Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

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 . . .

No, that’s not what I mean.

A realistic deal is one which takes account of the facts, and of the relative positions of both parties.

A realistic deal may involve the UK accepting the EU position on quite a lot - for instance, it has already accepted, firstly, the EU position on what the phase 1 priorities would be and, secondly, the EU position in relation to each of those priorities. But it doesn’t follow that the UK is accepting, or would accept, everything the EU proposes. The joint report, remember, only reflects what the parties have agreed on; it doesn’t reflect what they disagreed on - thing what were proposed by one side but not accepted by the other, or things what haven’t (yet) been proposed. So to find out where the UK stood its ground, you may need to be looking at the text that isn't there, rather than the text that is.

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

Ah. Part of “realistic deal” involves acknowledging that the UK isn’t in a tremendously good position to apply pressure.

The UK can apply pressure to the EU by denying, or threatening to deny, the EU the outcome it hopes for in the negotiations. However it’s hard to think of anything the UK could threaten to deny the EU that would hurt the EU more than it would hurt the UK. There’s a limited extent to which the UK can credibly threaten these things.

The bottom line here is that both sides want a Brexit deal, and both sides want a trade deal. There are actually other outcomes that the EU would prefer - continued UK membership, or failing that UK membership in the EEA and the Customs Union. But the UK has already taken those off the table. It can’t apply further pressure by taking them off the table again. (It could apply pressure by offering to put them back on the table, while demanding something in return, but presumably you wouldn’t welcome that.) So at this stage all it can take off the table is the prospect of a Brexit deal, and/or a trade deal. But the UK needs both of these things more than the EU does, and both sides know that.

Which is why, when the EU identified three things it needed the UK to do in order simply to continue talking about a Brexit deal and future trade deal, the UK substantially did all three things. That was rational. That was realistic. That was not the UK being a pushover; it was the UK acting in its own best interests.

The UK will, we hope, continue to do this. The strategic balance between the two parties is not likely to change, so the UK will continue to do more concession-making than the EU.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Article 50 is simply silent about whether notice of withdrawal, once given, can be revoked by the UK.

There's academic argument over the question of whether general principles of international law would mean that it can be revoked by the UK.

Myself, I think what matters here is not the legal considerations but the political considerations. The question will never arise unless there is a signficant shift in UK public opinion, such that a UK government wants to revoke the Art. 50 notice. We're a long way from that happening right now.

But, in that situation, I'm pretty sure that, rather than just announce the revocation, the UK government would approach the E-27 and sound them out. Would they be receptive? Would there be a price to be paid for their reciptivity? Etc, etc. And I don't think the UK would announce a revocation unless it was pretty sure that the other member states were going to welcome that, and accept it. And of course if the EU-27 accept the revocation, the question of whether they were legally bound by it, whether the UK had a right to revoke the notice with or without their agreement, will never arise.

For the record, if the UK government were minded to revoke the Art 50 notice, they don't - legally speaking - need to hold a second referendum to seek approval. For political reasons they might judge that to be wise, or even essential, and of course the EU-27 might be reluctant to accept revocation if not endorsed by a referendum. But, legally speaking, whether to hold a referendum is a matter for the UK, not the EU, and as a matter of UK law no referendum would be necessary.

I think if the UK revokes A50 it's almost certain that some group will challenge the legality, no?

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

I think if the UK revokes A50 it's almost certain that some group will challenge the legality, no?

It would be ironic if Brexiters looked to the European Court of Justice to nullify the acts and decisions of the Mother of Parliaments.

But, yes, they probably would. Which is one of the reasons why the UK would want to make sure that the EU-27 were on side. If the UK and all the member states are agreed that they want to this to happen then they can make it happen, if necessary by an amending or supplementary treaty.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bottom line here is that both sides want a Brexit deal, and both sides want a trade deal. There are actually other outcomes that the EU would prefer - continued UK membership, or failing that UK membership in the EEA and the Customs Union. But the UK has already taken those off the table. It can’t apply further pressure by taking them off the table again. (It could apply pressure by offering to put them back on the table, while demanding something in return, but presumably you wouldn’t welcome that.) So at this stage all it can take off the table is the prospect of a Brexit deal, and/or a trade deal. But the UK needs both of these things more than the EU does, and both sides know that.

Good morning!

Unless there was a substantial compromise in respect to free movement, and in how regulations are mirrored (no ECJ jurisdiction) I don't support membership of the single market.

Membership of the customs union is actually the bigger issue for me since this would nullify Britain's chances of being able to sign its own trade deals rather than merely limiting the scope of those deals. That's unacceptable.

If there's no meaningful taking back of control then Brexit is pointless. The Brexiteers are right on that.

That's why I think the UK needs to hold these lines. Brexit must allow more freedom than the status quo. If it doesn't I suspect people will be campaigning for the job to be finished. I wouldn't blame them either. The UK's exit must have meaningful results.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

123shooter

Brexit was voted for by the British people, so Brexit must be meaningful to the British people and not chopped and altered to suit other people whoever they may be.

Britain or UK means all of the regions and just because a 'region' voted differently to the rest of the country, does not mean the rest of the country has to bend over to accommodate that region just as if County Cork voted different to the rest of Ireland. Then the whole of Ireland has to do what Cork wants.

The people who voted for Brexit......were not misled, stupid, uneducated, mad, lied to, rushed, panicked or any of the other stuff that has been mentioned here or elsewhere.

In fact the British people have never been for the EU of later years (20 - 30) and have not wanted control of their country handed over to Brussels/Germany, have not wanted forced migration, did not want the euro, etc etc.

So the British people voted to remove this by voting to leave.

They just like any other country in the same position will expect this. They have never had anything against Irish people. The British have problems with the other European leaders political aims.

Whatever form the border if there is one takes it will be adjusted to accommodate Ireland whereas the EU will use this to try and get what they want from Britain not the other way around.

Regardless of what some think of Britain or the decision to leave the EU, Ireland's problems are with the EU and not the UK regards the border issue.

mickoneill31

123shooter wrote: »

The people who voted for Brexit......were not misled, stupid, uneducated, mad, lied to, rushed, paniced or any of the other stuff that has been mentioned here or elsewhere.

Whatever about the rest of your post, they were lied to.

Easiest transition ever,
Countries will be queuing up
There's no question about us leaving the single market
Germanys car manufactured will get us a great deal
We can get a Norway / Sweden / insert your country of choice here deal
Take back control (that they already had)
We will have trade deals lined up by the end of 2016
And something about a bus that nobody wanted to own the day after the referendum.

And that's just from memory. I'm sure there's much more.
Davis was even lying to parliament in the last two weeks.
It baffles me that people trot out this rubbish. You know you can Google all of those articles and quotes if you can be bothered.

