Brexit discussion thread III

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The states of the United States aren't nations. Nor are the regions and counties of the United Kingdom.

I presume by this comparison, you think the EU is already a United States of Europe - like what arch-federalist Martin Schulz is after?

There's no idea that makes me balk more than that one. I'm happier with Britain being an independent nation that makes its own decisions. Co-operating where necessary certainly, but not handing over huge amounts of control to any one organisation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You are showing a total lack of historical knowledge.

I am not a EU federalist and if I had been alive on the East cost of America in the 1780’s to 1820’s I would have not been a federalist either.

I too am happy for England, Wales, Scotland to be independent nations and happy if they decide to do so as not part of the EU project. NI is welcome to do as it wishes as well.

Also the sooner the UK are on their way the better and we can all get on with our own thing, I wish the UK the best but I believe history will not look kindly on those who have led the UK down the path to ruin, again I hope I am wrong and no one will know for 50 plus years, but history has thought me to see a mess unfolding.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The states of the United States aren't nations. Nor are the regions and counties of the United Kingdom.

I presume by this comparison, you think the EU is already a United States of Europe - like what arch-federalist Martin Schulz is after?

There's no idea that makes me balk more than that one. I'm happier with Britain being an independent nation that makes its own decisions. Co-operating where necessary certainly, but not handing over huge amounts of control to any one organisation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

They've handed over complete control to the EU. They decide the pace, structure and timing of the negotiations. They decide Britain's future power. Every member of the EU 27 controls the fate of Britain now where as before Britain had power of veto over EU matters. Now 10 members of the DUP have that. The UK has continued to concede to every demand the EU has issued and will keep doing so.

Infini

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I respect the democratic verdict the people gave. The electorate voted for their own considered reasons to leave. I respect that and you obviously don't.

The task at hand is to get the job done. I don't view this in highly emotive terms. Just as the UK elected to ratify Maastricht (albeit without a referendum) and assent to handing over control in 1992, the electorate voted in 2016 to take back this control.



Yes. Peers that are entitled to make their own decisions.

Britain has decided to leave the EU. One can hold to that position without holding to notions of superiority.

What I'm seeking is no different to the control that most sovereign nations on earth have over their affairs. I know of no bloc that demands the same amount of control as the European Union. It is an anomaly. No trading arrangement will demand the same level of control as the European Union demands of its members.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Lets make this simple.

Britain HAS no control by leaving. They have control if they say. They lose any control they have if they leave. PERIOD. The way things are going in a few decades the worlds going to be dominated by large economic bloc's like the EU, US, China, Russia etc and most smaller countries will eventually band together out of necessity.

The problem is that some people in Britain have never gotten over the fact that 2 devastaing world war's broke the back of their Empire and their power has waned. Not only that but the whole debate was purported by blatant lies and toxic media outlets. You only have to look at those same hypocrites firing bile in their columns at those who voted against the government because they wont buy into their scheme and want assurances and more importantly backup plans if thing fail. The one's spouting this shíte as far as I'm concerned are afraid of the people not respecting the will of the people. They're afraid because people are starting to cop onto their incompetency, their ineptness, their stupidity and their lies. They'll NEVER have anything better than what they have now.

If they had any coherent reasoning they would have spent less time whinging about blaming the EU for THEIR incompetencies and more time building up support for their position regarding immigration for example. The funny thing is there is people who agree with them in regards to immigration, there needs to be proper ways of rewarding those legal ones who come and those who come and work hard while filtering out those who dont qualify or who are acting the maggot.

I still believe that ultimately Brexit will be cancelled because at the MINIMUM the final deal will be inferior no matter what to what they have now will be pushed to a referendum and people wont be caught out a second time by the lies of the Brexiteers as by that stage they'll be discredited.

flaneur

What's baffling me is that even this far into the process a significant % of the commentary in the UK is as clueless as it was 12+ months ago.

There was a Tory on Sky News this evening (I didn't catch his name) but he was on a big pontificating speech about how the EU is "bossed by German" and that Germany runs the EU, thus this is a negotiation between the UK and Germany and effectively all the other 26 don't matter.

It's attitudes like that that will cause someome to use a veto and it should be very clear from what's being going on with Ireland and others that they have to satisfy all 27 members, as well as the European Parliament before this is going to move at all.

There's very little point in going into a discussion about the EU based on how someone imagines it works, as opposed to how it really works.

I think a huge part of the problem here is they have created a narrative about this nasty organisation run by some kind of weird caricature of Germany and it has become so bought-in to the believe it to be fact.

I'm not really sure how you can negotiate when a large % or one wide of the negotiation simply aren't operating with facts or reality.

It's frustrating to watch the debate just consistently degenerate into absolute fantasy and make-believe. There's also no sense of any kind of rational discussion about what plans they have to progress beyond this situation. Are we going to be here in 2019 still blathering on about hard vs soft Brexit and Brexit meaning brexit ?

I have a feeling at this stage the UK's biggest risk is just falling out of the EU while having a fight with itself. Yet, apparently these same people can negotiate massive international trade deals with basically everyone in the world !?

