Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

McGiver

boring accountant wrote:

Complete and utter twaddle. People vote for an MP who represents a party that has a leader. Everyone in the British election knew that a vote for a Tory candidate was a vote for Boris Johnson. People know what they're getting. No one wakes up on the morning after an election to find out that someone completely unknown to them the day before has just been appointed PM, but that's what happens with the Commission President.

That's all irrelevant, because you still haven't described how would be the EU Commission voted by a popular vote in 27 countries whilst ensuring that the commissioners are qualified to take care of their assigned portfolio.

Sam Russell

McGiver wrote: »

That's all irrelevant, because you still haven't described how would be the EU Commission voted by a popular vote in 27 countries whilst ensuring that the commissioners are qualified to take care of their assigned portfolio.

There in no reason that an EU member state does not elect their commissioner in any way they wish. However, every state chooses to appoint their commissioner by the executive.

fash

boring accountant wrote: »

People know what they're getting.

If the idea is that people "know what they are getting", why did Johnson deliberately avoid interviews, talking about brexit or his stand on it and actual goals sought in relation to that?
People can't know what they are getting when politicians deliberately don't tell them what they are going to get.

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

If the idea is that people "know what they are getting", why did Johnson deliberately avoid interviews, talking about brexit or his stand on it and actual goals sought in relation to that?
People can't know what they are getting when politicians deliberately don't tell them what they are going to get.

One of the most striking things about Brexit is that people don't actually know what Johnson wants or what his ultimate plan for the UK is.

The British electorate have given him a blank cheque and yet he has only talked in very vague terms of some FTA that is supposedly going to be rushed through this year.

Leroy42

boring accountant wrote: »

Complete and utter twaddle. People vote for an MP who represents a party that has a leader. Everyone in the British election knew that a vote for a Tory candidate was a vote for Boris Johnson. People know what they're getting. No one wakes up on the morning after an election to find out that someone completely unknown to them the day before has just been appointed PM, but that's what happens with the Commission President.

Did people know that Nicky Morgan would be made a Peer and given a cabinet seat? Or Zac Goldsmith?

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

One of the most striking things about Brexit is that people don't actually know what Johnson wants or what his ultimate plan for the UK is.

The British electorate have given him a blank cheque and yet he has only talked in very vague terms of some FTA that is supposedly going to be rushed through this year.

However the opposite, where a specific outcome is demanded in advance and only that is acceptable, would also be a bad thing as far as negotiations are concerned. Better to keep the other side guessing.

Also, we don't know, and probably will not know, exactly what the EU wants from the negotiations until they are near conclusion.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the opposite, where a specific outcome is demanded in advance and only that is acceptable, would also be a bad thing as far as negotiations are concerned. Better to keep the other side guessing.

Also, we don't know, and probably will not know, exactly what the EU wants from the negotiations until they are near conclusion.

That is nonsense. The EU set out their stall from Day 1. And nothing changed. In the end the EU got exactly what they wanted.

NI sorted out, payment of financial obligations and protections for EU citizens.

THe shape of the future relationship is also known, in so far as what option the UK are going to go for.

For years TM and her government (of which Johnson was part) put out the line that to give any idea of their plan would be to give the game away. After nearly 3 years of not telling anyone their plans, where did they end up? In exactly the place that the EU offered them on day 1.

Yet again, the U seem to think that these negotiations are just between the UK and the EU. But the EU need to be ware of the effect of any outcome on the remaining 27, the other trade deals currently in place and the trade deals they are looking to secure.

So if they allow the UK has full access with no cost, then don't you think the US will be looking for that and more?

The reason they haven't put out a final plan is not because they fear showing their cards, its because they do not want to be held to any standard when the final agreement is made as they know they won't get want they want.

Akrasia

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the opposite, where a specific outcome is demanded in advance and only that is acceptable, would also be a bad thing as far as negotiations are concerned. Better to keep the other side guessing.

Also, we don't know, and probably will not know, exactly what the EU wants from the negotiations until they are near conclusion.

I want to negotiate a better salary with my employer. Do I just keep him guessing about what figure I’d accept or do I tell him what I’m hoping for and see if he agrees or puts forward a counter offer

Akrasia

Strazdas wrote: »

In the prediction polls at the start of 2019, nobody saw the rise of Boris Johnson. Everyone assumed he was a busted flush and his resignation as Foreign Secretary in summer 2018 was the end of his career. He was elected by the right wing of the Tory Party, not made PM by the electorate.

