Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

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.

Like most Brexit logic, your "better" analogy is seriously distorted to justify the inherent unicornism. This "employee" has given notice that they want to leave the company, trade with their soon-to-be-former employer's customers on their own account, and still use the photocopier, staff canteen and other facilities which they won't specify at the moment for fear of undermining their negotiating position.

They cannot see that even though they did their job well, they were a bloody awkward employee to deal with, and seeing as the experience they previously brought to the role is now available in-house, their employer is quite happy to hand them their P45 and wish them a somewhat sarcastic "good luck!"

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

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!

After spending the last 20 years in the UK, and witnessing first-hand the last 10 or so under the Conservatives, including nearly two years post-referendum, you'll have to excuse my scepticism.

I'm just not seeing that chance, still less so now that Cummings has seemingly been given free reign to ransack the Civil Service that's been holding UK plc together by a thread.

I briefly wondered about the point of the elogious pro-Civil Service speech given by the British ambassador to Luxembourg at a Xmas dinner event some weeks ago, very tinted by a "you'll miss it when it's gone" slant...not anymore. Senior CS are leaving without new jobs lined up, and lucrative CS appointments remain vacant as they are being shunned by contractors.

The UK was ill-prepared and -resourced to got it Brexity alone, a fact amply demonstrated over the past 3 years, and the new powers-that-be are now busy stripping it of whatever's left post-haste, in their pursuit to restaff with a skeleton crew of yes men à la Trump.

Water John

Good to see Starmer beating Bailey 2:1 within Lb. Sadly late, but he'll show up Johnson for the fraud he is.

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

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.

Yes,that sounds reasonable-obviously the EU would be foolish to give a more competitive UK (if it was more competitive of course!)unfettered access to the european market.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Good to see Starmer beating Bailey 2:1 within Lb. Sadly late, but he'll show up Johnson for the fraud he is.

As a former barrister and DPP, he'll be well able for Johnson in the HOC.

Strazdas

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.

Yes, but the EU is much, much bigger than the UK for example. It would be impossible for the 27 countries and 450m people to elect a candidate they were all familiar with. This is the very reason you wouldn't hold a poll of the electorate when filling the position.

fly_agaric

ambro25 wrote: »

After spending the last 20 years in the UK, and witnessing first-hand the last 10 or so under the Conservatives, including nearly two years post-referendum, you'll have to excuse my scepticism.

I'm just not seeing that chance, still less so now that Cummings has seemingly been given free reign to ransack the Civil Service that's been holding UK plc together by a thread.

I briefly wondered about the point of the elogious pro-Civil Service speech given by the British ambassador to Luxembourg at a Xmas dinner event some weeks ago, very tinted by a "you'll miss it when it's gone" slant...not anymore. Senior CS are leaving without new jobs lined up, and lucrative CS appointments remain vacant as they are being shunned by contractors.

The UK was ill-prepared and -resourced to got it Brexity alone, a fact amply demonstrated over the past 3 years, and the new powers-that-be are now busy stripping it of whatever's left post-haste, in their pursuit to restaff with a skeleton crew of yes men à la Trump.

I've listened to some talks Cummings has given (some were posted on earlier incarnations of this thread I think). He does have some interesting ideas. Giving experts/technocrats/generally capable people power to set and implement government policy & using effective (in his view of course) government as a tool to direct the course of the state (i.e. not the free market).

As an Irish layman outsider looking in who never lived in the UK, I think they are not really compatible at all with philosophies of the very right wing conservatives who have driven the process towards a very "hard" Brexit, e.g. people around Aaron Bank's "leave EU" during the referendum. They are also IMO not compatible with ideas of alot of the Conservative press in the UK.

He could come into conflict with that part of the party. Boris Johnson got where he is by pandering to these right wingers (many in his own cabinet!).
It is hard to know what way he'll jump if they really want one direction (f- the EU over where possible, very deep hastily agreed US trade deal, deregulate, cut taxes & downsize UK state) while his "Special adviser" crew are pushing for a completely differrent vision.

The new year should be interesting anyway & a (belated) happy one to all who contributed to this thread.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

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

So on these fairly basic issues, the EU has no published position - it depends on what the UK wants as you say.