Leroy42

123shooter wrote: »

Brexit was voted for by the British people, so Brexit must be meaningful to the British people and not chopped and altered to suit other people whoever they may be.

Britain or UK means all of the regions and just because a 'region' voted differently to the rest of the country, does not mean the rest of the country has to bend over to accommodate that region just as if County Cork voted different to the rest of Ireland. Then the whole of Ireland has to do what Cork wants.

The people who voted for Brexit......were not misled, stupid, uneducated, mad, lied to, rushed, panicked or any of the other stuff that has been mentioned here or elsewhere.

In fact the British people have never been for the EU of later years (20 - 30) and have not wanted control of their country handed over to Brussels/Germany, have not wanted forced migration, did not want the euro, etc etc.

So the British people voted to remove this by voting to leave.

They just like any other country in the same position will expect this. They have never had anything against Irish people. The British have problems with the other European leaders political aims.

Whatever form the border if there is one takes it will be adjusted to accommodate Ireland whereas the EU will use this to try and get what they want from Britain not the other way around.

Regardless of what some think of Britain or the decision to leave the EU, Ireland's problems are with the EU and not the UK regards the border issue.

Well put. Now care to explain exactly what voting for Brexit meant, because it seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Clearly some of the people who voted for Brexit were misled. At no point were they told how much commitments that would have to pay. THey were told they would have £350 pw for the NHS. They were told, throughout the campaign, that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the SM. They were told that any trade deal would be easy. They were told that Germany car manufacturers would force Merkel to cave into UK demands. They were told that the EU needed the UK more than the other way around.

In regards to the border issue, can you explain why the EU/Ireland have decided to make it an issue now. Do you think it is just a coincidence of timing that they brought it up after the Brexit vote? I ask because you seem to think that the decision by the UK to vote to leave the EU has no impact on whether a border should exist or not.

123shooter

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of your post, they were lied to.

Easiest transition ever, They could just walk away now and nothing could be done but that would leave a mess for UK as well as others.
Countries will be queuing up Countries cannot strike deals until they have left and there are countries waiting to make deals since they voted leave.
There's no question about us leaving the single market As in answer 1
Germanys car manufactured will get us a great deal Do not understand
We can get a Norway / Sweden / insert your country of choice here deal If you make a deal when outside the EU then that is the category of deal you get .... as a non member.
We will have trade deals lined up by the end of 2016 Well if they walked away then they would, but someone put a clown in charge of the country who thinks being a PM is all about making fun of the other idiots in front of them at question time.
And something about a bus that nobody wanted to own the day after the referendum. Do not understand

And that's just from memory. I'm sure there's much more.
Davis was even lying to parliament in the last two weeks.

If I remember the remain side were saying that WW3 would break out and all the other stuff conveniently forgot by some.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bottom line here is that both sides want a Brexit deal, and both sides want a trade deal. There are actually other outcomes that the EU would prefer - continued UK membership, or failing that UK membership in the EEA and the Customs Union. But the UK has already taken those off the table. It can’t apply further pressure by taking them off the table again. (It could apply pressure by offering to put them back on the table, while demanding something in return, but presumably you wouldn’t welcome that.) So at this stage all it can take off the table is the prospect of a Brexit deal, and/or a trade deal. But the UK needs both of these things more than the EU does, and both sides know that.

Good morning!

Unless there was a substantial compromise in respect to free movement, and in how regulations are mirrored (no ECJ jurisdiction) I don't support membership of the single market.

Membership of the customs union is actually the bigger issue for me since this would nullify Britain's chances of being able to sign its own trade deals rather than merely limiting the scope of those deals. That's unacceptable.

If there's no meaningful taking back of control then Brexit is pointless. The Brexiteers are right on that.

That's why I think the UK needs to hold these lines. Brexit must allow more freedom than the status quo. If it doesn't I suspect people will be campaigning for the job to be finished. I wouldn't blame them either. The UK's exit must have meaningful results.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Does Norway have its own trade deals?

How can someone who has x hundred posts in this thread keep repeating debunked points?

Norway is part of the single market, but not the CCP and so has its own customs status and is able to trade with other countries on its own terms.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Unless there was a substantial compromise in respect to free movement, and in how regulations are mirrored (no ECJ jurisdiction) I don't support membership of the single market.

Membership of the customs union is actually the bigger issue for me since this would nullify Britain's chances of being able to sign its own trade deals rather than merely limiting the scope of those deals. That's unacceptable.

If there's no meaningful taking back of control then Brexit is pointless. The Brexiteers are right on that.

That's why I think the UK needs to hold these lines. Brexit must allow more freedom than the status quo. If it doesn't I suspect people will be campaigning for the job to be finished. I wouldn't blame them either. The UK's exit must have meaningful results.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I am of the opinion that restrictions to FoM should apply to Irish people in the UK as well as well as requirements for indefinite leave to remain. If it did I wonder would your opinion change. If Irish people were receiving deportation notices like a Finnish university lecturer did, if you were at risk from the downsides to Brexit. Special pleading for Irish as not being foreign has to end.

Brexit takes freedom from people. It does not provide more freedom. It provides less.

Brexit is pointless.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Low quality posts and responses deleted. 123shooter has been permanently banned for low quality posting.

Professor Moriarty

On a day when British inflation has hit a six year high of 3.1%, the Rand Corporation has weighed in with a report on the consequences of Brexit. From the Guardian:

Leaving the EU with no deal and operating under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules would lead to the greatest economic loss for the UK, reducing GDP by nearly 5 per cent, or $140 billion, 10 years after Brexit, compared with EU membership ...

Other trade scenarios could be better for the UK than WTO rules but still lead to economic losses compared with EU membership. These include ‘hard Brexit’ scenarios, such as a UK-EU free trade agreement (net UK GDP decline of 1.9 per cent 10 years after Brexit), UK-US free trade agreement (2.5 per cent decline) or UK-EU transitional zero-tariff agreement (2.1 per cent decline), and ‘soft Brexit’ scenarios, such as the Norway option (1.7 per cent decline), Switzerland option (2.4 per cent decline) or remaining part of the Customs Union (1.8 per cent decline).

Interesting to note that a UK-US FTA would represent a 2.5% decline for Britain.

Of course, all of this is about economic matters. Perhaps of greater significance for ordinary people would be the social consequences. After Brexit and under a Tory government, the NHS, at best, would be opened up to competition. Health & Safety and employment laws would be drastically changed. Food regulations would be relaxed (our old friend, the chlorinated chicken, would be a new immigrant). And so on. It mystifies me how any ordinary, sane and informed British person could think that this is a good idea.

flaneur

Calina wrote: »

I am of the opinion that restrictions to FoM should apply to Irish people in the UK as well as well as requirements for indefinite leave to remain. If it did I wonder would your opinion change. If Irish people were receiving deportation notices like a Finnish university lecturer did, if you were at risk from the downsides to Brexit. Special pleading for Irish as not being foreign has to end.

