Brexit discussion thread III

Really Interested

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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.

So the HMG is telling the world and the EU that HMG has no power and can not be trusted.

Call me Al

Really Interested wrote: »

So the HMG is telling the world and the EU that HMG has no power and can not be trusted.

I think the likes of TM and DD expect the EU to be aware of the domestic situation the Tory government find themselves in.
Philip Hammond went on the record a few weeks back saying there was no question of them paying what they owe. I tend to side with this line of thinking. They are well aware of the type of free trade company they will be keeping if they renege on agreements with the EU.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

.. 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.

IMO these three are sufficiently vague that they can be reconciled.
1. As you say "The UK is committed will commit to “its guarantee of avoiding a hard border”, defined to include “any physical infrastucture or related checks and controls”
So no actual permanent fixed border posts, but that does not preclude roving customs men doing spot checks or "temporary border controls" such as have appeared between Schengen countries during the migrant crisis.
I think we are likely to see Irish cross border trade facilitated by the issuance of Registered Exporter licences, the holders of which will be immune to the spot checks administered by the Joint Customs Cooperation Committee.
For more on these concepts, see here

In the long term, various highly developed countries with high standards (EU, UK, Norway, Switzerland, Japan S. Korea etc) all want free trade and common standards, but don't necessarily want to be ruled by Eurocrats in Brussels/Frankfurt.
Perhaps this will be called the Common Market some day, as opposed to the Single Market which is EU only. Lets not forget that when Ireland and UK joined the EEC way back in the 70's, it was a common market that was the main attraction and that is what they originally signed up to. Some degree of free movement of people was on the agenda, but in those days you still needed to apply for a work permit when going to another EEC country. The idea that an extended Romanian family could land in the UK and immediately demand welfare payments and a council house could never have been envisioned back then.

lawred2 wrote: »

Time to start polishing that veto

Varadkar will be legally entitled to use his veto next Friday when the EU will certify that sufficient progress has been Phase 1 negotiations to allow Phase 2 to begin.

In practice though, he won't. Because he knows his place. He has already been given his concession which is to have that paragraph on "regulatory alignment" inserted into the Withdrawal Agreement.
His role on Friday will be to toe the line.
These negotiations are between Barnier and Davis, and they have decided that Phase 1 is over. Varadkar is only an onlooker.

Really Interested

Call me Al wrote: »

I think the likes of TM and DD expect the EU to be aware of the domestic situation the Tory government find themselves in.
Philip Hammond went on the record a few weeks back saying there was no question of them paying what they owe. I tend to side with this line of thinking. They are well aware of the type of free trade company they will be keeping if they renege on agreements with the EU.

So they are saying the backbenchers are stupid and it’s them they are telling porkies too.

ambro25

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?

By the evidence of noises last Friday that followed May's phase 1 "deal", businesses are past waiting for certainty and are indeed making their decisions on their own view of the future. Not with a bang, but with the same whisper as for the last few weeks and months.

The agreement on Friday paves the way for arduous trade talks, easing immediate pressure on Prime Minister Theresa May and boosting hopes of an orderly Brexit.

Banks in Britain are preparing to move an estimated 10,000 jobs to the continent after Brexit in order to maintain full access to the single market.

Insurance specialist Lloyd’s of London [SOLYD.UL] was among the first to respond, saying that it would press ahead with its plans to establish a foothold in the EU.

In the clear: "Oh, so you finally reached agreement on phase 1? That's nice. KTB." (I'll spare the serious thread from a Willy Wonka meme, but the temptation is still strong)

I've said it months before, admittedly coming mostly from a gutfeel at the UK Plc coalface, borne from regularly interfacing with the boardrooms of innovative and exporting UK companies (for years and to date, in respect of managing the development <and location> of their IP portfolios), and I restated it more recently after the fiasco of last week: it's too late to curb the Brexodus of businesses and brains. It's been too late since end summer 2017.

The populist rethoric, followed by the "constructive ambiguity", of the UK government since July 2016, has pretty much already done all the damage it's going to do, insofar as UK-based innovative and exporting businesses with a globalist perspective (and UK branches of such EU businesses) are concerned. The running clock has done the rest, and is still doing that now.

The UK's socio-economic stats have only just been primed, eventually catching up on the slow and silent groundswell of the past year only recently, but the 2018 stats and those of the years hence, will be all the evidence one needs of the fact.

Consonata

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

You have just stated the phrase "regaining of control" three times in one paragraph, which leads me to believe that that is your main argument for wanting a full and hard Brexit. The fact that the UK has lost some imaginary control over its domestic and foreign affairs.


Let me be absolutely brutally honest with you. There has never been, I don't think, a single point in history where the United Kingdom has had less control over its own domestic and foreign affairs since it has initiated Brexit. Let me break it down for you.

We have seen in the last week, that a country of 4 and a half million, that has never held much pressure over the United Kingdom, has brought it kicking and screaming into reality by making them make significant commitments with regards border arrangements. Ireland, a country with less than 1/10th the population of the UK.

