Brexit discussion thread IV

Nate--IRL--

What has the Future relationship deal got to do with the Withdrawal agreement?

Nate

trellheim

leave without NI being sorted ? u gotta be kidding theyve had 2 years fk sake.

Rant mode off. serious hat on.

Why would they bother ? The current politics in the UK just is not trustworthy. Chequers is in bits, as is any initiative so far. If they kicked the can we'd be back in 2 years time. I'd say no unless they ask for an a50 extension to show they were serious.

Edit : some light relief

https://twitter.com/Derby4Europe/status/1024260428199804928

Leroy42

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

What has the Future relationship deal got to do with the Withdrawal agreement?

Nate

My reading of the article is that the UK will give some vague promises on the 3 items (settlement, EU citizens rights and NI), not much different than what they have now, and the EU will agree to move the talks onto the future relationship.

They will talk about it being a treaty, but in reality it will rely on final signoff after trade talks.

So essentially the can is kicked down the road for everyone.

Charles Babbage

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU is fine with the continuation of the CTA, so won['t object to UK passport holders being handled along with Irish (and therefore EU) passport holders at Irish ports.

By the same token, if the UK does proceed to have a separate line for UK passport holders, assuming the CTA continues then Irish passport holders can join that one. Though, by all accounts, it may be quicker to join the other one.

There are 3 scenarios here, flights from the UK, flights from the EU and the rest. Perhaps these should be handled differently.

Spook_ie

trellheim wrote: »

leave without NI being sorted ? u gotta be kidding theyve had 2 years fk sake.

Rant mode off. serious hat on.

Why would they bother ? The current politics in the UK just is not trustworthy. Chequers is in bits, as is any initiative so far. If they kicked the can we'd be back in 2 years time. I'd say no unless they ask for an a50 extension to show they were serious.

Edit : some light relief

https://twitter.com/Derby4Europe/status/1024260428199804928

How many years?

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Rumours are starting, denied by Germany, that the EU is willing to give a 'vague' deal on the future relationship to avoid no deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/german-sources-deny-brexit-deal-offer-amid-panic-in-remain-campaign

It is always likely that the EU will compromise to avoid a crash out, which whilst bad for the UK is also bad for the EU and doesn't look good either.

What do people think the EU will concede in order to get a deal?

By bet would be a open ended acceptance of common regulations allowing trade to continue as it currently does with the idea that this will be part of a negotiation over time, certainly the transition period, but possibly longer.

But the trade off is that UK get to leave and remove their MEPs and don't get involved in the next budget round.

Why would Germany undermine EU stability for the sake of UK instability ?

IMHO this is just wishful thinking, and wishing doesn't make it so.

It's like promising something to a two year old in a temper tantrum who doesn't know what they want yet, except you know it'll upset the rest of the family.


A hard Brexit will cost the German car makers a fraction of the emissions fines.

German status symbol cars will still be status symbol cars so they will still be bought in the UK. Sales will be down, but not enough to risk destroying the Common Market that takes the hassle out of selling to 27 different countries.




Even here the 10 year effect of a Hard Brexit is just 3.2% and that's the scare them into making a Plan-B figure.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Rumours are starting, denied by Germany, that the EU is willing to give a 'vague' deal on the future relationship to avoid no deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/german-sources-deny-brexit-deal-offer-amid-panic-in-remain-campaign

It is always likely that the EU will compromise to avoid a crash out, which whilst bad for the UK is also bad for the EU and doesn't look good either.

What do people think the EU will concede in order to get a deal?

By bet would be a open ended acceptance of common regulations allowing trade to continue as it currently does with the idea that this will be part of a negotiation over time, certainly the transition period, but possibly longer.

But the trade off is that UK get to leave and remove their MEPs and don't get involved in the next budget round.

That sounds like a complete cock and bull story. Barnier is negotiating on behalf of the EU27 : the idea that he gets a phone call from Merkel or Macron and is told to change his negotiation tactics is obviously nonsense. He's operating under a mandate from the entire 27 but is also strictly following EU rules.

Trasna1

Strazdas wrote: »

That sounds like a complete cock and bull story. Barnier is negotiating on behalf of the EU27 : the idea that he gets a phone call from Merkel or Macron and is told to change his negotiation tactics is obviously nonsense. He's operating under a mandate from the entire 27 but is also strictly following EU rules.

