Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)
Comments
-
Yes, the other option is economic ruin in a few weeks time, Brexit is really noting but upside, isnt it?
It’s not looking great, I’d have to admit.
EFTA may be the only way forward at this point. It’s not a perfect solution and won’t please everyone, but will free us from the political and integrationist elements of the EU, the big financial payments and the ECJ’s jurisdiction.
Could parliament come to a majority on it? I’m not convinced at all0 -
Folkstonian wrote: »It’s not looking great, I’d have to admit.
EFTA may be the only way forward at this point. It’s not a perfect solution and won’t please everyone, but will free us from the political and integrationist elements of the EU, the big financial payments and the ECJ’s jurisdiction.
Could parliament come to a majority on it? I’m not convinced at all
Do Norway have a say?
Last year they were strongly opposed to the UK joining EFTA.0 -
BorneTobyWilde wrote: »Funny how Ireland and EU refuse to budge on the back stop, saying it's there to prevent a hard border, but in not budging and excepting an alternative proposal it will be them that are responsible for an absolute hard border. UK seem right in this case, for EU to say we will never negotiate is simple wrong. You should always compromise.
THis is a bit like a criminal comes into my house and says "giime all your money", and I say "no" and he says "gimme half your money, you should always compromise".0 -
Well, to pick a nit, while it would mean ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ, it would also mean accepting the jurisdiction of the EFTA court. I'm not sure there's a coherent basis for concluding that the one is a contstitutional outrage but the other is acceptable.Folkstonian wrote: »It’s not looking great, I’d have to admit.
EFTA may be the only way forward at this point. It’s not a perfect solution and won’t please everyone, but will free us from the political and integrationist elements of the EU, the big financial payments and the ECJ’s jurisdiction.
And that's the fundamental problem; there's no majority for any particular version of the UK/EU relationship, either in Parliament or - so far as we can tell - in the country at large.Folkstonian wrote: »Could parliament come to a majority on it? I’m not convinced at all
Ironically, the option that probably comes closest to securing majority support is probably EU membership - it was the favoured option of 48% of the population in 2016, and there's no reason to think that support has fallen signficantly since them. Still, "comes closest" isn't good enough.
This is a situation which is crying out for an effective process of dialogue, compromise and consensus-building, but that hasn't taken place. And one of the (many) lessons that the UK should learn from this sorry episode is that they need to think seriously about why their constitution, and their political culture and process, has let them down so badly in this instance, and what they need to change for the future. This isn't really a point about Europe but a more general point about how the UK can manage and negotiate intermal division about signficant issues. It's undeniable that other European countries, faced with similar divisions, have handled them much, much better than the UK has on this occasion.0 -
The EU has compromised; the backstop is the compromise.BorneTobyWilde wrote: »Funny how Ireland and EU refuse to budge on the back stop, saying it's there to prevent a hard border, but in not budging and excepting an alternative proposal it will be them that are responsible for an absolute hard border. UK seem right in this case, for EU to say we will never negotiate is simple wrong. You should always compromise.
And it's a little unfair to say that the UK is not budging (further) and accepting an alternative proposal; the UK hasn't advanced an alternative proposal for the EU to accept or reject, because in the UK they are (still) fighting among themselves like cats in a bag about what alternative proposal should be advanced.0 -
Advertisement
-
Folkstonian wrote: »EFTA may be the only way forward at this point. It’s not a perfect solution and won’t please everyone, but will free us from the political and integrationist elements of the EU, the big financial payments and the ECJ’s jurisdiction.
The Norwegians clearly said they do not welcome a destabilising element in their club amongst them, or we could say someone with a track record of being abusing, uncooperative and bullying member of another club.
Apart from that, EFTA agrees on matter unanimously and there is an EFTA court to settle disputes, of course. UK would likely disrupt this delicate balance as it generally does not believe in any kind of "club of equals". Furthermore, they are all small countries, UK is really too large to fit.
I do however think that EFTA is the best solution for the UK. It provides "freedom" of the EU political integration and ability to maintain their own currency whilst brings the benefit of the Single Market and EU regulatory framework.
But all that comes at rather huge cost:
- EU budget contributions (likely higher than current UK contributions)
- Acceptance of four freedoms
- Adherence to all SM regulations
- Severely restricted ability to strike own FTAs due to regulatory alignment with the SM
- Loss of influence on drafting SM regulations - democratic deficit
- Loss of diplomatic power that comes with EU membership
- Loss of economic negotiating power that comes with EU membership0 -
By next month the British Government are going to be made to make a decision one way or another on this regardless of their BS and whining right now its either
1) Accept WA as is, no more debate.