There's a point we'll all just give up and move on.

Creol1

listermint wrote: »

But great Britain is made up of several countries , why would you deny these counties the right to the same democracy that you shouted out about two posts ago


Proceed..

Great Britain comprises the nations of England, Scotland and Wales. The voters of England and Wales voted to exit the EU and the voters of Scotland rejected independence in 2014, meaning they chose to remain part of the UK and to be bound by the decisions of the UK as a whole.

J Mysterio

Really Interested wrote: »

You are showing a total lack of historical knowledge.

I am not a EU federalist and if I had been alive on the East cost of America in the 1780’s to 1820’s I would have not been a federalist either.

I too am happy for England, Wales, Scotland to be independent nations and happy if they decide to do so as not part of the EU project. NI is welcome to do as it wishes as well.

Also the sooner the UK are on their way the better and we can all get on with our own thing, I wish the UK the best but I believe history will not look kindly on those who have led the UK down the path to ruin, again I hope I am wrong and no one will know for 50 plus years, but history has thought me to see a mess unfolding.

I dont think we will have to wait 50 years. I think we already know this is a disaster to an extent.

If this had been part of a long term plan which had been thought out and agreed upon, that would be one thing, but it's actually just a downward spiral.

listermint

Creol1 wrote: »

Great Britain comprises the nations of England, Scotland and Wales. The voters of England and Wales voted to exit the EU and the voters of Scotland rejected independence in 2014, meaning they chose to remain part of the UK and to be bound by the decisions of the UK as a whole.

Under the guise of being in the EU


Try again

flaneur

Creol1 wrote: »

Great Britain comprises the nations of England, Scotland and Wales. The voters of England and Wales voted to exit the EU and the voters of Scotland rejected independence in 2014, meaning they chose to remain part of the UK and to be bound by the decisions of the UK as a whole.

That's just the nature of having a weird ad hoc devolution rather than a propetly defined federal UK. It's effectively "England & some other former countries."

When anything done on a UK level Scotland and NI don't really count at all. That's always been a fundamental problem - the UK's a country, except when it isn't.

I mean Northern Ireland doesn't even have the same political parties as England/Wales and Scotland's heading that way since the rise of the SNP, yet somehow they all use one parliament... It's a very strange "system".

Sadly, it's reflective of a British solution to a British problem and the usual belt and braces approach to everything. It's also why they'll struggle with this Brexit process, as most of the rest of the EU will expect structure and logic and they're unlikely to get it.

Akrasia

Creol1 wrote: »

Great Britain comprises the nations of England, Scotland and Wales. The voters of England and Wales voted to exit the EU and the voters of Scotland rejected independence in 2014, meaning they chose to remain part of the UK and to be bound by the decisions of the UK as a whole.

A big reason Scotland voted to remain in Britain was because they were told if they left they'd have to re apply for EU membership.

Infini

Creol1 wrote: »

Great Britain comprises the nations of England, Scotland and Wales. The voters of England and Wales voted to exit the EU and the voters of Scotland rejected independence in 2014, meaning they chose to remain part of the UK and to be bound by the decisions of the UK as a whole.

Staying in the EU was one of the reasons that Scotland voted to remain in the UK. Had this happened after Brexit the Scots would be noping out of this fiasco faster than files on shít. If the Scots go then Irish Reunification wont be far behind and all that will be left is the rump of Little England. Brexit is a bigger threat to the UK than the EU ever was as it risks tearing their country apart expecially when lies and bile were used to bring about the situation.

flaneur

Akrasia wrote: »

A big reason Scotland voted to remain in Britain was because they were told if they left they'd have to re apply for EU membership.

I think the main reason they voted remain in the EU is simply that they're by and large, not hardcore British nationalists and don't see the EU as incompatible with a Scottish identity.

If you look at Northern Ireland the majority voted remain, except the hardcore of the DUP's support base, which also would be hardcore British nationalists.

Scotland's likely to be pragmatic about the UK question. If Brexit materialises as damaging the Scottish economy, I think you'll see Scottish pushes for independence becoming much more likely.
The question the arises, would a Tory/UKIP oriented British government let them leave? Or, are you looking at a Catalonia situation where the right wing turn on them as traitors to the cause?

I really don’t think it would take much for the English right to turn on the SNP like that.
I’m really speculating here, but I think the mood music in England has changed a lot since Brexit. I’m not so sure you’ll see all that much accommodation of breakway bits of the UK anymore. There hasn’t been this kind of display of British nationalism in a long time and it’s very different to recent decades and the move towards devolved governments etc etc.

J Mysterio

Scotland shouldnt be compated to Catalonia.

flaneur

J Mysterio wrote: »

Scotland shouldnt be compated to Catalonia.

I don’t really see why not. There are many parallels.
Obviously, the histories are not identical but the present day situations are very comparable. You’ll struggle to find two situations that are identical but there are definite comparisons.