Brexit takes freedom from people. It does not provide more freedom. It provides less.

Brexit is pointless.

They also have voting rights and an equivalent huge number of British citizens live here.

A friend of mine from the UK has begun the naturalisation process here because she's afraid that this may happen. She's fed up with brexit and just wants no future messing with her status here, lives here permanently, so is becoming Irish.

There's an assumption that everyone from the UK who lives here has Irish connections. It's simply not the case. Lots just moved here.

There are very large numbers of people in that position. It's unlikely that they'll really end up in a messy situation, but with the current UK government jingoism and weirdness, nothing's certain anymore. It's a very unpleasant feeling.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Deleted User wrote: »

Does Norway have its own trade deals?

How can someone who has x hundred posts in this thread keep repeating debunked points?

Norway is part of the single market, but not the CCP and so has its own customs status and is able to trade with other countries on its own terms.

Norway isn't a member of the customs union. If you read my post you'll see that I said that it is membership of the customs union that precludes free trade arrangements.

We need to make sure to read what other people are saying properly. Otherwise the thread will just descend into strawmen.

Calina wrote: »

I am of the opinion that restrictions to FoM should apply to Irish people in the UK as well as well as requirements for indefinite leave to remain. If it did I wonder would your opinion change. If Irish people were receiving deportation notices like a Finnish university lecturer did, if you were at risk from the downsides to Brexit. Special pleading for Irish as not being foreign has to end.

Brexit takes freedom from people. It does not provide more freedom. It provides less.

Brexit is pointless.

My opinion wouldn't change. I'd follow the process for seeking PR which I've long been eligible to (and would have been eligible to if I was living in the UK for this long as a non-EU citizen also). The UK Government needs to resolve the concerns raised as a result of the referendum.

flaneur wrote: »

They also have voting rights and an equivalent huge number of British citizens live here.

A friend of mine from the UK has begun the naturalisation process here because she's afraid that this may happen. She's fed up with brexit and just wants no future messing with her status here, lives here permanently, so is becoming Irish.

There's an assumption that everyone from the UK who lives here has Irish connections. It's simply not the case. Lots just moved here.

There are very large numbers of people in that position. It's unlikely that they'll really end up in a messy situation, but with the current UK government jingoism and weirdness, nothing's certain anymore. It's a very unpleasant feeling.

This concern is a myth. She's entitled to stay in Ireland under the CTA irrespective of what happens.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Norway is not a member of the customs Union.

Come. On.

This is basic.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

On a day when British inflation has hit a six year high of 3.1%, the Rand Corporation has weighed in with a report on the consequences of Brexit. From the Guardian:

Leaving the EU with no deal and operating under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules would lead to the greatest economic loss for the UK, reducing GDP by nearly 5 per cent, or $140 billion, 10 years after Brexit, compared with EU membership ...

Other trade scenarios could be better for the UK than WTO rules but still lead to economic losses compared with EU membership. These include ‘hard Brexit’ scenarios, such as a UK-EU free trade agreement (net UK GDP decline of 1.9 per cent 10 years after Brexit), UK-US free trade agreement (2.5 per cent decline) or UK-EU transitional zero-tariff agreement (2.1 per cent decline), and ‘soft Brexit’ scenarios, such as the Norway option (1.7 per cent decline), Switzerland option (2.4 per cent decline) or remaining part of the Customs Union (1.8 per cent decline).

Interesting to note that a UK-US FTA would represent a 2.5% decline for Britain.

Of course, all of this is about economic matters. Perhaps of greater significance for ordinary people would be the social consequences. After Brexit and under a Tory government, the NHS, at best, would be opened up to competition. Health & Safety and employment laws would be drastically changed. Food regulations would be relaxed (our old friend, the chlorinated chicken, would be a new immigrant). And so on. It mystifies me how any ordinary, sane and informed British person could think that this is a good idea.

Whilst I agree with your position, I think that Solo and others have shown that we are missing the central part of the argument for Brexit. It is not a rational decision, based on facts and logic, it is a belief based position.

They feel hard done by in the EU, feel they have lost something of bring British. And they want it back.

Now, to me, this is akin to the support for Trump and MAGA. Nobody knows what it means, nobody is sure that the problem is and nobody is sure what the solution will look like if it ever did arrive, but it sounds like something better than now so why not.

The Guardian report will not make any impact, and reports like this are either dismissed as being wrong, dismissed as they aren't armageddon and thus better than what they could have been or viewed as a price worth paying for the feeling of taking back control.

The problem is, as has been pointed out by many on here, that due to the global nature of the world at this stage, that control is never actually going to be taken back. If not the EU, then the US, or NATO, or WTO, or UN etc etc.

When they sign new deals the thinking seems to be that other countries are dying to get into bed with the UK and will accept the UK being in charge. We already see from India that countries will want something in return. And what have the UK got to offer that the EU can't? So the UK will have to offer access to visa etc to get any trade deals, thus losing the control that the UK seems to be trying to get.

In Ireland, IMO, we have never seen ourselves as independent (in terms of the rest of the world relationships) we understand that we require other countries to trade with. For most of the time that was the UK, but since joining the EU we have been able to spread our wings.

The UK, again IMO, still harbours the empire mentality. That everyone should look to them, and that everyone wants to be them. But the US has changed that completely. But once you understand that thinking then the vote for Brexit starts to become more understandable, if still not warranted.

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

Norway is not a member of the customs Union.

Come. On.

This is basic.

Good morning!

Typo - which is now corrected.

Forgive the slip of a finger

Edit:

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whilst I agree with your position, I think that Solo and others have shown that we are missing the central part of the argument for Brexit. It is not a rational decision, based on facts and logic, it is a belief based position.

They feel hard done by in the EU, feel they have lost something of bring British. And they want it back.

I'm Irish and not British, and if Brexit is done carefully (increased control on trade policy in particular is key) it will be hugely beneficial. I've explained this position with clear reference to particular opportunities on the other thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

123shooter wrote: »

Brexit was voted for by the British people, so Brexit must be meaningful to the British people and not chopped and altered to suit other people whoever they may be.

So exactly which brexit did they vote for? I can't recall there being multiple options on the voting paper so how exactly are you not going to end up with a chopped or altered version if no versions were presented in the first place?