I don't think it is and to be honest it makes perfect sense. Leaving the future relationship open ended is essentially a two year extension to the current process. It allows TM to deliver Brexit and for nothing to change, it also puts the cliff off into potentially the next political cycle.

The EU gets it's money and guarantees on Ireland, market access is maintained, and TM can still sell a different story to whatever side of her party needs placating.

Sounds like a win all around.

blazard

admire pm may for her resilence and determination, she wants the best for the uk but completely at mercy of the moggs and the dup.

Imreoir2

Strazdas wrote: »

That sounds like a complete cock and bull story. Barnier is negotiating on behalf of the EU27 : the idea that he gets a phone call from Merkel or Macron and is told to change his negotiation tactics is obviously nonsense. He's operating under a mandate from the entire 27 but is also strictly following EU rules.

It would not entail a change to the mandate, Barnier still wont agree anything that undermines the EU. It's just allowing some flexibility in the time scale of agreements.

The Withdrawl Treaty will still have to be signed and will still have the backstop re NI, it seems the trade off for this is allowing clarity on trade to be kicked down the road into the transition period. Nothing will fundementally have changed other than the UK government being allowed not to publicly face reality before Brexit day.

It's not the worst outcome. We get what we need up front, the backstop, the chaos of a no deal Brexit is avoided, and the British can have more time to fight amongst themselves before being forced to accept a further dose of reality in two years time.

Let them leave, they will be able to go off and do all the trade deals in the world and have them ready for when the transition period ends. That might just teach them that the grass is not so green outside the EU.

McGiver

Strazdas wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

That's not entirely true. It's just not well designed. I never understood the "In Work Benefits" - somebody who works is getting a top up from the government as a welfare payment - that makes no sense. The Government should better ensure sufficient enough minimum wage instead of this system. Or use tax credits for low earners, that is a better system than keeping wages low and then trying to balance that with welfare payments.

Their cover in unemployment is quite bad, very low, even compared to Ireland. Their pensions are much better than in Ireland. In fact, Ireland has the worst pension cover in OECD.

Overall, including pensions, they spend more as a % of GDP than Ireland. Actually, Irish welfare payment as a % of GDP is in the lowest third in EU 28. If you discount the pensions then it's kind of mid-tier and more or less in line with the UK.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Total_general_government_expenditure_on_social_protection,_2016_(%25_of_GDP).png

You're talking about the old age pension? The full rate in the UK is £164 per week and the basic is £126.

Sorry, it was Net replacement rate where Ireland is at the bottom of OECD. And it seems that UK is actually even worse, despite spending more as a % of GDP.
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/pensions-at-a-glance-2017/net-pension-replacement-rates_pension_glance-2017-15-en#page2

CelticRambler

blazard wrote: »

admire pm may for her resilence and determination, she wants the best for the uk but completely at mercy of the moggs and the dup.

Is that you as a re-reg, Blinding? :P

Trasna1 wrote: »

Leaving the future relationship open ended is essentially a two year extension to the current process. It allows TM to deliver Brexit and for nothing to change, it also puts the cliff off into potentially the next political cycle.

How can an "open-ended" agreement be a two-year extension?

It definitely doesn't sound like a win-win situation for anyone, other than Theresa May. It's not the EU's job to solve Britain's political instability, and kicking cans of anything into the next political cycle doesn't help EU businesses one bit, as there is absolutely no guarantee that the UK will be able to do more in the next two years than they have in the past two years.

Geuze

McGiver wrote: »

I never understood the "In Work Benefits" - somebody who works is getting a top up from the government as a welfare payment - that makes no sense. The Government should better ensure sufficient enough minimum wage instead of this system. Or use tax credits for low earners, that is a better system than keeping wages low and then trying to balance that with welfare payments.

In-work benefits are tax credits.

They are refundable, non-wasteable tax credits.

Peregrinus

The EU has always been willing to proceed on the basis of a “vague deal” about the future relationship. This rumour does not signal a shift in the EU’s position but rather, I suspect, a coming cave on the part of the UK.

The Withdrawal Agreement, remember, will be a legally binding treaty. It will contain binding provisions on the financial settlement, citizens’ rights and the Irish border. It will not deal with the future trading relationship between the UK and the EU, the EU’s position being that, legally, this can only be negotiated and agreed after the UK has left the Union.

