Brexit discussion thread IV

flatty

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Folkstonian wrote: »

EdgeCase wrote: »

My view of it is that the UK really does need to leave, and not for its own sake, but for the sake of the EU and the Eurozone. At this stage, it's become a side-show and a hugely problematic member that is potentially undermining the rest of us.

If the feeling in the UK was they didn't want to progress, nobody was stopping them from stepping out and remaining in some kind of EEA type status, but instead they went along with moving towards the EU as it is today and have dragged their feet and blocked or attempted to block all sorts of things, including attempting to derail essential legislation to stablise the Eurozone, which they're not even in!

In my opinion, it's long past time where the other members can continue to play this game. Either you're in or you're not and if you're not, good luck to you. The best that can be done is a trade deal and move on.

There are big external risks at the moment, particularly with Trump kicking off trade wars and China progressing towards 'strong man dictatorship' like governance again etc etc. The UK continuously throwing the toys out of the pram is not really very conducive to anything other than chaos.

For whatever reason, as a country, it is not capable of cooperating on this kind of intimate level with the rest of the EU. I don't really see the point in trying to encourage it to remain as it's never going to be a comfortable relationship. It's like trying to keep a bad marriage together for the sake of the kids.

I think it’s important to remember that Britain’s influence in Europe has been both prominent and of great value to European advancement. It’s another total distortion of reality to say that Britain has had a detrimental impact and that the EU is better off without us.

The list of European achievements which owe a great deal to Britain’s involvement in their implementation consists of the single market and the euro, to Europol and the European Environment Agency amongst many others.

Hardly insignificant accomplishments.

Further, I’d be hesitant to describe Britain’s often important role in acting as a counterweight to French and German ambitions for unrelenting levels of ‘more europe’ as a country dragging its feet.

Not every government and electorate in the EU has been totally content with the pace and direction of Europan integration led by the Franco-German axis in Central Europe. In both the European parliament and the council of ministers Britain has been and valuable ally to them, acting often as a stabilising and reassuring force. Another positive.

I think Britain has done a lot of good for Europe. I think it should have been prouder of its achievements. And I think it’s a great shame it will not be doing good for itself and for Europe anymore.

Honestly, I think your view on Britain’s role in Europe (also described as a festering sore by another poster a few pages back - gross and insulting) is every bit as ignorant of reality as any Brexit voter who thinks that Britain hasn’t benefited from EU membership over the past 4 decades.

I would agree with a lot of what you say, particularly that the description of the UK as having been a 'festering sore' on the EU is not accurate.  Nonetheless, though the UK itself was not a festering sore, there was a festering sore within the UK -- that being an apparent failure by successive generations to reconcile the English national identity with a pan-European one, and a propensity on the part of many politicians and the media to not only use the EU as a scapegoat -- but also treat it effectively as an enemy. 

The uneasy relationship between English people (and Welsh seemingly) and the EU is something which, rather than being addressed, was left to fester.  After all, the faceless Brussels bureaucrats had proven easy targets for the media and lazy fallbacks for the political establishment.  Everything could just be blamed on the EU -- immigration, terrorism, the financial crisis etc etc -- all the fault of EU law, bureaucracy and Eurocrats. 

Someone put it well on this thread before in explaining the difference in the collective national psyches in Ireland and the UK towards EU membership: the Irish saw it as having a seat at the table, while many in the UK (seemingly mainly in England) have never been able to stomach the perceived indignity of having to sit at the table at all.  That has been the real festering sore.

The one rider I would add is that it's very easy for us to be all superior and pro-eu, as we have been huge net beneficiaries from the start, both in real financial terms, and by our adept use of the situation in encouraging multinational job creation by way of highly creative tax practises (effectively allowing our eu colleagues to be defrauded on a huge scale, the apple tax ruling proves this beyond doubt).
In fact, the brits were a very good buffer for us in this, and this is where I fear the real damage may be done to Ireland Inc. In the longer run, with the brits not being there. This is based upon conversations I have had with senior Irish eu based civil servants.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

It was not a blueprint for a super State. It was intended as the basis for peaceful coexistence.