Britain or UK means all of the regions and just because a 'region' voted differently to the rest of the country, does not mean the rest of the country has to bend over to accommodate that region just as if County Cork voted different to the rest of Ireland. Then the whole of Ireland has to do what Cork wants.

Funny how that's exactly what happened with DUP however and we can list multiple brexiteer regions now demanding exceptions from Brexit effects, funny that...

The people who voted for Brexit......were not misled, stupid, uneducated, mad, lied to, rushed, panicked or any of the other stuff that has been mentioned here or elsewhere.

Ok at this stage I'm simply going to have to call BS; half the people voting for Brexit believed the 350MM a week to NHS lie which by the very definition is being misled if not being stupid and uneducated depending on how generous you want to be. If you believe the 350MM a week more to NHS you hare by definition the things you claim that the voters were not (pick which one you want to apply). Hence yes we can in fact establish that they were lied to and that they Brexit campaign knew they were lying and that it was only through lying that they won by their own admission. I could go on to link you all the Brexiteers claiming how a no vote would in no way mean leaving the single market under any circumstances etc. as well but honestly why bother.

In fact the British people have never been for the EU of later years (20 - 30) and have not wanted control of their country handed over to Brussels/Germany, have not wanted forced migration, did not want the euro, etc etc.

And I don't want to pay taxes but I have enough brain power to realize when doing something I don't want brings an overall greater benefit by comparison. The simple fact that the rags and politicians have used EU to blame for everything to cover up their own incompetence is not the fault of EU; that's UK's own internal problem. Such as EU immigration controls not being done; such as not doing proper non EU vetting etc. which were all 100% within UKs power to execute at any time but their politicians were to slack jawed to actually do and instead blamed EU for it.

So the British people voted to remove this by voting to leave.

No; they voted to leave EU. They did not vote about the type of Brexit it was going to be and the brexiteer voters were lied to by the leave campaign on how the aftermath would be.

They just like any other country in the same position will expect this. They have never had anything against Irish people. The British have problems with the other European leaders political aims.

I think you'd need to read a bit more of the last weeks comment in the UK newspaper articles about the "Irish sticking their neck out and preventing a trade deal" and come back on that.

Whatever form the border if there is one takes it will be adjusted to accommodate Ireland whereas the EU will use this to try and get what they want from Britain not the other way around.

UK, well May to be specific, by ruling out EEA etc. decided the border from day 1. UK has three options to choose from:

1) Cut of NI via sea border and NI remain in EU CU.
2) All of UK remains in a de facto EU CU by applying same standards.
3) They implement a "hard" border.

1 & 2 is what's the outcome currently looks like which is the worst possible scenario of full pay, no votes scenario where UK will have to apply all EU rules and standards while paying full membership access (such as Norway does) but have no say in the rules creation. This means UK will be a EU member in practice with all the obligations but none of the benefits; by god what a brilliant move...

Regardless of what some think of Britain or the decision to leave the EU, Ireland's problems are with the EU and not the UK regards the border issue.

Nope the border issue is 100% with UK and has been since day 1; UK defines the type of border they will end up with and stop listening to the "oh we want no hard border and will never implement it" crowd because they are more clueless than the voters believing the 350MM a week claim. There are simple facts that comes with having a third party border under WTO rules; the options are above for UK to choose from but most, if not all, politicians are to clueless to actually know this (as shown by May not being ripped to pieces over and over again in parliament on the topic). The above is not some made up history altering punishment which appears to be the common theme when such facts are brought up but the simple consequences of:
1) WTO rules (all checks has to be equal for all countries; ergo any checks not done on EU goods will not be done on any others goods being imported world wide)
2) EU required checks (by UK going third party that puts them at the same checking requirements as if goods were shipped from Nigeria or Colombia; once again this is simply applying the standard WTO rules consistently which means a very high and extensive set of controls have to be performed to ensure they are safe no matter if they are from UK, Congo or Kazakhstan as per WTO rules)

That is the simple reality and that is why the above are the three scenarios that can play out. Calling it punishment is simply UK complaining that the route they choose to take had consequences and are now crying how unfair it is that the choice they made had consequences they ignored earlier.

Brexit means Brexit; that means day 1 without a deal no UK planes can fly into EU for at least 30 days as they are not recognised third party approved country. No country in the world will sell or ship radioactive material to the UK because UK no longer has any agency to control that they are not sold on to a third party; this includes from nuclear plants to cancer treatment. No material in or out; full stop because May does not want to be part of EURATOM. It means no access to EURPOL or accessing any EU police DBs because all those deals are signed via EU and UK is now a third party such as Chile. It means mandatory recertification of every single goods going into EU from cars, to chocolate bars to chemicals etc. because all UK issued approvals are null & void. It means losing the largest set of trade, bi and multilateral deals with the world widest access to markets. It means UK not being able to sign a single FTA until the dispute of the EU quotations have been resolved (and that means EU has to approve the deal as well) because of the trade dispute.

That is the option 3 reality of no deal (and unlike what the Tories believe there would not be a number of small agreements on various topics in such a scenario as clearly stated by EU). So there you go; remain a fully paying member of the CU without voting rights or go out completely and enjoy the above consequences (and that's only a very very very small list; it can be greatly extended into other areas). That's the great negotiation power of the UK has managed to get to at this point; impressive is it not?

Let's make this as easy as possible.

Free trade deals with AllOtherLand cannot be done within customs union, clearly. If this needs spelling out, let's do it.

Frictionless trade has only ever been made possible with single market membership. (recall when Ireland lost its border). If this needs spelling out let's do it.

No border on island of Ireland or in Irish Sea necessitates that the UK is in both single market and customs Union.

Now. Which one of these is the one to give?

Let's remember of course that the final one, the one which we have had assurances from the UK in the past week is of utmost importance here because in the absence of specific customs protocols, a failure to imposition a border also removes all leverage or need for the UK to negotiate free trade deals as they will have unilaterally granted them without anything in receipt.

If the order of preference is 'free trade with others' then the other two, then fine. Be earnest and honest about it. Be willing to put up the barriers on the island of Ireland to facilitate that view. Be honest that frictionless trade and supply chains into the UK from Europe and vice versa will be severely impacted in the short to medium term by leaving the single market.

Wear the costs of the long term dream.

The idealouges are probably privately happy to do so, they're just not honest enough to explain this. (Boris & Gove for example)

Zubeneschamali

In fact, I think that what let Brexit win the referendum was the conviction from the establishment and the press that Brexit would not win. People felt free to vote Brexit as a protest, sure in the knowledge that it was two fingers to their rulers in Westminster without any real consequences.

