Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

See now that is very different to your angry little rant about how anyone choosing a supplier from outside side the EU "should not be in business".

For some it is not possible or beneficial to switch from the UK to EU so it is a factor in a new trade deal.

Nobody here is suggesting that any changes should not be mutually beneficial but the idea the UK have "nothing to offer" is wrong. It might turn out they don't have or won't offer enough to get the EU back to the table though.

@breezy1985 "your angry little rant"

Still no idea what you are talking about . But I will let you have the last word.

There are very different takes on Starmer's position on re-negotiating the TCA in the various news reports of his meeting with Macron.

The independent seem to see an invitation from France and Germany to encourage UK to become an associate member of the EU

They make much of a Franco/German paper published earlier this year.

"France and Germany are pushing plans to offer Britain and other European countries “associate membership” of the EU in a move that could rebuild the UK’s ties with the bloc. The two countries have tabled a blueprint that would create four new tiers, with the most aligned states forming an “inner circle”. Associate members, who would form the bloc’s first “outer tier”, could include members of the single market who are not in the EU, such as Switzerland, or “even the UK”, a paper put forward by France and Germany stated. Associate membership would not include a customs union, allowing Britain to keep an independent trade policy."

Meanwhile the BBC report is much tamer,

"A report out today by UK in a Changing Europe, a think tank, concludes that the scope for changing the Brexit deal - the Trade and Cooperation Agreement to give it its full title - is limited. It argues the EU's current mindset is to leave it pretty much as it is, as Brussels is fed up of talking about Brexit and has bigger priorities."

And the Tánaiste too seems to see difficulties in trying to renegotiate the TCA .

Obviously, it can be seen as positive that Starmer is willing to talk about Brexit. Bit, as far as I can see, the official Labour position is still to make Brexit work. Obviously, it would not be the role of the EU to aid with that policy

Finance minister McGrath expressed a note of caution. "The progress that we have made has been hard fought. And for now, I think the priority has to be to bed in the changes that have been agreed,”

“So I think we will be forgiven for saying that our focus for now is on ensuring that the agreement that we have is fully implemented, and that it operates smoothly and efficiently."

The EU doesn't want another Switzerland type relationship, so it's TCA or full membership.

The UK wasn't happy when it had opt outs, and giving them opt ins is unfair to all non EU/EEA.

What Swampgas said. The EU has moved on from Brexit to bigger issues in a way that the UK hasn't. The UK's continuing Brexit issues don't really interest the EU, and there's no reason why the EU would be motivated to devote much time, effort or political capital to addressing them. To engage the EU's interest the UK would have to make a really strikingly attractive offer, and I don't think that political conditions in the UK are right for that yet.

That doesn't mean no change is possible. If there are existing models into which the UK would like to slot itself, the EU might be open to that. There has been much talk, for instance, of an SPS agreement with the EU and that probably is possible, but it would involve the UK (a) adopting EU SPS rules; (b) accepting ECJ as the ultimate arbiter of EU SPS rules; and (c) operating effective controls on its own borders. (A) and (b) involve some limited sacrificing of hard Brexit principles; I think the UK public is ready for that but expect the usual hyperventilation from the diehard Brexit True Believers. (C) involves the UK actually doing what in principle it is already committed to doing but which it has repeatedly deferred because doing it will be quite painful. But that pain might be politically palatable if it is seen to be coupled with a Brexit amelioration measure.

The UK has also expressed interest in an agreement for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. I doubt the EU will be all that interested; the UK wants it because it would give the UK an advantage in the provision of professional services, and why would the EU want to do that? But, more to the point, it also looks like cherry-picking an aspect of the Single Market. SFAIK the EU does not have agreements for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications with other third countries; I don't see them being keen on one with the UK.

And, of course, there is also talk about a UK/EU agreement on refugees and asylum seekers. In principle this makes a lot of sense for both parties. They both face essentially a common problem; they both have difficulties dealing with it; and it's a problem that can only be effectively addressed by co-ordinated multilateral action. The difficulty here is, again, the UK political climate. Public discourse on this sees the UK's migrant problem as one that originates in France, and also cherishes the impression that the UK has a much bigger migrant problem than other countries. Neither of these is remotely true. EU will only be interested in a reality-based agreement that likely sees the UK receiving more migrants than it currently does, and also contributing to collective efforts to address the problem at source. Again, I'm not sure that the political climate in the UK is ready for that.

Additionally, regardless of which party is in power, the UK never really bought into the EU concept, except as a trading block. Politically the UK seems to have drifted closer and closer to the US, which gets in the way of closer alignment with traditional EU thinking.

And remember, Brexit was only partly about Britain going its own way - it was also supposed to bring about the collapse of the EU. I can't see anyone in the EU forgetting that in a hurry.

Possibly the UK might end up with "EU Lite" status in time, but as for a full seat at the table - not a chance.

Somebody should write an alternative history showing how the world would be today if Blair had togged out with European partners rather than with Bush in relation to the invasion of Iraq.

You think it would have been easier to change God's mind than Tony Blair's? 😉

Well in the British legal definition of itself the head of state is god's anointed representative on earth, and parliament are sovereign on the monarchs behalf, ergo gods government.

Labour may be handed a massive majority at the next election, but I wonder will a further to the right wing party take the Tory's place?

He's right, though - there is no case for going back into the EU. The reasons for leaving - primarily xenophobic isolationism - are still alive and well in Britain. Just because a growing number of people realise that Brexit came with a (not particularly well) hidden cost, doesn't mean they're ready to sign up for Freedom of Movement, for example, so as to be part of the Single Market again.

Phil Moorehouse regularly points out that "demanding" the UK gets back into the EU is counterproductive, because it will be decades before the EU is ready to even consider an application. The way forward is first to work with the crappy deal agreed by the Tories, then to introduce dynamic alignment in areas where it is not especially contentious, followed by areas where it might be contentious but is at least advantageous for Britain, and only after that's done to start working on a membership application.

Fine. But much like in the US the upcoming GE is a straight decision between Sunak, and the Tories, or Starmer.

After 13 years of Tory government almost every metric is worse than when they took over.

So the choice is to continue with something that is clearly not working or giving something else a try.

You can dislike Starmer all you want, but he is the only alternative available

If EU freedom of movement was to blame for low growth since 2008 who is the British public going to blame for another decade of low growth free of the EU?

The EU was the external enemy, I guess they'll seek an internal enemy next.