And you're trying to tell me that the UK is the one that has taken back control.

Let us deal in facts for a change, instead of meaningless emotive messaging like "taking back control", since nobody really has a clue what control they didn't have in the first place.

Schorpio

Davis has sought to clarify his 'statement of intent' remarks and close the rift to Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/11/david-davis-seeks-to-close-brexit-border-rift-with-ireland

The Brexit secretary said his use of words on Sunday was meant to convey that the deal was stronger than merely being legally enforceable.

Okay - doesn't make any sense to me (and seems like a lie to try to cover his tracks, but hey, whatever).

But in trying to calm down that particular issue on Monday, Davis risked a fresh disagreement with the chancellor by saying Philip Hammond “mis-spoke” when he claimed the UK would have to pay a financial settlement to the EU even without a formal deal.

Boy oh boy. Davis is straight out of an episode of Curb You Enthusiasm. He is an absolute disaster. How in the name of all this is holy he still has his job is beyond me. Surely even May must realise that she would get more credibility by giving him the sack, not less?

PeadarCo

recedite wrote:

In the long term, various highly developed countries with high standards (EU, UK, Norway, Switzerland, Japan S. Korea etc) all want free trade and common standards, but don't necessarily want to be ruled by Eurocrats in Brussels/Frankfurt. Perhaps this will be called the Common Market some day, as opposed to the Single Market which is EU only. Lets not forget that when Ireland and UK joined the EEC way back in the 70's, it was a common market that was the main attraction and that is what they originally signed up to. Some degree of free movement of people was on the agenda, but in those days you still needed to apply for a work permit when going to another EEC country. The idea that an extended Romanian family could land in the UK and immediately demand welfare payments and a council house could never have been envisioned back then.

If the UK wants to maintain its current level of trade relations with the EU it will have to accept laws from the various EU bodies. The European commission and parliament are there because of how developed the EU common market is. Especially as you have a large number of countries. If countries start doing their own thing in respect of tariffs, regulations etc the common market either breaks down or you end up in perpetual trade negotiations. If you end up in a situation of constant trade negotiations you way as well standardize the process. Put down rules determine how much say each country has over different areas. You'll end up with something like what you have with the EU.

You can't just turn up in an EU member state and start demanding welfare payments. An EU country can deport such people.

recedite

Schorpio wrote: »

Okay - doesn't make any sense to me (and seems like a lie to try to cover his tracks, but hey, whatever).

It only makes sense in the event that it all goes pear shaped and the UK might not ratify the Withdrawal Agreement and then not pay over the money. He is saying that on their side they still would not want a hard border with the EU at ROI. Because obviously free trade was always their goal. But of course in that event the EU would impose a hard border.

But yeah, this statement is really all about calming the horses before Friday's ceremony.

swampgas

Schorpio wrote: »

Boy oh boy. Davis is straight out of an episode of Curb You Enthusiasm. He is an absolute disaster. How in the name of all this is holy he still has his job is beyond me. Surely even May must realise that she would get more credibility by giving him the sack, not less?

It really looks like the cabinet don't communicate much. They don't seem to have anything like an agreed position, and they don't seem to mind contradicting each other or going off on solo runs. I would have said it's telling that ministers going off script don't face any consequences, except I strongly suspect there isn't even a script from which to deviate. They really are making it up as they go along, probably because they have to.

The buck stops with the Prime Minister. If she can't impose some discipline and get her party to agree a position, the UK will continue to stumble along chaotically. But considering how Tory party in-fighting over EU membership has dogged previous Tory governments, I wouldn't be confident that Theresa May is going to succeed where others have failed before her.

Professor Moriarty

Schorpio wrote: »

Davis has sought to clarify his 'statement of intent' remarks and close the rift to Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/11/david-davis-seeks-to-close-brexit-border-rift-with-ireland



Okay - doesn't make any sense to me (and seems like a lie to try to cover his tracks, but hey, whatever).



Boy oh boy. Davis is straight out of an episode of Curb You Enthusiasm. He is an absolute disaster. How in the name of all this is holy he still has his job is beyond me. Surely even May must realise that she would get more credibility by giving him the sack, not less?

May's problem is this: Who would she replace him with? Perhaps her strategy is to use him as a lightning rod for criticism.

Leroy42

swampgas wrote: »

It really looks like the cabinet don't communicate much. They don't seem to have anything like an agreed position, and they don't seem to mind contradicting each other or going off on solo runs. I would have said it's telling that ministers going off script don't face any consequences, except I strongly suspect there isn't even a script from which to deviate. They really are making it up as they go along, probably because they have to.

The buck stops with the Prime Minister. If she can't impose some discipline and get her party to agree a position, the UK will continue to stumble along chaotically. But considering how Tory party in-fighting over EU membership has dogged previous Tory governments, I wouldn't be confident that Theresa May is going to succeed where others have failed before her.

I actually think it is a strategy. In that they really don't have one themselves so best is to simply keep changing positions so that the government cannot be tied down.