If this was Ireland, we'd just hold another referendum and change our minds, but no - they'll burn hundreds of billions, tear up treaties, alienate their friends and neighbors abroad, and crash about making a mess for the next 20 years because of a protest vote in an advisory referendum called to settle a row inside the Tory party.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gif Brexit is done carefully (increased control on trade policy in particular is key) it will be hugely beneficial. I've explained this position with clear reference to particular opportunities on the other thread.

The UK joined the EEC for economic reasons. Thatcher championed the Single Market for economic reasons. Those reasons are even more valid today in the enlarged EU.

Brexit will not and cannot be anything other than damaging, economically.

Now, if you think "taking back control" is so emotionally beneficial that it's worth paying 5-10% of the UK's GDP in perpetuity, that it's worth losing Scotland within a decade and risking the Union with NI, then by all means go for it. But please stop saying you have explained how it will be beneficial - you haven't and it won't.

Peregrinus

Hi solo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Unless there was a substantial compromise in respect to free movement, and in how regulations are mirrored (no ECJ jurisdiction) I don't support membership of the single market.

Free movement is integral to the single market. So is an underpinning in EU law which is ultimately authoritatively adjudicated by the ECJ. So if the UK is looking not to be bound by free movement requirements or by the jurisprudence of the ECJ, offering to participate in the single market is definitely not the right way to put that on the table.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Membership of the customs union is actually the bigger issue for me since this would nullify Britain's chances of being able to sign its own trade deals rather than merely limiting the scope of those deals. That's unacceptable.

It's unacceptable to you, but as the UK political establishment gets to the trade-off between regulatory freedom and trade integration, there are signs that it's becoming a bit less unacceptable to them than it was before.

I don't think that it will get to the point of the UK seeking membership of the customs union. But there's always a middle ground; the UK could sign up to the common external tariff (which affects goods but not services) and this would help clear the way not only for an open border in Ireland but for a very free trade deal with the EU. On the downside, it would severely restrict (though not completely eliminate) the UK's ability to negotiate trade deals with third countries, but a very good trade deal with the EU offers the UK much more advantage than any number of trade deals with third countries is ever realistically likely to so, if put to the choice, a UK exercising control in its own best interest will exercise it in a way that favours the EU trade deal.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If there's no meaningful taking back of control then Brexit is pointless. The Brexiteers are right on that.

Indeed they are. But there's an awful lot wrapped up in the word "meaningful"

Based on the commitments made this week, I think we can possibly begin to trace the outlines of what the eventual EU/UK deal will be. Remember, people, you read it here first. I predict:

- The UK will leave the single market and the customs union.

- It will, however, maintain (and commit to maintaining) full regulatory alignment with the rules of the single market pertaining to traded goods, and with the rules of the customs union, or at least the Common External Tariff.

- This has the dual benefit of keeping the Irish border open, which is a stated objective of the UK, and of clearing the way for a very free trade agreement with the EU in relation to goods. Basically, subject to a couple of glitches which I think could be ironed out with some creative thinking, goods could be traded as freely between the UK and the EU-27 as they are now.

- Glitch number 1: The UK won't want EU law having direct effect in the UK. Their view is that "regulatory alignment" means that UK legislation must have the same effect as the corresponding EU legislation, but how it has that effect, how the legislation is worded, how it operates, is a matter for the UK.

- This isn't impossible. It's already the case that the bulk of EU legislation takes the form of Directives, which bind the member states as to the outcome to be achieved, but leave it up to the member states to pass their own laws to achieve that outcome. This seems to be what the UK wants. Then there are Regulations, EU legislation which is directly effective in member states. The UK doesn't want these to be directly effective, so I think there'd have to be some nifty footwork providing for EU Regulations to be treated by the UK as statement of objectives, with the UK then passing its own laws to produce the desired outcome. Tricky, but in principle doable, I think.

- Glitch no. 2: If ECJ jurisprudence is not to bind the UK directly, then there'd have to be some mechanism whereby relevant ECJ cases that affect the rules with which the UK is aligned get reflected in the UK. Again, I think some compromise should be possible here, if the will is there. The UK is already talking in another context of an arrangement in which the UK courts could choose to refer questions to the ECJ, without being bound to do so. Some similar arrangement might be helpful here.

- Glitch no. 3: The EU regulatory regime costs money to maintain. Members states contribute to this, as do members of the EEA. Whether the UK is to contribute to a regulatory regime from which it would benefit would be a matter for discussion. Perhaps it would pay a reduced contribution, reflecting the fact that it only benefits from the regulatory regime relating to goods, and not to services.

- Big attraction of all this for the UK: It doesn't involve accepting free movement. So there's a big chunk of control taken back by the UK right there. Is that "meaningful"? I think Brexiters would argue that it is; they've certainly been arguing that up to now.

- Big downside of all this for the UK: It doesn't give the UK any freedom to trade services into the EU. On the other hand, it does give them the freedom to regulate services however they like, and to enter into services trade agreements with third countries on whatever terms they like. Is that also a "meaningful" degree of control?

It would be unrealistic for the UK to expect to get full freedom to trade goods and services, while still rejecting free movement. Indeed, the very realisation that this was unrealistic was what led May to decide, in her Florence speech, that the UK would definitely be leaving the Single Market; they were never going to get single market participation but without free movement, since that's a contradiction in terms.

Under this deal the UK gets a substantial degree of control (over migration, over regulation of services, over trade in services) but it doesn't get back a further element of control that it might have hoped for (over regulation of goods, trade in goods) because that's imcompatible with another of the UK's stated objectives, which is keeping open the Irish border. And they get a really good trade deal with the EU which will certainly be more advantageous to them than any of the trade deals they might have made with third countries in relation to trade in goods, so not getting back this particular degree of control leaves them better-off than if they did get it back.

All in all, it's not a bad set of compromises for the UK, if they can pull it off. (It would leave Nigel Farage foaming at the mouth, but all right-thinking people will take that as a plus, not a minus.)

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm Irish and not British, and if Brexit is done carefully (increased control on trade policy in particular is key) it will be hugely beneficial. I've explained this position with clear reference to particular opportunities on the other thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Never mentioned whether you were or not, only stated what your position is (or at least what I understand it to be).

You have indeed explained your position, but not in any meaningful way and none that take account of the realities that are in place.

Taking back control but no regard to the position that the UK is in, in that US, WTO, etc etc will actually drive the control not you. Even India will demand something from the UK (visa etc) to get a trade deal.

And you have never addressed the elephant in the room. One of the main cried from the Anti-EU side has always been that UK were pretty much pushed around within the EU. How how the Brexit crowd explained how they will suddenly revert from being hopelessly outmaneuvered by the EU to being able to be in control of numerous trade deals.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whilst I agree with your position, I think that Solo and others have shown that we are missing the central part of the argument for Brexit. It is not a rational decision, based on facts and logic, it is a belief based position.