2) Abandon Brexit and just face their opponents rather than running away from them
3) Fail to choose and crash out causing untold damage most of all on themselves. Stupidity has consequences.
Realistically if they don't want the WA then abandon this farce and be done with it is pretty much everyone's opinion on this here but sadly they've displayed a combination of shocking lack of intelligence on all this from many parts and those who actually are competent enough to know how stupid this all is don't have enough power to stop this unless enough of parliament can be forced to cop on.
Honestly IMO there's a significant chance of a crash out in all this and I don't think enough people have realized that fact at least in the markets as there's still a belief they actually wont crash. Time will tell but they might as well rename the place the "United Memedom" come March 30th because they literally become the prime example of "It's Happening" that day if they dont cop on....0 -
Do Norway have a say?
Last year they were strongly opposed to the UK joining EFTA.
Yep, because a) they are the unofficial leader of EFTA (the UK would take over that role) and b) because they see the UK's track record in terms of demanding opt-outs, exceptions, special treatment etc (a big risk for the whole of EFTA).0 -
Yesterday was a big day:
- Unsurprisingly, the alternative arrangements concept is dying a death with the ERG opposition to anything other than complete removal of the backstop running somewhere in the region of 24-48 votes. Theresa May has lost any chance of a majority that depends on ERG+DUP votes. Which means that the incentive for any WA compromise from the EU has gone from minuscule to zero. For the next couple of weeks at least, there will be no real pressure on Dublin, if cards are played right.
- More surprisingly, the signals from Kier Starmer over the weekend are now appearing as official Labour policy as articulated in Jeremy Corbyn's letter to Theresa May. In other words, Labour are moving away from their previous position of ambiguity and are rotating towards a Norway+ type model. Hard to see how Theresa May would ever buy into this, but now for the first time, the House of Commons has a second model of how Brexit might work, with the support of 200+ MPs. Not easy to see where the other 100 votes would come from, but this is a development of significance.
And in other news, Donald Tusk was trolling again...0 -
The Norwegians clearly said they do not welcome a destabilising element in their club amongst them, or we could say someone with a track record of being abusing, uncooperative and bullying member of another club.
Apart from that, EFTA agrees on matter unanimously and there is an EFTA court to settle disputes, of course. UK would likely disrupt this delicate balance as it generally does not believe in any kind of "club of equals". Furthermore, they are all small countries, UK is really too large to fit.
I do however think that EFTA is the best solution for the UK. It provides "freedom" of the EU political integration and ability to maintain their own currency whilst brings the benefit of the Single Market and EU regulatory framework.
But all that comes at rather huge cost:
- EU budget contributions (likely higher than current UK contributions)
- Acceptance of four freedoms
- Adherence to all SM regulations
- Severely restricted ability to strike own FTAs due to regulatory alignment with the SM
- Loss of influence on drafting SM regulations - democratic deficit
- Loss of diplomatic power that comes with EU membership
- Loss of economic negotiating power that comes with EU membership
On the first point you make. Britain has no history of abusing or bullying members the EU and it’s quite shoddy and ahistorical, if you don’t mind me saying so, that you suggest it has.
Britain has given Europe over one hundred billion pounds more than it has received in return in the last 20 years. It has given a home and work opportunities to millions of Europeans, has used its clout in parliament to front up to Germany and France many times with the support of smaller and less influential members, has been an important contributor to Europe’s security, both internally and external.
It has done what each and every European country does, which is to try and negotiate a position inside the club that is to its greatest advantage. For Britain this has meant staying outside of schengen, the Euro and even greater financial payments and I have no idea why you would be bitter at Britain for having negotiated that position for itself.
Onto your second point about Norwegian opposition - I believe you are right that they could veto British entry into the EFTA club.
Would they be prepared to do so? I don’t know. Possibly, they would.
But they would surely face overwhelming pressure from the EU to ensure that a no deal economic collapse in Britain with shockwaves reverberating across a Eurozone already in recession is averted?
