EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

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.

What if one party decides they are bigger and stronger and thus does not need to abide by previously made agreements, as the other party has no teeth to back them up? Is party A right to supersede their agreement with party B by way of superior strength? If party A unilaterally decides that previously made agreements should no longer apply to them, how should party B seek redress? Should party B be able to seek redress, or should party A be able to do whatever it can get away with?

[rory_20_uk]

What if one party decides they are bigger and stronger and thus does not need to abide by previously made agreements, as the other party has no teeth to back them up? Is party A right to supersede their agreement with party B by way of superior strength? If party A unilaterally decides that previously made agreements should no longer apply to them, how should party B seek redress? Should party B be able to seek redress, or should party A be able to do whatever it can get away with?

That is a tough one. Something that protects the weak from the strong. Something that can be there for all. What can be offered? What To Offer...? What about the very thing the countries of Europe are turning to because of the USA...?

Oh yes! EURIKA!! The WTO! A system for exactly this purpose that operates worldwide and predates the ECJ.

[Pannonian]

That is a tough one. Something that protects the weak from the strong. Something that can be there for all. What can be offered? What To Offer...? What about the very thing the countries of Europe are turning to because of the USA...?

Oh yes! EURIKA!! The WTO! A system for exactly this purpose that operates worldwide and predates the ECJ.

And what happens when party A threatens to not comply with WTO conditions?

And NB. the EU offers far better trade conditions than the WTO, which is recognised as pretty barebones. And we can't even satisfy WTO conditions, so I don't know why you're citing it as an alternative.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And what happens when party A threatens to not comply with WTO conditions?

And NB. the EU offers far better trade conditions than the WTO, which is recognised as pretty barebones. And we can't even satisfy WTO conditions, so I don't know why you're citing it as an alternative.

Pannonian:

As you well know, the ultimate 'guarantor' of any international accord is armed violence. All of diplomacy and the agreed conduct thereof is an attempt to forestall this tool of last resort. When parties discard the social niceties, it always comes down to how much you are willing to/capable of killing people.

[Pannonian]

Reality of the "frictionless border" option favoured by the UK government, as explained by someone who has frequent experience of said type of border.

Does this invalidation of the government's rhetoric, by an expert on the subject, matter to Leavers? Will Leavers accept membership of the Customs Union and the Single Market, with all the conditions that implies, for the sake of trade? Or would they rather sacrifice trade in order to rule out certain things?

[Furunculus]

I am always willing to compromise on the detail:
If that means single market or customs unions, fine.
If that means rejoining a (reformed) eu that too is fine.

But I am a total freaking zealot on the principle:
Being totally out is better than political/economic union.
The relationship must never be a gun to our head (i.e. negotiated services access being threatened with unilateral withdrawal unless we comply with X unrelated policy)

[Pannonian]

I am always willing to compromise on the detail:
If that means single market or customs unions, fine.
If that means rejoining a (reformed) eu that too is fine.

But I am a total freaking zealot on the principle:
Being totally out is better than political/economic union.
The relationship must never be a gun to our head (i.e. negotiated services access being threatened with unilateral withdrawal unless we comply with X unrelated policy)

Aren't these two mutually contradictory? "You can have any colour you like, as long as it is black".

[Gilrandir]

Aren't these two mutually contradictory? "You can have any colour you like, as long as it is black".

detail =/= principle

[Pannonian]

detail =/= principle

It's like May's red lines. "We're open to agreement, as long as they follow these red lines." Proceeds to put forward red lines that rule everything out.

In Furunculus's case, his red line is the basis of all multi-faceted agreements. All multi-faceted agreements involve horse trading of some kind. Germany and France wanted the European Currency Union. So Britain's price (as demanded by Thatcher and Major) was the Single Market and the admission of eastern Europe. Both sides got what they thought was important, and in Britain's case we didn't even need to join the ECU, as they were prepared to give us that leeway too.

Any future trade deals will involve horse trading of the kind Furunculus has ruled out, as will any complex agreement of any kind. Any deal with the US will have to involve acceptance of US agricultural and food standards, even though our counterparts don't want that at all. Or will Furunculus stretch his point to argue that these are related after all, and thus completely different from the UK-EU agreements.

[Furunculus]

Any future trade deals will involve horse trading of the kind Furunculus has ruled out,

Where did i do any such thing? Building up strawmen only to knock them down again?

Being opposed to Britain being in political and economic union with the EU does not preclude any of a whole host of possible partnership agreements.
Rejecting fragile agreements subject to unilateral threat (effectively making the agreement a tool of geopolitics), can be answered with Efta/bilat abritration.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For clarity, Furunculus, you should have re-stated those guiding principles that would remain inviolate. It would then have been much clearer as to the degree of flexibility to compromise available across the range of issues.

[Pannonian]

For clarity, Furunculus, you should have re-stated those guiding principles that would remain inviolate. It would then have been much clearer as to the degree of flexibility to compromise available across the range of issues.

The relationship must never be a gun to our head (i.e. negotiated services access being threatened with unilateral withdrawal unless we comply with X unrelated policy)

The above can be taken to mean all kinds of things. For many Brexiteers, it means ruling out all horse trading altogether. Even though the very Single Market that they want to withdraw from was the result of such horse trading, and a British demand at that. "The UK will veto all discussions of a Currency Union unless France and Germany accept the Single Market and the admission of former eastern bloc countries." And afterwards, even the British payment was negotiated away, as the UK was allowed to opt out of said Currency Union (while the British price was paid by all countries).

Yes! We won! Now send them back.

[Furunculus]

For clarity, Furunculus, you should have re-stated those guiding principles that would remain inviolate. It would then have been much clearer as to the degree of flexibility to compromise available across the range of issues.

It is very difficult to do so.
The only sensible way to approach a task so byzantine is to be output focussed, not process focussed.
Does the end preserve fundamental sovereignty, a workable economy, and good relations with our neighbours.
That may or may not involve the single market to give but one teeny example.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is very difficult to do so.
The only sensible way to approach a task so byzantine is to be output focussed, not process focussed.
Does the end preserve fundamental sovereignty, a workable economy, and good relations with our neighbours.
That may or may not involve the single market to give but one teeny example.

This is much clearer, even with your caveats.

Principles invoked:

1. Sovereignty -- which I suspect you define as self determination of policy, without any overarching authority having the ability to overrule that sovereign decision.

2. Workable economy -- an economy that provides a reasonable standard of living for the citizens and legal residents of that polity. You do not specify service/industrial/agro/tech as a focus (intentionally, I presume).

3. Good Relations with neighbors -- this isn't as clearly articulated. Is good the absence of violence or positive interaction? Are neighbors defined regionally? by travel time? by immediate proximity to one polity's physical borders? I believe you are defining it regionally and that good relations would be fair trade, no unreasonable bureaucratic delays in services or travel, mutual defense in event of direct attack, and reasonable procedures for extradition and the like. It is not clear from your phrase itself, however.

[Furunculus]

This is much clearer, even with your caveats.

Principles invoked:

1. Sovereignty -- which I suspect you define as self determination of policy, without any overarching authority having the ability to overrule that sovereign decision.

2. Workable economy -- an economy that provides a reasonable standard of living for the citizens and legal residents of that polity. You do not specify service/industrial/agro/tech as a focus (intentionally, I presume).

3. Good Relations with neighbors -- this isn't as clearly articulated. Is good the absence of violence or positive interaction? Are neighbors defined regionally? by travel time? by immediate proximity to one polity's physical borders? I believe you are defining it regionally and that good relations would be fair trade, no unreasonable bureaucratic delays in services or travel, mutual defense in event of direct attack, and reasonable procedures for extradition and the like. It is not clear from your phrase itself, however.

1. e.g. a problem of the current third country services regime is that it is equivalence that can be revoked at any time. given that the ecj can be extremely flexible in interpreting legislation it would be very risky to try and refuse to implement something as trivial as a tobin tax, if the eu was holding a gun to britain's head over the loss of the equivalence regime in the whole area of services trade.

2. It is indeed intentional, i know what i would prefer but in a majoritarian system of parliamentary sovereignty, that might welll mean freedom to organise the economy by command in five year plans. So be it.

