Brexit discussion thread III

srsly78

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think it very much depends on how long the UK drag this out for and how much sh1te they keep trying to throw at the EU.

If things go on like they did up to the end of phase 1 I really can't see the EU doing anything but play hardball. Remember, if the UK want to come back it is an admission that they are better off in the EU, the EU will want something for all the hassle, distruption and negativity that this has caused. Remember that Brexit was imagined as the start of the breakup of the EU itself, and may yet do that. No doubting that it has negatively effected the standing of the EU.

Second, surely the EU can't just let the UK walk back in like nothing happened? You would have every country trying their luck at that rate.

Again if it was in a bubble then I completely agree, but people are watching

Could indeed just let them back in, but with normal membership - not with their special rebate and other concessions.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

<...>

Second, surely the EU can't just let the UK walk back in like nothing happened? You would have every country trying their luck at that rate.

Again if it was in a bubble then I completely agree, but people are watching

Respectfully, I very much doubt that, because it's not the shenanigans for the gallery that are likely to impress onlookers with diverging interests: more the very real cost (£350m per week estimate) which the running-up to actual Brexit is already costing the UK, before negotiations have even gotten to the meaty stuff and before the UK has actually left. People are not only watching, they're highly likely to be learning as well: the UK is positively haemorrhaging talent, FDI and supply contracts, at a rate of knots.

In business terms, and by way of analogy, I think of this all as Apple, Coca Cola, Unilever or Google deliberately tanking their brand value, goodwill and trading relationships as fast as they possibly can, globally, for the sake of an aggravated and deadlocked boardroom tussle. To say where the UK started from in early 2016 post-GFC, to the rational and objective person, it's utter, stark, raving lunacy.

But well. Ideology and opportunism. So we are where we are.

Interestingly, there was a big piece about the Bayeux tapestry on BBC1 main news tonight. And not a single word or allusion, however remote, about May whipping out UK Plc's cheque book and writing it large at Macron's asking in respect of the renegotiated Le Touquet Agreement. The vox pop piece was all about whether the Bayeux tapestry should be exhibited in Hastings or London.

The Bayeux tapestry loan is Macron's sweetener :pac:

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think it very much depends on how long the UK drag this out for and how much sh1te they keep trying to throw at the EU.

If things go on like they did up to the end of phase 1 I really can't see the EU doing anything but play hardball. Remember, if the UK want to come back it is an admission that they are better off in the EU, the EU will want something for all the hassle, distruption and negativity that this has caused. Remember that Brexit was imagined as the start of the breakup of the EU itself, and may yet do that. No doubting that it has negatively effected the standing of the EU.

Second, surely the EU can't just let the UK walk back in like nothing happened? You would have every country trying their luck at that rate.

Again if it was in a bubble then I completely agree, but people are watching

You might as well ask how long a piece of string is...

This is the same government who lied about the impact studies and the individual responsible is still there in the same position so your guess is as good as mine.

I think the EU is pragmatic enough that it wouldn't insist on removing the rebate, veto, etc but it might have a go. Some sort of PR face saving victory would be needed for the PM leading Britain back in should it ever happen. No PM is going to want to look like a spanked child.

Vronsky

srsly78 wrote: »

Could indeed just let them back in, but with normal membership - not with their special rebate and other concessions.

I've crystal balled future Brexit scenarios, and I now think it will happen on March 2019. The UK will then move to a transition, which for all intents and purposes will be EEA membership. It is at this point it is easy for the EU to make no further progress, essentially offering the UK a never ending implementation period or the door and nothing. The beauty of this for the EU with this scenario is that the UK will continue payments, but have no influence. This also gives time for a movement for resumption of full membership to take hold. Its at this point that another referendum may be held.

If it is passed, there will be no further referendums (most likely will be made a condition by the EU) and reaccession negotiations will take place. In this instance the UK will almost certainly almost entirely lose its rebate, opt outs that do not effect daily life (justice/home affairs) and possibly give a commitment to adopt the euro within a given mandated timeframe, such as 20 years.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think the EU is pragmatic enough that it wouldn't insist on removing the rebate, veto, etc but it might have a go. Some sort of PR face saving victory would be needed for the PM leading Britain back in should it ever happen. No PM is going to want to look like a spanked child.

The EU will be pragmatic alright but for the foreseeable future it will be on making sure that EU members (collectively and individually) make the post-UK environment as smooth and cohesive as possible. That is already well underway both politically and commercially and nobody is worrying about putting humpty dumpty back together.

What the UK does and how its politics play out are of little interest to anyone. The EU has moved on.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not following you here. \

Corbyn has ruled out a second referendum on whatever Brexit deal the Tories manage to negotiate. His view is that it will be a matter for Parliament to ratify that deal, or not.

I agree that this amounts to a choice between Brexit on the negotiated terms or no-deal Brexit, which is a pretty appalling choice.

But you seem to be suggesting that it's Corbyn's fault, or at any rate Corbyn's responisiblity, that the choice will be limited in this way. I can't agree.

On the Last Leg in 2016 it was non-committal.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-is-enthusiastic-about-staying-in-the-eu-but-wont-share-a-platform-with-david-a7075626.html

Jeremy Corbyn has said he is about "seven and seven and half out of ten" enthusiastic about staying in the European Union.

I saw that interview and he didn't sound anything like 7.5/10 enthusiastic at all.


Yes the Tory party is using Brexit for internal party politics,

But in Labour it's all internal party politics too , Momentum and a return to harder left is the important thing.