They feel hard done by in the EU, feel they have lost something of bring British. And they want it back.

Now, to me, this is akin to the support for Trump and MAGA. Nobody knows what it means, nobody is sure that the problem is and nobody is sure what the solution will look like if it ever did arrive, but it sounds like something better than now so why not.

The Guardian report will not make any impact, and reports like this are either dismissed as being wrong, dismissed as they aren't armageddon and thus better than what they could have been or viewed as a price worth paying for the feeling of taking back control.

The problem is, as has been pointed out by many on here, that due to the global nature of the world at this stage, that control is never actually going to be taken back. If not the EU, then the US, or NATO, or WTO, or UN etc etc.

When they sign new deals the thinking seems to be that other countries are dying to get into bed with the UK and will accept the UK being in charge. We already see from India that countries will want something in return. And what have the UK got to offer that the EU can't? So the UK will have to offer access to visa etc to get any trade deals, thus losing the control that the UK seems to be trying to get.

In Ireland, IMO, we have never seen ourselves as independent (in terms of the rest of the world relationships) we understand that we require other countries to trade with. For most of the time that was the UK, but since joining the EU we have been able to spread our wings.

The UK, again IMO, still harbours the empire mentality. That everyone should look to them, and that everyone wants to be them. But the US has changed that completely. But once you understand that thinking then the vote for Brexit starts to become more understandable, if still not warranted.

Very good post. It's the triumph of feeling over fact. Understandable in many ways, but ultimately self-defeating.

Water John

UK will end up the laws that completely mirror those of the EU. It will be back to back, but the EU will write them. They'll simply be, in different language. So they will have left the CU and SM.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

UK will end up the laws that completely mirror those of the EU. It will be back to back, but the EU will write them. They'll simply be, in different language. So they will have left the CU and SM.

And if this is what gives them the feeling of control then that's fine. I hope that the least that comes out of all this is that the people that voted to take back control will now use this to actually hold those in control (the government) to account when things don't work. It's nothing more than cosmetics but it may achieve something.

For too long, all the ills of the EU have been layed a the EU's door whilst all the gains are down the government alone. From Brexit on, the blame should be (it always was but was skillfully outsourced to the EU) taken up with the parliament.

It is not the EU fault that Grenfeld was such a disaster. It is not the EU fault that food banks continue to grow in number. It is not the EU's fault that not enough housing is being built. It is not the EU's fault that NI is still a subsidised economy.

I also think that the UK need to seriously consider their voting system, The current FPTP system does not give a true reflection of the voting public and tends to give one extreme or the other. This is somewhat changing in recent years with a clear movement that people don't seem to want one party only government, but it a question that need to be seriously considered.

It is worth remembering of course that the EU is a rule taker too.

It is not an unusual position to be in.

There are global bodies which declare standards. The EU have a voice in these bodies, but ultimately it is just that, a voice. A UK outside of the EU is able to exert influence on those bodies better than it can today.

Ultimately the long term end goal will be an awful lot of global harmonisation. Where both the EU and the UK will be 'rule takers'.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

- Glitch number 1: The UK won't want EU law having direct effect in the UK. Their view is that "regulatory alignment" means that UK legislation must have the same effect as the corresponding EU legislation, but how it has that effect, how the legislation is worded, how it operates, is a matter for the UK.

- This isn't impossible. It's already the case that the bulk of EU legislation takes the form of Directives, which bind the member states as to the outcome to be achieved, but leave it up to the member states to pass their own laws to achieve that outcome. This seems to be what the UK wants. Then there are Regulations, EU legislation which is directly effective in member states. The UK doesn't want these to be directly effective, so I think there'd have to be some nifty footwork providing for EU Regulations to be treated by the UK as statement of objectives, with the UK then passing its own laws to produce the desired outcome. Tricky, but in principle doable, I think.

- Glitch no. 2: If ECJ jurisprudence is not to bind the UK directly, then there'd have to be some mechanism whereby relevant ECJ cases that affect the rules with which the UK is aligned get reflected in the UK. Again, I think some compromise should be possible here, if the will is there. The UK is already talking in another context of an arrangement in which the UK courts could choose to refer questions to the ECJ, without being bound to do so. Some similar arrangement might be helpful here.

Tying these together because this is the major issue; today the EU commission can take any country to the ECJ for failing to implement the laws. There has to be some form of enforcement mechanism relating to the UK as well which is legally binding AND that can act quickly to come to a ruling; not a 10 year dispute time ala WTO. This includes fines etc. to be issued as well as done today.

Secondly it would require EU oversight on regulation implementation to ensure it is aligned with actual EU law; once again this would simply apply the existing mechanisms for third party country alignment. This means EU would in essence audit UK on an ongoing basis to ensure that the standards are in effect and effective in execution and failure would lead to the above scenario. This also means UK would need to somehow set up all the relevant quangos etc. to take on this oversight policy.

Third I'd expect the reviews of goods still to be in place (third party country) but to be reduced to around 5% or less (depending on risk factor etc.).

- Glitch no. 3: The EU regulatory regime costs money to maintain. Members states contribute to this, as do members of the EEA. Whether the UK is to contribute to a regulatory regime from which it would benefit would be a matter for discussion. Perhaps it would pay a reduced contribution, reflecting the fact that it only benefits from the regulatory regime relating to goods, and not to services.

This is where I see you as to optimistic; looking at Norway they contribute on a per capita basis as much as UK does today. I'd not expect there to be any significant reduction in reality but a nominal reduction on the actual net contribution instead to be sold as a reduction (i.e. the £20 billion in reality being a £14 billion would be announced as a £7 billion reduction as UK now only will pay £13 billion a year to the EU). This is simply because a significant portion of EU countries (if not all) simply don't want to reduce the current budget going forward and this is the way to "buy them off" on the deal so to speak.

ambro25

flaneur wrote: »

They also have voting rights and an equivalent huge number of British citizens live here.

A friend of mine from the UK has begun the naturalisation process here because she's afraid that this may happen. She's fed up with brexit and just wants no future messing with her status here, lives here permanently, so is becoming Irish.

There's an assumption that everyone from the UK who lives here has Irish connections. It's simply not the case. Lots just moved here.

There are very large numbers of people in that position. It's unlikely that they'll really end up in a messy situation, but with the current UK government jingoism and weirdness, nothing's certain anymore. It's a very unpleasant feeling.

There's more unpleasant feelings to be had: your British friend must be up on all her naturalisation tick boxes to be starting the procedure, but spare a thought for the Brits emigrating currently or in the near-future, who are all starting on the bottom rung of the 5-year naturalisation ladder, with Brexit 2019 part-way up it.

