EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

well, you have conflated soft-brexit (barnier's offer of eea+customs union) with may's deal (which is goods but not services, with non regression in flanking policies).

one is not acceptable, the other is a tolerable compromise that reasonable and moderate people can accept.

One is the consequence of the other. The UK wants to remove freedom of movement of labour, so the EU27 will withhold freedom of movement of other stuff. Are you going to claim that the EU27 is unreasonable in their demands, whilst claiming that the UK is eminently fair in their demands? IIRC you've talked before about how the UK cannot cope with the addition of a small city every year, hence the red lines. Yet the figures show that net migration hasn't decreased; lower migration from the EU has been replaced by migration from outside the EU. You've definitely argued that it's unfair to allow freer movement from within the EU than from other places. The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU.

Out of Husar's 3 options, which would you choose should there be a referendum? May's deal, no deal, or remain? Or are you going to waffle again about some theoretical scenario that we won't see? Remember 29th March 2019 is just 4 months away. Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.

1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).

The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.

Lincoln didn't let the South secede (even though the Constitution is mute on the issue) and did not negotiate. He precipitated a conflict that he was fairly sure he could win. Nothing is more natural than the powers-that-be using that power to keep a recalcitrant member in line -- or disowning them entirely if they manage to leave.

[Pannonian]

I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.

1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).

The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.

Lincoln didn't let the South secede (even though the Constitution is mute on the issue) and did not negotiate. He precipitated a conflict that he was fairly sure he could win. Nothing is more natural than the powers-that-be using that power to keep a recalcitrant member in line -- or disowning them entirely if they manage to leave.

What sticks in the craw is the level of deception from the Leave side, far beyond what is normally seen, and condoned by Leave supporters; "This country has had enough of experts" is illustrative of Leave. Also, the lack of responsibility from Leave, rejecting all warnings of negative consequences, and blaming others for them. This can be seen in blaming the EU for not being reasonable and giving the UK everything it demands, blaming crypto-remainers for Brexit not going well, and even Grimsby's wish to be spared the Brexit that it so decisively voted for.

[Furunculus]

One is the consequence of the other. The UK wants to remove freedom of movement of labour, so the EU27 will withhold freedom of movement of other stuff. Are you going to claim that the EU27 is unreasonable in their demands, whilst claiming that the UK is eminently fair in their demands? IIRC you've talked before about how the UK cannot cope with the addition of a small city every year, hence the red lines. Yet the figures show that net migration hasn't decreased; lower migration from the EU has been replaced by migration from outside the EU. You've definitely argued that it's unfair to allow freer movement from within the EU than from other places. The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU.

Out of Husar's 3 options, which would you choose should there be a referendum? May's deal, no deal, or remain? Or are you going to waffle again about some theoretical scenario that we won't see? Remember 29th March 2019 is just 4 months away. Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision.

Still putting up straw men in the hope that other people will help you knock them down?

I reject the choice you present.
I reject the conflation of Husar's choice as originally presented and May's chequers (2.0) plan.

One is acceptable, the other is not.
As to whether the EU is being unreasonable in their demnds: We ask for nothing more than that already achieved by Switzerland and Ukraine.
Single market for goods, with some Service specific bilaterals.

"Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision."
Could you be any more of a condescending *&^%$?

[Furunculus]

I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.

1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).

The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.

Not to say that the outcomes you present aren't most likely, but there ARE good reasons why pursuing a Zephyr would make good sense.

With the scale of the problems the EU faces - both internal and external - why add an extra major headache?
As global hard-geopolitics returns, why would you alienate the world's second most capable expeditionary power and soft power, which is also a UNSC veto nation and the worlds fifth/sixth largest economy.
As the global economy heads towards its next down-turn, a time when the Eurozone still has negative interest rates and £50b/month quantitative easing, oh, and 9% unemployment and a fragile over-leveraged banking system, why would you smash economic ties with your biggest trading partner.