This whole sorry mess is about "better to be a head man in a village than second in Rome" on both sides.


This against a background where the EU has dropped hints that Brexit need not to happen. But both main parties in the UK have taken that on board.

From the EU point of view it's pretty much a case of "on your own head be it". The EU is not forcing the UK to leave. So there is no onus for them to soften Brexit as it's self inflicted.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

The EU will be pragmatic alright but for the foreseeable future it will be on making sure that EU members (collectively and individually) make the post-UK environment as smooth and cohesive as possible. That is already well underway both politically and commercially and nobody is worrying about putting humpty dumpty back together.

What the UK does and how its politics play out are of little interest to anyone. The EU has moved on.

Absolutely. The EU has played this as one would expect and so far hasn't compromised at all, at least not in any major way. I think they wanted a bigger "Exit bill" from the UK but that's been settled.

The EU is definitely best off moving on, hopefully with the multi-speed Europe model which I feel would be best in the short term until certain nations are happier to proceed with further integration.

Given that I am basically stuck here, I can't help worry about the UK's future but I completely understand the Irish and European notions of just getting on with it.

Peregrinus

Vronsky wrote: »

I've crystal balled future Brexit scenarios, and I now think it will happen on March 2019.

It will certainly happen in March 2019. Neither side has ever suggested otherwise, and neither (so far as I can see) has any reason to.

Vronsky wrote: »

The UK will then move to a transition, which for all intents and purposes will be EEA membership.

Agreed. Some variation on EEA membership.

Vronsky wrote: »

It is at this point it is easy for the EU to make no further progress, essentially offering the UK a never ending implementation period or the door and nothing.

Here I disagree. The EU doesn't want a prolonged transition period at all; in fact the voices suggesting shorter than two years (which is what May has suggested) are on the EU side; they suggest the transition period should run to the end of the current budget cycle, which would mean about a 21-month period. And the EU won't want a transition period at all unless they are pretty confident that it's a transition to something. A transition period because the long-term EU/UK relationship is complex and detailed and needs time to nail down, and then get up and running, is fine. A transition period because we haven't yet been able to agree the broad shape of the long-term EU/UK relationship will look like is another matter; the EU won't want that.

Vronsky wrote: »

The beauty of this for the EU with this scenario is that the UK will continue payments, but have no influence.

No. During the transition period, the UK will be paying the exit payment, but they won't pay any more (or, at least, there is as yet no agreement to pay any more) if the transition period is extended. The exit payment, remember, isn't formally a quid pro quo for the benefits of the transition period.

Vronsky wrote: »

This also gives time for a movement for resumption of full membership to take hold. Its at this point that another referendum may be held.

I honestly can't see the EU extending, or agreeing to extend, the transition period in the hope that political opinion in the UK will shift decisively in favour of rejoining. That's just wishful thinking, and one of the hallmarks of this whole sorry episode is that it's the Brexit position which has been characterised and defined by wishful thinking, and the EU position which has been realistic and pragmatic.

Vronsky wrote: »

If it is passed, there will be no further referendums (most likely will be made a condition by the EU) and reaccession negotiations will take place. In this instance the UK will almost certainly almost entirely lose its rebate, opt outs that do not effect daily life (justice/home affairs) and possibly give a commitment to adopt the euro within a given mandated timeframe, such as 20 years.

I really can't see the EU agreeing to an extended transition period in the speculative hope that the political climate in the UK will shift in favour of membership, but then putting huge symbolic and practical obstacles in the way of rejoining by refusing to give them the deal they've already got. If they are minded to encourage the UK back in, they will be open to letting them in on the current terms which we know are feasible because, hey, they are the current terms. If they are not minded to encourage the UK back in, then why would they even consider extending the transitional period?

mickoneill31

Peregrinus wrote: »

.


No. During the transition period, the UK will be paying the exit payment, but they won't pay any more (or, at least, there is as yet no agreement to pay any more) if the transition period is extended. The exit payment, remember, isn't formally a quid pro quo for the benefits of the transition period.

The exit payment has nothing to do with transition. I'd expect the UK to say we want a transition of X years. The EU is going to ask what benefit it is to us. If the benefit isn't enough then I'd expect them to ask for more money. Standard negotiation. And the EU has all the control. The UK needs a transition period and pretty much everybody but the bexiteers realises this.

Peregrinus

mickoneill31 wrote: »

The exit payment has nothing to do with transition. I'd expect the UK to say we want a transition of X years. The EU is going to ask what benefit it is to us. If the benefit isn't enough then I'd expect them to ask for more money. Standard negotiation. And the EU has all the control. The UK needs a transition period and pretty much everybody but the bexiteers realises this.

Yes, the UK needs a transition period, but a transition period also suits the EU.
The EU has the greater negotiating power, but I wouldn't expect them to use it to try and get more money out of the UK; it would be politically next to impossible for the Tories to agree to that at this point, and the EU would risk ending up with no transition period and no extra money. They are more likely to use their bargaining position to ensure that the transition period is for a duration, and on terms, that suits the EU, on those points where the interests of the EU and the UK diverge.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

YI wouldn't expect them to use it to try and get more money out of the UK; it would be politically next to impossible for the Tories to agree to that at this point

No, Peregrinus, I have to disagree here.

If the UK continue to have access to the Single Market during transition, they will pay at least as much as Norway does for that privilege. They will be subject to EU rules and regs, so they will contribute to the cost of the bodies making and enforcing those rules and regs, from Parliament to the Courts.