For them, it's not a few weeks or months' more of uncertainty pending the decision, it's years yet, compounded by whatever form Brexit will eventually an actually materialise as, in due course.

My wife will be in that position from February 2018. Sometimes it's hard to insulate comments in more abstract/theoretical discussions, such as in here, from those feelings. Because for some, e.g. the 3.1m EU nationals in the UK and the 1m Brits in the EU, Brexit -and the referendum campaign, and its aftermath, <etc.>- cannot be anything other than personal. And it's been personal for close to 2 years now.

Don't get me wrong, it's been our joint and fully considered decision to up sticks, de facto relieving me from the uncertainties of Brexit, and equally de facto placing my wife to face them full-on, so that's not a post shifting blame or seeking pity. Just adding some more context to yours, flaneur, and accessorily a touch of coalface reality to what is a mostly theoretical debate: for some posters, the enduring lack of objectivity and wilful disregard of factual perspective by Brextremists is just like rubbing salt in the wound, more so than every passing thought at the senselessness of it all.

solodeogloria wrote: »

<...> This concern is a myth. She's entitled to stay in Ireland under the CTA irrespective of what happens. <...>

Including a repeal of the CTA and associated statutory provisions?

If there's one thing you should have noticed, from living in the UK for the past couple of years (at least, IIRC from your posts), and irrespective of your world view and opinion(s) about 'Brexit', it's that politically, nothing is impossible any more: so long as there are enough Tories still infighting and trying to cling to majority power, everything is up for the Brexit firesale. And by the evidence of the continuing self-conflicting vociferations of the highly-fragmented UK government, since the GFA is (for now still) on the chopping block, I wouldn't take the CTA to the bank just yet, either.

Sam Russell

Here is a question I would like as answer to.

If the UK is effectively in the customs union, whether by name or by fudge, who gets the tariffs collected on imports? Is the money handed over to the EU or does the UK retain it? For example, if I import widgets from China and they attract a tariff of 20%, and they are shipped through the UK, and the UK demands 20% of the declared value, will that money go to the EU or stay with the UK?

Just would like to know.

An Ciarraioch

Interestingly, Guy Verhofstadt has been rather forceful this morning, proposing amendments that would require last week's deal to be written into the Withdrawal Agreement, regardless of outcome:

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/940540781684719616

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/940531473609830401

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/12/david-davis-has-damaged-trust-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

Here is a question I would like as answer to.

If the UK is effectively in the customs union, whether by name or by fudge, who gets the tariffs collected on imports? Is the money handed over to the EU or does the UK retain it? For example, if I import widgets from China and they attract a tariff of 20%, and they are shipped through the UK, and the UK demands 20% of the declared value, will that money go to the EU or stay with the UK?

Just would like to know.

Using Norway as the example for the answer it would be Norway who'd keep the duties (as I've had a few examples with shipping internationally with Norway previously) as far as I'm aware; open for correction though.

LeinsterDub

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interestingly, Guy Verhofstadt has been rather forceful this morning, proposing amendments that would require last week's deal to be written into the Withdrawal Agreement, regardless of outcome:

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/940540781684719616

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/940531473609830401

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/12/david-davis-has-damaged-trust-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt

Rightly so David Davis basically said on Sunday they would ignore their agreement if they felt like it.

Larbre34

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Rightly so David Davis basically said on Sunday they would ignore their agreement if they felt like it.

Agreed. He's like Boris, knows himself and Fox are unsackable, so says what he likes to keep his own caucus on side.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Rightly so David Davis basically said on Sunday they would ignore their agreement if they felt like it.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Agreed. He's like Boris, knows himself and Fox are unsackable, so says what he likes to keep his own caucus on side.

Looks like the IT thinks it is the hated ECJ that will decide the veracity of whether the UK is bound by Fridays agreement or not - and it is likely it is bound.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Here is a question I would like as answer to.

If the UK is effectively in the customs union, whether by name or by fudge, who gets the tariffs collected on imports? Is the money handed over to the EU or does the UK retain it? For example, if I import widgets from China and they attract a tariff of 20%, and they are shipped through the UK, and the UK demands 20% of the declared value, will that money go to the EU or stay with the UK?

Just would like to know.

In the first instance, customs tariffs are collected by the member state into which the goods are imported.

But - and this is the bit you want an answer to, and I don't have the answer - I don't know if there's some mechanism by which the tariff receiptss are then, in effect, shared with other member states, either directly or by, e.g., adjustments to a country's payments towards, and receipts from, the EU budget.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the first instance, customs tariffs are collected by the member state into which the goods are imported.

But - and this is the bit you want an answer to, and I don't have the answer - I don't know if there's some mechanism by which the tariff receiptss are then, in effect, shared with other member states, either directly or by, e.g., adjustments to a country's payments towards, and receipts from, the EU budget.

I suspect it is part of the latter - that is by adjustments to each countries subvention to the budget. If that is so, then the UK will continue to pay into the EU budget, and probably be liable for part funding the EU bodies that support the single market and the CU. Those contributions will be of the same order as the current subventions minus the direct payment to farmers etc.

Not much point in Brexit if this is the result - no voice but still left with the bill and the rules and , of course, the ECJ.

Peregrinus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interestingly, Guy Verhofstadt has been rather forceful this morning, proposing amendments that would require last week's deal to be written into the Withdrawal Agreement, regardless of outcome

Except that rather assumes that the outcome will at least include a Withdrawal Agreement.

If things go completely pear-shaped, and the talks break down with each side spitting at the other, a forseeable (if hopefully unlikely) outcome is that the UK crashes out of the Union on 23 March 2019 without any agreement at all, not even a withdrawal agreement.

The UK has agreed that, in that case, it will maintain full alignment with those rule of the single market and the customs union which etc etc. But, in practice, what would the sanction be if they didn't?

They'd be in breach of last week's agreement, but last week's agreement is simply that talks will move on to phase 2. At a future point, where phase 2 has already ended, what is the sanction for breaching this agreement? The EU couldn't end the phase 2 talks again; by this time there would be no phase 2 talks to end.

I think the real sanction for the UK here would be political, not legal. If the UK were to breach the commitments they gave to the EU last week, that would be a standing dispute between the UK and the EU. Eventually - and probably sooner rather than later - the UK would need to deal with the EU about [i[]something[/i] - aviation rights, security co-operation, something - and at that point the UK's position would be very weak until the breach of last week's agreement was acknowledged, addressed and settled in some acceptable way.