If they’ve got the minerals (pun half intended) to resist that pressure and look out for their own interest in respect to EFTA regardless, more power to them!0 -
Advertisement
-
No, you're overstating the case. Think about it.Folkstonian wrote: »The backstop negotiated by Theresa May allows the European Union to contain Britain in an uncomfortable state of limbo in perpetuity until the British government agrees on a future trade agreement that gives Europe absolutely everything it desires ...
A future relationship agreement doesn't have to give the EU "everything it desires" in order to supersede the backstop. It just has to put the EU, overall, in a better position than it would be if the backstop continues. Once that condition is satisfied, self-interest will lead the EU to enter into the Future Relationship Agreement.
The key here is to look at the EU's interests, not the Brexiters' paranoia. The EU wants a free trade agreement with the UK (for reasons that Brexiters themselves constantly point out) and there are signficant aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Backstop in particular with which the EU is deeply uncomfortable, which it only conceded under considerable pressure, and which it will be anxious to move on from by negotiating a more satisfactory Future Relationship Agreement.
So UK is not without leverage here. Withdrawal Agrement plus backstop is not a satisfactory end-point for EU.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »No, you're overstating the case. Think about it.
A future relationship agreement doesn't have to give the EU "everything it desires" in order to supersede the backstop. It just has to put the EU, overall, in a better position than it would be if the backstop continues. Once that condition is satisfied, self-interest will lead the EU to enter into the Future Relationship Agreement.
The key here is to look at the EU's interesets, not the Brexiters' paranoia. The EU wants a free trade agreement with the UK (for reasons that Brexiters themselves constantly point out) and there are signficant aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Backstop in particular with which the EU is deeply uncomfortable, which it only conceded under considerable pressure, and which it will be anxious to move on from by negotiating a more satisfactory Future Relationship Agreement.
So UK is not without leverage here. Withdrawal Agrement plus backstop is not a satisfactory end-point for EU.
Yes, the EU is prepared to have a 3rd country relationship with the UK, while allowing them to also maintain a complete foothold in the SM via NI. It's only because of incredibly toxic internal politics that their politicians aren't clicking their heels over that.0 -
I don't know that they would face "overwhelming pressure from the EU", to be honest. After all, if it's not the EU's responsibility to get the UK out of the hole which it has dug for itself, it's certainly not Norway's, and the Norwegians would not be behind in making that point. I don't see how the EU could do anything to persuade the Norwegians to accept the UK when they didn't want to that wouldn't be seriously harmful to the EU-Norway relationship, and why would the EU and Norway want to wear that degree of harm to solve the UK's problem?Folkstonian wrote: »...Onto your second point about Norwegian opposition - I believe you are right that they could veto British entry into the EFTA club.
Would they be prepared to do so? I don’t know. Possibly, they would.
But they would surely face overwhelming pressure from the EU to ensure that a no deal economic collapse in Britain with shockwaves reverberating across a Eurozone already in recession is averted?
If they’ve got the minerals (pun half intended) to resist that pressure and look out for their own interest in respect to EFTA regardless, more power to them!
However much the EU needs this problem solved, the UK needs it solved much, much more. If (and it's a big "if") the optimal solution is EFTA membership, then the UK has the greater incentive to persuade the Norwegians to co-operate than the EU does.
Plus, the UK is better positioned to persuade the Norwegians, since it can in fact seek to show them that it is sincere and whole-hearted about its desire to participate in EFTA, that it won't be doing this in a reluctant or unwilling way, that it isn't joining with a view to leaving again, etc, etc. If the UK isn't prepared to do any of this - if it approaches EFTA like a sullen adolescent dragged along on a family outing that it doesn't wish to be on - then frankly there is nothing the EU can plausibly do to persuade EFTA members to welcome the UK.0 -
Folkstonian wrote: »It’s not looking great, I’d have to admit.
EFTA may be the only way forward at this point. It’s not a perfect solution and won’t please everyone, but will free us from the political and integrationist elements of the EU, the big financial payments and the ECJ’s jurisdiction.