May's hand was forced by the EU last week, she had to actually make a decision and put down a position, and they don't like that as they then have to deal with the consequences.

So Davies goes out to muddy the waters, and today rows back again. Nothing to see here, all a bit of a misunderstanding.

May will say pretty much the same thing in the HoC today, the agreement is only an agreement as long as we agree with it, and then come out after and say in the press that she is committed to working with the EU to secure a deal and no border with NI.

As an aside, I wonder at what point the people of Britain will start to turn their ire at NI. If it wasn't for it, and the GFA, they would not be in the position they find themselves (at least not as soon).

Will certain hard brexiteers start to question the value of a part of the UK that requires massive subsidies and now seems to have forced the UK back into the CU?

J Mysterio

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

Eh... what 'pressure'?

The UK have no pressure to exert. They have already agreed to the EU objectives. They have no cards to play on that. They simply cannot row back on the Phase 1 deal lest the UK be forever tainted as duplicitous and deceitful, which they will be should they try it. England is - or was - famous for the rule of law. It used to be famed for its diplomacy also. Used to be.

Their reputation is already badly tarnished for the ham fisted way they have gone about this. Both collectively and individually. Gove, Johnson, Davis, May etc. Have all made huge gaffes and continue to do so. History will bot be kind to them, nevermind our contemporaneous accounts.

The presusure is very much on the UK, a body who keeps contradicting itselvef and sending mixed messages or outright lies in a contemptible attempt to keep their right wing morons in line. Davis today has just contradicted what Davis said yesterday. He cannot get away with thr lies. The EU have been entirely consistent.

The UK should use this opportunity to be forthright with the British people and to clear house.

J Mysterio

Call me Al wrote: »

I think the likes of TM and DD expect the EU to be aware of the domestic situation the Tory government find themselves in.
Philip Hammond went on the record a few weeks back saying there was no question of them paying what they owe. I tend to side with this line of thinking. They are well aware of the type of free trade company they will be keeping if they renege on agreements with the EU.

Hammond is the only voice of reason to be heard in the cabinet. And the bulk of the cabinet want him out.

Leroy42

If May had any sense of duty she would use her speech to HoC to set out the clear decisions that have to be faced. She needs to stop trying to hide everything from everybody. She appears to be like a teenager pretending to study but actually mitching school. They get away with it but eventually the exams come around.

"As the PM, it is my duty to lay out the different options to the house". What each of those may mean to different parts of society, business etc, and then tell them that she, and the Government, will try to get a deal based on Position A, but are aware that No deal will always be a possibility and how she would handle that.

She needs to get people to talk in relaties rather than all this Retake control nonsense. She should also be clear that any monies paid are for commitments entered into, freely, by previous governments as part of EU negotiations and that they need to be paid. They have nothing to do with trade etc. She will get grief but she is going to get it either way and at least this forces those that oppose to put up or shut up.

recedite

PeadarCo wrote: »

If the UK wants to maintain its current level of trade relations with the EU it will have to accept laws from the various EU bodies. The European commission and parliament are there because of how developed the EU common market is. Especially as you have a large number of countries. If countries start doing their own thing in respect of tariffs, regulations etc the common market either breaks down or you end up in perpetual trade negotiations. If you end up in a situation of constant trade negotiations you way as well standardize the process. Put down rules determine how much say each country has over different areas. You'll end up with something like what you have with the EU.

I agree with you, except in your use of the term "common market" above when "the single market" is the correct term. When the EU does free trade deals with countries like UK, Japan, Canada it is creating a kind of common market for certain products based on common standards and common interests. Products originating from countries outside deal zone would be subjected to roughly harmonious tariffs. Its not entirely frictionless though, because it is not "a single market". The EU being the biggest player will probably set the pace in these matters, but the others have the option to agree/disagree/negotiate.

PeadarCo wrote: »

You can't just turn up in an EU member state and start demanding welfare payments. An EU country can deport such people.

The rules have been changing over the years, but the UK had finally had enough 2 years ago when Cameron tried to reason with Merkel. Unfortunately she gave him short shrift then, but if she could go back in time now its pretty certain she would do things very differently.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

The rules have been changing over the years, but the UK had finally had enough 2 years ago when Cameron tried to reason with Merkel. Unfortunately she gave him short shrift then, but if she could go back in time now its pretty certain she would do things very differently.

Didn't Cameron secure a deal whereby UK could refuse to pay out until 3 years and only if said person had paid taxes?

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to move at all?

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

Didn't Cameron secure a deal whereby UK could refuse to pay out until 3 years and only if said person had paid taxes?

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to move at all?

He got theoretical "phased benefits" over 4 years, and no concessions on council housing entitlement or child benefit being sent abroad.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

On movement of people, its not what I want that counts here, its what the UK wanted versus what the EU was going to allow them. IMO if the regulatory and economic environment is such that industries and/or large numbers of people want to move from one country within a union to another, then the regulations need changing.
You would not see large numbers of people wanting to move from Canada or Japan to the EU, even if there was free movement of people written into the free trade deals with those countries. Those countries are compatible and harmonious with the EU. The same would not be true for Somalia.