Right. This is a domestic problem for the UK government, since they “sold” the divorce payment as a quid pro quo for a good trade deal. So they got the EU to accept that the Withdrawal Agreement would be accompanied by a “political declaration” about the kind of UK/EU trade deal that was envisaged. This wouldn’t be a binding treaty; it would be a declaration of the intent of both sides to conclude a binding treaty, plus an indication of the terms and conditions they expect it to contain.

The UK preference has always been that this should be as comprehensive and as detailed as possible, leaving relatively little for further negotiation, so that when the UK enters into the Withdrawal Agreement and becomes bound by it, they pretty much know what they are getting in return for the divorce payment, etc. Plus, they liked to pretend that the trade deal would be signed and sealed before the end of the transitional period, which is a tiny bit more credible if the bulk of it has already been agreed in outline, and included in the political declaration, before Brexit day. (Though in the last month or so they have stopped pretending that there is any prospect of a concluded trade deal by the end of the transitional period.)

The EU’s position has always been, no, the political declaration will not be heavy on detail because (a) legally speaking, we can’t negotiate this stuff until the UK has left, plus (b) there simply isn’t enough time between now and when this has to be settled by to negotiate that amount of stuff in that amount of detail.

So, basically, the UK were pressing for a long, detailed political declaration, but the EU was offering a short, sketchy one.

So when I read about “reports that Germany is willing to offer May a vague Brexit deal” and “until now it had been assumed that France and Germany would insist that any political declaration on future relations would include details of the planned future trading relationship after Brexit” the needle on my bullsh1t meter moves right into the red zone. This isn’t news; this has always been the position on the EU side.

The likely explanation is that this is spin. The UK government is going to accept the EU position, and settle on the basis of a sketchy political declaration, and they are softening up public opinion for this by presenting it as the EU conceding what the UK wants, rather than the other way around. Plus, they hope to take advantage of their shift in position to spike the Remainers’ guns. Caving into the EU’s position makes a deal more likely, and if the options are (a) leave with no deal, (b) leave with a deal or (c) remain, a lot of the electorate are likely to see (b) leave with a deal as the moderate, centrist, prudent position which respects the referendum outcome.

Strazdas

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It would not entail a change to the mandate, Barnier still wont agree anything that undermines the EU. It's just allowing some flexibility in the time scale of agreements.

The Withdrawl Treaty will still have to be signed and will still have the backstop re NI, it seems the trade off for this is allowing clarity on trade to be kicked down the road into the transition period. Nothing will fundementally have changed other than the UK government being allowed not to publicly face reality before Brexit day.

It's not the worst outcome. We get what we need up front, the backstop, the chaos of a no deal Brexit is avoided, and the British can have more time to fight amongst themselves before being forced to accept a further dose of reality in two years time.

Let them leave, they will be able to go off and do all the trade deals in the world and have them ready for when the transition period ends. That might just teach them that the grass is not so green outside the EU.

It's a hoax of a story IMO. Apparently Barnier cannot change his negotiating stance without a full EU summit and the Commission would have to be involved as well.

No evidence there's anything to the Guardian story, just unnamed sources.

Peregrinus

blazard wrote: »

admire pm may for her resilence and determination, she wants the best for the uk but completely at mercy of the moggs and the dup.

I have to say that I am impressed with her resilience and determination - and effectiveness - in clinging to office up to now, in a way that frankly wouldn't have been predicted after the debacle of her ill-judged election.

I'm not convinced, though, that "she wants what's best for the UK". I think she subordinates that objective to the objective of simply remaning in office. If she does want what's best for the UK it's very hard to explain the Brexit she set about targetting.

As for being "at the mercy of the moggs and the DUP", she may not be quite as much at their mercy as, by her actions, she appears to think. Neither of them can remove her without also removing their own influence over the government.

trellheim

I'm not convinced, though, that "she wants what's best for the UK". I think she subordinates that objective to the objective of simply remaning in office. If she does want what's best for the UK it's very hard to explain the Brexit she set about targetting.

As for being "at the mercy of the moggs and the DUP", she may not be quite as much at their mercy as, by her actions, she appears to think. Neither of them can remove her without also removing their own influence over the government.

If you read Craig Oliver's book he is very clear May will say and do anything required to make anyone in front of her go away thinking they had a deal when there is nothing there

That all said there will be a crunch point soon. They can't do transition without an agreement. Agreeement cant be done without EU27 and EUparl agreement. Time is almost out to get that lot done - they should have put a deal in front of them ages ago ( and more importantly, a united position - nobody in the EU27 will touch the chaos there at the moment )

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

If you read Craig Oliver's book he is very clear May will say and do anything required to make anyone in front of her go away thinking they had a deal when there is nothing there

That all said there will be a crunch point soon. They can't do transition without an agreement. Agreeement cant be done without EU27 and EUparl agreement. Time is almost out to get that lot done - they should have put a deal in front of them ages ago ( and more importantly, a united position - nobody in the EU27 will touch the chaos there at the moment )

I agree with all that. But if you take a step back and look at the long view, May has moved HMG's position quite a bit in the direction of what will fly with the EU - agreeing to an exit payment, then agreeing to an exit payment which will be "locked in" before there is a trade deal, agreeing to accept a measure of ECJ jurisdiction, proposing something that (if not yet a customs union) certainly puts a lot of practical restrictions on the UK's freedom to set customs tariffs, agreeing to a "common rule book", etc, etc.

Yes, it's tortuous. And, yes, a lot of it is fudged. And yes, it's very often two steps forward, one step back. But, inch by inch, she has dragged HMG's position closer to something that might actually fly.

She hasn't got there yet, I agree. She still has to drag it further, probably by the same salami-slicing, frog-boiling tactics that she has employed to this point. And I wouldn't rule out the possibility that she will get there, by the skin of her teeth, just in time.

Theresa May also unilaterally decided and proclaimed that the result of the referendum meant that the UK would be leaving both the Single Market and Customs Union.

It has been this declaration (Lancaster House) which has been so fundamentally undermining of their own negotiating position and what has pushed the UK extremely close to a no deal.

I certainly don't admire that.

VinLieger

blazard wrote: »

admire pm may for her resilence and determination, she wants the best for the uk but completely at mercy of the moggs and the dup.

She couldnt give a hoot about her country, everything she has done has been solely about hanging onto number 10 and keeping her party from splitting. If she honestly wanted the best for her country she would face mogg and the dup down and force them tobshow that they are full of nothing but hollow threats and blatant hypocrisy.

ancapailldorcha

Post deleted. Don't post a link on its own please.

Imreoir2

Strazdas wrote: »

It's a hoax of a story IMO. Apparently Barnier cannot change his negotiating stance without a full EU summit and the Commission would have to be involved as well.

No evidence there's anything to the Guardian story, just unnamed sources.

It might be, but it is not an implausible story all the same. As I said above, doing this would not require a change to Barniers mandate from the European Council.

His mandate is to agree a Withdrawl Treaty, and Treaty on the Future Relationship with the UK. Both of thease must respect the provisions of the EU Treaties and neither can compromise EU Principles like the integraty of the Single Market. Doing this was set out as a two phase process from the start, divorce first, then future relationship.

Had everything gone well, the Withdrawl Treaty should have been agreed ages ago, and the final details of the future relationship treaty should be getting ironed out now. This did not happen, and in fairness was always somewhat unlikely given thet there was only two years to carry out the process. That is why both sides agreed that there would need to be a transition period to allow the future relationship treaty to be prepared. As such, the only treaty that needes to be signed before Brexit day is the Withdrawl Treaty. The future relationship will be dealt with in a non-legally binding political declaration to go along with the withdrawl treaty. This is what Barnier has a mandate to do.

The big hurdle is finalising the withdrawl treaty, not the political declaration, as the political decleration is non-binding anyway. I believe both sides wanted the political declaration to be as detailed as possible to give greater certainty to business. This has obviously become impossible as the UK position on the future relationship is miles from anything acceptable, and there is no time to negiotiate. As such, the only option left is to go with a vague political declaration.

I don't think it is likely, that should the UK give in on the provisions of the Withdrawl Treaty, the EU will refuse to sign that treaty because the political declaration is not detailed enough. The withdrawl treaty is a legally binding document between the UK and the EU. The political declaration is nothing more than a peice of paper signed by Teresa May. It's clear enough to me that the EU is not very concerned about the political declaration as they cannot be sure that this political declaration will be worth the paper it is written on becasue of the instability in the UK. There is no point worrying too much about a statement from someone that is likely to be ousted shortly after Brexit day to be replaced with someone who will not be bound by that declaration. Much better not to give away too much in the political declaration in that case.