Could parliament come to a majority on it? I’m not convinced at all
Aren't your points only 'technically' true, but not true in reality? Specifically:
-It will not free the UK from 'political and integrationalist' elements in so far as the UK will still be accepting all EU rules and regulations, including the 4 freedoms with full regulatory alignment, as per https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.politico.eu/article/norwegian-pm-uk-cannot-cherry-pick-eu-membership/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjDqoum3ajgAhWpRBUIHTF8Dm4QFjAKegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3rAH9a7By5LOLXxVzlhbcb&cf=1&cshid=1549511866486
-UK will still have to contribute to the EU budget 'on equal footing to member states' as per https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.norway.no/en/missions/eu/areas-of-cooperation/financial-contribution/&ved=2ahUKEwjXhb6i3KjgAhUBShUIHQa1BPEQFjABegQIDRAE&usg=AOvVaw2LsMKNrLjjVGbe7oYOHKa9
-instead of ECJ you get the EFTA court which is the same thing: 'The EFTA Court's jurisprudence is in fact based on the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).' as per https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA_Court&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO763KjgAhVyWxUIHZX8C0EQFjACegQIDhAO&usg=AOvVaw0mXkbme03XY18RMtAij7md
My point being, this option is only an option if the goal is for the UK to save its face and pursuit ANY form of exit from the EU, no matter whether it's a worse option than actually remaining in the EU? Worse due to losing voting rights it currently has and not gaining anything in return. The fact it's even brought up as an option for consideration shows how 'Red Lines' style negotiating tactics are abject lunacy and always eventually lead to worse outcomes through entrenchment of positions.0 -
Folkstonian has a point here. Being in EFTA doesn’t involve any commitment to “ever closer union”, and doesn’t involve political co-operation, a common foreign policy stance, adopting the euro, etc, etc. It’s basically just the economic side of the deal.Aren't your points only 'technically' true, but not true in reality? Specifically:
-It will not free the UK from 'political and integrationalist' elements in so far as the UK will still be accepting all EU rules and regulations, including the 4 freedoms with full regulatory alignment ...
This is correct, though EFTA members participate in fewer programmes than EU member states, and only contribute to the programmes that are relevant to them as EFTA members. Still, unless the UK can negotiate, as an EFTA member, a budget rebate to parallel the one it enjoys as an EU member state, it has been calcuated that its contributions would actually go up with a move to EFTA membership.UK will still have to contribute to the EU budget 'on equal footing to member states' ...
Spot on.-instead of ECJ you get the EFTA court which is the same thing: 'The EFTA Court's jurisprudence is in fact based on the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).'
Not necessarily. As I’m tired of pointing out, the kind of Brexit that a Brexiter wants depends on what problems he (or she) thinks that Brexit is supposed to solve. If you’re of the Brexiter school which holds that the British were sold a “common market” which only later morphed into a sinister political project involving the euro, federalism and a progress towards a European Army then, logically, the EFTA Brexit is the Brexit you should favour, because it delivers the economic trading block/common market side of the package without all the rest.My point being, this option is only an option if the goal is for the UK to save its face and pursuit ANY form of exit from the EU, no matter whether it's a worse option than actually remaining in the EU? Worse due to losing voting rights it currently has and not gaining anything in return. It's abject lunacy.0 -
However one would expect, if that were the case, that Labour would not object to special status for NI, yet they too oppose it, and they are not dependent on DUP support.Yes, the EU is prepared to have a 3rd country relationship with the UK, while allowing them to also maintain a complete foothold in the SM via NI. It's only because of incredibly toxic internal politics that their politicians aren't clicking their heels over that.0 -
Not quite though. What this kind of brexiter wants is something like the EEA/EFTA but with each member getting a say in the rules that apply. Since that is impossible, they may chose no deal over it.Peregrinus wrote: »Not necessarily. As I’m tired of pointing out, the kind of Brexit that a Brexiter wants depends on what problems he (or she) thinks that Brexit is supposed to solve. If you’re of the Brexiter school which holds that the British were sold a “common market” which only later morphed into a sinister political project involving the euro, federalism and a progress towards a European Army then, logically, the EFTA Brexit is the Brexit you should favour, because it delivers the economic trading block/common market side of the package without all the rest.
It would however suit Ireland to have the UK in the EEA/EFTA rather than exiting without a deal.0 -
Folkstonian wrote: »On the first point you make. Britain has no history of abusing or bullying members the EU and it’s quite shoddy and ahistorical, if you don’t mind me saying so, that you suggest it has.
That is not what the poster claimed. But even you would have to admit that the UK's behaviour over the past years has been deeply abusive. The UK has a tendency to march in all guns blazing with Demands. In particular from Cameron onwards it has demonstrated an inability to understand how to negotiate to get what it wants in a collaborative mutual benefit way. It has been super confrontational lately and it has tended to use bellicose and belligerent language.