The best time to open a valve is when the pressure on each side of the valve has equalised.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

He got theoretical "phased benefits" over 4 years, and no concessions on council housing entitlement or child benefit being sent abroad.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

Right, so you were just making stuff up then about Romanians and benefits.

The idea that an extended Romanian family could land in the UK and immediately demand welfare payments and a council house could never have been envisioned back then.

Zubeneschamali

May and Davis will say what they must say to allow the Brexiteers to pretend they are winning, because if they can't pretend they are winning, they will start shouting for a Hard Brexit again.

The EU and Irish government should refrain from officially calling out the nonsense the UK Government are putting out domestically, and stick to judging what they say in negotiations.

Take the divorce bill - lots of people have tried to get solo to stop saying the UK will pay for a good trade deal, but what does it matter? We all know they will pay, and they will get a trade deal if the Brexiteers behave, so why not let them pretend one is a payment for the other? It makes them happy.

This sounds silly, but look at the UK press reports of last weeks shambles in the UK - a big UK win, EU over a barrel. They are quite capable of convincing themselves that they are winning if no-one makes it too obvious that they are not.

CreativeSen

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

May and Davis will say what they must say to allow the Brexiteers to pretend they are winning, because if they can't pretend they are winning, they will start shouting for a Hard Brexit again.

The EU and Irish government should refrain from officially calling out the nonsense the UK Government are putting out domestically, and stick to judging what they say in negotiations.

Take the divorce bill - lots of people have tried to get solo to stop saying the UK will pay for a good trade deal, but what does it matter? We all know they will pay, and they will get a trade deal if the Brexiteers behave, so why not let them pretend one is a payment for the other? It makes them happy.

This sounds silly, but look at the UK press reports of last weeks shambles in the UK - a big UK win, EU over a barrel. They are quite capable of convincing themselves that they are winning if no-one makes it too obvious that they are not.

Because all politics is local and all politicians are career politicians. They all want to get reelected and they all want to get into power. The Irish govt. our EU betters need to be seen by their own electorates to be doing well out of this.

I wouldnt worry too much about the British. They had no interest in our opinions last week, they will care less this week

Calina

recedite wrote: »

PeadarCo wrote: »

If the UK wants to maintain its current level of trade relations with the EU it will have to accept laws from the various EU bodies. The European commission and parliament are there because of how developed the EU common market is. Especially as you have a large number of countries. If countries start doing their own thing in respect of tariffs, regulations etc the common market either breaks down or you end up in perpetual trade negotiations. If you end up in a situation of constant trade negotiations you way as well standardize the process. Put down rules determine how much say each country has over different areas. You'll end up with something like what you have with the EU.

I agree with you, except in your use of the term "common market" above when "the single market" is the correct term. When the EU does free trade deals with countries like UK, Japan, Canada it is creating a kind of common market for certain products based on common standards and common interests. Products originating from countries outside deal zone would be subjected to roughly harmonious tariffs. Its not entirely frictionless though, because it is not "a single market". The EU being the biggest player will probably set the pace in these matters, but the others have the option to agree/disagree/negotiate.

PeadarCo wrote: »

You can't just turn up in an EU member state and start demanding welfare payments. An EU country can deport such people.

The rules have been changing over the years, but the UK had finally had enough 2 years ago when Cameron tried to reason with Merkel. Unfortunately she gave him short shrift then, but if she could go back in time now its pretty certain she would do things very differently.

On what grounds do you claim it is certain the EU would do things differently now?

Because one of the reasons the UK got short shrift was they were asking for things they already had in terms of intra EU migration. They did not enforce the rules they could.

Ewan Hoosarmi

I'm not surprised by Davis' backtracking. He's twisting in the wind and knows he has no real foundation for his position, whatever that position may be.

When May appointed Davis and Johnson to their positions in her cabinet, I must admit that I said 'bravo Theresa, well played'. My take on it was that she was putting two brexiteers on the front line to feel the heat. The fact that one was an obvious incompetent and the other was a buffoon seemed to be a conscious move on her behalf. Now she is feeling the blowback of her decision, I'm not so sure it was a good move. Maybe May is more disconnected from reality than I thought.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so you were just making stuff up then about Romanians and benefits.

If you look back, you'll see I was referring to the 1970's there when saying the council house could not have been envisioned.

Also, lets not forget that in 2015 Merkel instructed Hungary to open the EU external borders to unlimited and unquantifiable numbers of illegal immigrants, saying that Germany would take them in.
2 years on and we are seeing (western) EU in court battles with the eastern EU countries over their refusal to accept mandatory migrant quotas. The extended families of those people are also entitled to come into the EU too. And after a few years when they have acquired an EU citizenship they can move freely within the bloc.
Merkel is on record recently as saying she would handle that differently as well, if she could go back in time.