But remember that this started when someone was complaining that the UK had no published position with regards to what sort of FTA the UK was seeking just that they wanted an FTA.

BonnieSituation

Water John wrote: »

Good to see Starmer beating Bailey 2:1 within Lb. Sadly late, but he'll show up Johnson for the fraud he is.

That is great news.

Where are you seeing this?

RobMc59

VinLieger wrote: »

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

That would be a backward step for the UK and would confirm what is already apparent that the UK is merely a satellite of the US.

Strazdas

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That is great news.

Where are you seeing this?

YouGov poll of Labour Party members

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

So on these fairly basic issues, the EU has no published position - it depends on what the UK wants as you say.

But remember that this started when someone was complaining that the UK had no published position with regards to what sort of FTA the UK was seeking just that they wanted an FTA.

The EU has a published position - the now infamous Barnier staircase - with the ultimate position being full EU membership.

To choose yet another analogy, the UK's position is equivalent to someone standing outside a department store, stating that they are going to get the best bargain ever, without saying what exactly they want to buy or how much they're prepared to pay for it ... and then complaining that they couldn't buy anything because the store security guys wouldn't let them in through the service entrance. :rolleyes:

ambro25

fly_agaric wrote: »

I've listened to some talks Cummings has given (some were posted on earlier incarnations of this thread I think). He does have some interesting ideas. Giving experts/technocrats/generally capable people power to set and implement government policy & using effective (in his view of course) government as a tool to direct the course of the state (i.e. not the free market).

As an Irish layman outsider looking in who never lived in the UK, I think they are not really compatible at all with philosophies of the very right wing conservatives who have driven the process towards a very "hard" Brexit, e.g. people around Aaron Bank's "leave EU" during the referendum. They are also IMO not compatible with ideas of alot of the Conservative press in the UK.

(...)

That's an interesting take on the Cummings proposals, because it's somewhat paradoxical: Whitehall is already filled with "experts/technocrats/generally capable people power to set and implement government policy & using effective government as a tool to direct the course of the state", and has been for decades and longer. That's what made the strength, universally recognised, of the British civil service over the ages.

It is the inherent incompatibility between this set of 'experts', fully aware of the practical ins and outs of Brexit in all its varied shapes and outcomes, and the unicorn-promising set of inexpert politicians who draw the 'policies' (as goals and aims, however unrealistic) supposed to task the experts, which created the current 'problem' with the British Civil Service (-as perceived by Cummings, who's really using the inexpert politicians in that respect).

The clearest manifestation of this, has been the unending lament of Whitehall types asking for ministerial directions for the past 3+ years (ok Sir, so this is the result you want, now how do you want us to go about it practically? Broad lines will do, Sir) and getting literally none (tons of evidence of that over the years now), so having to make it up on the hoof in the meantime. As in, try and achieve the unachievable, whilst breaking as few eggs as possible. Olly Robbins was a consummate, poster-boy example of this approach...and now look where is.

In that context, Cummings is not a problem-solver (IMHO), he's a political sorcerer apprentice: the current system of governance (based on separation of powers, resting on an underlayer of expert troubleshooters-carers CS types) isn't "working" (the 'system' allows CS types to stand too much in the way of his disruptive brand of modern day politics and governance) so let's just bork it well and good and see if a better-fit emerges.

He's a dangerous crank.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

So on these fairly basic issues, the EU has no published position - it depends on what the UK wants as you say.

Sure it has a position, the position is "we think close alignment is a good thing". That is a "published" position- what more do you want?

But remember that this started when someone was complaining that the UK had no published position with regards to what sort of FTA the UK was seeking just that they wanted an FTA.

The complaint is that Johnson deliberately has kept away from being questioned on brexit and deliberately given as little explanation of his position as possible.

fly_agaric

ambro25 wrote: »

That's an interesting take on the Cummings proposals, because it's somewhat paradoxical: Whitehall is already filled with "experts/technocrats/generally capable people power to set and implement government policy & using effective government as a tool to direct the course of the state", and has been for decades and longer. That's what made the strength, universally recognised, of the British civil service over the ages.

It is the inherent incompatibility between this set of 'experts', fully aware of the practical ins and outs of Brexit in all its varied shapes and outcomes, and the unicorn-promising set of inexpert politicians who draw the 'policies' (as goals and aims, however unrealistic) supposed to task the experts, which created the current 'problem' (as perceived by Cummings, who's currying favour and using the inexpert politicians)..

The clearest manifestation of this, has been the unending lament of Whitehall types asking for ministerial directions for the past 3+ years and getting just about none (tons of evidence of that over the years now), so having to make it up on the hoof in the meantime. As in, try and achieve the unachievable, whilst breaking as few eggs as possible. Olly Robbins was a consummate, poster-boy example of this approach...and now look where is.

In that context, Cummings is not a problem-solver (IMHO), he's a political sorcerer apprentice: the current system of governance (based on separation of powers, resting on an underlayer of expert troubleshooters-carers CS types) isn't "working" (the 'system' allows CS types to stand too much in the way of his disruptive brand of modern day politics and governance) so let's just bork it well and good and see if a better-fit emerges.

He's a dangerous crank.

It was my take on (part) of his ideas from listening to talks he has given which are on youtube (definitely one about the Vote Leave campaign was linked at some point in the past here & below is an old one from 2014 I'd half listened to - https://youtu.be/GNaWPV5l4j4?t=51 (embedding wasn't working out)

I agree with inherent contradiction between ideas he has put forth & fact that he was working in service of a "leave" vote (in contradiction to almost all of the expert opinion in the UK...). I don't think it will end well for anyone either.

edit: I suppose my point was remaking how government & civil service are structured & operate doesn't ever come cheap & whole reason for it is of course to have the state actively intervening in areas where alot of these very right wing conservatives think it has no business. I'd expect there will be conflict over it. It's probably all a bit tangential to Brexit & more a UK politics issue.

Bit cynical

ambro25 wrote: »

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.

Here again we say that it "depends on the UK" but the reality of negotiations is that the outcome depends on both sides not just one. What is not realistic is demanding that one side reveals its intentions at the outside while defending the right of the other to withhold theirs.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

The complaint is that Johnson deliberately has kept away from being questioned on brexit and deliberately given as little explanation of his position as possible.

Sure but that is only to be expected. We know that he will be negotiating an FTA but beyond that it is not realistic to know. The same is true of the EU side. As time goes on certainly bits will be revealed but we won't know the full picture until talks have concluded.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

The EU has a published position - the now infamous Barnier staircase - with the ultimate position being full EU membership.

But the staircase diagram is far more general than what we're demanding of Johnson.

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure but that is only to be expected. We know that he will be negotiating an FTA but beyond that it is not realistic to know. The same is true of the EU side. As time goes on certainly bits will be revealed but we won't know the full picture until talks have concluded.

As far as I can tell, virtually all of the negotiating will be on the EU side. The WA was nothing. Nobody wanted a crash out Brexit and all the WA did was set the stage for the crafting of a free trade deal. The fact that all EU national and some regional legislative bodies must ratify the FTA suggests that the EU will come up with a broadly acceptable deal and put it to the British. This is where the EU's mettle will truly be tested. Countries with large fishing industries will demand access to British waters for example. Any EU country with an industry in direct competition with the UK might lobby for protectionist provisos. This is where clout comes in handy but of course, the UK won't really have any. The difficulty will lie in getting the EU27 to reach an accord. Johnson will at that stage have little choice but to accede to this proposal though with his majority, this shouldn't be an issue.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the staircase diagram is far more general than what we're demanding of Johnson.

Are you for real?

The UK still hasn't given anything approaching the "staircase" never mind it being demanded more of!

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As far as I can tell, virtually all of the negotiating will be on the EU side. The WA was nothing. Nobody wanted a crash out Brexit and all the WA did was set the stage for the crafting of a free trade deal. The fact that all EU national and some regional legislative bodies must ratify the FTA suggests that the EU will come up with a broadly acceptable deal and put it to the British. This is where the EU's mettle will truly be tested. Countries with large fishing industries will demand access to British waters for example. Any EU country with an industry in direct competition with the UK might lobby for protectionist provisos. This is where clout comes in handy but of course, the UK won't really have any. The difficulty will lie in getting the EU27 to reach an accord. Johnson will at that stage have little choice but to accede to this proposal though with his majority, this shouldn't be an issue.

I agree with most of that but although the UK are the much smaller party I think it might be a mistake to say that they have zero clout and the extent to which they have leverage is good for Ireland.

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree with most of that but although the UK are the much smaller party I think it might be a mistake to say that they have zero clout and the extent to which they have leverage is good for Ireland.

Relative to the EU and I don't mean in terms of size. The biggest task for the Europeans is getting something they can all agree on. This is a huge hurdle. What the Conservatives make of this won't be as nothing to them but it will be a secondary consideration.

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Are you for real?

The UK still hasn't given anything approaching the "staircase" never mind it being demanded more of!

Well we know that they are going to go for some form of WTA. They are not going to go for a customs union or Norway style solution. Something like this might have happened under the Theresa May WA. But as I have said, being more specific at this stage would work against their interests. I don't expect the EU to be any more specific either for the same reason.

ambro25

Bit cynical wrote: »

Here again we say that it "depends on the UK" but the reality of negotiations is that the outcome depends on both sides not just one. What is not realistic is demanding that one side reveals its intentions at the outside while defending the right of the other to withhold theirs.

Well, of course it depends on the UK: in terms of "known trading quantity" as framed by a set of legal strictures (TEU at the top, and everything else underneath), they're the party exiting the quid pro quo for 'something else' (a different trading quantity/basis), not the EU.

Of course, a sine qua none corollary that you'd have to accept about the above, is that:

(i) the UK is very much the junior party in the negotiations, with little in the way of leverage,
(ii) the EU isn't going to modify its primary legislation for the UK's sake, and
(iii) the EU isn't going to imperil its trading relationships (and tiers, and sequencing) with other third party countries and groups thereof for the UK's sake.

Once you have the above on-board, the case for the UK to at least declare where it would like to get to (realistically, rather than in unicorny 'cakeist' rhetoric) from end 2020 (2021 if extension) is self-evident: everyone, the UK included (and I mean everyone there as well, government like private sector), can start planning and rowing towards that relationship model, even if it doesn't materialise right away.

Of course, that also supposes British politicians coming clean about the Himalaya of Brexit trade-offs (and importantly, -downs).

J Mysterio

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the staircase diagram is far more general than what we're demanding of Johnson.

The staircase infographic was to outline the basic options available to the UK.

Don't forget it is the UK who decided to leave the club. The EU wanted to know what type of future relationship the UK might like, and so helpfully provided that image in an effort to help them decide.

ambro25

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the staircase diagram is far more general than what we're demanding of Johnson.

Who's demanding more from Johnson (or May before him)?

As far as I am aware, the UK has never clearly (seriously) indicated any of these steps as a near-landing target. It would have been a useful start for everyone. Because short of not Brexiting, the UK will necessarily land on one of them, even with some adjustments: they're all that the EU offers, in terms of oven-ready trading relationship, within the timescales advertised by Johnson, and May before him (and even beyond for bespoke trading relationships, as a useful summary of where these eventually always end up anyway).

We've had everything else instead, from full fruitcake (full Member with no obligations whatsoever) to Canada plus-plus-plus, to WTO (which *is* a form of TA with the EU27 and RotW) etc. and variations on a theme, and all for domestic political consumption.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree with most of that but although the UK are the much smaller party I think it might be a mistake to say that they have zero clout and the extent to which they have leverage is good for Ireland.

In what area in particular do you think the UK have clout? I would have expected that if they had any they would have used it rather than sideline part of their own union.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

In what area in particular do you think the UK have clout? I would have expected that if they had any they would have used it rather than sideline part of their own union.

They will implicitly threaten Ireland's economy and peace on the island. If that doesn't work, the threats will become explicit but it will be Ireland's intransigence that will be the root cause.

Water John

The main area that the UK may have clout is security and terrorism related cooperation.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please do not just paste links and images here. A post has been removed.