Like it or not, Johnson got a mandate in the last election, a mandate that he kept deliberately vague but he still won (based on the ridiculous system they have over there)

Bit cynical

Akrasia wrote: »

I want to negotiate a better salary with my employer. Do I just keep him guessing about what figure I’d accept or do I tell him what I’m hoping for and see if he agrees or puts forward a counter offer

Another analogy might that you have given notice that you are leaving the company as an employee. Your soon to be former employer still nevertheless wants your services in some capacity. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to ask your employer to make you an offer.

While no analogy is perfect, I think mine fits the situation better since the UK is not seeking a better deal within the same basic relationship as before but rather terminating the existing relationship. As such, it is up to each side to say what they want out of the new relationship.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yet again, the U seem to think that these negotiations are just between the UK and the EU. But the EU need to be ware of the effect of any outcome on the remaining 27, the other trade deals currently in place and the trade deals they are looking to secure.

So if they allow the UK has full access with no cost, then don't you think the US will be looking for that and more?

I haven't said any of that. All I've said is that it is not realistic for the public to know the UK's opening position for these trade talks as this would mean their opposites would know the same.

When the EU were negotiating with the US, the positions of both sides were generally not known by the public. Only through leaks did some aspects of it become known.

Strazdas

Akrasia wrote: »

Like it or not, Johnson got a mandate in the last election, a mandate that he kept deliberately vague but he still won (based on the ridiculous system they have over there)

I'm not denying his mandate for a moment. Under the UK system, he is the clear choice of the electorate to be PM.

But the EU would also say Ursula von der Leyen has a strong mandate to be President under their own system....there's nothing to indicate the European public don't want her or accept her.

Akrasia

Bit cynical wrote: »

Another analogy might that you have given notice that you are leaving the company as an employee. Your soon to be former employer still nevertheless wants your services in some capacity. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to ask your employer to make you an offer.

While no analogy is perfect, I think mine fits the situation better since the UK is not seeking a better deal within the same basic relationship as before but rather terminating the existing relationship. As such, it is up to each side to say what they want out of the new relationship.

In a negotiation one party slways makes the first move.

There is no benefit from keeping your opening position a secret. There is actually a benefit to being the first mover because of the framing heuristic

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

I haven't said any of that. All I've said is that it is not realistic for the public to know the UK's opening position for these trade talks as this would mean their opposites would know the same.

When the EU were negotiating with the US, the positions of both sides were generally not known by the public. Only through leaks did some aspects of it become known.

You said it was not realistic because it would weaken the UK position by without any evidence to hack it up. I showed that the EU had been very upfront about it position and it hadn't cost them anything. So it's up to you to explain why the UK needs to continue to be so opaque with it's own citizens.

When the EU are in talks with US the overall goal is a better position. What people always want to know is what is being given up to get something else.

In the Brexit case, we already know what the UK are giving up (access to SM etc) so don't you think it is wise to include the people in knowing what else they will lose to get back some access?

But it isn't even the fine details. The UK government cannot even state what it is they want. FTA is all they say without any explanation of what that means in terms of the effect on the UK.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

I showed that the EU had been very upfront about it position and it hadn't cost them anything.

So in terms of the trade relationship, what is the EUs position?

Bit cynical

Akrasia wrote: »

In a negotiation one party slways makes the first move.

There is no benefit from keeping your opening position a secret. There is actually a benefit to being the first mover because of the framing heuristic

However that did not happen in the EU/US trade negotiations. We did not see documents from either the US or the EU stating their positions at or before the start of negotiations.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

So in terms of the trade relationship, what is the EUs position?

Protect the rules of the Single Market at all times. The UK cannot set itself up as a European competitor / rival to the SM and yet have access to it simultaneously. If it wants access, it will have to follow EU standards and regulations.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

Protect the rules of the Single Market at all times. The UK cannot set itself up as a European competitor / rival to the SM and yet have access to it simultaneously. If it wants access, it will have to follow EU standards and regulations.

Yes, but that leaves a lot of possibilities as to the scope and depth of the trading relationship. For example, would Irish companies be able to trade in services with the UK (both importing and exporting) and under what conditions?

What about agricultural products? Would these be tariff free under the EU's position?

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes, but that leaves a lot of possibilities as to the scope and depth of the trading relationship. For example, would Irish companies be able to trade in services with the UK (both importing and exporting) and under what conditions?

What about agricultural products? Would these be tariff free under the EU's position?