No way are they getting a two year free pass for the transition period.

And if May can't sell it at home, then they are out on their ears in March 2019. She, after all, is the one who has been bragging that no deal is not so bad.

But in fact the UK will cave (again), and pay what they have to pay. See recent announcements about them paying more for Calais and helping the French in Africa.

Leroy42

There are two ways to look at the transition period. Either then remain full members, in all but name, and are according the rights rights and obligations as they currently do, or they move to a Norway + style agreement which transitions to the final deal throughout the period.

In either option, the UK will have to pay. Either as a non-member member (so what they contribute at the moment) or as a Norway style member.

Now, the divorce bill is based on the monies that the UK owe to the EU due to previous agreements, pensions, budgets etc. So in reality, if the UK stays for another two years then that would come off the divorce bill. So there is really nothing to be gained from a payments perspective from a transition period.

Based on the apparent lack of any planning (no in depth reports, no movement on border crossing additional capacity etc) it would appear from this remove that the transition period suits the UK more than the EU overall. Although in the last budget UK set aside an additional £3bn to cover the cost of brexit so I assume that will cover some of those issues.

Jim2007

Vronsky wrote: »

I've crystal balled future Brexit scenarios, and I now think it will happen on March 2019. The UK will then move to a transition, which for all intents and purposes will be EEA membership.

I would suggest your crystal ball is cracked. To avail of EEA, a country must be either a member of EFTA or the EU. Now speaking as Swiss, the EFTA is a very important part of our trading strategy and the last thing we need is the UK join it and then start kicking off for exceptions plus some kind of proxy war with the EU, so you can expect that either Norway or ourselves with block that one. I don't see any chance of a Swiss referendum accepting this.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, Peregrinus, I have to disagree here.

If the UK continue to have access to the Single Market during transition, they will pay at least as much as Norway does for that privilege. They will be subject to EU rules and regs, so they will contribute to the cost of the bodies making and enforcing those rules and regs, from Parliament to the Courts.

No way are they getting a two year free pass for the transition period . . .

Leroy42 wrote: »

. . . Now, the divorce bill is based on the monies that the UK owe to the EU due to previous agreements, pensions, budgets etc. So in reality, if the UK stays for another two years then that would come off the divorce bill. So there is really nothing to be gained from a payments perspective from a transition period.

No. The exit payment is based on (among other things) the financial commitments the UK has already made to the EU. But those were commitments to run until the end of the current budgetary cycle, to fund programmes during that cycle. It now appears likely that, because of the transition period, the UK will be participating in those programmes until the end of the cycle, but that doesn't mean that they will have to pay a second time for them. They are paying for them in the exit payment.

If the transition period were to run beyond the end of the budgetary cycle, then the question would arise as to whether the UK should pay towards the new budgetary cycle to fund the programmes that it will participate in for the balance of the transitional period. Precisely because of a recognition of how politically difficult this would be, the EU preference is that the transition period should not continue beyond the end of the current budgetary cycle.

(OK, there are other reasons from the EU's for putting a cut-off on the transitional period. They don't want the UK's farewell tour to drag on indefinitely. If 'twere done 'twere well 'twere done quickly, and all that. But this is a large part of the reason.)

Enzokk

Airbus CEO Tom Enders has warned about the protectionism from the current US government and the effects of Brexit. He again warned that Brexit will, and already has, weaken the industrial links between EU and UK and will add cost and complexity to Airbus. Without knowing the deal the UK will have with the EU means that the UK work share for future programs is uncertain. This is due to the potential cost of leaving the EU and the transfer of employees among the EU countries for Airbus.

Airbus CEO Warns About Brexit, Trump, Protectionism Free registration may be required to read.

“The bond between the continent and Britain will weaken. Trust between the two sides will diminish,” he said, adding, “I’m afraid that’s already happening.”

Enders said the Brexit process still lacked clarity and significant questions remain about what he called UK work share and investment for Airbus’ future generation of aircraft, but also around the non-tariff barriers and customs agreements relating to the transfer across borders of parts and equipment. He also expressed concerns about the freedom of movement for the company’s employees, limits upon which “could impact our operations just as much as tariffs on exports,” he said.

Towards the end of the article he describes the threat of protectionism of the current US government. The interesting quote is that Donald Trump will leave after 4 or 8 years and still repairing the damage he has done will be easier than the UK leaving the EU.

demfad

murphaph wrote: »

I don't believe the EU has the appetite to extend A50 much at all. The UK would remain a full member with voting rights in that case. The EU wants to move on as well.

I would argue about 'appetite' in that significant EU heads (Tusk, Macron, Verhoefstadt) have said they would show 'kindness' towards any UK rethink.

The point is that negotiating a transition may not be possible in the time frame given the current rate of progress. The March 2019 deadline is defenitive. It is the event horizon for Brexit. The UK by default will leave the EU then. No can be kicked past this event horizon. It is D-Day.
If there is no transition agreement the UK will crash out of the EU unless A50 is extended. Nobody bar the billionaire disaster capitalist vulchers and far right ideologues want this.

If a transition is not negotiated A50 will be extended, simple as that. My money is on the UK not being competent enough to replace all the 70+ external trade deals etc. in the short time left to them to do so.

Leroy42

Sorry Demfad, you've confused me (easy I know!). On one hand you say the March 2019 is difinitive, the event horizon. Then you say that without a transition negotiated, A50 will be extended.