J Mysterio

flaneur wrote: »

I don’t really see why not. There are many parallels.
Obviously, the histories are not identical but the present day situations are very comparable. You’ll struggle to find two situations that are identical but there are definite comparisons.

They're totally different. The only useful comparison is in terms of their possible joining of the EU in the event of their being indepedent.

Capt'n Midnight

Infini wrote: »

Lets make this simple.

Britain HAS no control by leaving. They have control if they say. They lose any control they have if they leave. PERIOD.

The amount they are paying for leaving has nothing to do with what they may have to pay for access to the EU in round two.

Negotiating with the EU would be relatively benign compared to dealing with the US or China who'll push hard. Even so the EU is constrained by it's other trade partners and the WTO and can't give the UK a better deal than already given to other countries.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/norway-facing-hard-brexit-without-transitional-deal-1.3284699

Marit Berger Røsland, the Norwegian minister for European Economic Area (EEA) and EU affairs, said on a visit to Dublin that to preserve the integrity of the single market, the UK and the remaining 27 EU member states should include the three EEA countries – Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein – on any legal arrangements agreed on Brexit.

I still believe that ultimately Brexit will be cancelled because at the MINIMUM the final deal will be inferior no matter what to what they have now will be pushed to a referendum and people wont be caught out a second time by the lies of the Brexiteers as by that stage they'll be discredited.

Hopefully.

Like I keep saying Norway pays the same per capita as the UK currently pays and gets a lot less than the UK wants. No passporting of financials, accepting Eu rules, freedom of movement and stuff.

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21716039-sooner-or-later-britain-will-face-trade-offs-between-sovereignty-and-access-norways-deal

even parts of the economy excluded from the EEA, such as fisheries and farming, have been exposed to the chill winds of EU competition law.

This bit is interesting given how the UK economy is doing.

one study finds that a rise of one percentage-point in unemployment triggers a seven-point spurt in support for full EU membership.

Samaris

There is a part of me that is rather /popcorn at the hard Brexiters (and more so their politicians) actually getting presented with what a Canada deal means, because the meltdowns will be amazing.

On the other hand, they'll whine and bitch about it for months and only come to the table by, say, October 2018. Then it will be squeaky bum time and the EEA option will return to the table..

joeysoap

TM apparently to announce tomorrow morning that she intends to look for new trade deals with other countries during Brexit negotiations.

Christy42

joeysoap wrote: »

TM apparently to announce tomorrow morning that she intends to look for new trade deals with other countries during Brexit negotiations.

How? If they end up having to follow EU regs they have to make sure that all trade deals have this as a condition. Unless they take that as a given and demand that from all trade goods from other countries?

Just hard to work out a trade deal when you don't know what conditions you need to add to the goods.

flaneur

joeysoap wrote: »

TM apparently to announce tomorrow morning that she intends to look for new trade deals with other countries during Brexit negotiations.

If true, it makes her look like an extremely unreliable negotiating partner and her promises seem meaningless.

I don't really accept that the senior negotiators don't realise the consequences of these statements. It's beyond disingenuous - they really can't be this lacking in basic knowledge, can they?

Enzokk

flaneur wrote: »

If true, it makes her look like an extremely unreliable negotiating partner and her promises seem meaningless.

I don't really accept that the senior negotiators don't realise the consequences of these statements. It's beyond disingenuous - they really can't be this lacking in basic knowledge, can they?

The UK can negotiate deals with other countries, what they cannot do is sign any deals. The problem I see as mentioned above is that they don't know what their relationship with the EU will be, and unfortunately a lot will depend on that. If they are a third country only then the terms will be different. If they are part of the SM and CU then the deal they can get changes.

It seems a waste to negotiate if you don't know what your relationship with the EU will be. They cannot guarantee frictionless trade with the EU so their trade deals will be started, but they will not be completed by Brexit day. If the UK government hasn't even decided what deal they want with the EU, how can other countries decide what deal they can offer the UK?

swampgas

Surely if the UK want to negotiate with third countries they will first have to figure out what their future status is likely to be, in terms of relationship to the EU? And if they are as vague with third parties as they have been with everyone else up to now, I can't see why anybody else would bother wasting effort on significant discussions. So much easier to wait for a year and see what emerges.

J Mysterio

joeysoap wrote: »

TM apparently to announce tomorrow morning that she intends to look for new trade deals with other countries during Brexit negotiations.

TM doing her best to antagonize the EU when she needs to keep them sweet.

Samaris

Well, Japan won't be interested until she's sorted things out with the EU. Nor will any other country that uses Britain as a safe, English-speaking opening into the EU market.

If she digs through the tumbleweed of everyone else leaving, maybe she'll be able to get a deal with Somalia or Kyrgystan. To be negotiated by Davis in his spare time and signed sometime in the distant future after the UK gets over being disputed through the WTO. Which absolutely will happen. First there's the schedules. Say they can get them out - other countries now get to object to bits in them that the EU had clout to negotiate and Britain alone does not. Then there's the intense lobbying from their own side - why is beet sugar being protected when Britain doesn't even produce it, but rather produces cane sugar? Then it turns out that Somalia produces cane sugar* and is now objecting to the UK having a protectionist stance on it. Etcetera.