I don't think this really has anything to do with Barniers mandate, it has more to do with the proposals that the European Council and Parliament are likely to accept at the end of the day. A vague political declaration, I am almost certain, does not breach his mandate at all. But would the Council and Parliament accept it? Probably, in my opinion, and that is what this story is getting at.

McGiver

Geuze wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

I never understood the "In Work Benefits" - somebody who works is getting a top up from the government as a welfare payment - that makes no sense. The Government should better ensure sufficient enough minimum wage instead of this system. Or use tax credits for low earners, that is a better system than keeping wages low and then trying to balance that with welfare payments.

In-work benefits are tax credits.

They are refundable, non-wasteable tax credits.

Lowest earners pay almost no tax in the UK. So they can hardly deduct a tax credit?

Income Support isn't a tax credit. That's what I'm talking about.
https://www.gov.uk/income-support/eligibility

Calina

I am confused by this because to be frank a vague indication of future arrangements was all that was needed at this point. What needs to be and needed to be nailed down was an orderly withdrawal agreement. The UK has kicked and screamed and howled to make the withdrawal agreement contingent on future trading arrangements. Hence the issues about Ireland and demands that this could not be agreed without the future trading arrangements being set in stone.

I can only conclude that the UK is lining up to make a monumental concession and are laying the groundwork for it to be sold domestically as an EU concession.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do people think the EU will concede in order to get a deal?

"We have reached a compromise agreement in which both sides acknowledged the others legitimate point of view and domestic difficulties, and then the UK did as they were told".

badtoro

Strazdas wrote: »

You must have proper photo ID though such as a Public Service Card or international student card, otherwise they won't allow you board a flight.

AFAIK, British people have been let through with shotgun certificates. What I'm not sure on is whether a British cert has the owners photo on, but I believe not.

breatheme

Calina wrote: »

I am confused by this because to be frank a vague indication of future arrangements was all that was needed at this point. What needs to be and needed to be nailed down was an orderly withdrawal agreement. The UK has kicked and screamed and howled to make the withdrawal agreement contingent on future trading arrangements. Hence the issues about Ireland and demands that this could not be agreed without the future trading arrangements being set in stone.

I can only conclude that the UK is lining up to make a monumental concession and are laying the groundwork for it to be sold domestically as an EU concession.

This. The UK has confused the Withdrawal Agreement and the Future Relationship and has had no idea what they are actually negotiating all along. I mean, you saw that picture of Barnier meeting David Davis; Barnier's side full of binders and documents and Davis'... well, not quite.
The Brexit Department has been a joke for a long time. They have done nothing, and at this point, it is very likely they will do nothing that's productive or that would inch the UK towards a trade deal. Waste of staff, money and organisational resources.

J Mysterio

What annoys me most is people with the cheek to claim that the EU and 'Brussels bureaucrats' are 'bullying them'. Absolutely ridiculous article in UK Independent today.

If we are using lazy, ignorant characterizations such as that, I say the UK is selfish, arrogant and rude.

Akrasia

McGiver wrote: »

Lowest earners pay almost no tax in the UK. So they can hardly deduct a tax credit?

Income Support isn't a tax credit. That's what I'm talking about.
https://www.gov.uk/income-support/eligibility

Income supports vs minimum wages. Minimum wages drive up costs for employers and may reduce employment as some companies reduce headcount.

Income supports can allow families to work in low wage sectors but still maintain a minimum standard of living. They can be seen as subsidizing companied who pay bad wages, and this is true, but if the alternative is unemployment or poverty, I'd prefer working family supports.

It should be paired with other employment laws and workers rights, and a policy of state supported lifelong education to allow workers to retrain and upskill to reward those who seek to improve their employability or start their own businesses.

After Brexit, without EU employment rights and the ECJ, its looking uncertain for British workers who have already been losing lots of hard won rights through the mechanism of zero hours contracts and pseudo self employed contractor status.

kunst nugget

J Mysterio wrote: »

What annoys me most is people with the cheek to claim that the EU and 'Brussels bureaucrats' are 'bullying them'. Absolutely ridiculous article in UK Independent today.

If we are using lazy, ignorant characterizations such as that, I say the UK is selfish, arrogant and rude.

What's the actual bullying that Brussels are inflicting on the UK? I can never figure that out…