The most sensible voices nowadays are coming from the German Chambers of Commerce who admit that a lot of mistakes were made, and say that both the EU, the UK and the Visegrad countries should sit down and come to a new agreement on the future of the EU.

Unfortunately they are now in a position similar to the Germans and British just prior to WWI. They never had any real quarrel with each other, but the war just happened. Everyone could see this $hitstorm coming, and nobody wants it to happen. But due to what has already been said and done, a momentum has built up, and nobody feels able to stop it.

recedite

Calina wrote: »

On what grounds do you claim it is certain the EU would do things differently now?

Because Brexit.

Really Interested

recedite wrote: »

If you look back, you'll see I was referring to the 1970's there when saying the council house could not have been envisioned.

Also, lets not forget that in 2015 Merkel instructed Hungary to open the EU external borders to unlimited and unquantifiable numbers of illegal immigrants, saying that Germany would take them in.
2 years on and we are seeing (western) EU in court battles with the eastern EU countries over their refusal to accept mandatory migrant quotas. The extended families of those people are also entitled to come into the EU too. And after a few years when they have acquired an EU citizenship they can move freely within the bloc.
Merkel is on record recently as saying she would handle that differently as well, if she could go back in time.

The most sensible voices nowadays are coming from the German Chambers of Commerce who admit that a lot of mistakes were made, and say that both the EU, the UK and the Visegrad countries should sit down and come to a new agreement on the future of the EU.

Unfortunately they are now in a position similar to the Germans and British just prior to WWI. They never had any real quarrel with each other, but the war just happened. Everyone could see this $hitstorm coming, and nobody wants it to happen. But due to what has already been said and done, a momentum has built up, and nobody feels able to stop it.

The way free movement works is that once a EU citizen is in another state and working then that citizen must be entitled to all the benefits of the host citizen at the very least. Of course the host country can give their own and by extension the incoming citizen greater rights than the EU says.

But there is no EU rule that says a new arival is entitled to anything and in fact there is nothing in EU law that would stop the host state after 6 months saying to the new arrival you still not working please go away.

In relation to your claim re EU quotas for third country nationals, there are no quotas. Ireland for example has full power over who it leaves in there are two exceptions. Once a third country national arrives in Ireland then any application for international protection must be sorted by Ireland unless the person came legally through another EU state then Ireland can send the person back. In relation to persons entitled to International Protection Ireland has agreed to take a number of these, to share the burden around the EU.

Other than International Protection Ireland or the UK has all the power in relation to who they leave in.

BTW international protection covers refugee under the UN convention which Ireland and UK had signed up to long before membership of EU, in relation to subsidiary protection this is the extra rules that each country introduced over the years which the EU then introduced minimum standards, by agreement with each member state, when coming to agreement, for example Ireland and the UK have derogations from some parts of those rules.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

If you look back, you'll see I was referring to the 1970's there when saying the council house could not have been envisioned.

Also, lets not forget that in 2015 Merkel instructed Hungary to open the EU external borders to unlimited and unquantifiable numbers of illegal immigrants, saying that Germany would take them in.
2 years on and we are seeing (western) EU in court battles with the eastern EU countries over their refusal to accept mandatory migrant quotas. The extended families of those people are also entitled to come into the EU too. And after a few years when they have acquired an EU citizenship they can move freely within the bloc.
Merkel is on record recently as saying she would handle that differently as well, if she could go back in time.

The most sensible voices nowadays are coming from the German Chambers of Commerce who admit that a lot of mistakes were made, and say that both the EU, the UK and the Visegrad countries should sit down and come to a new agreement on the future of the EU.

Unfortunately they are now in a position similar to the Germans and British just prior to WWI. They never had any real quarrel with each other, but the war just happened. Everyone could see this $hitstorm coming, and nobody wants it to happen. But due to what has already been said and done, a momentum has built up, and nobody feels able to stop it.

What are you talking about? You have now moved onto Non-EU immigration to back up your failed point. And harking back to the 1970's. In a brexit thread? Seriously.

You made a crude point about Romanians getting immediate benefits and that is simply not the case.

ancapailldorcha

Calina wrote: »

On what grounds do you claim it is certain the EU would do things differently now?

Because one of the reasons the UK got short shrift was they were asking for things they already had in terms of intra EU migration. They did not enforce the rules they could.

I find this to be extremely frustrating. The means to prevent EU migrants from claiming handouts and housing from the system were already there. I can't just migrate to Germany and claim without paying in for years first.

Zerbini Blewitt

I experienced a weird epiphany or mind flip over the weekend where a curtain opened and I at last understood the hard-Brexiter “cake and eat it” approach to these negotiations.

While I thought it was clear to all onlookers that the different Eurosceptic positions had been consistently shredded (with facts) in public debates for over 25 years (I lived in the UK in the early to mid-90’s) - that that should have been the end of it.

But imagine if the Eurosceptics ignore their opponent’s points & the implications of the results of those debates.

Then they’ll carry on believing that the EU is a remote bureaucratic dictatorship, a German superstate racket, rotten to the core, going to collapse soon <insert other standard canards here>.