There have been European Federalists agitating for a European State since before there was an EU or and EEC. Winston Churchill was in favour of a United States of Europe after WWII.


This is not a new idea.

It was not mentioned in the founding declaration - or anywhere else.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The phrase was "laying the foundations for ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

It is a phrase often misrepresented and misunderstood (as you have). It was not a blueprint for a super State. It was intended as the basis for peaceful coexistence.

The Treaty doesn't say that the purpose of the "ever closer union" was to act as "the basis for peaceful coexistence". "Ever-closer union" is identified as an object in its own write, not as a means to secure some other objective. The phrase "peaceful co-existence" doesn't appear anywhere in the Treaty.

One of the urban legends that the Brexit campaign has assiduously promoted is that, back in 1975, the British voted only on a "common market", presented as a purely economic arrangement, and had no idea that there was a political dimension to the question, or an objective of forming a union in Europe.

This just isn't true. Both the advocates and the opponents of membership called attention to the political dimension and objectives of the European project - one to endorse it, the other to oppose it and warn against it. Edward Heath in particular emphasised that what was at stake was "far more than a common market", but was a "community of peoples", and that the UK was committing itself "not only to a series of policies or institutions but to a close partnership . . . in which we will all work together rather than separately". Heath spoke passionately in favour of "a united Europe" whose "economic and social systems are developed together". One Thatcher, M, then but a humble Minister for Education, urged that the paramount case in favour of membership was not the economic case at all; it was the political case. And opponents of membership were equally strong in drawing attention to the EEC as a "supranational institution" and an "economic and political union".

If anybody can find election/campaigning material, speechers, etc from either side back in the 70s presenting membership as a matter purely of co-operation for economic advantage with no aspiration to or implication of political union, now would be a good time for them to point to it. And if nobody can point to any such material, well, might that maybe suggest the Brexiter memories of what people were told at the time of the 1975 referendum are about as reliable as their projections of what would ensue after the 2016 referendum?

The key word is "peoples". This reflects that the European Union is exactly that - a union of peoples and nations working together for common goals. That is all it was ever intended to be.

trellheim

You do understand that all planes with UK parts will not be allowed to land and take off in the EU also. Also the numerous aerospace assembly points in the EU will come to a standstill waiting for 15% of the planes parts to arrive. More job losses all round !
Not to mention the untold job losses in Europe's tourist regions because no one can fly there ( UK included ).

In relation to the first point lets see some evidence.

Re the 2nd , post Brexit yes on no deal, which is why the supply chain is scrambling to fix the hole.

As for the 3rd .... what ?

fash

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The uneasy relationship between English people (and Welsh seemingly) and the EU ...

The reason for that is actually English migration into Wales: the Eastern part of Wales consists of a lot of English commuters and voted brexit. You can see the effect here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

An Ciarraioch

fash wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The uneasy relationship between English people (and Welsh seemingly) and the EU ...

The reason for that is actually English migration into Wales: the Eastern part of Wales consists of a lot of English commuters and voted brexit. You can see the effect here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

Also why the '97 devolution vote was surprisingly close, the Welsh-speaking counties were overwhelmingly Yes, with South Wales largely No:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_devolution_referendum,_1997#Results_by_unitary_authority

brickster69

trellheim wrote: »

You do understand that all planes with UK parts will not be allowed to land and take off in the EU also. Also the numerous aerospace assembly points in the EU will come to a standstill waiting for 15% of the planes parts to arrive. More job losses all round !
Not to mention the untold job losses in Europe's tourist regions because no one can fly there ( UK included ).

In relation to the first point lets see some evidence.

Re the 2nd , post Brexit yes on no deal, which is why the supply chain is scrambling to fix the hole.

As for the 3rd .... what ?