...Yeah, it's all a bit pointless until they know what they're doing with the EU anyway and time continues to get less. This is like planning a three-course meal for ten people when you've just about figured out how to turn on the cooker and they're arriving in twenty minutes.

*Trufax (or they were until 2014 anyway)

J Mysterio

Guys like Hesseltine worked their whole lives to achieve something good for their country, must be very difficult to see the chaos unleashed now by the Brexiteer fools in what should be a quiet retirement. What happened to politics in Britain?

June 2016

March 2017

June 2017

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

TM doing her best to antagonize the EU when she needs to keep them sweet.

I suspect she's doing her best to placate the more rabid of her own backbenchers.

For the reasons others have pointed, out, the UK can do no serious talking to possible FTA counterparties until its talks with the EU about the long-term trading relationship are much more advanced than they are at this point. And they can't advance their "preliminary and preparatory" talks about an EU trading relationship until they work out what they need of of such a relationship, what they want out of it, and what they are prepared to do in order to get what they need or want. They have been studiously ignoring those three questions ever since the Brexit referendum. And their repeated public attempts to row back on the commitments they made in relation to the Irish border seem designed to ensure that the EU's focus won't move to trade matters for some time yet.

The UK's potential FTA counterparties will have noticed all this.

The UK government says it wants to move quickly to negotiate trade deals with third countries. But as far as I can see they have been doing everything they can to ensure that this does not happen. So this announcement is being made for political advantage (or out of political necessarity) only. If May actually wanted to talk trade with third countries, she'd be doing a lot of things very differently.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I'm seeking is no different to the control that most sovereign nations on earth have over their affairs. I know of no bloc that demands the same amount of control as the European Union. It is an anomaly. No trading arrangement will demand the same level of control as the European Union demands of its members.

That's because no trading arrangement offers the breadth and depth that the EU offers.

And it's the failure of the Brexit movement to engage with this and with the reality that underlies it that tells us that it is, ultimately, doomed. Brexit is still completely dependent on cakeism.

Here's Boris Johnson, yesterday:

"What we need to do is something new and ambitious, which allows zero tariffs & frictionless trade but still gives us that important freedom to decide our own regulatory framework, our own laws & do things in a distinctive way in the future”

And here's an EU official, speaking the day before:

"You can’t have frictionless trade and be outside the customs union and the single market. The way to have frictionless trade is to be in those constructions. That’s why they were created.”

The EU official is of course correct. The single market and the customs union look as they do because, if given a design brief to construct a trading relationship in which tariff-free frictionless trade is possible, you end up with the single market and the customs union.

Why are we still having this exchange, 18 months after the Brexit referendum? Because the logic of brexitry cannot get past this point. If Brexiters could face the trade-off between regulatory control and trade integration they would have done so by now. They avoid it because, deep down, in their heart of hearts they know that the day they have to choose between them is the day the wheels come off the whole Brexit project.

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

I am actually seeing the argument, apparently made in earnest, that it would all have been fine if Article 50 had been triggered the day after the referendum.

Can anyone explain what this logic is? Is it the general election they're referring to or is it something something even shorter time is better? If we do it quickly enough, maybe the EU won't notice?

The logic is that "the arguments underlying the Brexit case are bogus, it's a miracle that we won the referendum, and we should aim to railroad the thing though as quickly as possible to minimise the chance that the electorate will wake up to reality before it's too late".

This is why, e.g., judges who rule that the law must be respect and parliament must have it's say are "enemies of the people", Tories who believe that Parliament should have a continuing say should be "ashamed", etc, etc. The more chance people have to reflect on this, the more public debate there is, the wider the circle of people who become involved in decision-making, the less likely it is that voters will still want to go through with it.

And what is a Brexiter to do if the people themselves become enemies of the people? Dissolve them, and elect another?

Creol1

listermint wrote: »

Under the guise of being in the EU


Try again

Akrasia wrote: »

A big reason Scotland voted to remain in Britain was because they were told if they left they'd have to re apply for EU membership.

Infini wrote: »

Staying in the EU was one of the reasons that Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

The opinion polls since the Brexit referendum have continued to show Scottish voters support remaining in the UK.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's because no trading arrangement offers the breadth and depth that the EU offers.

And it's the failure of the Brexit movement to engage with this and with the reality that underlies it that tells us that it is, ultimately, doomed. Brexit is still completely dependent on cakeism.

Here's Boris Johnson, yesterday:

"What we need to do is something new and ambitious, which allows zero tariffs & frictionless trade but still gives us that important freedom to decide our own regulatory framework, our own laws & do things in a distinctive way in the future”

And here's an EU official, speaking the day before:

"You can’t have frictionless trade and be outside the customs union and the single market. The way to have frictionless trade is to be in those constructions. That’s why they were created.”

The EU official is of course correct. The single market and the customs union look as they do because, if given a design brief to construct a trading relationship in which tariff-free frictionless trade is possible, you end up with the single market and the customs union.