3. Good relations in terms of geopolitics. I define a great power as a middle power (in relative capability) that is also a regional power... and does not have a polar opposition in the region (which would contain its wider ambition). India is a middle power, and a regional power, but its ceasless tussle with pakistan prevents it deploying its resources in a way that would achieve great power effect. Back to brexit britain; it will be entirely pointless if we have such a divisive relationship with europe, that it demands our attention to manage in a manner that dissipates our focus on bigger issues (europe will be a strategic backwater post 2040).

but yes, i will maintain the caveats and all manner of other nuance. because this is a complex issue and I know enough to know how much i don't know.

[Pannonian]

You speak of the ability to have command economies and five year plans should there be a majority decision for such. However, how do you propose to cope with lengthy waits resulting from the loss of frictionless borders, as described by the freight driver above? Unlike your scenario of theoretical possibilities that have rarely if ever been seen in western Europe, and the closest equivalents of which in the UK go back 50 years or more, the scenario I cite is a certainty given current experience. And the government's own department dealing with Brexit thinks that even this may be understating how bad things may become. Are you willing to sign up to the Single Market and the Customs Union, with all that entails? Or would you prefer to face up to not signing up to them, as DExEU is warning us we are currently on course for?

Currently we have red lines barring us from certain options. However, we have made nowhere near sufficient preparations for a situation outside these options. With things as they currently are, we will have a no deal Brexit without the organisation to deal with it. A situation DExEU describes as nothing short of catastrophic. One thing cannot be changed: we won't be able to put the organisation in place before we exit on 29th March next year. Talks of solutions to ease this is either nonsense, or outright deception (as Rees Mogg's dissembling is above). Do you want solutions which the government's red lines currently rule out? Or do you prefer to keep the red lines and face whatever comes?

Edit: A number of leading Brexiteers have made preparations to live inside the EU post-Brexit.

[Furunculus]

i don't propose anything, for i'm not well informed enough on the either the technical expertise required, or the likely give-n-take available in the negotiation.
i have duly informed the gov't that political union is not acceptable, and expect them to go about rectifying the matter in a workmanlike fashion.
the gov't has not filled me with confidence in its competence, but the matter needs to be accomplished.

i don't believe the red lines are really all that red.
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-pi...union-10732511

"(Staying in the single market would mean) complying with the EU's rules and regulations… without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are…"
single market - right here right now i'd prefer to be out as I prefer to avoid the eu's fetish for regulation on the principle of precautionary principle.

"I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU… I have an open mind on how we do it."
customs union - fine, prefer out as i do see the great eu trade wall as a protectionist racket.

"We will get control of the number of people coming to Britain from the EU."
immigration - don't personally care much, but would like a regime that doesn't penalise against anglosphere countries (relative to eu). political necessity probably requires that some restriction are placed on europe, to have the same regime as elsewhere.

"The days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end."
the budget - sure, why not. but not really fussed if we get something for the contribution.

[Pannonian]

i don't propose anything, for i'm not well informed enough on the either the technical expertise required, or the likely give-n-take available in the negotiation.
i have duly informed the gov't that political union is not acceptable, and expect them to go about rectifying the matter in a workmanlike fashion.
the gov't has not filled me with confidence in its competence, but the matter needs to be accomplished.

i don't believe the red lines are really all that red.
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-pi...union-10732511

"(Staying in the single market would mean) complying with the EU's rules and regulations… without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are…"
single market - right here right now i'd prefer to be out as I prefer to avoid the eu's fetish for regulation on the principle of precautionary principle.

"I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU… I have an open mind on how we do it."
customs union - fine, prefer out as i do see the great eu trade wall as a protectionist racket.

"We will get control of the number of people coming to Britain from the EU."
immigration - don't personally care much, but would like a regime that doesn't penalise against anglosphere countries (relative to eu). political necessity probably requires that some restriction are placed on europe, to have the same regime as elsewhere.

"The days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end."
the budget - sure, why not. but not really fussed if we get something for the contribution.

"right here right now i'd prefer to be out". Such a simple thing to say, and yet with a host of ramifications. The lorry driver in the above video has described what it means for people like himself. DExEU has described the knock on effects for the rest of the population once people like said lorry driver have to deal with your preference to be out. And yet you still prefer to be out?

NB. We don't have the facilities to deal with your preference to be out. They will be starting consultations early next year for building works to deal with our being outside the EU. We'll have left the EU by the end of March. DExEU says that the existing facilities at Dover can't cope with a no-deal Brexit. Our supply chains will dry up in short order. We've already seen what happened to KFC. It'll be like that, across the board. And yet you still prefer to be out?

[Furunculus]

"And yet you still prefer to be out?"
"And yet you still prefer to be out?"

Yes.... and, yes.
Political union is not acceptable.

[Pannonian]

"And yet you still prefer to be out?"
"And yet you still prefer to be out?"

Yes.... and, yes.
Political union is not acceptable.

But a collapsed economy is acceptable? KFC lost 1/3 of its value after their supply chain went down for a few weeks. This will last years (at best, decades at worst), and DExEU predicts the infrastructure at Dover will prove inadequate within a week. You might as well say that an absence of magic beans and unicorns is not acceptable.

BTW, are you going to campaign for us to withdraw from the UN and its companion organisations? Is NATO next on your list? After all, how can we allow the US to dictate to us that we should spend 2% of our GDP on our military. Shouldn't it be a majoritarian decision whether we want to spend 2%, 1% or 0%?

[Furunculus]

I believe the long term prospects will improve over the current trend, short term disruption can therfore be justified.

No, for the umpteenth time: There is a very real and appreciable difference between a supranational union with political integration as its driving imperative, and an intergovernmental treaty organisation with strictly limited remit for defence coordination.

[Pannonian]

I believe the long term prospects will improve over the current trend, short term disruption can therfore be justified.

No, for the umpteenth time: There is a very real and appreciable difference between a supranational union with political integration as its driving imperative, and an intergovernmental treaty organisation with strictly limited remit for defence coordination.

Where do you get this belief from? Even Farage now disclaims that Brexit will be a success, and he's already made escape arrangements.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Where do you get this belief from? Even Farage now disclaims that Brexit will be a success, and he's already made escape arrangements.

The UK has a reasonably well educated work force, good basic infrastructure, a stable court system/reasonably controlled crime, and does not have a business culture centered on graft and kickbacks.

All of these signs, long term, point towards economic success.

Just how short term the short term disruption will be is, of course, quite debatable.


The Leave leadership did sell it as though the economic hiccough would last 18 months tops didn't they? Your lot fell for it as though they were a group of yanks hearing another "I'm not gonna be corrupted by the system" pol out stumping.

[Furunculus]

Where do you get this belief from? Even Farage now disclaims that Brexit will be a success, and he's already made escape arrangements.

the extremely brief answer is that we were being harmonised upward to the continental norm in taxation and regulation. the labour years took us from 37.5% of GDP to 42.5% of GDP (before the crisis), during which we adopted ever more of the eu regulatory format which prefers the precuationary principle to demonstrable harm.

knock 5% of GDP out of the taxman's hands (and and similar swinge at regulatory excess), and we could see additional growth - compound - of 0.5%/year. in a generations time you have an economy siginficantly bigger and (by that point) generating more tax revenue than the status quo.

This paper is worth a look:
https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog...c-partnership/

p.s. lay off the invective and made up mal-associations - farage claims brexit is being badly handled (and thus lead to failure), not that Brexit will cannot be a success (in its own terms). It adds heat, not light.

[Pannonian]

The UK has a reasonably well educated work force, good basic infrastructure, a stable court system/reasonably controlled crime, and does not have a business culture centered on graft and kickbacks.

All of these signs, long term, point towards economic success.

Just how short term the short term disruption will be is, of course, quite debatable.


The Leave leadership did sell it as though the economic hiccough would last 18 months tops didn't they? Your lot fell for it as though they were a group of yanks hearing another "I'm not gonna be corrupted by the system" pol out stumping.

The supply chain and the dictum of time equals money is the killer. KFC had supply chain problems (they had products and demand, but they couldn't get their products to the relevant outlets to meet demand) for 2-3 weeks, and shed a large chunk of their value as a result. Now that's one company in a functioning economy, with other businesses able to take up the slack. Post-Brexit, the supply chain bottleneck does not affect just one company, but all companies that work with multiple components some of which originate from outside the UK. The estimate, given similar experiences elsewhere and the volume of traffic Dover processes, is 30+ mile queues, where Dover is currently equipped for frictionless trade. Consultations are due to start next year, when we're due to formally leave the EU. Consultations for that scale of project normally last years before they settle on what to build. Then there's the small matter of building; the rebuilding of Tottenham Court Road, a single tube station, took the best part of a decade to complete. And remember that this isn't a single business being affected by the bottleneck which can be re-routed, but businesses across the board and their subsidiaries. And this isn't just a possible disaster scenario; the organisation of freight transporters, the people who work the supply chain, have said that we've already passed the point where we can prepare for it. Complete chaos and zero preparedness isn't a possibility, it's an inevitability come March next year.

GB says that things would be better if we had a PM who was prepared to properly Leave, rather than May who was supposedly a Remainer. No we wouldn't. The chaos doesn't come from not being willing to Leave. The chaos comes from cutting ties. We still wouldn't have the infrastructure to cope with cutting ties, no matter how willing the government may be. And we still won't have the economy to cope with this lack of infrastructure post-Brexit. All of this was concrete, or perhaps ironically, non-existent in concrete, before the vote, except that Leave labelled it as Project Fear. Project Fear that even Leave's leaders now accept is Actual Reality. Putting an X on a ballot doesn't change this reality.

Furunculus has mentioned an acceptable economy before. At what point does it become unacceptable?

[Husar]

Open Europe...

Why would anyone believe anything these snake oil salesmen have to say?

[Furunculus]

Open Europe...

Why would anyone believe anything these snake oil salesmen have to say?

As opposed to whom?

Which paragons of disinterested expertise leave openeurope so deeply in the shade?

[Husar]

As opposed to whom?

Which paragons of disinterested expertise leave openeurope so deeply in the shade?

Any that are not allies (and contain members) of the Koch Brothers' Atlas Network and the Mont Pélerin Society and want to make Atlas Shrugged a reality.

[Furunculus]

"shhhh! don't tell anyone you've figured it out..."

*looks around furtively*

[Pannonian]

the extremely brief answer is that we were being harmonised upward to the continental norm in taxation and regulation. the labour years took us from 37.5% of GDP to 42.5% of GDP (before the crisis), during which we adopted ever more of the eu regulatory format which prefers the precuationary principle to demonstrable harm.

knock 5% of GDP out of the taxman's hands (and and similar swinge at regulatory excess), and we could see additional growth - compound - of 0.5%/year. in a generations time you have an economy siginficantly bigger and (by that point) generating more tax revenue than the status quo.

This paper is worth a look:
https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog...c-partnership/

p.s. lay off the invective and made up mal-associations - farage claims brexit is being badly handled (and thus lead to failure), not that Brexit will cannot be a success (in its own terms). It adds heat, not light.

How would you answer this?

“All these potential barriers were thrown up by the Government’s decision to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market. In return we were promised that ‘frictionless’ trade would continue through special agreements reached with the EU. Trade talks haven’t even started. In the event of a No Deal Brexit it will be the logistics industry, which operates 24/7 365 days a year, that will have to pick up the pieces of the failure of politicians to agree. No doubt we will face the unwarranted ire of consumers and businesses if goods cannot be delivered on time.

“The industry’s frustration with the lack of progress is building daily. Logistics businesses simply cannot answer their customers’ questions about how they will move goods after Brexit. Manufacturers and retailers are losing faith and fear that post-Brexit Britain is at real risk of becoming nothing more than a series of road blocks at our ports and airports.

“What is really making our members angry is that these real, legitimate concerns are simply being dismissed by some members of the Government on the basis that it will not be in the EU’s interests to impose them. This is a reckless attitude to take and is playing chicken with crucial parts of the British economy and the livelihoods of the seven million Britons in the industry. All the evidence is that the other EU member states are recruiting hordes of border officials to enforce their rule book, regardless of the cost to their businesses and consumers. Expecting economic realism to kick in after 50 years of top-down bureaucracy is a bit of a stretch from UK politicians who have always slammed the EU for its obsession with rules and bureaucracy. The reliance on the other side blinking first is hanging the logistics industry out to dry.

“To date, all the focus has been on what the new Customs arrangements will be. But this misses the point. The real issue will be the lack of permits to allow the trucks carrying the goods to travel to the Continent in the first place. This is the trucking equivalent of the threat to the aviation sector because of the ending of Europe-wide agreements when the UK leaves the Single Market.”

See the example of KFC for what happens when logistics breaks down.