetent mess that hasn't got sufficient majority, cohesion or legitimacy to negotiate the lunch menu, never mind Brexit.

The UK is still basically negotiating with itself and still hasn't really begun proper negotiations with the EU because it's incapable of having a coherent position due to all the in fighting. There isn't a single British government position. It's more like dealing with a bar brawl. They're all prepared to issue statements that aren't in line with government positions. The cabinet seems do be dysfunctional and the PM apparently has no authority.

The EU (including Ireland) had moved into the specifics and the technicalities while the UK is basically stuck on "Brexit means Brexit!!"

And certainly doesn't help that TM seems to only blow whatever way the wind is blowing..

Call me Al

Theresa May/Davis etc have to play to their domestic viewers.
This whole red white and blue brexit, and "the U.K. must not be subservient" nonsense they spin has left the government needing to talk to their electorate as if they have some semblance of control on their trade-deal fate.
Of course to neutral observers the reality of their situation is clear for all to see.
Ironically I see there being more of a risk to the guarantees they've made to the DUP than to the GFA and Ireland, if the British government end up stuck between a rock and a publicly stated hard place.

flaneur

realdanbreen wrote: »

The more I listen to and watch the British handling of Bexit the more I wonder how they ever managed to build an empire!

Mostly through simple military conquest / threat of force. The moment it became a political and economically complex system, it fell to pieces.

The UK political system has always has a major problem sharing power. Close to home it removed devolved powers from constituent parts of the UK, which is largely why Ireland tipped over in the 19th century - politics was run to suit and elite in London.

They managed to go to war with the colonies that became the USA because they wouldn't allow them to become an economic or political entity in their own right.

And in modern times the entire rest of the empire basically unravelled with all that is remaining being a national commonwealth that is about as politically significant as the Eurovision Song Contest.

I see all the same issues in Brexit. Inability to share, hurling insults at trade partners, ignoring constituent components of the UK that aren't on the same page as a right wing government in London...

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are gradually pulling together a position and, happily, it's not the worst possible position from our point of view. The last thing we want right now is to disrupt that process, or see it disrupted. The tide may be flowing with sludge-like slowness, but it is flowing our way.

Remember, this is how the EU works. This is how it is supposed to work. Grindingly slowly, painfully, people talk and talk and talk and eventually hammer out something that works. It's not glamorous and it's not exciting and it's often like watching paint dry, but it defuses conflict and avoids war, which is the whole idea.

If the UK are still saying things that we cannot accept, then we need to get them to stop saying those things. Terminating the negotiations because of the mixed messages coming from the UK might in some ways be very satisfying, but it has zero chance of producing the outcome that we want and need, so we must resist the temptation. Instead we should ask ourselves, why the UK is finding it necessary to say those things? What has to change if that necessity is to be removed? Is there anything we can do to promote that change? Etc, etc.

Good morning!

If by a "realistic deal" you are meaning bending over to the EU in everything they put forward and not regaining any control over what they have today then I doubt firstly that they will satisfy Johnson and Gove. Even if it does - they will not satisfy the British electorate. The problem will be kicked into the long grass and there will be pressure to finish the job off later.

If there is no meaningful regaining of control and if this deal doesn't allow for any more freedom than the status quo then it is a very bad deal.

If it allows for a meaningful regaining of control and additional freedom even if that has to be compromised in some areas that is much better than spending a huge sum for nothing. It is a trade off irrespective of how some of the more ardent federalist types see it.

I'm looking forward to see a good deal, but now isn't the time for the UK to take off pressure.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are gradually pulling together a position and, happily, it's not the worst possible position from our point of view. The last thing we want right now is to disrupt that process, or see it disrupted. The tide may be flowing with sludge-like slowness, but it is flowing our way.

Remember, this is how the EU works. This is how it is supposed to work. Grindingly slowly, painfully, people talk and talk and talk and eventually hammer out something that works. It's not glamorous and it's not exciting and it's often like watching paint dry, but it defuses conflict and avoids war, which is the whole idea.

If the UK are still saying things that we cannot accept, then we need to get them to stop saying those things. Terminating the negotiations because of the mixed messages coming from the UK might in some ways be very satisfying, but it has zero chance of producing the outcome that we want and need, so we must resist the temptation. Instead we should ask ourselves, why the UK is finding it necessary to say those things? What has to change if that necessity is to be removed? Is there anything we can do to promote that change? Etc, etc.

If it is all just talk and posture, why would business be waiting around (as we are told) waiting for certainty?

They would just make their decisions based on their own view of the future would they not?

Beechwoodspark

FT political editor is currently on pat kenny on Newstalk.

He says that the chatter over the wkend from the likes of Davis regarding the deal being non binding is an attempt to calm the Tory horses.

He said May has to "watch her back" over the next while, as the hard Brexiteers are in danger of kicking up a ruckus.

flaneur

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

A UK commentator is currently on pat kenny on Newstalk.

He says that the chatter over the wkend from the likes of Davis regarding the deal being non binding is an attempt to calm the Tory horses.

He said May has to "watch her back" over the next while, as the hard Brexiteers are in danger of kicking up a ruckus.

That's all fine and well but David Davis is their chief EU negotiator and political head of the department that's driving the UK strategy.

He's not some backbencher and shouldn't be a loose cannon minister...

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it is all just talk and posture, why would business be waiting around (as we are told) waiting for certainty?

They would just make their decisions based on their own view of the future would they not?

Who told you that business is waiting around?

I can assure you that business is doing nothing of the sort.