Why are we still having this exchange, 18 months after the Brexit referendum? Because the logic of brexitry cannot get past this point. If Brexiters could face the trade-off between regulatory control and trade integration they would have done so by now. They avoid it because, deep down, in their heart of hearts they know that the day they have to choose between them is the day the wheels come off the whole Brexit project.

Good morning!

You need to qualify that statement. No trading arrangement offers the breath and depth that the EU offers within the European Union.

There is a big world outside of the EU and the UK needs powers to expand that after Brexit by liberalising trade terms.

Britain is leaving the EU come what may - the task is to leave in the best way possible. That isn't by locking down trade policy. That's short termism that effectively means that the UK hasn't left the EU. The best long term option is to regain control in this area.

I agree with Boris Johnson's language describing a situation where the UK is constrained by the single market and customs union as being a "vassal state". That's true if no control is regained.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

Creol1 wrote: »

The opinion polls since the Brexit referendum have continued to show Scottish voters support remaining in the UK.

They do, by and large, but this doesn't mean that the Scots are pleased about Brexit, or about the terms on which the UK is making this decision.

The British union (as opposed to the European Union) is a seriously imbalanced one, with one nation, England, outweighing all the others together by a factor of more than four to one. It may be true, as you say, that the result of the Scottish Indyref meant that Scotland "chose to remain part of the UK and to be bound by the decisions of the UK as a whole", but I think in such an unbalanced union a necessary quid pro quo is that the English won't use their dominance of "the UK as a whole" to make and enforce judgments against the wishes and interests of the other countries in the union without giving some consideration to their position. And the Brexit referendum was a pretty clear case of that.

And this observation is underlined by the fact that UK unionists urged a vote against Scottish independence on the grounds that it would take Scotland out of the EU and, a couple of years after having been persuaded by this argument, the Scots find themselves being taken out of the EU because that's what the English want.

This hasn't, as you point out, resulted in a sudden surge of support for Scottish independence, but that doesn't mean that it won't have longer-term effects. Brexit will not be good for Scotland - not even Brexiters are producing modelling suggesting that it will be, SFAIK - and as Scotland feels the effectso f Brexit, expect them to recall the circumstances in which it was foisted upon them to help the Tory party solve a problem in England.

murphaph

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK can negotiate deals with other countries, what they cannot do is sign any deals. The problem I see as mentioned above is that they don't know what their relationship with the EU will be, and unfortunately a lot will depend on that. If they are a third country only then the terms will be different. If they are part of the SM and CU then the deal they can get changes.

It seems a waste to negotiate if you don't know what your relationship with the EU will be. They cannot guarantee frictionless trade with the EU so their trade deals will be started, but they will not be completed by Brexit day. If the UK government hasn't even decided what deal they want with the EU, how can other countries decide what deal they can offer the UK?

Nobody has a bunch of trade negotiators sitting around idle. They will not deploy a precious resource like this to a complete unknown. They will negotiate deals with other blocs and countries that have a concrete position. The UK will wait until its relationship with the EU is actually clear.

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You need to qualify that statement. No trading arrangement offers the breath and depth that the EU offers within the European Union.

There is a big world outside of the EU and the UK needs powers to expand that after Brexit by liberalising trade terms.

Britain is leaving the EU come what may - the task is to leave in the best way possible. That isn't by locking down trade policy. That's short termism that effectively means that the UK hasn't left the EU. The best long term option is to regain control in this area.

I agree with Boris Johnson's language describing a situation where the UK is constrained by the single market and customs union as being a "vassal state". That's true if no control is regained.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Okay, so you want no or as limited trade as possible with the 27 nearest countries, at least we've reached a position.

How credible is that position? Where are the trade deals to be made that will make up for the serious loss in throughput?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

You need to qualify that statement. No trading arrangement offers the breath and depth that the EU offers within the European Union.

No trading arrangement offers any breadth and depth at all outside the area covered by the trading arrangement (except, ironically, the EU, which has trading arrangements with third countries from which member states benefit).

But, even ignoring its third-country arrangements, the EU is on its own terms the largest, widest and deepest international trading arrangement the world has ever seen. There is no possibility whatsoever that the UK can leave it, and then create its own trading arrangement, or network of trading arrangements, which will offer similar scope and depth.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is a big world outside of the EU and the UK needs powers to expand that after Brexit by liberalising trade terms.

The UK will desperately need to expand that, in the hope of remedying just a fraction of the damage that it will have done to its international trade by leaving the single market. And the first and largest step the UK will need to take is the negotiation of a trade deal with the EU. As long as the UK sticks rigidly to its “red lines” there is of course no possibility that this will be anything like as beneficial to UK trade as single market participation has been but, the closer they get to gluing together what they have smashed, the less reliance they need to place on the dubious promise of wondrously generous trade deals with Donald Trump, Kim Jong-Un and countries yet to be discovered under the sea.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain is leaving the EU come what may - the task is to leave in the best way possible. That isn't by locking down trade policy. That's short termism that effectively means that the UK hasn't left the EU. The best long term option is to regain control in this area.