Therefore, they see it now (like always) as an enemy entity but want to trade with it now after Brexit because trade is trade, after all. They want all the good stuff including financial services trading and to stop freedom of movement (I note previous few posts), stop all contributions etc. It makes perfect sense to them!

Of course they don’t respect the integrity of the single market – that IS the whole point: made up of part contempt and part separation from objective reality.
But even the ultras must say they respect it in public statements.

TLDR; Religious like thinking explains the “Cake and Eat it” approach to these negotiations.

Water John

The whole, different interpretations by various groups, within the UK and between the EU and the UK, of what Phase 1 agreement/deal means would do Henry Kissinger proud.
Let them all have their own interpretation as long as it gets everyone to the table, within limits.

recedite

Really Interested wrote: »

In relation to your claim re EU quotas for third country nationals, there are no quotas. Ireland for example has full power over who it leaves in there are two exceptions. Once a third country national arrives in Ireland..

Oh really? Whats all this about then?
You can harp on about Ireland but I was talking about the rest of the EU.
We have an exemption because thankfully the UK negotiated it and then we grabbed onto their coat tails, because of our longstanding CTA (common travel area) arrangement which goes back to an agreement between Dermot Mc Murrough and Strongbow.
See, my memory is longer than just to the 1970's :pac:

There'll be no more Irish claiming of these UK negotiated exemptions after Brexit.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find this to be extremely frustrating. The means to prevent EU migrants from claiming handouts and housing from the system were already there. I can't just migrate to Germany and claim without paying in for years first.

OK, well its beyond the scope of this thread to go into all the current UK welfare benefits and all the theoretical ones that might be applied.
Lets just establish a few broad principles.
Higher level benefits go to people who have worked and paid tax.
Lower levels of assistance go to anyone who is legally resident regardless of whether they want to work. (eg any EU nationals).
People who are not legally resident do not have to be let in at all (eg the non-EU people camping at Calais)

Any civilised country will provide a basic level of assistance to a person who is legally resident. They will not be left homeless and starving.

The UK was AFAIK the first country in the world to introduce a social welfare system, and they will never be the country to let a Romanian (or anyone else) starve on the street.
What they objected to was being forced to take these people in, in the first place.

Really Interested

recedite wrote: »

Oh really? Whats all this about then?
You can harp on about Ireland but I was talking about the rest of the EU.
We have an exemption because thankfully the UK negotiated it and then we grabbed onto their coat tails, because of our longstanding CTA (common travel area) arrangement which goes back to an agreement between Dermot Mc Murrough and Strongbow.
See, my memory is longer than just to the 1970's :pac:

There'll be no more Irish claiming of these UK negotiated exemptions after Brexit.

OK, well its beyond the scope of this thread to go into all the current UK welfare benefits and all the theoretical ones that might be applied.
Lets just establish a few broad principles.
Higher level benefits go to people who have worked and paid tax.
Lower levels of assistance go to anyone who is legally resident regardless of whether they want to work. (eg any EU nationals).
People who are not legally resident do not have to be let in at all (eg the non-EU people camping at Calais)

Any civilised country will provide a basic level of assistance to a person who is legally resident. They will not be left homeless and starving.

The UK was AFAIK the first country in the world to introduce a social welfare system, and they will never be the country to let a Romanian (or anyone else) starve on the street.
What they objected to was being forced to take these people in, in the first place.

An idea that never happened.

In relation to Subsidary protection Ireland was the ONLY state that refused to have a unitary system. So we did not tack on to the UK.

Your grasp of history is not very good the UK was not the first country with a welfare system, many claim that it was Islamic states in the 7th C that set up welfare states. But in the modern state it was Germany in 1880’s not the UK.

There was nothing stoping the UK under EU law to put a EU citizen on a plane home if they could not work or support themselves witin 6 months of arrival.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find this to be extremely frustrating. The means to prevent EU migrants from claiming handouts and housing from the system were already there. I can't just migrate to Germany and claim without paying in for years first.

In addition to this, you're actually not entitled to move to another MS without either a lump of money in the bank or a job (or other source of income) to show you can support yourself for (IIRC) at least 2 years.

axer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In addition to this, you're actually not entitled to move to another MS without either a lump of money in the bank or a job (or other source of income) to show you can support yourself for (IIRC) at least 2 years.

Assuming Ms = member state then I dont know if this is true considering you can transfer your dole for up to 3 months to another member state.

FreudianSlippers

axer wrote: »

Assuming Ms = member state then I dont know if this is true considering you can transfer your dole for up to 3 months to another member state.

You are entitled to enter another MS of the EU on a temporary basis (3 to 6 months depending on the State) to seek employment if you genuinely seek employment and that you have a real chance of finding employment in that State. In that case, you can draw your unemployment benefit for 13 weeks provided you register with the employment services authority in the State to which you have moved (and very few are as lax as Ireland about interviews/offers).