Seems contrary to me. But if the extension is right, then what is the point of the UK negotiating a transition deal, just keep the current system until they are ready to leave (as a side point what a clusterf44k of a decision to trigger A50 so early in the process)

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The exit payment is based on (among other things) the financial commitments the UK has already made to the EU. But those were commitments to run until the end of the current budgetary cycle, to fund programmes during that cycle. It now appears likely that, because of the transition period, the UK will be participating in those programmes until the end of the cycle, but that doesn't mean that they will have to pay a second time for them. They are paying for them in the exit payment.

If the transition period were to run beyond the end of the budgetary cycle, then the question would arise as to whether the UK should pay towards the new budgetary cycle to fund the programmes that it will participate in for the balance of the transitional period. Precisely because of a recognition of how politically difficult this would be, the EU preference is that the transition period should not continue beyond the end of the current budgetary cycle.

(OK, there are other reasons from the EU's for putting a cut-off on the transitional period. They don't want the UK's farewell tour to drag on indefinitely. If 'twere done 'twere well 'twere done quickly, and all that. But this is a large part of the reason.)

There are other matters contained in the exit payment that go far beyond the budget framework. For example, the UK has an ongoing commitment to fund pensions of retired EU workers (not just British retirees). There could be an actuarial evaluation of that commitment and it rolled up into a single figure, or they could pay 13% of the cost to the EU pension payments for the next 40 years.

Now other matters are long term, such as research funding, which require funding to continue, but again these requirements could be rolled into a single payment or the UK could continue to pay as their payments fall due.

Also, if they continue to collect tariffs under the customs union, these must be paid over to the EU.

Not simple.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry Demfad, you've confused me (easy I know!). On one hand you say the March 2019 is difinitive, the event horizon. Then you say that without a transition negotiated, A50 will be extended.

Seems contrary to me. But if the extension is right, then what is the point of the UK negotiating a transition deal, just keep the current system until they are ready to leave (as a side point what a clusterf44k of a decision to trigger A50 so early in the process)

Once the A50 term (2 years) has expired the UK is legally out. There is no fudging this. When A50 expires they are outside EU.Logically extending the A50 term extends this 'Event Horizon'. They are still inside the EU because article 50 is still in play.

A transition should logically be from one circumstance to another.
The UK position is not clear but it seems to be FTA obligations with Single market access (cakeism). They wont get this: it will be an FTA OR EEA.

An FTA will not be possible in the time frame so a short transition only pushes out the cliff edge. Even if the UK wants to get an FTA the only transition strategy that would work is to transition to the EEA first and then to an FTA (after several years).

This might be possible. The UK will need to agree this approach with EU and EFTA and most importantly within its own cabinet then and replace 70+ external trade deals all before March 2019.

The EU is not interested in the long transition needed for an FTA as others have explained.

A50 extension seems the obvious solution to avoid the cliff should a transition not be agreed.

Larbre34

Tánaiste Simon Coveney has said he looks forward to having discussions with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) next week despite one of its senior members being quoted referring to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar as a “nutcase”.
DUP MP Sammy Wilson was reported by politico.eu as saying Mr Varadkar was “naive, inexperienced and arrogant” for siding with the European Union rather than the UK in the Brexit talks.
Mr Wilson, the DUP’s Brexit spokesman in Westminster, alleged there had been a change of tone from Dublin since Mr Varadkar succeeded Enda Kenny last June. He branded the Taoiseach as a “nutcase” following a speech he gave to the European Parliament on Wednesday in whcih he warned against any “backsliding” in the union’s approach to Brexit.
The MP said a way needed to be found to cajole Dublin into cutting the UK “some slack” over Brexit and he cautioned that “hard-line EU negotiators” could destroy the Irish economy.

Irish Times 18/01/2018

Sammy 'moderate' Wilson at it again.

Quite a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from amongst the Brexiteer sphere this last week, they seem quite exasperated that the EU is not bending over to accommodate them, strangely!

There is definitely something in the air since Christmas, a collective realisation of the potential damage of brexit, and an invigoration of the Remain side, appearing now to take the gloves off in an undisguised effort to reverse the entire project. Timed alongside serious warnings from the likes of Airbus this morning, in my view it will only gain further momentum.

Varadkar is right, keep the foot on the throat, keep the course steady.

Peregrinus

demfad wrote: »

Once the A50 term (2 years) has expired the UK is legally out. There is no fudging this. When A50 expires they are outside EU.Logically extending the A50 term extends this 'Event Horizon'. They are still inside the EU because article 50 is still in play.

A transition should logically be from one circumstance to another.
The UK position is not clear but it seems to be FTA obligations with Single market access (cakeism). They wont get this: it will be an FTA OR EEA.

An FTA will not be possible in the time frame so a short transition only pushes out the cliff edge. Even if the UK wants to get an FTA the only transition strategy that would work is to transition to the EEA first and then to an FTA (after several years).

This might be possible. The UK will need to agree this approach with EU and EFTA and most importantly within its own cabinet then and replace 70+ external trade deals all before March 2019.

The EU is not interested in the long transition needed for an FTA as others have explained.

A50 extension seems the obvious solution to avoid the cliff should a transition not be agreed.

A50 extension requires the unanimous consent of all 28 states.

I could see an A50 extension for a limited period - months, not years - if a transitional arrangement is all but ready to roll, and there is universal confidence that with a short extension it can be put in place.