The best long term option is to stay in the EU. Failing that, the next best long-term option is to replicate EU membership as closely as possible - e.g. by EEA membership. Failing that, make every possible concession to get the best deal the EU is willing to offer. The EU trade deal will be far more important to the UK than all its other trade deals combined. Any sacrifice of other trading opportunities in order to improve trading opportunities with the EU will always pay off for UK trade. As long as there is an EU, this will never change.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree with Boris Johnson's language describing a situation where the UK is constrained by the single market and customs union as being a "vassal state". That's true if no control is regained.

If you agree with Boris Johnson, there’s probably no help for you. Johnson’s logic is self-defeating. The control which Brexit restores to the UK is the right to choose between regulatory autonomy and trade integration. Johnson flatly refuses to exercise that control; he will not make that choice, or acknowledge that it must be made.

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

Okay, so you want no or as limited trade as possible with the 27 nearest countries, at least we've reached a position.

How credible is that position? Where are the trade deals to be made that will make up for the serious loss in throughput?

Good morning!

There's another way of looking at it. I support the most liberal trading relationship that one can get whilst also regaining control over key areas such as trade policy and immigration. I want to ensure that the UK still holds a significant amount of trade with the EU as that is in the obvious interests of both parties. Let's see Phase 2.

I have a feeling that 2018 will be a year even more full of shrill doomsday prophecy. The noise needs to be ignored. The Government needs to complete the work it has started and get the best Brexit possible. Which in my mind must involve a substantial amount of control being regained by parliament. Staying calm and sticking the course is the right thing to do.

Brexit has been hugely significant in increasing mass participation in democracy. This needs to continue post-Brexit in much the same way as it has in the lead up to Brexit and in the negotiating process. This is a good outcome from what has happened.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There's another way of looking at it. I support the most liberal trading relationship that one can get whilst also regaining control over key areas such as trade policy and immigration. I want to ensure that the UK still holds a significant amount of trade with the EU as that is in the obvious interests of both parties. Let's see Phase 2.

I have a feeling that 2018 will be a year even more full of shrill doomsday prophecy. The noise needs to be ignored. The Government needs to complete the work it has started and get the best Brexit possible. Which in my mind must involve a substantial amount of control being regained by parliament. Staying calm and sticking the course is the right thing to do.

Brexit has been hugely significant in increasing mass participation in democracy. This needs to continue post-Brexit in much the same way as it has in the lead up to Brexit and in the negotiating process. This is a good outcome from what has happened.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A CETA like deal it is then. Happy with that?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There's another way of looking at it. I support the most liberal trading relationship that one can get whilst also regaining control over key areas such as trade policy and immigration . . . Brexit has been hugely significant in increasing mass participation in democracy. This needs to continue post-Brexit in much the same way as it has in the lead up to Brexit and in the negotiating process. This is a good outcome from what has happened.

In which case, why should what you support carry any more weight than what anyone else supports? If leaders like Boris Johnson are not prepared to exercise the control that has been won, should the matter be put to the public? Should they be asked if they'd rather have an open border with Ireland, and the associated limitations on trading agreements with third countries, or the other way around? Should they be asked the same question with regard to trade integration with the EU, which they were repeatedly assured in the referendum campaign they could have after Brexit?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain is leaving the EU come what may - the task is to leave in the best way possible. That isn't by locking down trade policy. That's short termism that effectively means that the UK hasn't left the EU. The best long term option is to regain control in this area.

I agree with Boris Johnson's language describing a situation where the UK is constrained by the single market and customs union as being a "vassal state". That's true if no control is regained.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's another way of looking at it. I support the most liberal trading relationship that one can get whilst also regaining control over key areas such as trade policy and immigration. I want to ensure that the UK still holds a significant amount of trade with the EU as that is in the obvious interests of both parties. Let's see Phase 2.

I have a feeling that 2018 will be a year even more full of shrill doomsday prophecy. The noise needs to be ignored. The Government needs to complete the work it has started and get the best Brexit possible. Which in my mind must involve a substantial amount of control being regained by parliament. Staying calm and sticking the course is the right thing to do.

Brexit has been hugely significant in increasing mass participation in democracy. This needs to continue post-Brexit in much the same way as it has in the lead up to Brexit and in the negotiating process. This is a good outcome from what has happened.

So you are all for a border on Ireland. Because, and I have to post this again, you cannot have freedom to negotiate your own trade deals and have no borders between the UK and the EU. I will repeat, you cannot have frictionless trade if you are not aligned with the rules, which means you are in the CU.

As long as you accept this position and not keep posting the utopia of a comprehensive FTA with no borders but the ability to do your own trade deals as you would like, we can move on. But you just keep posting the Vote Leave PR messages.

In other news, seems that Gove will start the task of getting rid of the EU Working Time Directive. Now I see no problem with this, but my question would be what will you replace it with? And would you trust Micheal Gove to come up with something that protects workers? And why did the turkeys vote for Christmas?

Michael Gove Accused Of Plotting To Steal Holiday Days From Workers

And the Tory rebels have proposed that those from either party that want a soft Brexit should come together and work for this. This is the only practical solution to ensure no hard Brexit gets pushed through by those on the extreme right.

Conservative rebels urge May to form cross-party alliance for soft Brexit

Conservative backbench rebels who defeated the government last week are urging Theresa May to reach out to Labour MPs and form a cross-party alliance for a soft Brexit.

This could work if there is the will from Labour. But why would Labour help keep the Conservatives in power by going for the sensible solution?

Calina

It seems to me the UK wants a single market without having to administrate a single market.

This is at the heart of the problem. And it explains the anti ECJ policies.

Infini

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There's another way of looking at it. I support the most liberal trading relationship that one can get whilst also regaining control over key areas such as trade policy and immigration. I want to ensure that the UK still holds a significant amount of trade with the EU as that is in the obvious interests of both parties. Let's see Phase 2.

I have a feeling that 2018 will be a year even more full of shrill doomsday prophecy. The noise needs to be ignored. The Government needs to complete the work it has started and get the best Brexit possible. Which in my mind must involve a substantial amount of control being regained by parliament. Staying calm and sticking the course is the right thing to do.

Brexit has been hugely significant in increasing mass participation in democracy. This needs to continue post-Brexit in much the same way as it has in the lead up to Brexit and in the negotiating process. This is a good outcome from what has happened.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Hah good laugh there mate. There wont be any need for prophecies as it will be all HARD RELENTLESS REALITY that will be hitting as more and more of this farce unravels.

ANY trade deal the UK gets will be on the EUs terms only ans they wont have any choice otherwise. Its take it or leave it. One of the few good things about the EU is that because theyre a union of multiple states theyre meticulous about every little detail as they have to cover every contingency.

If theres one thing about Brexit its that its snapped many people out of their complacency. Whats more is that as more and more of the Brexiteers delusions are utterly shredded and theyre show as the conmen that they are, public opinion will veer back towards staying. Thats why the Brexiteers are shouting louder these days, theyre terrified of the public who are copping onto their lies and the more information coming out showing every one of their promises are blatent lies and utterly devoid of facts.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

So you are all for a border on Ireland. Because, and I have to post this again, you cannot have freedom to negotiate your own trade deals and have no borders between the UK and the EU. I will repeat, you cannot have frictionless trade if you are not aligned with the rules, which means you are in the CU.

No, I'm not. We need to see what can be agreed in phase 2.

My criteria for a good Brexit is rather rudimentary. It requires significantly more control regained than the status quo. There's a lot of room for discussion within that broad parameter but it does rule out formal customs union and single market membership.

The outcome received cannot be the same as the status quo. That's not good enough for those who voted for tangible change.

Enzokk wrote: »

As long as you accept this position and not keep posting the utopia of a comprehensive FTA with no borders but the ability to do your own trade deals as you would like, we can move on. But you just keep posting the Vote Leave PR messages.

If you don't want a multiplicity of views on this thread that's your prerogative.

I'm entitled to hold this view and to argue for it.

I've not witnessed such a clear example of group think on boards.ie as on this subject.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

lawred2

joeysoap wrote: »

TM apparently to announce tomorrow morning that she intends to look for new trade deals with other countries during Brexit negotiations.

Based upon what regulatory and compliance frameworks?

mickoneill31

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm entitled to hold this view and to argue for it.

I've not witnessed such a clear example of group think on boards.ie as on this subject.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Group think or consensus?

If most people agree on one position it doesn't mean it's group think. And calling it that seems to indicate a last gasp argument.

Zubeneschamali

murphaph wrote: »

A CETA like deal it is then. Happy with that?

A big problem for the Brexiteers is what to do next. The Eurosceptic wing of the Tories risks going the way of UKIP - once brexit is achieved, who needs them?

I think the plan is to go for a Canada type deal, and continue for the rest of their careers to blame the EU for borders, tariffs, damage to trade, inflation, unemployment, NHS failures and all the other predictable results of Brexit by holding to the line that this was not what they wanted, they wanted cake, but the nasty EU wouldn't give them any.

So they will deliberately damage the UK so that they continue to have a bogeyman to rally their supporters.

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



No, I'm not. We need to see what can be agreed in phase 2.

My criteria for a good Brexit is rather rudimentary. It requires significantly more control regained than the status quo. There's a lot of room for discussion within that broad parameter but it does rule out formal customs union and single market membership.

The outcome received cannot be the same as the status quo. That's not good enough for those who voted for tangible change.


If you don't want a multiplicity of views on this thread that's your prerogative.

I'm entitled to hold this view and to argue for it.

I've not witnessed such a clear example of group think on boards.ie as on this subject.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Here is the problem with what you want, by saying you are not ruling out customs union and single market you have to then rule in some of the free movements and then the UK must accept at the very least that their regulations must conform with EU, by very definition giving up control or accepting that they will not have full control. The more access the less control, except that the UK will have little or no input in to decisions.