That's up to the UK. The EU's position would be"yes we would like that"

Akrasia

Bit cynical wrote: »

However that did not happen in the EU/US trade negotiations. We did not see documents from either the US or the EU stating their positions at or before the start of negotiations.

How is that trade deal going? Oh yeah, there isn’t one

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

That's up to the UK. The EU's position would be"yes we would like that"

If the UK adheres to EU health and safety and food standards is there any reason not to agree a mutually acceptable deal-unless there is a worry that the UK would be more competitive?

ambro25

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes, but that leaves a lot of possibilities as to the scope and depth of the trading relationship. For example, would Irish companies be able to trade in services with the UK (both importing and exporting) and under what conditions?

What about agricultural products? Would these be tariff free under the EU's position?

That scope and depth of trading relationship is readily-mappable according to the degree of regulatory convergeance inherent to every EU trade deal, from full-fat membership to bare bones FTA and every variant in-between, moreover discretely so (per Barnier's very well-known 'steps' graphic illustration).

As already explained by strazdas above, "a position" intermediate full membership and 3rd party without any FTA is what's on offer by the EU, has been on offer since day one (was probably already long mapped out by the EU27 by the time of the June 2016 ref), and will remain on offer until Johnson unf**** Brexit politically or yet another PM replaces him with yet another take on Brexit.

Under that set of mapped outcomes, how Irish companies will be able to "trade in services with the UK" will depend on which step the UK eventually lands on (moreover, assuming they then stay on it, and do not instead move down through progressive divergeance) and how the UK itself keeps its national economy open or not, furthermore on a sectoral basis.

What the UK keeps banging on public about (in very imprecise and rethorical terms), but definitely won't get, is a bespoke relationship which confers (or maintains) it a commercial advantage over other countries at a substantially equal level of convergeance with the EU27: to illustrate the point simply, the UK won't be allowed to continue trading services in/out of the EU27 substantially as it currently does, short of signing up to full-fat EEA membership (the framework for which sets equivalences for all factors required to trade services fairly seamlessly (as in, as close to full membership as it gets, in terms of EU27 market access), eg professional qualifications, mutual competencies, rights of access/audience, regulatory basics and EU+national bodies, etc.

So it really doesn't help anyone, but the snake oil merchants in the UK, to keep schtum about which step the UK aims to land on for a future relationship: all it does is maintain uncertainty, crucially for those who need it least, UK and EU27 businesses (hence the UK is haemorrhaging investment, and has been for years now).

Rvsmmnps

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not denying his mandate for a moment. Under the UK system, he is the clear choice of the electorate to be PM.

But the EU would also say Ursula von der Leyen has a strong mandate to be President under their own system....there's nothing to indicate the European public don't want her or accept her.

People on the street don't know her, know what she looks like or let alone know why she wants or deserves to be president of the EU.
The downfall of the EU will be its disconnect from the normal person on the street.Doesnt really help when all your ex por performing government members are given jobs in Europe.

I write this from my bubble in Norway.

Dyr

Jim2007 wrote: »

And then there are individuals like yourself, how mindless patter of what they are told, out of context, ignoring history, and economics, while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the EU and it’s jurisdiction.

If you can answer this specific question, the you might just be able to demonstrate you are not just an empty vessel:

Under which provisions of the treaty does the EU have responsibility for an internal conflict in a member state such as the UK or Spain and what are the legal options they can take to rectify that situation? And I mean actual references to the treaty not an unsubstantiated rambling opinion.

Again fascinating to see an almost brexiteer like reaction of abusive vitriol to anyone who even appears not to be enthusiastic enough about the EU

Allow me to boomerang the question right back at you: do you, like the poster I quoted, beleive that Europe has enjoyed an unparalleled period of prosperity and peace since WW2 and that this state of affairs is entirely due to the existence of the EU and its predeccessors?

If you don't then we've no problem, if you do you'll have to explain away little inconveniences like 25 years of war on this island or half of the continent being under Russias jackboot for most of the period. It's a trite reading of history as silly as the whole Dunkirk spirit carry on the Brexiteers engage in. Strange, strange behaviour.

As for the nonsense that EU Commisioners are somehow seperate from the Commission. That's silly stuff lads. Mental acrobatics of the first order. Undermining your own credibility with that class of thing

"The Commission functions on the principle of collegiality. Decisions are taken collectively by the College of Commissioners "


"The Commission is composed of the College of Commissioners from 27 EU countries. Together, the 27 Members of the College are the Commission's political leadership during a 5-year term"

All from the Commisions website. A civil service, mor dhea

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the UK adheres to EU health and safety and food standards is there any reason not to agree a mutually acceptable deal-unless there is a worry that the UK would be more competitive?