1. https://www.adsgroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/06/ADS-GAMA-letter-to-Michel-Barnier-EASA-CAA-Discussions.pdf
If UK planes cannot fly and land in the EU because they have UK made parts, then neither can any other plane with UK parts. All planes would have to replace the UK parts with parts that conform to EU certification. 
2. The EU was told of this months ago, but EU told EASA and CAA not to talk together. So there is not scrambling to fix anything because it can't be fixed until the end of next yeat now. Just another cliff edge for all sides to face, and prolong a transitional phase.
Probably a political negotiation tactic as opposed to common sense to be fair. The UK would have no fall back due to WTO rules not applying to Aerospace. So just a stupid bargaining chip to go along with other things.
3. Spain alone had 18 million UK tourists alone , if they cannot fly, they will not book a holiday and be able to spend. They will just just go elsewhere. Hence job losses in Tourism
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/884114/Brexit-news-Spain-tourism-aviation-deal-eu-latest-news

ArthurDayne

flatty wrote: »

The one rider I would add is that it's very easy for us to be all superior and pro-eu, as we have been huge net beneficiaries from the start, both in real financial terms, and by our adept use of the situation in encouraging multinational job creation by way of highly creative tax practises (effectively allowing our eu colleagues to be defrauded on a huge scale, the apple tax ruling proves this beyond doubt).
In fact, the brits were a very good buffer for us in this, and this is where I fear the real damage may be done to Ireland Inc. In the longer run, with the brits not being there. This is based upon conversations I have had with senior Irish eu based civil servants.

I'd politely disagree with your comments regarding Ireland's tax rules and the Apple ruling but I don't wish to venture down that particular rabbit hole just now. I would tend to agree however that not having the UK's voice when it comes to the voting crunch might be problematic -- particularly if the EU drives forward on proposals to harmonise corporate taxation (something which the UK had expressed initial opposition to, alongside Ireland). Harmonisation of the tax rate is something which could conceivably sour Irish opinion of the EU, and be seen as an over-reach on a matter which is (as of now anyway) the competence of individual member states.

It remains to be seen however if Brexit will evoke a more sympathetic approach in light of Ireland's critical exposure to the fallout (and indeed the Benelux countries who have also had their own tax rows with the Commission). The new concentration of even greater power in France & Germany within the EU may also give rise to changes in the voting process and a recognition of the need to protect the smaller powers. But there is certainly room for concern that Ireland's hugely successful taxation regime may be in some doubt in an EU bereft of the British.

Capt'n Midnight

brickster69 wrote: »

You do understand that all planes with UK parts will not be allowed to land and take off in the EU also. Also the numerous aerospace assembly points in the EU will come to a standstill waiting for 15% of the planes parts to arrive. More job losses all round !
Not to mention the untold job losses in Europe's tourist regions because no one can fly there ( UK included ).

Enough with the project fear.

The parts were designed and approved by the EU so they can continue to be used.

It's that they won't arrive "just in time" so lots of money will have to tied up in stores and storage. Bombardier in Belfast reckon on £30m for warehouses and parts they might need. They'll start stockpilling by the end of the year if there's isn't a deal in the offing. And that's all dead money.


Having said that , it's the stuff like the Airliner's NCT / MOT / Tax / insurance / licence plate / pilots drivers licence / Taxi Plate / DoE / CRW or whatever that may not be fully recognised in time.

The insurance is critical. When Monarch went bust the planes and crew didn't stop existing. But the insurance cover did. So lots of charters planes needed.