This is because the UK doesn't appear to understand the concept of membership and operates as tbough it and the EU have always been completely separate entities.
I really pity people in the UK. They have been and continue to be massively poorly served and completely manipulated by their unelected mass media. The interests of their unelected mass media take precedence over their interests. They appear to oversimplify things to the extent that they don't come close to recognising that some things are complex and take time and effort to disassemble. A huge number of people are operating on the It'll be alright on the night for of project mismanagement.
The UK is making plans for food shortages in peacetime and without a natural disaster having caused a catastrophic breakdown. This is entirely self inflicted.
The UK is not behaving rationally. It has by dint of negotiation, non-cooperation, hectoring and occasional sugar drops managed to negotiate itself a fantastic membership arrangement that no other country has. And it is walking away while accusing the EU of being like the Soviet Union, a bully and assorted other general insults.
It seems to me the UK is still tribal. It has to have winners and losers. It does not understand mutual benefit at all. It may claim to but the withdrawal agreement should have been easy to negotiate because it should have been a simple question of mutual benefit in the circumstances. But the minute May talked about beung a nloody difficult womand and Davis banged on about the fight of the summer demonstrated that they were not interested in negotiating for mutual benefit, that they were taking a confrontational approach.
In the political context that is May's government, I am amazed Robbins managed to get anything negotiated. Both Davis and Raab were monumentally unhelpful and May's behaviour has not been inspiring either.
Arguing that Britain has no history of bullying is hysterical in the current process. Brexit, and the approach to implementing it has been nothing other than bullying. And especially, they have been trying to bully Ireland, whose interests align somewhat with theirs in European terms.0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pure semantics based on the following.Peregrinus wrote: »Folkstonian has a point here. Being in EFTA doesn’t involve any commitment to “ever closer union”, and doesn’t involve political co-operation, a common foreign policy stance, adopting the euro, etc, etc. It’s basically just the economic side of the deal.
It only doesn't involve cooperation in a form that EFTA states are currently resoundingly neutral and do not have distinct foreign policy stances. UK would also be 'free' to have distinct foreign policy to all 3rd parties, but obviously not the EU itself, otherwise potentially compromising the EFTA deal at every attempt to have distinctly independent foreign policy. I'm not sure the situation will be vastly superior to the current one. Other points are similar due to the UK concessions within the EU, i.e. the euro or due to veto on real issues like taxes.
An 'ever closer union' is just an aspiration. The only issue UK really has that can be verbalised beyond fighting aspirational quotes is immigration and that is still there front and center under EFTA.
I appreciate the empathy displayed here in understanding the Brexiters viewpoints, however UK will lose influence not gain as a result and that will not change with any kind of Brexiter one might imagine himself to be.Peregrinus wrote: »Not necessarily. As I’m tired of pointing out, the kind of Brexit that a Brexiter wants depends on what problems he (or she) thinks that Brexit is supposed to solve. If you’re of the Brexiter school which holds that the British were sold a “common market” which only later morphed into a sinister political project involving the euro, federalism and a progress towards a European Army then, logically, the EFTA Brexit is the Brexit you should favour, because it delivers the economic trading block/common market side of the package without all the rest.
Losing influence causes necessity to have to compromise even more in future negotiations, not less. Pure speculation on my part, but something tells me UK will adopt the Euro and be part of the common army even quicker as a result of Brexit, not slower if it kept the status quo.0 -
Quick question. If NI had ended up having special status as both UK and EU, would Belfast have taken a lot of London's financial services and jobs?
If so, the DUP scored a serious own goal. UI would never happen if Belfast had that.0 -
Advertisement
-
I may be misunderstanding you here, but if an EFTA state is “resoundingly neutral”, how is that not a “distinct foreign policy stance”?Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pure semantics based on the following.
It only doesn't involve cooperation in a form that EFTA states are currently resoundingly neutral and do not have distinct foreign policy stances. UK would also be 'free' to have distinct foreign policy to all 3rd parties, but obviously not the EU itself, otherwise potentially compromising the EFTA deal at every attempt to have distinctly independent foreign policy. I'm not sure the situation will be vastly superior to the current one. Other points are similar due to the UK concessions within the EU, i.e. the euro or due to veto on real issues like taxes.