But there will definitely not be an A50 extension if the parties have been unable to agree on a transition, or on the shape of the long-term relationship. If they haven't been able to agree that between June 2016 and March 2019 then, frankly, you have to proceed on the basis that there is no likelihood of agreement in any forseeable timescale. And in that scenario the EU definitely will see no advantage to extending A50. It just prolongs the agony, without offering any prospect of a better outcome.

There comes a point in any breakup where all you can do is push him out into the garden in his underwear, lock the door and then throw his clothes out of a first-floor window. This would be that point.

prinzeugen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Absolutely. The EU has played this as one would expect and so far hasn't compromised at all, at least not in any major way. I think they wanted a bigger "Exit bill" from the UK but that's been settled.

The EU is definitely best off moving on, hopefully with the multi-speed Europe model which I feel would be best in the short term until certain nations are happier to proceed with further integration.

Given that I am basically stuck here, I can't help worry about the UK's future but I completely understand the Irish and European notions of just getting on with it.

Up to the point that they begged the UK to stay. Integration is the last thing people want.

If you are not happy in the UK, why don't you move?

I did!

gucci

I see Boris is now getting a few headlines for saying there should be a new bridge between France and England post Brexit. Bloody hell this guy will do anything to stay in the news!

LeinsterDub

gucci wrote: »

I see Boris is now getting a few headlines for saying there should be a new bridge between France and England post Brexit. Bloody hell this guy will do anything to stay in the news!

An impossible dream that will cost billions, may several decades down the line generate some value and will do nothing for Europe harmony.... owe and he also wants to build a stupid bridge.

Leroy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An impossible dream that will cost billions, may several decades down the line generate some value and will do nothing for Europe harmony.... owe and he also wants to build a stupid bridge.

Well, couldn't they just take the designs for the garden bridge he was already involved in. The man has years of experiences with bridges.

Does he not know there is already a "bridge" between them in the form of a tunnel?

UK Shipping asking if it's prudent to build a concrete structure across the busiest shipping route in the world.

Also, Boris has a long, illustrious history of infrastructure suggestions and capital investment which either is an utter no show, or has to be rewound quickly.

Thames Airport, garden bridge, the route masters, the water cannons...

Loves an inspirational infrastructure project!

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

UK Shipping asking if it's prudent to build a concrete structure across the busiest shipping route in the world.

Also, Boris has a long, illustrious history of infrastructure suggestions and capital investment which either is an utter no show, or has to be rewound quickly.

Thames Airport, garden bridge, the route masters, the water cannons...

Loves an inspirational infrastructure project!

Well since Boris appears to be the UK version of Donald Trump I'm surprised he did not suggest he'd get EU to pay for the bridge because the goods sold from EU to UK are so important to EU.

Thargor

Deleted User wrote: »

UK Shipping asking if it's prudent to build a concrete structure across the busiest shipping route in the world.

Also, Boris has a long, illustrious history of infrastructure suggestions and capital investment which either is an utter no show, or has to be rewound quickly.

Thames Airport, garden bridge, the route masters, the water cannons...

Loves an inspirational infrastructure project!

Nody wrote: »

Well since Boris appears to be the UK version of Donald Trump I'm surprised he did not suggest he'd get EU to pay for the bridge because the goods sold from EU to UK are so important to EU.

I'm surprised more attention isn't given to one of his lesser known infrastructure works, ordering the barriers that would have prevented the Westminster bridge terror attacks removed because they were 'ugly' :

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/815848/Boris-Johnson-removed-safety-railings-London-Bridge-ugly-London-terror-attack/amp

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

Well since Boris appears to be the UK version of Donald Trump I'm surprised he did not suggest he'd get EU to pay for the bridge because the goods sold from EU to UK are so important to EU.

As much as I absolutely detest the man and feel that he embodies everything wrong with Politics today, I don't think he's quite that stupid. His current role means that he has very limited involvement in Brexit so he's had to resort to this sort of attention seeking but there seem to be limits. Then again, this might be what a British equivalent of Trump would be.

Here's the transcript for a sizeable article he penned for the Telegraph last September for example. It's a beast of over 4,000 words so be warned.

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As much as I absolutely detest the man and feel that he embodies everything wrong with Politics today, I don't think he's quite that stupid. His current role means that he has very limited involvement in Brexit so he's had to resort to this sort of attention seeking but there seem to be limits. Then again, this might be what a British equivalent of Trump would be.

Here's the sizeable article he penned for example. It's a beast of over 4,000 words so be warned.

To be fair, he certainly wrote that article himself.

If you are inclined in any way against the EU, it would be hard to read that and not think you would be better out. Of course, it's much more complicated than that and I wouldn't be sure even some of the further right leavers would agree with a lot of what he is saying.

I wonder was the following a deliberate misplacement of nationalities

On the contrary, it will mean a bigger market in the UK for everything from Italian cars to German wine

demfad

The folly of Brexit illustrated nicely by Boris: is (idiotic) idea reveals the relaity that the UK now requires massive infrastructural investment to facilitate LESS trade with the EU.

Skedaddle

He only said that to get headlines and to say something to get Macron's attention.
That summit was odd in many ways. It had the sense of both sides being "fake nice" and I suspect it'll have achieved nothing.

May's government says different things to different audiences and occupies a sort of imaginary la la land where it's just tell them whatever is is that want to hear and then do whatever we like, ignoring all that.

Spin, spin, spin, waffle, waffle, waffle. They're just Trump with posh accents..

ambro25

Skedaddle wrote: »

That summit was odd in many ways. It had the sense of both sides being "fake nice" and I suspect it'll have achieved nothing.