Of course, despite all this, common sense could go under the bus regardless. Which doesn't make membership of such a dysfunctional regime any more more attractive!

[Pannonian]

Still putting up straw men in the hope that other people will help you knock them down?

I reject the choice you present.
I reject the conflation of Husar's choice as originally presented and May's chequers (2.0) plan.

One is acceptable, the other is not.
As to whether the EU is being unreasonable in their demnds: We ask for nothing more than that already achieved by Switzerland and Ukraine.
Single market for goods, with some Service specific bilaterals.

"Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision."
Could you be any more of a condescending *&^%$?

Here ya go.

However, on Thursday May repeated her rejection of the “Norway plus” model and suggested she would not be prepared to offer it as a compromise arrangement because it would mean the continuation of freedom of movement. That is regarded in Downing Street as the hardest of the prime minister’s red lines.

Theresa May rules out Norway-style Brexit compromise with Labour

No deal, no Brexit, or a deal that accounts for "the hardest of the prime minister’s red lines".

Which would you choose? Under 4 months until 29th March 2019.

[Furunculus]

I don't understand, she seems to be advocating broadly what I advocate, and rejecting broadly what I reject.

Quelle problem?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not to say that the outcomes you present aren't most likely, but there ARE good reasons why pursuing a Zephyr would make good sense.

With the scale of the problems the EU faces - both internal and external - why add an extra major headache?
As global hard-geopolitics returns, why would you alienate the world's second most capable expeditionary power and soft power, which is also a UNSC veto nation and the worlds fifth/sixth largest economy.
As the global economy heads towards its next down-turn, a time when the Eurozone still has negative interest rates and £50b/month quantitative easing, oh, and 9% unemployment and a fragile over-leveraged banking system, why would you smash economic ties with your biggest trading partner.

Of course, despite all this, common sense could go under the bus regardless. Which doesn't make membership of such a dysfunctional regime any more more attractive!

I never meant that the hope of such a "zephyr" was a bad thing for which to strive, just that I thought it unlikely to be caught.

You mentioned the hardening of global geo-politics. You note the economic power of the UK. These underpin my assessment of Britain's departure from the EU. The EU does not want the UK to depart or to make economic trade hurdles for their member states, but they want and must have all members toeing the line. Having you leave on your own preferred terms will NOT allow the EU to maintain the collective power and clout to enforce decisions on the membership. They may not be able to prevent your departure -- but they can and will make it painful and possibly humiliating "pour encourager les autres." To do otherwise is to functionally decrease their power and effectiveness - something few governments of any kind have acceded to without opposing it.

[Furunculus]

It's a factor, yes, but one that must be balanced against those I list.

[Husar]

We ask for nothing more than that already achieved by Switzerland

Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switze...ngen_Agreement

This means that there are no passport controls on Switzerland's borders with its neighbours though customs controls continue to apply.
[...]
In a referendum in February 2014, the Swiss voters narrowly approved a proposal to limit the freedom of movement of foreign citizens to Switzerland. The European Commission said it would have to examine the implications of the result on EU–Swiss relations since literal implementation would invoke the guillotine clause.[14]

On 22 December 2016, Switzerland and the EU concluded an agreement whereby a new Swiss law (in response to the referendum) would require Swiss employers to take on any job seekers (whether Swiss nationals or non-Swiss citizens registered in Swiss job agencies) whilst continuing to observe the free movement of EU citizens into Switzerland thus allowing them to work there.

Sounds like just what you want.

[Furunculus]

And I have talked before about the fragility of institutional relationships like Switzerland, good job we're not dinky like Switzerland, eh?

the institutional elements of the WA are actually quite robust, with elements properly firewalled, so not like switzerland living with a gun to its head 24/7.

[Montmorency]

I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.

1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).

The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.

Lincoln didn't let the South secede (even though the Constitution is mute on the issue) and did not negotiate. He precipitated a conflict that he was fairly sure he could win. Nothing is more natural than the powers-that-be using that power to keep a recalcitrant member in line -- or disowning them entirely if they manage to leave.

At some juncture I hope there's a comparison between the final Brexit deal and the hypothetical "mutually beneficial" deal where the UK is feted out on a red carpet.

Counterpoint: the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire. Whereas with the secession of the Confederacy, the United States faced a hostile expansionist power seizing its assets. The Civil War was as much about self-defense as about power (though the two aren't exactly distinct).

This nice recent video by CGP Grey on federal land management indirectly helps demonstrate the existential scale of the conflict.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Husar]

And I have talked before about the fragility of institutional relationships like Switzerland, good job we're not dinky like Switzerland, eh?

the institutional elements of the WA are actually quite robust, with elements properly firewalled, so not like switzerland living with a gun to its head 24/7.

Too bad that I forgot about all of it, what Washington Agreement?

First you want a deal like Switzerland and now you say your Washington Agreement would be different.
Please remember that I only half-care about this, I have no interest in reading 200 page reports about the finer details of someone's dream deal. Keep it fun, like watching a train wreck.

[Fragony]

Too bad that I forgot about all of it, what Washington Agreement?

First you want a deal like Switzerland and now you say your Washington Agreement would be different.
Please remember that I only half-care about this, I have no interest in reading 200 page reports about the finer details of someone's dream deal. Keep it fun, like watching a train wreck.

Watching a train-wreck is funnier to say. But you simply don't need a trade-deal to trade, comes rather naturally, you have something, they want it. You sell it, they buy it.And vica versa. No need for a chapparone. In the end the EU is a protective system that doesn't allow the global market to do it's own thing and it only deals in handouts to gain more political power, it is a perversion of what was achieved

[Furunculus]

Too bad that I forgot about all of it, what Washington Agreement?

First you want a deal like Switzerland and now you say your Washington Agreement would be different.
Please remember that I only half-care about this, I have no interest in reading 200 page reports about the finer details of someone's dream deal. Keep it fun, like watching a train wreck.

well, we do live in a complex world, but i'll do my best:

although about 10 pages back i have mentioned the need to avoid a fragile institutional relationship where one 'wrong step' invokes the guillotine, the other 65 pages of this discussion have discussed the trade/regulatory relationship.

this is certainly what exercises people when we've talked about chequers, norway, canada, orderly/disorderly no-deal scenarios: the trade/regulatory relationship.

so when I say that i want something along the lines of the chequers proposal, something which is still obviously where the political declaration is headed, and something that is not greatly different in trade/regulatory terms from what has been achieved by ukraine and switzerland, this is what I meant.

i felt comfortable that this was understood because:
1. I have in fact made the distinction with institutional relationship used by the swiss (10 pages back or thereabouts - discussed by myself at least in some detail).
2. I have always discussed trade/regulatory relationship in terms of [both] ukraine [and] switzerland, which have very different institutional relationships.
3. I have always made clear that I liked EFTA as an institutional relationship, even if I was more dubious about the EEA as a trade/regulatory relationship.


So, back on topic - can I provide you a TLDR summary of why the institutional relationship in the WA (withdrawal agreement) is more tolerable than the swiss:eu relationship?
I'll try:
https://twitter.com/sylviademars/sta...00734152019970
Or, if you're feeling a little braver and want to move out of easy bite sized nuggets:
https://medium.com/@sylviademars/the...ts-9cc0ca6c472

Plus some short 144char sound-bites on why the trade/regulatory relationship anticipated by May's deal (Chequers 2.0?) is better than EEA:
https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/stat...59644727115777

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Counterpoint: the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire. Whereas with the secession of the Confederacy, the United States faced a hostile expansionist power seizing its assets. The Civil War was as much about self-defense as about power (though the two aren't exactly distinct)….

I concur that self-defense and power involve a good deal of overlap in many cases. I think that my read on the EU's willingness to "deal" reflects this as noted above.

The secession of the Confederate States and Lincoln's response when compared to the dissolution of the Soviet and Roman empires would make a lovely argument for the Monastery.

[Furunculus]

Cracking read:

https://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp-wpe...iner-FINAL.pdf

My firm opinion is that we should extend the transition period for 24 hours beyond the July 2020 date, so it can never be activiated again, and then crash straight into the backstop.

Immediately agree to fully align with all eu regs of Goods, and give every impression that we're happy to sit there forever.

Entirely good enough, but may irritate the EU enough to consider offering us something better / more-bespoke.

And quickly! So it's all done and dusted before a 2022 GE election where labour might get in and make a pigs ear of everything (like they did when they threw away Major's hard-won exemption to the Social Chapter).

[Pannonian]

Cracking read:

https://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp-wpe...iner-FINAL.pdf

My firm opinion is that we should extend the transition period for 24 hours beyond the July 2020 date, so it can never be activiated again, and then crash straight into the backstop.

Immediately agree to fully align with all eu regs of Goods, and give every impression that we're happy to sit there forever.

Entirely good enough, but may irritate the EU enough to consider offering us something better / more-bespoke.

And quickly! So it's all done and dusted before a 2022 GE election where labour might get in and make a pigs ear of everything (like they did when they threw away Major's hard-won exemption to the Social Chapter).

Bloody hell. The amount that's wrong in the above post.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? Does the above solution address the issues he'd raised? Please explain how.

[Furunculus]

Bloody hell. The amount that's wrong in the above post.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? Does the above solution address the issues he'd raised? Please explain how.

Explain?

Have you read flexcit yet? <insert tedious question here

[Pannonian]

Explain?

Have you read flexcit yet? <insert tedious question here

I know that one of the leading advocates of Flexcit, indeed the bloke who coined the term, now supports Remain. Does that say anything?

The issues Mr Trucker raised have to be solved if there is to be trade at all, as recognised by Raab. You either solve these problems and have continued trade, or drastically cut the throughput of trade, as recognised by all government departments dealing with trade and its hinterlands, to an extent not seen since WW2. All talk of theory is nowt as long as you don't address these issues. Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? How does your solution address the issues he raises?

[Furunculus]

I know that one of the leading advocates of Flexcit, indeed the bloke who coined the term, now supports Remain. Does that say anything?

The issues Mr Trucker raised have to be solved if there is to be trade at all, as recognised by Raab. You either solve these problems and have continued trade, or drastically cut the throughput of trade, as recognised by all government departments dealing with trade and its hinterlands, to an extent not seen since WW2. All talk of theory is nowt as long as you don't address these issues. Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? How does your solution address the issues he raises?

Does he, which one?

I see, we're back to full on tedious-boi. What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

[Pannonian]

Does he, which one?

I see, we're back to full on tedious-boi. What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

Once again, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, and the issues he raises? He and his like are what enables trade in goods. If you won't even listen to him, how the hell can you say that any particular agreement is good for trade? You talk about freedom of movement of goods. But that's heavily, nay critically dependent, on Mr Trucker and his friends. Every government department recognises that. Why don't you have a listen to him? It doesn't take so long; it's only 10 mins or so IIRC.

[Furunculus]

Once again, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, and the issues he raises? He and his like are what enables trade in goods. If you won't even listen to him, how the hell can you say that any particular agreement is good for trade? You talk about freedom of movement of goods. But that's heavily, nay critically dependent, on Mr Trucker and his friends. Every government department recognises that. Why don't you have a listen to him? It doesn't take so long; it's only 10 mins or so IIRC.

I have to confess, that i might have actually watched it if I didn't take such perverse pleasure in denying you.
Instead, I have rather more fun asking whether you've read 450 of detailed dissection of the EU regulatory regime that is Flexcit...
... and having a little fun by occasionally drawing a contrast between that and a 10m video.

but then i'm a reading snob, considering video a terribly low-bandwidth medium with which to transfer lots of detailed information. ;)

[Pannonian]

I have to confess, that i might have actually watched it if I didn't take such perverse pleasure in denying you.
Instead, I have rather more fun asking whether you've read 450 of detailed dissection of the EU regulatory regime that is Flexcit...
... and having a little fun by occasionally drawing a contrast between that and a 10m video.

but then i'm a reading snob, considering video a terribly low-bandwidth medium with which to transfer lots of detailed information. ;)

Read the Commons report then. It contains a transcript of Mr Trucker's interview, plus extrapolation from that to what happens on a wider scale in the event of no deal. No theoretical solution passes muster unless it takes Mr Trucker's raised issues into account. If you move physical goods, then you are utterly dependent on Mr Trucker and friends. Everything literally goes through him and his like.

[Furunculus]

One is the consequence of the other. The UK wants to remove freedom of movement of labour, so the EU27 will withhold freedom of movement of other stuff. Are you going to claim that the EU27 is unreasonable in their demands, whilst claiming that the UK is eminently fair in their demands? IIRC you've talked before about how the UK cannot cope with the addition of a small city every year, hence the red lines. Yet the figures show that net migration hasn't decreased; lower migration from the EU has been replaced by migration from outside the EU. You've definitely argued that it's unfair to allow freer movement from within the EU than from other places. The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU.

Out of Husar's 3 options, which would you choose should there be a referendum? May's deal, no deal, or remain? Or are you going to waffle again about some theoretical scenario that we won't see? Remember 29th March 2019 is just 4 months away. Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision.

No, they are two quite separate things. The EU has already separated out Goods for Switzerland and Ukraine. It would be damningly innappropriate for Service to be managed by the EU with us accepting the rules via the EEA. There would be no justification, as in financial Services and Legal Services we are a super-power compared to the rest of the EU. As to migration: "The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU." Fine, i'll get worried about EU migration when it falls to the percentage its ratio of the world population would merit.

You're still being disingenuous (polite word for "lieing"), as May's deal wasn't in Husar's article:
"That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit."

On Husar's choice I take "no Deal", on your choice:
"May's deal, no deal, or remain?"
I take May's deal.

Because, you know; I'm a reasonable moderate and middle-of-the-road kinda guy! :D

[Furunculus]

Read the Commons report then. It contains a transcript of Mr Trucker's interview, plus extrapolation from that to what happens on a wider scale in the event of no deal. No theoretical solution passes muster unless it takes Mr Trucker's raised issues into account. If you move physical goods, then you are utterly dependent on Mr Trucker and friends. Everything literally goes through him and his like.

Yes, yes, yes, but, back to the topic in hand:

What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

[Pannonian]

Yes, yes, yes, but, back to the topic in hand:

What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

Like I said, everything goes through Mr Trucker and co. Explain how that bottleneck is solved in your proposed solution. Eg. what status does the UK have in your proposed solution? Is it a third country? Does it have privileged status? How many passes does the UK receive? All of that is raised by Mr Trucker, and the implications spelled out in the Commons report. All that is why the government proposes to take direct control of what comes into the UK in the event of no deal, so as to manage that bottleneck.

In the event of no deal, UK-EU trade (the UK's biggest trading partner) is due to be cut by 95%. That's spelled out in the Commons report. Does your proposed solution address this?

[Furunculus]

In the event of no deal, UK-EU trade (the UK's biggest trading partner) is due to be cut by 95%. That's spelled out in the Commons report. Does your proposed solution address this?

errr... yes. it's "the backstop".

did you read it? :D

[Pannonian]

errr... yes. it's "the backstop".

did you read it? :D

What status does the UK have with the EU? I'm not talking about tariffs here. How many passes would the UK receive? Does your solution mention a number?

[Furunculus]

No idea. :D Do you?
What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?