Why do you not have issue with immigration from Ireland but do from the remaining 26?

Leroy42

Really Interested wrote: »

Why do you not have issue with immigration from Ireland but do from the remaining 26?

This is something I have been asking about as well. it seems that it is simply down to past agreements or some such and that we are pretty much the same.

But my worry is that once Brexit comes through and if it results (which all the reports seem to suggest as well as common sense) in a reduction in prosperity then surely someone else has to be blamed. If they have already kicked out all the other foreigners surely the Irish will be next?

I was having a discussion about Brexit over the weekend and the issue of NI came up. I think that NI is also likely to be held up as part of the blame should things not work out. If, for example, the whole of the UK stays within the EU regulations, I would think it won't take that long for mainland to start questioning why they needed to give up so much just to keep NI happy, and at that continue to subsidise it by £9bn a year (which may have to increase in light of Brexit but unlikely to reduce).

If I was a unionist in NI I would be pretty nervous for the future stability of the union

FreudianSlippers

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm entitled to hold this view and to argue for it.

This statement is a massive problem at the moment on boards.ie and in a broader sense (particularly bad in the US at the moment for some reason).

It's just blatantly incorrect - sure, everyone is entitled to have an opinion and to say things whether intelligent or idiotic; however, a persons opinion is not as valid as a statement of fact or an opinion that is supported by factual information.

The major problem with discourse and debate at present is this false idea that everyone's opinion is worth as much as facts and expert opinion.

It's not.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree with Boris Johnson's language describing a situation where the UK is constrained by the single market and customs union as being a "vassal state". That's true if no control is regained.

Since Johnson is talking about regulatory divergence here and you appear to agree with him on this point, whats your solution then for the RoI/NI border?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

My criteria for a good Brexit is rather rudimentary. It requires significantly more control regained than the status quo. There's a lot of room for discussion within that broad parameter but it does rule out formal customs union and single market membership.

I note that you are setting limits on the extent to which you will accept a compromise of the UK's requirement for regulatory freedom, but you are not setting any limits to the extent to which you will accept a compromise of the UK's requirement for an open border.

Should we conclude that there are no such limits? That you will accept any degree of border closure in Ireland in order to maximise the UK's regulatory freedom? Or is there a degree of closure beyond which you will not go, and that you will sacrifice a degree of regulatory freedom in order to avoid?

And, if the latter, what is your bottom line for an open border?

Infini

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you don't want a multiplicity of views on this thread that's your prerogative.

I'm entitled to hold this view and to argue for it.

I've not witnessed such a clear example of group think on boards.ie as on this subject.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Youre more than welcome to hold your views just dont act so suprised when those views dont hold water when challenged by facts. Thats whats happening in these negotiations. Their feelings and desires are shredded by the hard reality of facts.

I myself take a negative view of brexit because I look at the facts and find every single argument the Brexiteers advocate holds little to no water. I find its a completely self defeating excercise because what we need is for the EU to be fixed and reformed not thrown in the bin because its inconvenient for some. I certainly didnt like how they treated Greece and Ireland but Im not about to forget the 40 odd years of good they gave either.

While everyone can have an opinion what I find utterly contemptable is those who peddle lies and throw utter bile at those in the UK who are standing up to the stupidity of this. Aka the rag media publications. Theyre spouting that crap because in the back of their minds they know they have no facts to back up their arguments.

As for this site this is an Irish site remember so dont be suprised were taking a dim view of this whole fiasco and how stupid and self defeating it is.

solodeogloria

Infini wrote: »

Youre more than welcome to hold your views just dont act so suprised when those views dont hold water when challenged by facts. Thats whats happening in these negotiations. Their feelings and desires are shredded by the hard reality of facts.

I myself take a negative view of brexit because I look at the facts and find every single argument the Brexiteers advocate holds little to no water. I find its a completely self defeating excercise because what we need is for the EU to be fixed and reformed not thrown in the bin because its inconvenient for some. I certainly didnt like how they treated Greece and Ireland but Im not about to forget the 40 odd years of good they gave either.

While everyone can have an opinion what I find utterly contemptable is those who peddle lies and throw utter bile at those in the UK who are standing up to the stupidity of this. Aka the rag media publications. Theyre spouting that crap because in the back of their minds they know they have no facts to back up their arguments.

As for this site this is an Irish site remember so dont be suprised were taking a dim view of this whole fiasco and how stupid and self defeating it is.

Good morning!

This would be fair if there were any "facts" presented as to Brexit leading to the apocalypse.

There hasn't been a single one.

Speculative analysis after speculative analysis but nothing more. Quite a few of the speculative pieces of short term analysis before the referendum simply haven't happened.

On looking to the pros and cons of each option. I've concluded that maximising as much freedom as can be gained whilst retaining as much trade with the EU is the best long term option.

It is manifestly untrue however to say that there are facts to support the idea that Brexit is bound to lead to the apocalypse.

This is precisely the type of empty doomsday prophecy that the Government shouldn't buckle to.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria