EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

Possibly, but as Pannonian's comments have pointed up, the UK has, to date at least, not shown a lot of success in establishing new trade links or building relationships that can yield economic development without the EU. Early days, so this may yet happen, but there are few signs suggesting that the UK is going to enjoy this latest world economic surge that most countries have had a decent uptick from this past year or so. England seems to be tromping forward without picking up that much at all.

Apparently the Open Skies agreement the US is offering means British Airways will not be able to fly to the US.

[rory_20_uk]

What do you mean by alternative vote? Alternative vote regarding the referendum, alternative vote in the European Parliament, or what? How does your alternative vote affect the nature of the 2016 referendum, which was that one side had a demonstrable manifesto (the EU as it is), whereas the other side could promise unicorns and leprechauns before the vote before jettisoning all their promises once the vote was over? Remember the 350m/wk promise, so prominent during the campaign, was thrown away the day the result was known. The EU negotiators have complained for the last 12 months (since article 50 was invoked) that the UK side has nothing concrete to negotiate with, no manifesto of any kind to engage with. 21 months since the referendum, and Leave still has no plan to which they should be held accountable for.

Never has the EU been clear beyond being the EU. The EU itself has morphed over the years, adding powers and even members. The remain side was clear only in as much it was to not leave - no one knows what will happen next with the the EU. I doubt the EU itself does especially after the Italian election. No specifics were offered and nor could they be of the future.

The vote was binary and therefore especially with leave no one knows what people wanted. Those who want to remain probably include those who want a United States of Europe to those who view it as an economic calculation. Those who voted to leave include xenophobes, those who want to recreate the British Empire, who want to join the USA, those who want to remain in the customs Union, who want to join Norway etc al to those who want to follow WTO rules. Who knows? None of these options were on the voting slip.

The British did have a clear position - one that the EU would of course never agree to. The EU negotiators have also flatly refused everything - they appear to view "negotiation" is agreeing with them. And why not? What is in it for them to compromise? Negotiation is always couched as picking and choosing. Well yes... That's the point! And a year after they suddenly refuse to to move due to the Irish border. As if they didn't know this would be an issue from the start!

Are the majority die hard leavers or would rather remain if only there was meaningful reform?

[Pannonian]

Never has the EU been clear beyond being the EU. The EU itself has morphed over the years, adding powers and even members. The remain side was clear only in as much it was to not leave - no one knows what will happen next with the the EU. I doubt the EU itself does especially after the Italian election. No specifics were offered and nor could they be of the future.

The vote was binary and therefore especially with leave no one knows what people wanted. Those who want to remain probably include those who want a United States of Europe to those who view it as an economic calculation. Those who voted to leave include xenophobes, those who want to recreate the British Empire, who want to join the USA, those who want to remain in the customs Union, who want to join Norway etc al to those who want to follow WTO rules. Who knows? None of these options were on the voting slip.

The British did have a clear position - one that the EU would of course never agree to. The EU negotiators have also flatly refused everything - they appear to view "negotiation" is agreeing with them. And why not? What is in it for them to compromise? Negotiation is always couched as picking and choosing. Well yes... That's the point! And a year after they suddenly refuse to to move due to the Irish border. As if they didn't know this would be an issue from the start!

Are the majority die hard leavers or would rather remain if only there was meaningful reform?

Did you miss the bit last December when the EU agreed to allow May some leeway in order to let the talks sort of push on to the next stage, on the understanding that the UK will come up with something more substantial on the subject later. Only for Davis to say a day later that the UK was not legally bound by that agreement. With that kind of two facedness on the UK's part regarding agreements and understandings, you still manage to blame the EU for being unreasonable.

I got a 50p coin the other day, dating back to 2007. It was a special commemorative coin, celebrating 100 years of the Entente Cordiale. Back in the days when an understanding was as good as a formal treaty. Of course, nowadays we have Brexiteers thinking it reasonable for Germany to overrule Ireland on an Anglo-Irish bilateral treaty (whilst complaining about how the ECJ impinges on UK sovereignty, of course).

BTW, should the Leavers be held to the promises that were most prominent in the campaign? Such as the 350m/wk for the NHS?

[Kagemusha]

Are the majority die hard leavers or would rather remain if only there was meaningful reform?

How can you reform something you have left already?

I see lot of issues with EU that needs to be reformed. It is far from being s perfect structure in any way, rather towards the opposite. But still it is the best platform available in Europe to handle mutual issues within Europe. I dont agree with hardcore federalist agenda concerning speedy integration into federal state, because EU does not have the check´s and balances for such. The main concern being the lack of representative democracy. Still even in its current form EU is of more benefit to its participants then trouble, thus it has a mandate to exist.
If one quits a gentlemen´s club. One can hardly reform the club´s rules afterwards.

[Pannonian]

How can you reform something you have left already?

I see lot of issues with EU that needs to be reformed. It is far from being s perfect structure in any way, rather towards the opposite. But still it is the best platform available in Europe to handle mutual issues within Europe. I dont agree with hardcore federalist agenda concerning speedy integration into federal state, because EU does not have the check´s and balances for such. The main concern being the lack of representative democracy. Still even in its current form EU is of more benefit to its participants then trouble, thus it has a mandate to exist.
If one quits a gentlemen´s club. One can hardly reform the club´s rules afterwards.

And even in its unrepresentative state, in terms of each state not having a fair voice within the discussion forums, the UK benefited disproportionately, with opts out where it had no interest in being part of an integrated state, but also having pushed for things that have affected the rest of the EU, such as the additional of the eastern European members. You know those Polish immigrants over here taking our jobs? That was Britain's price for France and Germany to push ahead with the euro. Which Britain opted out of.

[Pannonian]

Something else worthy of note is the powers Westminster is claiming back from the devolved governments in order to implement Brexit. Post-devolution, everything that is not explicitly centralised is assumed to be the remit of the devolved governments. Westminster is now claiming back powers on legislation regarding H&S, environmental standards, workers' rights, etc., indicating the kind of Brexit we can expect.

[rory_20_uk]

How can you reform something you have left already?

I see lot of issues with EU that needs to be reformed. It is far from being s perfect structure in any way, rather towards the opposite. But still it is the best platform available in Europe to handle mutual issues within Europe. I dont agree with hardcore federalist agenda concerning speedy integration into federal state, because EU does not have the check´s and balances for such. The main concern being the lack of representative democracy. Still even in its current form EU is of more benefit to its participants then trouble, thus it has a mandate to exist.
If one quits a gentlemen´s club. One can hardly reform the club´s rules afterwards.

And that was one question that was not asked on the ballot - would people stay if there was reform? Not much point worrying about the tentative steps at reform that have been muted right after Brexit.

Did you miss the bit last December when the EU agreed to allow May some leeway in order to let the talks sort of push on to the next stage, on the understanding that the UK will come up with something more substantial on the subject later. Only for Davis to say a day later that the UK was not legally bound by that agreement. With that kind of two facedness on the UK's part regarding agreements and understandings, you still manage to blame the EU for being unreasonable.

I got a 50p coin the other day, dating back to 2007. It was a special commemorative coin, celebrating 100 years of the Entente Cordiale. Back in the days when an understanding was as good as a formal treaty. Of course, nowadays we have Brexiteers thinking it reasonable for Germany to overrule Ireland on an Anglo-Irish bilateral treaty (whilst complaining about how the ECJ impinges on UK sovereignty, of course).

BTW, should the Leavers be held to the promises that were most prominent in the campaign? Such as the 350m/wk for the NHS?

Nice poison chalice there - "you know the border situation in Ireland? Tell us how to fix it. And we'll say whether we'll allow it or not. And if we like the idea we'll pass it on to the individual nation states and areas to vote on as well". Ireland is in the EU. Surely they would assist in helping the EU solve this issue, and not just stick to their demands?

Just because I say the EU is unreasonable does not mean I have some sort of fetish for Davis. Every politician is looking for what happens when the UK finally leaves the EU and then May gets almost instantly thrown out of office as she can then be conveniently blamed for everything. So they are all running their own pseudo campaigns where they'd rather be the PM of a mess than help the situation.

Aaaah, days when an understanding was as good as a treaty. Yes, those days are definitely dead with the layers of laws the EU is demanding. Simpler times. And that understanding led to the death of millions of our countrymen (along with those in the Empire) and hastened the destruction of the Empire (which was almost certainly doomed). Not exactly the best example of "good things we've had from Europe".

Some politicians lied in the campaign. That truly is the first time in history that has happened! And humour me... how exactlyis Farage et al to be held to account? Do we ask him for the money? Does the UK sue him for something or other (and then we can probably sue almost every other politician in the UK)? Having elections where politicians have to be honest and are in some way held to account for their promises (beyond the next election 5 years hence) sounds like a great idea... But would require the politicians to implement.

I must confess I didn't believe him or any of the politicians before the campaign, during the campaign nor after the campaign. I voted on wanting the UK Supreme Court to be the final court of the land. Everything else was background fuzz as far as I was concerned. I viewed and view the odds of an agreement with the EU as being extremely unlikely since the entire procedure is similar to that of the USSR - the negotiator gets his orders from 27 people (who change depending on elections) so even if by some miracle Davis managed to get something hammered out there are still votes in something like 30 different parliaments.

[Pannonian]

And that was one question that was not asked on the ballot - would people stay if there was reform? Not much point worrying about the tentative steps at reform that have been muted right after Brexit.



Nice poison chalice there - "you know the border situation in Ireland? Tell us how to fix it. And we'll say whether we'll allow it or not. And if we like the idea we'll pass it on to the individual nation states and areas to vote on as well". Ireland is in the EU. Surely they would assist in helping the EU solve this issue, and not just stick to their demands?

Just because I say the EU is unreasonable does not mean I have some sort of fetish for Davis. Every politician is looking for what happens when the UK finally leaves the EU and then May gets almost instantly thrown out of office as she can then be conveniently blamed for everything. So they are all running their own pseudo campaigns where they'd rather be the PM of a mess than help the situation.

Aaaah, days when an understanding was as good as a treaty. Yes, those days are definitely dead with the layers of laws the EU is demanding. Simpler times. And that understanding led to the death of millions of our countrymen (along with those in the Empire) and hastened the destruction of the Empire (which was almost certainly doomed). Not exactly the best example of "good things we've had from Europe".

Some politicians lied in the campaign. That truly is the first time in history that has happened! And humour me... how exactlyis Farage et al to be held to account? Do we ask him for the money? Does the UK sue him for something or other (and then we can probably sue almost every other politician in the UK)? Having elections where politicians have to be honest and are in some way held to account for their promises (beyond the next election 5 years hence) sounds like a great idea... But would require the politicians to implement.

I must confess I didn't believe him or any of the politicians before the campaign, during the campaign nor after the campaign. I voted on wanting the UK Supreme Court to be the final court of the land. Everything else was background fuzz as far as I was concerned. I viewed and view the odds of an agreement with the EU as being extremely unlikely since the entire procedure is similar to that of the USSR - the negotiator gets his orders from 27 people (who change depending on elections) so even if by some miracle Davis managed to get something hammered out there are still votes in something like 30 different parliaments.

You want the UK Supreme Court to be the final law of the land. Fair enough, wanting sovereignty to be national. But then you go and expect Germany to overrule Ireland on a bilateral treaty between the UK and Ireland. Why? The treaty exists in a practiceable form because of the framework of the EU. But it's an agreement between two countries, the UK and Ireland. Why is sovereignty non-negotiable when it's a matter of the UK wanting its way, yet is flexible when it needs to be for the UK to have its way? You don't see any hypocrisy in these two positions of yours?

And as for fixing the border situation; the EU has a working solution that has worked for 20 years. It's called the Good Friday Agreement. It's the UK that's calling to change things. Why shouldn't the onus be on the UK to come up with an alternative solution? How many additional customs officers have we recruited so far, simply to qualify for WTO? The Dutch government estimates we'll need thousands. Our government estimates 10,000 give or take a thousand. Another couple of weeks and we'll have reached the halfway mark. Oh, and how much land have we designated for the lorry parks in Kent?

BTW, have you caught the stories from auto manufacturers talking about the extra costs involved in stockpiling parts, as JIT manufacturing will no longer be possible with the disruption to supply lines resulting from Brexit? Exactly as I'd talked about earlier in this thread. How do you suppose they should mitigate for this, other than simply giving up on manufacturing in the UK and moving elsewhere where they won't have these problems?

[rory_20_uk]

I think you'll find the UK is happy to leave the border as is. The EU are not prepared to do so.

[Pannonian]

I think you'll find the UK is happy to leave the border as is. The EU are not prepared to do so.

You'd be wrong on that. It's the UK that's set out red lines that change the border situation. And it's the WTO that rules that, given the red lines set out by the UK government, there must therefore be a hard border. If the UK really is happy with the current border situation, it wouldn't set out the red lines that it has. You keep blaming the EU for things that are the choice of the UK. Just like Brexiteers tend to do.

[Husar]

I think you'll find the UK is happy to leave the border as is. The EU are not prepared to do so.

Why does the UK refuse to stay in the EU free movement deal then? Wouldn't that keep the borders as they are?
I'm not aware that the EU is against that, the UK does not want free movement of people anymore and is therefore NOT happy with the way it is.

[rory_20_uk]

The free movement with the Irish - the law that is in question, and supposedly the problem with the EU. The Irish and British would both be happy to continue but this is not allowed.

[Fragony]

Why does the UK refuse to stay in the EU free movement deal then? Wouldn't that keep the borders as they are?
I'm not aware that the EU is against that, the UK does not want free movement of people anymore and is therefore NOT happy with the way it is.

That I also don't really understand, if the UK doesn't mind open borders with Ireland that is for them to decide, just don't make checkpoints voila

[Pannonian]

The free movement with the Irish - the law that is in question, and supposedly the problem with the EU. The Irish and British would both be happy to continue but this is not allowed.

Isn't that a WTO issue? Either you have common customs agreements, or you have a hard border. If you have common agreements on some things but not others, then you still have a hard border. See the Greece-Turkey border for an example of the latter. If you don't want a hard border, you must have a customs union. The UK has ruled out a customs union.

[Husar]

The free movement with the Irish - the law that is in question, and supposedly the problem with the EU. The Irish and British would both be happy to continue but this is not allowed.

Yeah, but that's like, against the rules all countries agreed to in the EU. You can't have an open border in Ireland and at the same time forbid Poland to open the border to Ukraine. If the British are happy to continue, why did they trigger Brexit? They are happy to continue with Ireland, but not with France, they want to treat members of a bloc differently but the bloc can't alloow that because it defeats the purpose of the bloc as other members will want special treatment and the advantages of standardization disappear. Ireland can get that special treatment if it leaves the bloc as well. I wouldn't mind if they leave, so why do they not want to leave and get their open border?

And yes, the bloc rules are not a special mean idea of the EU, the WTO operates by similar principles as Pannonian keeps saying and you keep ignoring:

https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/201...t-soft-border/

Turning a blind eye would necessitate admitting goods from Ireland tariff-free. The Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle prohibits the UK from giving special tariff rates to one WTO Member that it does not extend to all of the others. There is an exception for Free Trade Areas, in which tariff barriers are eliminated for substantially all trade. Thus such an arrangement would only be possible as an extension of a zero-tariff UK-EU Free Trade Area; otherwise it would violate WTO MFN obligations.

The WTO, just like the EU, cannot and does not allow special treatment. The only ones who don't seem to understand this are the Brexiteers.
Or they're just hoping to destroy the EU over the Ireland border, but we'll see whether that's a sufficiently powerful issue for that...

[Furunculus]

the combination of two things I have been saying for a while:

https://www.rte.ie/amp/960472/

1. What is the solution to Brexit without a border for Northern Ireland?

Read the wording carefully, it references alignment where it supports the all-island-economy and the Good Friday agreement. They aren’t loose words, there are very specific competences and obligations associated with those words. Many of which apply today, such as food/agriculture, such that there is already a border between islands. You can align with those things, without needing to align with the other 80%

2. there really isn't in existence such as thing as a single market for services in the same way that there exists a single market for goods.

frankly, if it brings regulatory independence the best result might be a free trade agreement in goods (and even a customs unions), while excluding services entirely (and thus allowing services based free trade agreements with third countries). the reason germany exports more to china is that it is a manufacturing economy that specialises in machine tools, but they're making a middle-class who will consume services.

[Pannonian]

UK taken to Europe's highest court over air pollution

European court of justice can impose multimillion euro fines if the UK and five other countries do not address the problem

Is this an unacceptable impingement on British sovereignty by the ECJ? Are we leaving the EU so that we no longer have to be subject to court rulings like this?

[Husar]

UK taken to Europe's highest court over air pollution

Is this an unacceptable impingement on British sovereignty by the ECJ? Are we leaving the EU so that we no longer have to be subject to court rulings like this?

It's just another case of Germany and France trying to ruin the GREAT Britain....

The European court of justice (ECJ) has the power to impose multimillion euro fines if the countries do not address the problem swiftly. The nations - the UK, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Romania

Oh, eh, woopsie...

[rory_20_uk]

As soon as Italy gets its new government I am sure Brexit will recede as an issue... They want 250 billion of loans to be cancelled... because they don't want to repay.

[Fragony]

As soon as Italy gets its new government I am sure Brexit will recede as an issue... They want 250 billion of loans to be cancelled... because they don't want to repay.

Timber

[Pannonian]

The government's preferred customs solution will cost around 350m/week, according to HMRC. When it eventually works that is, which it won't immediately. And that's just one aspect of the transition, not including eventual sunk costs like car parks and so on to deal with the barriers.

According to Leave, we send 350m/week to the EU, not including rebates making their way back here. All of that, without rebates, will now be spent on dealing with new customs barriers. If we accept the lower estimate that is. The higher estimate is rather more than 350m/week. And that doesn't include other costs resulting from our changed status.

[Fragony]

The status of being able to trade without sanction on trading in the universe and suroungins except a small price tag in that tiny place called Europe, that is bleeding out because of a flawed currency and cultural mismash and a really odd new aristocracy runned by a drunk who was never elected

[Pannonian]

The status of being able to trade without sanction on trading in the universe and suroungins except a small price tag in that tiny place called Europe, that is bleeding out because of a flawed currency and cultural mismash and a really odd new aristocracy runned by a drunk who was never elected

According to our supposed closest friends (the former Dominions), it is more important/urgent to have a good relationship with the EU 27 than with the UK. And according to the US, the biggest of our supposed close friends, a good trading relationship with them starts with accepting their agricultural and food standards, which our farmers and consumer watchdogs have rejected.

BTW, when are you moving over here to share in that freedom which you exult in?

[Husar]

And according to the US, the biggest of our supposed close friends, a good trading relationship with them starts with accepting their agricultural and food standards, which our farmers and consumer watchdogs have rejected.

That sounds really, really sad because even European food standards aren't really good and we know US ones are even worse. Do you happen to have a link about that?
Actually, I found this: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Articl...food-standards

And also this piece about how the UK is eroding food safety all by itself in the face of Brexit: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...1.html#gallery

[rory_20_uk]

That sounds really, really sad because even European food standards aren't really good and we know US ones are even worse. Do you happen to have a link about that?
Actually, I found this: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Articl...food-standards

And also this piece about how the UK is eroding food safety all by itself in the face of Brexit: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...1.html#gallery

Oh GOD - moving regulation to the private sector with no public oversight. Sometimes it can work (call me biased but the PMCPA is far more aggressive at policing Pharma than either the MHRA or the ASA in the UK) Do they not learn - or just don't care? This probably saves very little money.