It's not a competition concern, but a political one borne from the requisite legal framework (-as with everything else 'Brexit', once decoupled from the rethoric).

Under your scenario (UK adheres to EU H&S+food standards), the UK would have to submit to the jurisdiction of the CJEU, as the ultimate arbiter of those (EU) standards.

Can you see that happening, under the current political situation?

And of course, it's still less of a competition concern, once you consider the make-up of the UK economy (adherence to EU H&S+food standards doesn't buy you financial+legal+technical+<...> equivalence required for the 80% of the UK economy which provides the bulk of the UK's trading surplus with the EU27 and 3rd countries under EU-negotiated FTAs).

So in answer to your question, no, no reason to not do a mutually-acceptable deal over foodstuffs, so long as the UK (re-)signs up to the CJEU over those standards. We the EU27 will trade some foodstuffs tarriff-free with the UK (with the balance of trade for those favouring EU27 producers, like it does currently)...and still nick all of the ex-UK services (exported-) business to be had across the EU27 and beyond.

Russman

Rvsmmnps wrote: »

People on the street don't know her, know what she looks like or let alone know why she wants or deserves to be president of the EU.
The downfall of the EU will be its disconnect from the normal person on the street.Doesnt really help when all your ex por performing government members are given jobs in Europe.

I write this from my bubble in Norway.

But isn't that likely to be the case no matter who is proposed ? I mean, apart from the country that the person is from, there's a fair chance hardly anyone outside of that country will know much about them. I think the reality is that most (granted not all) mainstream EU politicians will follow a fairly stable course - with the confirmation process I can't really see too many headbangers gaining power/control.

I think the disconnect from the person on the street is that fault of respective national governments. Lots of competencies are still with the national parliaments/governments despite, for example, the narrative in the UK that immigration wasn't something they had control over.

Obviously that's not to say the EU is perfect, far from it, but for most of us I think its far better than pulling up the drawbridge IMO.

Russman

Akrasia wrote: »

How is that trade deal going? Oh yeah, there isn’t one

Exactly. There seems to be an idea with the Brexiters that it will be a negotiation between equals. The harsh reality is that the EU will get what it wants and the UK will be left to spin the result whatever way it wants to for public consumption.

VinLieger

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the UK adheres to EU health and safety and food standards is there any reason not to agree a mutually acceptable deal-unless there is a worry that the UK would be more competitive?

The problem the UK have is the demands of the US trade deal to at the same time lower standards across the board

RobMc59

ambro25 wrote: »

It's not a competition concern, but a political one borne from the requisite legal framework (-as with everything else 'Brexit', once decoupled from the rethoric).

Under your scenario (UK adheres to EU H&S+food standards), the UK would have to submit to the jurisdiction of the CJEU, as the ultimate arbiter of those (EU) standards.

Can you see that happening, under the current political situation?

And of course, it's still less of a competition concern, once you consider the make-up of the UK economy (adherence to EU H&S+food standards doesn't buy you financial+legal+technical+<...> equivalence required for the 80% of the UK economy which provides the bulk of the UK's trading surplus with the EU27 and 3rd countries under EU-negotiated FTAs).

So in answer to your question, no, no reason to not do a mutually-acceptable deal over foodstuffs, so long as the UK (re-)signs up to the CJEU over those standards. We the EU27 will trade some foodstuffs tarriff-free with the UK (with the balance of trade for those favouring EU27 producers, like it does currently)...and still nick all of the ex-UK services (exported-) business to be had across the EU27 and beyond.

I would have preferred the UK to remain in the EU,its comfortable,safe and a country doesn't really have to over exert itself , attempting to go it alone will definitely take the UK out the comfort zone EU countries enjoy.johnson and co can talk the talk but as a British person I suspect they will be unable to deliver what they promise.
On the other hand,there is the chance if the UK can navigate the many pitfalls of brexit relatively unscathed it will kick on and prosper but I'm not holding my breath!

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the UK adheres to EU health and safety and food standards is there any reason not to agree a mutually acceptable deal-unless there is a worry that the UK would be more competitive?

So long as it is mutually acceptable- no problem. Of course the UK is potentially getting access to a market which is 10 times larger than the market it offers in return- so of course it needs to pay a much steeper price.