Nody

brickster69 wrote: »

1. https://www.adsgroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/06/ADS-GAMA-letter-to-Michel-Barnier-EASA-CAA-Discussions.pdf
If UK planes cannot fly and land in the EU because they have UK made parts, then neither can any other plane with UK parts. All planes would have to replace the UK parts with parts that conform to EU certification. 
2. The EU was told of this months ago, but EU told EASA and CAA not to talk together. So there is not scrambling to fix anything because it can't be fixed until the end of next yeat now. Just another cliff edge for all sides to face, and prolong a transitional phase.
Probably a political negotiation tactic as opposed to common sense to be fair. The UK would have no fall back due to WTO rules not applying to Aerospace. So just a stupid bargaining chip to go along with other things.
3. Spain alone had 18 million UK tourists alone , if they cannot fly, they will not book a holiday and be able to spend. They will just just go elsewhere. Hence job losses in Tourism
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/884114/Brexit-news-Spain-tourism-aviation-deal-eu-latest-news

1) The parts met the EU requirement when assembled; there's no issue there. However that does not suddenly make the UK techies doing the ground checks in UK certified to give an air plane the green light to fly (and good luck to any plane trying to lift off without being certified from an insurance perspective). Hence the problem in EU will be far less drastic than in the UK and will be focused on spare parts rather than having the whole airport and all staff and processes declared unapproved for any future flights.
2) EASA is not allowed to hold talks with the CAA for the same reason UK can't hold talks about FTA while in the EU. That's simply applying the rules and legislation in question and nothing else yet in UK that's of course "EU punishing the UK for leaving" when they apply the rules UK agreed to in the first place.
3) Feel free to say where the 18 million tourists will go when they can't fly anywhere else (remember UK drops out of every single deal with every country in the world and need to redo them from scratch for this); the sunny UK? You're also forgetting that they can drive down there though they will of course need to get updated driving license (international license) along with new insurance (no UK insurance is valid in the EU any more).

brickster69

The parts were designed and approved by the EU so they can continue to be used.

You have a link for that ?

Parts were not designed by the EU, they are certified by the EU. Once the UK leaves the EU those certification for parts would not be valid, fitted or not. So the planes cannot fly because parts of the plane are not legally certified within the EU.

Same for services to parts. You cannot just get some company in to service the engines and wings and sign it off every week. Services are a critical part of the contract.

Rolls Royce are just now are planning on getting new parts designed in Germany in order to get approved, not prior.

Capt'n Midnight

Theresa May Planning Cabinet Summit on No-Deal Brexit IMHO that's what they've all been so far.





Sterling falls against dollar and euro amid fears of no-deal Brexit Just in case anyone had thought the initial drop in sterling had Brexit factored in.



Britain walks Brexit high wire over financial services A nice overview of how exposed the UK financial sector could be and how much cake is wanted.

trellheim

Parts that were certified by the EU before the Brexit date will still have been certified by the EU ; time passing does not change that fact.

I grant you parts manufactured afterwards have a massive issue.

Your 3rd point only applies to UK inward and outward tourism.. not , as you said, everyone else.

mickoneill31

brickster69 wrote: »

they are certified by the EU. Once the UK leaves the EU those certification for parts would not be valid, fitted or not.

That's interesting. Can you provide a source for that? Do you work in aviation yourself?
I don't understand why eu certification for existing parts would be deemed invalid because of the UK leaving.

Jaggo

brickster69 wrote: »

The parts were designed and approved by the EU so they can continue to be used.

You have a link for that ?

Parts were not designed by the EU, they are certified by the EU. Once the UK leaves the EU those certification for parts would not be valid, fitted or not. So the planes cannot fly because parts of the plane are not legally certified within the EU.

Same for services to parts. You cannot just get some company in to service the engines and wings and sign it off every week. Services are a critical part of the contract.

Rolls Royce are just now are planning on getting new parts designed in Germany in order to get approved, not prior.

The Airbus UK operation is certified by EASA not the CAA so it's fine, it's certs will continue post brexit. Some of the components aren't though. EASA will have to grandfather the existing certification and then recertify the remaining post brexit.
Difficult but manageable.

Cabin crew, airports, maintainence and navigation are another story. But the eu has been well ahead on the curve on this. They have discussed this with the FAA back in late 2016.

Even in a no deal scenario i still see the EU helping the UK out with some temporary help.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

It was not mentioned in the founding declaration - or anywhere else.

Correct, a "super state" was not mentioned in the founding declaration, or anywhere else. Which is part of the reason why, today, despite the blusterings of Brexiteers, there is no European super state.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

There has also been a strong... 'tendency' seems to be the wrong word... of Tory governments actively using the EU as the focus for anger in the UK against their own policies and shortcomings.

And, conversely, to claim as their own EU measures which they see as beneficial or popular. Only yesterday Liam Fox issued a press release hailing his acheivement in securing a trade deal with Taiwan under which British pork can be exported to Taiwan. It's an EU trade deal and the UK will be withdrawing from it on 29 March next.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The key word is "peoples". This reflects that the European Union is exactly that - a union of peoples and nations working together for common goals. That is all it was ever intended to be.

With respect, the key word is "union". And, as you point out, it's an "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe", not ". . . among the states of Europe".

I think the wording there was deliberately open. The peoples of Europe could be united by incorporating them in to a single state, in much the way that the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales have been united. (And some of the people of Ireland, though the project has perhaps been less successful in that respect. ) Or, they can be united not by subsuming the separate states, but by mechanisms which create deeper relations, and more commonality and collective action, between the states.

It's the latter route which, despite the bleatings of Brexiters, has been consistently chosen. This choice was confirmed in the "Solemn Declaration on European Union" of 1983, where the Treaty of Rome formulation was expanded when the Member States confirmed :

". . . their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community"

And that's the way it has always been. The Member States do not lose their identity in the Union; they do not lose their voices; they do not lose their sovereignty (as the Brexit decision itself illustrates; the very fact that the UK could choose to leave the EU shows that it was, in fact, fully sovereign).

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The key word is "peoples". This reflects that the European Union is exactly that - a union of peoples and nations working together for common goals. That is all it was ever intended to be.

With respect, the key word is "union". And, as you point out, it's an "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe", not ". . . among the states of Europe".

I think the wording there was deliberately open. The peoples of Europe could be united by incorporating them in to a single state, in much the way that the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales have been united. (And some of the people of Ireland, though the project has perhaps been less successful in that respect. ) Or, they can be united not by subsuming the separate states, but by mechanisms which create deeper relations, and more commonality and collective action, between the states.

It's the latter route which, despite the bleatings of Brexiters, has been consistently chosen. This choice was confirmed in the "Solemn Declaration on European Union" of 1983, where the Treaty of Rome formulation was expanded when the Member States confirmed :

". . . their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community"

And that's the way it has always been. The Member States do not lose their identity in the Union; they do not lose their voices; they do not lose their sovereignty (as the Brexit decision itself illustrates; the very fact that the UK could choose to leave the EU shows that it was, in fact, fully sovereign).

Well union can mean lots of things and the Brexiteers are eager to present it as something potentially sinister, despite the absence of any evidence over the past 60/70 years.

But I still maintain that "peoples" is the key word because it recognises that Europe is comprised of different peoples and by extension different nation states. If it had said "people of Europe", the conspiracy theorists would be jumping up and down.

And yes, the 1983 version clarifies it further - interesting that the Brexiteers quote so selectively.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Well union can mean lots of things and the Brexiteers are eager to present it as something potentially sinister, despite the absence of any evidence over the past 60/70 years.

But I still maintain that "peoples" is the key word because it recognises that Europe is comprised of different peoples and by extension different nation states. If it had said "people of Europe", the conspiracy theorists would be jumping up and down.

And yes, the 1983 version clarifies it further - interesting that the Brexiteers quote so selectively.

While it's a convention of political nationalism that each nation should have its own state - and one that I share myself - it's not an unchallenged view. Socialists, internationalists, imperialists, etc have all argued (and practiced) the contrary at various times. Unionists reject the idea right now with regard to Scotland/Northern Ireland.

I think the Treaty of Rome deliberately straddled this. If you're trying to build support for a new and ambitious project, you don't want to start out by lining it up on one side or the other of a long-entrenched political divide. The EEC could not risk being identified either as a nationalist project, or an internationalist one. Indeed, a key driver of the whole project was to try and transcend that particular divide. So the EEC was conceived of as a supranational institution, consistent with both a nationalist perspective and an internationalist one, and capable of winning support on both sides. The whole idea was to transcend that particular division.