As it is, food standards often seem to be maintained by the good will of suppliers - since when companies do try to abuse the system it is years before they are caught even in the most extreme cases (old race horses from Ireland come to mind). And when it does happen the companies involved just vanish, the Directors claim to know nothing and that's it.

In a society where the ease of communication has never been higher, the absence of all national / supra-national bodies to engage with the people they claim to represent can be nothing short of deliberate.

[Pannonian]

Oh GOD - moving regulation to the private sector with no public oversight. Sometimes it can work (call me biased but the PMCPA is far more aggressive at policing Pharma than either the MHRA or the ASA in the UK) Do they not learn - or just don't care? This probably saves very little money.

As it is, food standards often seem to be maintained by the good will of suppliers - since when companies do try to abuse the system it is years before they are caught even in the most extreme cases (old race horses from Ireland come to mind). And when it does happen the companies involved just vanish, the Directors claim to know nothing and that's it.

In a society where the ease of communication has never been higher, the absence of all national / supra-national bodies to engage with the people they claim to represent can be nothing short of deliberate.

Well, there's the ECJ enforcing agreements between countries. But you want us out of that, that being your stated reason for Brexit.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, there's the ECJ enforcing agreements between countries. But you want us out of that, that being your stated reason for Brexit.

The Romanian and Irish horse meat coming into the human food chain via how many European countries was it? But there are no borders, so all is well since the ECJ is there. And although this happened only a couple of years ago you can somehow the the ECJ is enforcing this? Hilarious! Also, China has freedom of religion since the Constitution says it does...

[rory_20_uk]

Well, there's the ECJ enforcing agreements between countries. But you want us out of that, that being your stated reason for Brexit.

The Romanian and Irish horse meat coming into the human food chain via how many European countries was it? But there are no borders, so all is well since the ECJ is there. And although this happened only a couple of years ago you can somehow the the ECJ is enforcing this? Hilarious! Also, China has freedom of religion since the Constitution says it does...

[Pannonian]

The Romanian and Irish horse meat coming into the human food chain via how many European countries was it? But there are no borders, so all is well since the ECJ is there. And although this happened only a couple of years ago you can somehow the the ECJ is enforcing this? Hilarious! Also, China has freedom of religion since the Constitution says it does...

Did the ECJ enforce the opposite? Or did the international agreements get enforced once the scandal came to light? If the former, then it's the fault of the ECJ. If the latter, then it's the fault of the regulatory bodies, which were insufficient. I posted a story a few days ago about the ECJ holding several EU countries to their agreements on reducing pollution. The regulatory bodies/scientists give findings that showed that these countries were contravening their agreements. The ECJ, as the extra-national body ruling across national borders in Europe, then rules that the national governments must hold up their end of the contract. I asked, to no reply, whether this was an unacceptable overriding of national sovereignty by the ECJ.

[rory_20_uk]

Did the ECJ enforce the opposite? Or did the international agreements get enforced once the scandal came to light? If the former, then it's the fault of the ECJ. If the latter, then it's the fault of the regulatory bodies, which were insufficient. I posted a story a few days ago about the ECJ holding several EU countries to their agreements on reducing pollution. The regulatory bodies/scientists give findings that showed that these countries were contravening their agreements. The ECJ, as the extra-national body ruling across national borders in Europe, then rules that the national governments must hold up their end of the contract. I asked, to no reply, whether this was an unacceptable overriding of national sovereignty by the ECJ.

International agreements? Given that what they were doing was against the laws in every single country - and laws present for decades if not hundreds of years the point is the ECJ had no bearing one way or the other on the situation. Having a totemic court by itself does not solve every issue.

The ECJ is by definition unacceptable overriding of national sovereignty whatever they are doing. Because they are a supra-national court. Merely that my neighbour is a good gardener doesn't mean s/he can pop in to my garden and do as they will. It is not the subject, nor the intent. It is the entire process.