However, I don't believe this contradicts my earlier post.

blanch152

Water John wrote: »

The whole, different interpretations by various groups, within the UK and between the EU and the UK, of what Phase 1 agreement/deal means would do Henry Kissinger proud.
Let them all have their own interpretation as long as it gets everyone to the table, within limits.

That is the whole point of last week's agreement. The detail of what the British committed to in the event of no agreement doesn't matter a bit if a full comprehensive free trade agreement is put in place.

It is only if there is no free trade agreement, that we then get to have the row about what exactly the Phase 1 deal meant.

Really Interested

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In addition to this, you're actually not entitled to move to another MS without either a lump of money in the bank or a job (or other source of income) to show you can support yourself for (IIRC) at least 2 years.

You can move for 6 months and are protected to look for work.

axer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

However, I don't believe this contradicts my earlier post.

Just in relation to the mention of 2 years.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In addition to this, you're actually not entitled to move to another MS without either a lump of money in the bank or a job (or other source of income) to show you can support yourself for (IIRC) at least 2 years.

kowtow

As I have said before, this was always going to be a humpty dumpty deal. The words, to a large extent, mean whatever you choose them to mean. The statements of intent are very important, but it is diplomatic capital behind them rather than hard, legally enforceable, cash and commitment.

And for the moment that is a good thing, everybody can claim (for their domestic audiences) a win. Everybody can move on to the meat and drink of things in phase two, and eventually we will all begin to settle on a clearer picture of what can and can't be done - Brexit will take shape.

The UK was never going to put a hard border in place. The Irish & EU wanted sufficient written commitment to this not least because - if the UK wasn't going to put one there - there was always a risk that we would have to and that would never have played well. Under the present agreement, as I have always suggested, every suggestion originally made - more or less - in the UK white paper remains open as an option for the border. Electronic customs arrangements, combined with regulatory alignment, will allow Ireland and the UK to reach the mutually agreeable solutions which the present agreement envisages in the context of trade talks. When Adam Boulton refers to a "kerfuffle" this is essentially what he is talking about.

In Ireland and elsewhere commentators are writing that little Ireland has taught the UK a lesson and ensured that the UK will, to all intents and purposes, remain in the CU (and by the way did you know that Brexit was pointless and stupid?)

And David Davis is, a bit cackhandedly, pointing out that the agreement is not quite the binding commitment to a single specific route which those commentators are rejoicing at.

This apparent conflict is not the sign of a bad agreement falling apart, it's evidence of a good agreement paving the way for a better one.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

As I have said before, this was always going to be a humpty dumpty deal. The words, to a large extent, mean whatever you choose them to mean. The statements of intent are very important, but it is diplomatic capital behind them rather than hard, legally enforceable, cash and commitment.

And for the moment that is a good thing, everybody can claim (for their domestic audiences) a win. Everybody can move on to the meat and drink of things in phase two, and eventually we will all begin to settle on a clearer picture of what can and can't be done - Brexit will take shape.

The UK was never going to put a hard border in place. The Irish & EU wanted sufficient written commitment to this not least because - if the UK wasn't going to put one there - there was always a risk that we would have to and that would never have played well. Under the present agreement, as I have always suggested, every suggestion originally made - more or less - in the UK white paper remains open as an option for the border. Electronic customs arrangements, combined with regulatory alignment, will allow Ireland and the UK to reach the mutually agreeable solutions which the present agreement envisages in the context of trade talks. When Adam Boulton refers to a "kerfuffle" this is essentially what he is talking about.

In Ireland and elsewhere commentators are writing that little Ireland has taught the UK a lesson and ensured that the UK will, to all intents and purposes, remain in the CU (and by the way did you know that Brexit was pointless and stupid?)

And David Davis is, a bit cackhandedly, pointing out that the agreement is not quite the binding commitment to a single specific route which those commentators are rejoicing at.

This apparent conflict is not the sign of a bad agreement falling apart, it's evidence of a good agreement paving the way for a better one.

A EU spokeswoman today described it as a "Gentleman's Agreement" between Barnier and Davis who "shook hands on the deal". That's alright then. If Davis shook hands on it, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like he has a history of lying.

FreudianSlippers

axer wrote: »

Just in relation to the mention of 2 years.

I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here due to the vagueness of your posts... but you are required if you are entering another MS (excluding Irish going to UK and vice versa) to either (a) have a job (b) have sufficient resources including health insurance to support yourself for the "qualifying period" which, again IIRC, is 2 years (c) are genuinely looking for a job for up to 3 months (or 6 in some member states).

In the case of (c), you continue to draw welfare payment from the country in which you became unemployed, and if you remain longer than 3 months, you must apply for extension of the benefits again from the country in which you became unemployed.

The whole goal is to ensure there is no burden on the MS taking in other EU citizens.

Therefore, my original post stands: you are not entitled to move to another MS without (a) or (b) above. Temporary stays as per (c) of up to 6 months are not moving to another MS by definition.

whatstherush

kowtow wrote: »

In Ireland and elsewhere commentators are writing that little Ireland has taught the UK a lesson and ensured that the UK will, to all intents and purposes, remain in the CU (and by the way did you know that Brexit was pointless and stupid?)