It won't have achieved anything about Brexit -besides reaffirming to May & Co. that France stands unified with the other EU26 on the issue- but then that was not the purpose, so perhaps this trip is not worth too much digital prose in here.

Macron was elected on many promises, one of which was to renegotiate the Le Touquet agreements, since he already long knew -as does every French politician- that France has got the UK over the proverbial barrel insofar as illegals in Calais are concerned (because the alternative would see the Jungle promptly transpose in Kent and, for those without much knowledge about the topic, HM Border Force and the UK immigration system inside the UK aren't exactly in the same league as the Douanes and -importantly- regiments of Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité, for keeping a lid on illegals).

So now he's been and gone and done exactly that, taking the occasion to tap May for extra money to help manage things around Calais, and of course she's cut him the cheque, without even so much as a murmur of protest or vexation. I suppose the Bayeux loan thing was the proverbial cut glass offerings to the natives (but then, Macron's asked for a loan of Napoleon's horse, Marengo, by way of reciprocity. On the trolling level scale, I believe that isn't far off "godly"! :pac:)

He'll be back to tap May (or Corbyn) for more before long. But in the meantime, that's one electoral promise ticked off without breaking a sweat, delivering with gift-wrapping and bells on top, with all bonus points toward the approval rating. That summit has achieved plenty for Macron (for a day's work)

Skedaddle

Well another "jungle" is politically untenable in France. It's just not happening

The "juxtapositioned" border controls in each others' countries aren't a long standing thing. They could easily be returned to normal as they really aren't any advantage to France but are hugely advantageous to the UK.

Britian paying for them is irrelevant, it they're politically unacceptable in France. The whole situation in Calais was feeding support for Le Pen and also causing a major and frankly embarrassing humanitarian crisis in what is one of the world's wealthiest, most social democratic and influential countries. It's hard to understand why France was doing this for the UK.

ambro25

Skedaddle wrote: »

Well another "jungle" is politically untenable in France. It's just not happening

I can confirm from media reporting and sentiment over the years that the topic is, politically, highly toxic in Calais. Enough so to influence elections results locally, and non-trivially (although the local unemployment rate also plays a big part, viciously rather than virtuously of course).

But if you're talking nationally, it's only a local issue, far far lower in the political order of importance than a long list of (-other national and local issues which French people care far more about, than a handful of refugees eking an existence in cardboard huts on windswept mud plains: sustainability of benefits/healthcare, unemployment, political scandals (influence trafficking, expenses, brown envelopes), criminality in Paris/Lyon/Marseille suburbs, open gang warfare with AKs in Marseille, terrorism, ...).

Something was eventually done about it 'for good' in 2016, because it grew larger than usual after the migration fluxes of summer 2015, and the national and international PR splashback damage was reaching critical levels in view of the forthcoming presidential election in early 2017. Until then (i.e. since 1999), the government had been quite happy to just 'contain and observe', then to tap the Brits about the problem.

Delivered without the PC filter for calling it as it is, so perhaps harsh (and for shame, as nothing to be proud of France for). But there you have it. The Jungle is absolutely not a government or even a local MP (député)-killing issue. Never has been.

[EDIT]FYI, the "juxtaposed" border controls under the Le Touquet agreements (originally, the Sangatte Protocol) go back to 1991 and long pre-date the Jungle: they were originally set up in respect of operating the Chunnel more seamlessly, with e.g. controls of rail passengers in Paris and London (instead of at coast) and -in that context- what to do about armed-as-standard French officers in London; not to contain illegal immigrants around Calais. I haven't seen the new agreement yet, but I strongly suspect that formalising this 'mission creep' of managing illegals in the Calais area, is what has been the topic of the 'update' formalised in Sandhurst.[/EDIT]

Disclaimer: I am French and have been taking my daily news about France (incl. Calais) in the mother tongue from French media, for over 2 decades. Besides passing through Calais at least twice a year for the past 10 years when visiting family, plus business trips.

CelticRambler

Skedaddle wrote: »

The "juxtapositioned" border controls in each others' countries aren't a long standing thing. They could easily be returned to normal as they really aren't any advantage to France.

They are significant advantages to both countries. Instead of having a no-man's-land between the old-style border posts, that can quickly become overwhelmed by external factors, it makes perfect sense to place the respective controls at a distance of only a few metres apart. That way, if there's any problem with the onward journey, the people and vehicles affected are clearly in the jurisdiction of one country or the other.

You could argue that US pre-clearance at Dublin and Shannon airport isn't of any advantage to Ireland, but the fact that it's slowly being extended to other countries demonstrates its usefulness in a globaly mobile population.

If there's no progress on post-Brexit cross-Channel movement the 800 acres being prepared in Kent for a future "Operation Stack" holding zone will make the former Jungle's 50 acres look ridiculously small!

Declaration of interest: I've personally met about a dozen former Jungle residents at social events over the last year, and they've all been great lads. :cool:

Skedaddle

There are significant advantages in Paris and London train stations Eurostar, but you could easily just revert to normality at the ports.

CelticRambler

Skedaddle wrote: »

There are significant advantages in Paris and London train stations Eurostar, but you could easily just revert to normality at the ports.

That would be very difficult to do at the Eurotunnel terminals. Everything is geared up for all vehicles to drive off the train and onto the motorway. You'd have to double the size of each site to cope with the volume of traffic, and build a whole new terminal complex to cater for people needing toilets, food, dog-pooping, first aid, etc when held up between the train and the outside world.

Skedaddle

You also have to accept that there has been a major migration crisis since those terminals were originally designed and a growing mismatch between Continental European and UK laws on border controls and immigration.

Perhaps they simply no longer can work as intended? Things were far less complicated back in 1994.

If the UK steps entirely outside the EU on freedom of movement issues, I really don't see how the smooth flow of traffic through that system could possibly operate. It's going to have to revert to an older model.

Also in the Schengen area there's a LOT more cooperation than this. You've even got the possibility of police crossing borders in hot pursuit, which is basically unthinkable in the UK political world. Or, the Irish one for that matter. Can you imagine a scenario where the PSNI were able to chase a car into Donegal or the Gardai chase a car into Derry?

I think you're looking at both a legal and practical mess at Dover in the next few years as the reality of some of this starts to crystallise.

Again, it comes down to a notion that you can have your cake and eat it. In this case, you can have a very hard international border, with full customs requirements and at the same time it can somehow free-flow and you can just offload all of your migration crisis related issues into a neighbouring country?!

It just doesn't add up.

I don't really think they're comprehending that you can't be outside the EU and EEA and still just carry on as normal. It doesn't work like that.

You are looking at needing really serious and pretty huge scale border infrastructure just to process the customs issues, never mind the immigration ones. It's unprecedented, as prior to 1993 there simply wasn't the volume of trade on those routes.

Also bear in mind that the Channel Tunnel and its arrangements are very much a product of the European Single Market which only came into full force on 01/01/1993, eliminating customs borders. The channel tunnel opened barely a year after that and was one of the first major pieces of infrastructure to take full advantage of it.

In fact, the concept of the tunnel is very much linked to the concept of the Single Market. Their timing isn't coincidental.

If you go back to 1992 there was even a whole complex of something like 150 customs agents (private companies) processing paperwork and data for transport companies traversing the border and it was a significantly smaller volume of trade as it has grown enormously on the back of the opening of the borders.

The reality at the moment is not only is there huge flow of trade, but supply chains are integrated and companies have an expectation of just being able to plug straight into supply networks for manufacturing and component delivery and all sorts of other things. All of that stuff is now at risk and it's a hell of a lot more complex than many Tories' and commentators ideas which seem to be all based on the experience of going on your holidays to France in the car with the kids or something.

You are looking at turning a lot of businesses models inside out and upside down and placing them in a position which many of them have never traded in before.

CelticRambler

Skedaddle wrote: »

You also have to accept that there has been a major migration crisis since those terminals were originally designed and a growing mismatch between Continental European and UK laws on border controls and immigration.

Perhaps they simply no longer can work as intended? Things were far less complicated back in 1994.

Well that takes us back to the short-sightedness of Brexit!

Things can't work as intended because the UK has changed the way it wants to work. Migration in the context of border controls at the Channel Ports is a red herring. The inhabitants of the Jungle were/are not EU citizens, so changing the arrangements between two countries that used to be part of the same customs union is not going to have any effect at all, other than France/the EU having less incentive to control the problem.

However, because those terminals were developped to facilitate the free movement of people and goods, traffic has expanded to fill the space available. Come B-day 2019, without a transition agreement that's almost identical to the current arrangement, there's a real risk of chaos at the ports, almost all of which will be seen and felt on the English side of the Channel. I don't know if you've ever driven the M20 during "Operation Stack" but it's a sight to behold! Other than the Manston plan, I don't think anyone has really thought about where all those lorries are going to park if that becomes the new normal. (I don't believe it will - I think a lot of foreign hauliers will decide it's not worth the time and effort of trucking in the UK, and their customers will send their goods by other means).

Leroy42

So now May isn't exactly enamoured with the whole Brexit idea

The Prime Minister was challenged in an interview with French television on how she would vote if a European Union referendum were held today.

Asked “how you would vote on Brexit", she initially said “I didn’t say how I would vote”.

But then said: “If a vote was to come up, I would do what I did last time round which was sit down and look carefully at the issues.

“But there isn’t going to be another vote, so this is not an issue. What is going to happen is the UK is going to leave the European Union.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/theresa-may-hints-would-now-vote-stay-eu-tells-french-proud/

Jebus. So the person at the head of the whole thing would need time to sit down and look carefully at the issues. Maybe she could use the sectoral analysis to come to a decision.

For a member of the public to state that would be fine, but one would assume that a PM has already looked carefully at the issues! Is there any other way to read that than to regard it as a lack of enthusiasm on her part? Either she has seen the info and knows things are poor or she hasn't taken the time to understand the issues and as asuch is simply blindly making it as she goes along. She is the leader, the one that hold the power and she isn't even convinced that the path she has dictated, a probable hard brexit may not be a good idea.

Jim2007

Skedaddle wrote: »

You are looking at turning a lot of businesses models inside out and upside down and placing them in a position which many of them have never traded in before.

Look practically all north-south trade trade in Europe goes through Switzerland, a country that is not in the single market nor the customs union and it works. Not only that but all Irish truckers heading south are fully experienced in dealing with it. Yes it will create some new difficulties and some people will have to learn new tricks, but it is not as alien as you'd have us believe.

Water John

I think I would interpret that, as TM voted against Brexit, in the Referendum.