Professor Moriarty

As a consequence of David Davis's "intent" interview on Sunday, this morning, Verhofstadt said this:

“As someone said, it’s an own goal. It is clear that the European council will be more strict now. It is saying: ‘Yeah, OK, these are our intentions, our commitments, we want these commitments translated into legal text before we make progress in the second stage.’ That is now the position of the council. I have seen a hardening of the position of the council and there will be a hardening of the position of the parliament.”


Interestingly, Davis said this on Monday in relation to his job:

"I don't have to be very clever, I don't have to know that much, I do just have to be calm."

Indeed.

Peregrinus

Ah, yes. David Davis, the famous genius.

I appreciate that to some extent the right noises need to be made to keep the more Ukippy wing of the Tories on side. But Davis needs to remember that what was secured by last week's agreement was a recommendation from the Commission to the Council that the Council should approve moving to phase 2. The Council doesn't actually decide that until Friday.

That should be a shoe-in, a formality. But if the UK talks down the seriousness of their own commitments loudly enough, they are almost tempting the Council to say no, this isn't quite good enough, we need the UK not only to make these commitments but to acknowledge explicitly that, yes, they are actually commitments, and not merely thought bubbles that we might puncture at any moment.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Sam Russell wrote: »

Here is a question I would like as answer to.

If the UK is effectively in the customs union, whether by name or by fudge, who gets the tariffs collected on imports? Is the money handed over to the EU or does the UK retain it? For example, if I import widgets from China and they attract a tariff of 20%, and they are shipped through the UK, and the UK demands 20% of the declared value, will that money go to the EU or stay with the UK?

Just would like to know.

Why would the UK pay customs duties to the EU if it is leaving the EU?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Looks like the IT thinks it is the hated ECJ that will decide the veracity of whether the UK is bound by Fridays agreement or not - and it is likely it is bound.

I think Davis was wrong to say what he said on the Andrew Marr show.

However, it is hard to see the ECJ as anything other than a kangaroo court if the UK were to crash out of the European Union. There is no basis for continuing jurisdiction of the court on the UK after the end of Article 50.

Point 3 or Article 50 says that the treaties are no longer binding on the member state after exiting the European Union:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

This talk of reneging on commitments is quite dangerous and might be off-putting to other countries as well as companies and individuals contemplating investing in a post-Brexit UK. Nobody is going to want to deal with a capricious government which might endanger their investments.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

However, it is hard to see the ECJ as anything other than a kangaroo court if the UK were to crash out of the European Union. There is no basis for continuing jurisdiction of the court on the UK after the end of Article 50.

If the UK crashes out without a withdrawal agreement, they'll have a lot more to worry about than the EU trying to enforce the Phase 1 deal via the ECJ, it'll be dogs and cats living together.

flaneur

The problem with all of this is you've a government that's only focused on its party political issues and the big picture - stability of the British economy and also governing for all the people not just a narrow majority of brexiteers - is not being considered at all.

They're laying the foundation for economic turmoil and also domestic political turmoil as a response to it.

Articles like this : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-11/brexit-battered-pound-as-volatile-as-emerging-market-currencies should be setting off alarm bells, but they're being ignored.


Or

"The Great British Pound now trades like an emerging market currency."

https://twitter.com/bondvigilantes/status/938708608925208576

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If things go completely pear-shaped, and the talks break down with each side spitting at the other, a forseeable (if hopefully unlikely) outcome is that the UK crashes out of the Union on 23 March 2019 without any agreement at all, not even a withdrawal agreement.

The UK has agreed that, in that case, it will maintain full alignment with those rule of the single market and the customs union which etc etc.

On what basis do you say the UK is bound to any commitments in the (unlikely) event of everything going pear-shaped?
Paragraph 49 which you have already quoted is subject to the caveat in Paragraph 5

5.
Under the caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the joint commitments set out below in this joint report shall be reflected in the Withdrawal Agreement in full detail.

The position here is similar to "sale agreed" when buying a house. An agreement is made, but until the contracts are signed, the house is not "sold".

When, and if, the Withdrawal Agreement has been signed and ratified, the UK will be bound by those commitments. That would be regardless of the outcome of the trade talks, which will be the subject of Phase 2 negotiations.
And you can be pretty sure they won't ratify the former until they know exactly what the result is of the latter.

axer

Is my understanding correct that there must be some sort of withdrawal document that is signed by both the UK and EU with regards leaving the EU no matter what for the UK to leave the EU - even if talks break down completely?
Or is it the case that once article 50 is triggered it is just a countdown and nothing more is actually required legally for the UK to leave the EU?

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



Norway isn't a member of the customs union. If you read my post you'll see that I said that it is membership of the customs union that precludes free trade arrangements.

We need to make sure to read what other people are saying properly. Otherwise the thread will just descend into strawmen.



My opinion wouldn't change. I'd follow the process for seeking PR which I've long been eligible to (and would have been eligible to if I was living in the UK for this long as a non-EU citizen also). The UK Government needs to resolve the concerns raised as a result of the referendum.



This concern is a myth. She's entitled to stay in Ireland under the CTA irrespective of what happens.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105143336&postcount=5706

But right here you said you wouldnt give up your citizenship.

The good Ship Solo changes tack at every opportunity including voting remain then changing to exit. I cant keep up because I am unsure if you can either.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, yes. David Davis, the famous genius.

I appreciate that to some extent the right noised need to be made to keep the more Ukippy wing of the Tories on side. But Davis needs to remember that what was secured by last week's agreement was a recommendation from the Commission to the Council that the Council should approve moving to phase 2. The Council doesn't actually decide that until Friday.

That should be a shoe-in, a formality. But if the UK talks down the seriousness of their own commitments loudly enough, they are almost tempting the Council to say no, this isn't quite good enough, we need the UK not only to make these commitments but to acknowledge explicitly that, yes, they are actually commitments, and not merely thought bubbles that we might puncture at any moment.

Is that method, which I can suddenly discern (thanks to your priming post) in the madness of the Brextremists' current after-the-gentleman's-agreement discourse?

:cool:

First Up

axer wrote: »

Is my understanding correct that there must be some sort of withdrawal document that is signed by both the UK and EU with regards leaving the EU no matter what for the UK to leave the EU - even if talks break down completely?
Or is it the case that once article 50 is triggered it is just a countdown and nothing more is actually required legally for the UK to leave the EU?

Nothing more required. The UK's membership ceases two years after A50. If nothing else is agreed by then, UK - EU trade reverts to WTO MFN terms. Unless the UK has new trade arrangements with other countries ready to kick in on the same day, trade with those countries also reverts to WTO terms.

The UK can also bring its departure date forward if it wants.

An Ciarraioch

And DD promptly agrees to work with Verhofstadt to make the Joint Document legally binding:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/940579318962499584