Why did it takes weeks for them to agree to it, if its as meaningless as you are implying?

Leroy42

whatstherush wrote: »

Why did it takes weeks for them to agree to it, if its as meaningless as you are implying?

And why did the DUP kick up such a stink about it, leading to some on here claiming that the Irish had wrecked the whole deal by being too quick to comment?

recedite

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the whole point of last week's agreement. The detail of what the British committed to in the event of no agreement doesn't matter a bit if a full comprehensive free trade agreement is put in place.

It is only if there is no free trade agreement, that we then get to have the row about what exactly the Phase 1 deal meant.

+1
Also, in that event it would be the EU imposing the hard border controls in Ireland, not the UK. Because as Davis said, maximum free trade was always their "intent".
So before calling Davis a liar, people should think about what this "no deal" scenario would make of Barnier.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

+1
Also, in that event it would be the EU imposing the hard border controls in Ireland, not the UK. Because as Davis said, maximum free trade was always their "intent".
So before calling Davis a liar, people should think about what this "no deal" scenario would make of Barnier.

Are you saying that Davis hasn't lied?

kowtow

whatstherush wrote: »

Why did it takes weeks for them to agree to it, if its as meaningless as you are implying?

There was a fair bit more than the Irish border to agree to. On the Monday, when talks fell apart, Downing St. was still giving out the line that progress was being made and they hoped for an agreement before the end of the week (which they got).

They were also clear that the ECJ time limit / voluntary referral was still not agreed.

By that point of course Tusk & Co had made something of a show of handing the baton to Ireland (the previous Friday..) saying that the future of Britain rested in Dublin. And the tweets of elation and celebration had begun, with a bit of a focus on Dublin.

The DUP, predictably, reacted and demanded their turn in the limelight - the words evolved a bit - and now we have suggestions from journalists here that May has 'capitulated' in such a way as to put the whole of the UK on course for the Customs Union.

The reality of the agreement is still that if another solution cannot be agreed in the meantime, the UK will align regulation so far as is necessary to support the whole island elements of the GFA. That could well amount, notwithstanding the wording, to regulatory alignment in NI alone - and that regulatory alignment could take the form of mutual recognition.

The agreement and the dance which led to it has allowed everyone (even May, to some extent) to walk away from the table with their heads held high and that is the definition of a good agreement. It doesn't really help to crow about these things either before or after the event, but that won't stop politicians on every side (including Brussels) doing so.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here due to the vagueness of your posts... but you are required if you are entering another MS (excluding Irish going to UK and vice versa) to either (a) have a job (b) have sufficient resources including health insurance to support yourself for the "qualifying period" which, again IIRC, is 2 years (c) are genuinely looking for a job for up to 3 months (or 6 in some member states).

In the case of (c), you continue to draw welfare payment from the country in which you became unemployed, and if you remain longer than 3 months, you must apply for extension of the benefits again from the country in which you became unemployed.

The whole goal is to ensure there is no burden on the MS taking in other EU citizens.

Therefore, my original post stands: you are not entitled to move to another MS without (a) or (b) above. Temporary stays as per (c) of up to 6 months are not moving to another MS by definition.

Your post is typical of the disconnect between the bureaucratic way of solving problems on paper, and what happens in real life.
It is simply not true that an EU citizen needs 2 years worth of money before moving to another member state.

In the event of (c) above...
How is the Romanian social welfare going to be enough to pay for food and accommodation in central London?

What is the official rate of Romanian social welfare for somebody who has never worked or paid tax anyway?

If the guy is not in receipt of any social welfare from his home state, will he be refused entry to the other MS?

If the guy is found living under a bridge a week later, can he be deported or would the authorities have to wait 6 months before even starting the deportation procedure?

How many years would that deportation procedure last, including appeals etc.?

Would the UK allow this guy and his family to starve to death in the meantime, if he refused to leave?

There are some fundamental truths which Brussels has been ignoring over the last few years. If you allow people to freely move from a country that has low standards to a country that has high standards, then the pressure on the host country will be such that welfare and other standards cannot be maintained at their previous level.

If they had accepted these home truths, then we would not be seeing the serious cracks in the EU that have now appeared between east and west, and between the UK and the continent.

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

+1
Also, in that event it would be the EU imposing the hard border controls in Ireland, not the UK. Because as Davis said, maximum free trade was always their "intent".
So before calling Davis a liar, people should think about what this "no deal" scenario would make of Barnier.

Their intent is utterly irrelevant. The British voted for Brexit without even considering the Northern Irish question. This is the result and it was entirely avoidable.

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Are you saying that Davis hasn't lied?

I am. It was discussed earlier.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Their intent is utterly irrelevant. The British voted for Brexit without even considering the Northern Irish question. This is the result and it was entirely avoidable.

Their intent was always unknown. Nobody who voted Leave knew what it was they were voting for. 18 months later, they still don't know what it was they voted for.