Hence, a union of peoples - not a union of people, or a union of states, but something else. In the EU states retain their identity and their sovereignty, but they commit to acting collectively in an unprecedented way.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, conversely, to claim as their own EU measures which they see as beneficial or popular. Only yesterday Liam Fox issued a press release hailing his acheivement in securing a trade deal with Taiwan under which British pork can be exported to Taiwan. It's an EU trade deal and the UK will be withdrawing from it on 29 March next.

ah come on.. seriously?

have you got a link?

that's just surreal

breatheme

Can we talk about Swixit? The Swiss are going to vote (again) not to restrict free movement, but to actually end it:

https://lenews.ch/2018/07/04/vote-to-end-free-swiss-eu-migration-gets-enough-signatures/

Which would trigger the guillotine clause and end all of the billateral agreements with the EU.

Water John

British holidaymakers changing their currency at the airports are already below parity with the euro. Pity that hadn't happened before the summer exodus.
It might give them a taste of reality.

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

ah come on.. seriously?

have you got a link?

that's just surreal

Here you go:

https://twitter.com/LiamFox/status/1026791209220624385

You'll note that "The agreement is expected to be worth more than £50m to UK farmers over the next 5 years". Assuming that Taiwan agrees to roll it over for the benefit of the UK next March. Which they haven't yet been asked if they are willing to do.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Here you go:

https://twitter.com/LiamFox/status/1026791209220624385

You'll note that "The agreement is expected to be worth more than £50m to UK farmers over the next 5 years". Assuming that Taiwan agrees to roll it over for the benefit of the UK next March. Which they haven't yet been asked if they are willing to do.

It's actually not a trade deal either. The EU have just persuaded Taiwan to lift a ban on EU pork.



The Italians are taking credit for this too. Correctly, I understand.

Topgear on Dave

Fifty million quid over five years. Ten million a year.

I mean, its buttons, its tiny! its not worth mentioning its so small for British agriculture. Its a joke!

Peregrinus

It's probably worth pointing out that the UK is a substantial net importer of pork and pork products, producing only around 60% of the pork it consumes. Virtually all of the remaining 40% comes from other EU countries. In the event of a crash-out Brexit, I don't think the UK will have much spare pork to be exporting to Taiwan.

Nody

breatheme wrote: »

Can we talk about Swixit? The Swiss are going to vote (again) not to restrict free movement, but to actually end it:

https://lenews.ch/2018/07/04/vote-to-end-free-swiss-eu-migration-gets-enough-signatures/

Which would trigger the guillotine clause and end all of the billateral agreements with the EU.

Well their leadership for it is exactly as truthful as Boris was during the Brexit debate.

Rösti does not think the latest initiative puts Switzerland’s package of bilateral agreements at risk. He says that all of the other agreements in the package are in the EU’s interest and solutions could be found.

breatheme

If they ever did trigger the guillotine clause it would be the end of an era, I don't think the EU would let them have that again. After that it would have to be EEA or EU.

Imreoir2

breatheme wrote: »

Can we talk about Swixit? The Swiss are going to vote (again) not to restrict free movement, but to actually end it:

https://lenews.ch/2018/07/04/vote-to-end-free-swiss-eu-migration-gets-enough-signatures/

Which would trigger the guillotine clause and end all of the billateral agreements with the EU.

Can we please get beyond the notion that your national popular vote can force the rest of the world to accomodate you?

Sure, you can vote for x, but you will suffer the consequences of that choice, far too many people seem to be under the deluson that if a choice is reached by democratic vote then everyone else must "respect" that and roll over to allow it to happen while also protecting the people from the consequences of their decisions.

It's one thing to send a message to your national leadership that a certain objective should be acheived, it's another to legally bind them to do something that has huge consequences that no one wants.