My mention of foreign policy is just an example, albeit a relatively important one. When the UK joined what was then the EEC in 1973, the only shared foreign policy was the Common Commercial Policy, which dealt with trading relationships with third countries. Beyond that, there was informal consultation between member states on foreign policy, with the rather loose aim of agreeing where possible a common approach on certain foreign policy issues relevant to the EU’s interests.
That remained the case for 20 years, but changed with the Maastricht Treaty, which introduced a Common Foreign and Security Policy, accompanied by much more structured processes to develop and implement it. And that was intensified with the Treaty of Lisbon, which provided for still greater co-ordination and consistency in foreign policy, and the establishment of, in effect, a parallel diplomatic service for the EU. (Parallel with the diplomatic services of the member states, that is.)
That’s the kind of political development and centralisation of foreign policy that a “common market Brexiteer” would say is not what the British people signed up to in 1973. And it’s something in which EFTA states are not involved.
You could make a similar point about, say, police and judicial co-operation - minimal in 1973, now quite extensive. And EFTA states do not participate.
In short, if you’re the kind of Brexiteer whose core objection to the EU is that it has moved on from being the “Common Market” that the UK voted for, EFTA membership looks a lot more like the Common Market than EU membership does.
Ever-closer union is an aspiration, but not just an aspiration. The Common Foreign and Security Policy, and police and judicial co-operation, and the euro, are all examples of every-closer union being progressively realised.An 'ever closer union' is just an aspiration. The only issue UK really has that can be verbalised beyond fighting aspirational quotes is immigration and that is still there front and center under EFTA.
And I think you are too glib in dismissing “fighting aspirational quotes” as a motivating factor for Brexiteers. The Brexit movement is almost entirely devoid of any substantive content or coherent arguments in support of Brexit; it’s largely fuelled by aspirations and sentiment. And while it’s easy to mock this, we still need to take aspirations and sentiment seriously as motivating factors for Brexiters.
Yes, EFTA involves accepting freedom of movement. But, then, so did the Common Market, back in 1973. This means, if you think about it, that a “Common Market Brexiter” should not regard freedom of movement as a dealbreaker.
This comes back to a point I have made before, that different Brexiters have different ideas about what problems Brexit is supposed to solve. (We know this is true because that division has effectively paralysed them for the past two years, and prevented the UK taking any initiatives, or even making any meaningful decisions, in the Brexit negotiations which it initiated.) True, if you think the problem Brexit is supposed to solve is not creeping federalism, but rather all them foreigners stealing our jobs and our women, then EFTA is not an ideal solution. But not all Brexiters think that, so this doesn’t mean than an EFTA Brexit is holed below the waterline. It should have some appeal for at least three groups:
- “Common Market Brexiters”, as already noted, for whom it is probably close to the optimal Brexit.
- Remain voters, who accept Brexit as inevitable given the referendum outcome, but would prefer a Brexit which takes account of at least some of their concerns.
- Some other Brexiters, for whom it’s not the ideal model, but who recognise some need to compromise in order to build a consensus for some form of Brexit, even if only in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit or the risk of a reversal of the Brexit decision.
Oh, yes, but all forms of Brexit involve the UK losing influence. Brexiters - other than completely delusional ones - presumably accept this as a price worth paying to secure some other outcome that they regard as desirable; otherwise they wouldn’t be Brexiters. It’s true that EFTA Brexit gives the UK less influence over market rules that they will still be bound by, but that has to be set against the considerable economic benefits of continued participation in the Single Market, not on offer under other forms of Brexit, plus the advantage (from a Brexiter’s point of view) of exclusion from the political/federalist aspect of the European project. So, taking the rough with the smooth, there may be Brexiters who think that this is not the worst of all possible outcomes.I appreciate the empathy displayed here in understanding the Brexiters viewpoints, however UK will lose influence not gain as a result and that will not change with any kind of Brexiter one might imagine himself to be.