Gerry T

Jim2007 wrote:

Look practically all north-south trade trade in Europe goes through Switzerland, a country that is not in the single market nor the customs union and it works. Not only that but all Irish truckers heading south are fully experienced in dealing with it. Yes it will create some new difficulties and some people will have to learn new tricks, but it is not as alien as you'd have us believe.

Not quite the same as brexit. Switzerland is in efta, so is practically a full member of the single market and schengen free travel area. It also mirrors EU law, all of this allows the north south movement of goods.
If the Swiss were to "brexit" the north south movement of goods would be crippled.

Jim2007

Gerry T wrote: »

Not quite the same as brexit. Switzerland is in efta, so is practically a full member of the single market and schengen free travel area. It also mirrors EU law, all of this allows the north south movement of goods.
If the Swiss were to "brexit" the north south movement of goods would be crippled.

This is not correct. We are not in the customs union nor the single market. And while we accept certain rulings of the ECJ on certain items of the bilateral agreements we do not mirror EU law. Only EFTA members who are also in the EEA are in line with your assertion and we are not EEA members.

All EU through shipping traffic is controlled by Swiss customs both entering and exiting.

Really Interested

Jim2007 wrote: »

This is not correct. We are not in the customs union nor the single market. And while we accept certain rulings of the ECJ on certain items of the bilateral agreements we do not mirror EU law. Only EFTA members who are also in the EEA are in line with your assertion and we are not EEA members.

All EU through shipping traffic is controlled by Swiss customs both entering and exiting.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/switzerland/

The cornerstone of EU-Swiss relations is the Free Trade Agreement of 1972.

As a consequence of the rejection of the EEA membership in 1992, Switzerland and the EU agreed on a package of seven sectoral agreements signed in 1999 (known in Switzerland as "Bilaterals I"). These include: free movement of persons, technical trade barriers, public procurement, agriculture and air and land transport. In addition, a scientific research agreement fully associated Switzerland into the EU's framework research programmes.

A further set of sectoral agreements was signed in 2004 (known as "Bilaterals II"), covering, inter alia, Switzerland's participation in Schengen and Dublin, and agreements on taxation of savings, processed agricultural products, statistics, combating fraud, participation in the EU Media Programme and the Environment Agency.

As UK has said no free movement then any agreement must be Swiss -.

CelticRambler

It's worth remembering too that Switzerland's referendum on the free movement of people precipitated an immediate crisis, with the immediate suspension of the scientific research collaboration mentioned above and the immediate withdrawal of funding for same. In addition, the threat of suspending Swiss access to the EU (people and vehicles) was sufficient for the national government to effectively overturn the result of referendum.

And of course, there's also the fact that Switzerland is, well ... Swiss! Things work - they make things work. The UK can't even agree on what they're trying to achieve, so being able to create a seamless border control process is not likely in the immediate future.

Capt'n Midnight

CelticRambler wrote: »

And of course, there's also the fact that Switzerland is, well ... Swiss! Things work - they make things work. The UK can't even agree on what they're trying to achieve, so being able to create a seamless border control process is not likely in the immediate future.

At least the Swiss government can point at referendums and say our hands are tied by what the people voted.

The UK has no such restriction.

Parliament has no legal obligation to consider advisory referendums, or indeed any law as it can change them anytime. And it's a farce to "interpret" the narrow result of an open-ended question as the unequivocal demand of the people to do X,Y and Z. Or Red, White and Blue because there isn't much sign that the UK understands Realpolitik or that "Politics is the art of the possible" or even that time is inexorably ticking away.

And the "opposition" are watching this train wreck when they could be waving red flags or indeed anything other than hoping there's something to salvage from the carnage.

Gerry T

Jim2007 wrote:

This is not correct. We are not in the customs union nor the single market. And while we accept certain rulings of the ECJ on certain items of the bilateral agreements we do not mirror EU law. Only EFTA members who are also in the EEA are in line with your assertion and we are not EEA members.

Your missing the point of my post, which is when the UK leaves, the transport of goods will be nothing like Switzerland. Also the EU has zero appetite to grant s Swiss style agreement to the UK, as the Swiss model is known to be complicated.
I never said the Swiss were members of the single market, I said their membership was practically the same and I didn't mention the customs union. Yes certain EU laws are mirrored, I didn't mean all of them.
It will be interesting to see over the coming months what the EU position will be, will services be included, will the trade in goods be better compared to what current EEA members have. Personally I doubt the EU will grant services or goods at better rates. Time will tell.

Skedaddle

Leroy42 wrote: »

So now May isn't exactly enamoured with the whole Brexit idea

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/theresa-may-hints-would-now-vote-stay-eu-tells-french-proud/

Jebus. So the person at the head of the whole thing would need time to sit down and look carefully at the issues. Maybe she could use the sectoral analysis to come to a decision.

For a member of the public to state that would be fine, but one would assume that a PM has already looked carefully at the issues! Is there any other way to read that than to regard it as a lack of enthusiasm on her part? Either she has seen the info and knows things are poor or she hasn't taken the time to understand the issues and as asuch is simply blindly making it as she goes along. She is the leader, the one that hold the power and she isn't even convinced that the path she has dictated, a probable hard brexit may not be a good idea.

She has very few strong opinions on anything. It's part of the problem. You're looking at a leader who seems to just sit on the fence and check the wind direction all the time.

She was very unenthusiastically in favour of remain, because that was the party line. Now she's unenthusiastically pro Brexit because the line shifted.

Weak and wobbly!

The comparisons with Thatcher are completely inaccurate other than they're the same gender.

From what I can see they've no idea what they actually want.