Mmm, maybe. But if that’s not true of Norway it doesn’t have to be true of the UK, does it?Losing influence causes necessity to have to compromise even more in future negotiations, not less. Pure speculation on my part, but something tells me UK will adopt the Euro and be part of the common army even quicker as a result of Brexit, not slower if it kept the status quo.0 -
Tusk et al are closer to the situation than we are - so there is little point in doubting his judgement. Either the UK has already everything sewn up for a no deal (in which case no deal was their intention all along - or perhaps since 2017, with a pivot to the US) - in which case this cannot be said to be "the final nail" - or this could knock some sense in wavering remain or soft Brexit leaning MPs that they've run out of road. In either case, it is not a final nail - and the final nails are and always were in the hands of the UK.Folkstonian wrote: »I don’t think today has caused No Deal, at all. I do think it’s the final nail in the coffin, however. And presumably your representatives have reached a conclusion that it’s inevitable, hence the decision to change tack in the press and social media0 -
Whatever you feel about Tusk's intervention, to describe Varadkar as "sniggering and gloating" I suggest says far more about you than about him: at the highest, an unexpected statement was made by a colleague at a conference and he merely acted with the necessary decorum..I would have been very hopeful of the UK remaining but perhaps the sniggering and gloating by Tusk and Taoiseach Varadkar was ill advised.
What could he gloat about - yet another British ill thought it and uncaring intervention in Ireland which massively damages the social, political and economic environment simply to serve British arrogance and narcissism? Why would that give cause to gloat?0 -
Incorrect, the backstop allows the UK to contain the EU in an uncomfortable state of limbo in perpetuity until the EU agrees on a future trade agreement that gives the UK absolutely everything it desires.Folkstonian wrote: »The backstop negotiated by Theresa May allows the European Union to contain Britain in an uncomfortable state of limbo in perpetuity until the British government agrees on a future trade agreement that gives Europe absolutely everything it desires.
It was the UK that faced a "time cliff" - not any more. It is the UK that desired the customs Union to suit itself - not the EU (and which significantly disturbed many EU member states when they saw what a ridiculously good deal was given to the UK in relation to that). It is also the UK that unilaterally can get out of the Customs Union by electing to have it apply to NI only - not the EU.
Some actual non biased perspective on things would be nice.0 -
...Except that Norway pays almost the same as the UK per capita into the EU. ( https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/ )Folkstonian wrote: »It’s not looking great, I’d have to admit.
EFTA may be the only way forward at this point. It’s not a perfect solution and won’t please everyone, but will free us from the political and integrationist elements of the EU, the big financial payments and the ECJ’s jurisdiction.
EFTA is effectively subject to ECJ and the UK would have had to individually accede to each and every new "political and integrationist element" of the EU (and if they were willing to do that on the inside, who is to say they would be unwilling to do that on the outside).
Hence frankly the points your raise do not support your position.0 -
BorneTobyWilde wrote: »Funny how Ireland and EU refuse to budge on the back stop, saying it's there to prevent a hard border, but in not budging and excepting an alternative proposal it will be them that are responsible for an absolute hard border. UK seem right in this case, for EU to say we will never negotiate is simple wrong. You should always compromise.
What alternative proposal?
How can something which does not exist be accepted?0 -
Just reading another thing on the BBC that Theresa May says the UK will not allow itself to be "trapped in the backstop". What would be acceptable to me would be a further article 50 type clause to be included in the final treaty - triggerable by either side- to end the relationship.
That simply mimics the existing framework and allows the UK to face the same choices it currently does but at a future date.0 -
That would not be acceptable to the EU. It's a unilateral exit mechanism, and that has already been ruled out. It would make the backstop pointless; the backstop must apply unless and until another way of keeping the border open is devised and implemented; without that, it's not a backstop.Just reading another thing on the BBC that Theresa May says the UK will not allow itself to be "trapped in the backstop". What would be acceptable to me would be a further article 50 type clause to be included in the final treaty - triggerable by either side- to end the relationship.
That simply mimics the existing framework and allows the UK to face the same choices it currently does but at a future date.0 -
I accept that but it is at least one that comes with significant consequences - a new no deal - which mirrors the current situation.Peregrinus wrote: »That would not be acceptable to the EU. It's a unilateral exit mechanism, and that has already been ruled out. It would make the backstop pointless; the backstop must apply unless and until another way of keeping the border open is devised and implemented; without that, it's not a backstop.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mmm. On rereading. you're talking about a break clause not in the backstop itself, but in the future relationship agreement which will (in due course) supersede the backstop.I accept that but it is at least one that comes with significant consequences - a new no deal - which mirrors the current situation.
Yes, that probably will have a break clause, but since the FRA can't be negotiated at this point we can't specify what the break clause might say or even, for definite, that there will be a break clause. That's a matter to be bargained over when the time comes to negotiate the FRA.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement