Brexit negotiations

[Deleted member 59730]

Do the voters really know what they want. Polls seem to throw up lots of data but those are answers to questions that the pollsters decide to ask. I have a theory that if you asked separate questions on all the EU issues you could easily find that the vast majority don't agree that Brexit means Brexit.

For instance:-
Would you like British students to be disadvantaged by taking away Erasmus+?
Would you like the European Health Card to be taken away increasing your holiday insurance?
Would you like the price of your weekly shop to go up?
Would you like a democracy where one politician decides to change laws without a debate in Parliament?
Would you like a "Bonfire of Red Tape" if it means that tower blocks are unsafe?
etc, etc, etc.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

What we want to achieve is to be in the EU trade bloc, the "Common Market" we voted to join all those years ago, but not be part of the EU superstate.

Impossible you will say, but we have to see.

The EFTA would do the job nicely. Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. We'd be in reasonably good company.

I'm not sure why we aren't giving more thought to that route. We'd still be in the single market and also be able to negotiate our own free trade agreements with whoever we like.

Well, I do know why: immigration.

That just dispels the myth that Brexit is more to do with sovereignty, control and global trade than anything else. We could keep the single market, and have far more control, and negotiate our own trade arrangements, but we refuse to accept free movement of people.

There's a good chance that we could actually end up a lot better off inside the EFTA instead of the EU, but even that isn't enough.

That being said, maybe this isn't an issue of the general public, if this poll result is anything to go by:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...would-swap-free-movement-for-eu-market-access

It almost seems as though the Government is harsher on free movement than the British people themselves.

The EFTA even has an endorsement from Nigel Farage. Well it did, anyway, until he appeared to change his mind:

 

[KM-Tiger]

Would you like British students to be disadvantaged by taking away Erasmus+?
Would you like the European Health Card to be taken away increasing your holiday insurance?
Would you like the price of your weekly shop to go up?
Would you like a democracy where one politician decides to change laws without a debate in Parliament?
Would you like a "Bonfire of Red Tape" if it means that tower blocks are unsafe?
etc, etc, etc.

Erasmus already has non-EU members.
A reciprocal health cover arrangement is perfectly possible.
Given that EU food prices are 20% higher than world prices, price should go down.
You mean like how the Commissioners in the EU do?
Tower blocks are unsafe because we adopted a lower EU standard rather than our own BS, which is so good it has been adopted by other countries.

 

[KM-Tiger]

There's a good chance that we could actually end up a lot better off inside the EFTA instead of the EU, but even that isn't enough.

EFTA is a possible route. Not sure what its rules are re immigration, but as we have discussed before, free(ish) movement of workers, as distinct from people, would be a compromise that many would accept.

 

[Mr D]

@atmosbob
Yes, can get the answer you require by wording the questions in particular ways.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...emand_rethink_as_second_round_of_talks_begin/

 

[Paul Norman]

This debate contains many valid points on both sides.

I do wonder, apart from allowing people to vent, why it has any actual value, however? Has anyone drawn the attention of any person who in any kind of authority to this thread?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

But it gives money to the farmers. In fact, many in the UK rely on the subsidies to continue producing British food.

Damage would be mitigated in all sorts of ways if the UK promised to pick up the funding we'll lose from the EU. Not just in farming, but also science, research, regional development and many other areas. But so far, there has been little indication they will do that long-term.

I'm not sure why you think our food bills will go down. The loss of subsidies and migrant labour will see UK-produced food prices increase, as will the devaluation of the pound (which is already happening). Then you have the eventual tariffs and quotas on top.

We may shift more importing towards developing countries, providing that food safety, quality and animal welfare standards are met (which is easier said than done).

It's also very likely that even developing countries would impose tariffs and quotas as part of an FTA to protect themselves domestically. If we and other wealthier nations buy too much of their food production, they will struggle to supply their own people. They will almost certainly want safeguards in place to prevent the UK purchasing too much food at the lowest rates.

Is it not true that large PLC's and pension companies own most of the UK Land and take the majority of the funding given to farmers and so does nothing to support farmers just extra profit for the PLC's to buy more farms

 

[Newchodge]

Is it not true that large PLC's and pension companies own most of the UK Land and take the majority of the funding given to farmers and so does nothing to support farmers just extra profit for the PLC's to buy more farms

No, it's not true. Most of the land is owned by hereditary whatnots who own most of the country. The farming subsidies go to them and not to their tenant farmers. Your point is right, just the beneficiaries are the landed gentry, not PLC's.

 

[Newchodge]

I think I have worked out why we have a problem with the Brexit negotiations. No one on our side has the faintest idea about what they want to negotiate, apart from out in some form. It was the same with Cameron when he tried to get a better deal as an alternative to the referendum. Every time he was asked what he wanted to achieve he replied ' I think it is very clear what we need to achieve', but never managed to articulate it himself.

The EU side has prepared their position, they know whast they want to achieve and they have a plan about how to get there. Our lot just keep waffling about lots of options and being clear about what is needed, but don't actually know what htey want.

I thought we were the laughing stock of Europe before. Now, we are just a disaster of a joke.

David Davis saying that 'we need to get down to business' and then leaving within an hour?

What a farce and if it weren't so potentially disastrous it would be funny.

 

[Clinton]

That being said, maybe this isn't an issue of the general public, if this poll result is anything to go by:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...would-swap-free-movement-for-eu-market-access

It almost seems as though the Government is harsher on free movement than the British people themselves.

Scott, you're a decent chap. You come up with well thought-out posts and are measured in your comments. You take time to consider all sides of the argument. All great stuff...

And then you go quoting a joke newspaper like the Guardian!

 

[Clinton]

What we want to achieve is to be in the EU trade bloc, the "Common Market" we voted to join all those years ago, but not be part of the EU superstate.

Impossible you will say, but we have to see.

We will get that.

And we will not have to agree the current freedom of movement setup either.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

And then you go quoting a joke newspaper like the Guardian!

There are only two independent print media publications in the country. The Guardian and Private Eye. The FT tries but isn't quite. Now tell us where you get your information?

 

[Clinton]

Now tell us where you get your information?

The sources. Like the ONS.

Not the silly muppets, however independent they claim to be, who take every economic news story, positive or negative, and spin it as bad news.

 

[Mr D]

I think I have worked out why we have a problem with the Brexit negotiations. No one on our side has the faintest idea about what they want to negotiate, apart from out in some form. It was the same with Cameron when he tried to get a better deal as an alternative to the referendum. Every time he was asked what he wanted to achieve he replied ' I think it is very clear what we need to achieve', but never managed to articulate it himself.

The EU side has prepared their position, they know whast they want to achieve and they have a plan about how to get there. Our lot just keep waffling about lots of options and being clear about what is needed, but don't actually know what htey want.

I thought we were the laughing stock of Europe before. Now, we are just a disaster of a joke.

David Davis saying that 'we need to get down to business' and then leaving within an hour?

What a farce and if it weren't so potentially disastrous it would be funny.

Think 'our side' doesn't exist.

There is a negotiating team who will presumably be on the same page to each other and following a basic plan. There are over 600 MPs who may have over 600 ideas of what they want.
And over 60 million other people in the UK some of which may have different ideas from any of those the MPs have. Potentially millions of ideas though in reality many can be grouped together.

So cannot really see 'our side'. I can see the negotiating team have a bit over a year to get everything done. Then all that's needed is 28 states agreeing with that negotiation result.

Worth focusing on WTO rules I think.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The sources. Like the ONS.

Not the silly muppets, however independent they claim to be, who take every economic news story, positive or negative, and spin it as bad news.

There is still a need for journalism. Would the Panama Papers be known about without the combined forces of newspapers across Europe, including the Guardian, spending lots of money analysing the revelations? Would any other source than Private Eye have the money to create the foreign ownership of property database? Only Private Eye had the money to have an expert journalist attend every day of the Chilcott enquiry.

It is said that the test of a good newspaper is whether they get it right when you personally know the facts. For me the Guardian scores highly on things I know about.

 

[Mr D]

You trust journalists with a vested interest in telling a story to both have the skills to analyse the data and present it as what it is?
From what I recall of the media storm over them the journalists told the story they wanted to.
Bit like happened with the Swiss bank account issue a couple of years ago. Anyone remember that and the overall effect?

Oh and the term you were referring to in your last paragraph it is called confirmation bias.
The story agrees with the preconceptions / ideology / beliefs you already have.

 

[Gecko001]

I think if you want to hear the truth about Brexit, watch some of the English versions of the German, French etc news channels. They give some good information and they tend to treat the UK with more respect than you might think they would. Brexit of course is way down on their running order in the news programmes but there are sometimes specials where they deal solely with the issue. Certainly as someone who trades with the rest of the EU I get a lot of useful information from these programmes. Information that is just not available from our media and national press.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/71558

A very good read that sums up the current situation well.

 

[Clinton]

The Good News Update

Lots of good news today, but it's quiet on the Brexit front.

The ONS released stats that Britain is a happier place. This is using their "National Well-being" tests. (Can't link as they haven't posted this to their site yet)

The government has released a summary of independent stats and forecasts. Average opinion is that PSNB, unemployment etc are going down and GDP is going up (bear in mind that this is despite all the Brexit uncertainty!)

And the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that inequality is going down.

Given there is no Brexit news today, the Guardian website opened this morning with not one, but four negative stories about Brexit with their lead being some non-news story about the UK and EU teams not agreeing on the size of the "divorce bill". (No sh1t, Sherlock!)

 

[KM-Tiger]

the UK and EU teams not agreeing on the size of the "divorce bill".

That's easy to deal with really. Both sides should agree to arbitration.

 

[Mr D]

That's easy to deal with really. Both sides should agree to arbitration.

Ok, and perhaps a bit over a year to get agreement.

What happens when a member state (or several) does not agree with what has been accepted at arbitration by the negotiators?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The sources. Like the ONS.

Not the silly muppets, however independent they claim to be, who take every economic news story, positive or negative, and spin it as bad news.

I took the trouble to look up your Pound rises statement. Seems like it should really have been Dollar falls. The pound is still falling against the Euro. The pound is still falling against a basket of currencies.
You are worse than the Guardian.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Ok, and perhaps a bit over a year to get agreement.

What happens when a member state (or several) does not agree with what has been accepted at arbitration by the negotiators?

It collapses.

This is what makes Brexit so difficult. Barnier can negotiate whatever he likes, but it needs the backing of all the member states.

I can only see three outcomes now:

1). We fall off a cliff
2). We join the EFTA
3). We remain in the EU

I cannot see how on earth we will negotiate everything amicably on both sides, and get it to pass a European Parliament and UK Parliament vote, all before the deadline.

And with the way the Government seems to be dragging it's feet, it's almost as if they're trying to force the process towards outcomes 2 and 3 - unless they are completely insane.

 

[Mr D]

How are your cliff falling skills?
Anyone want to build parachutes?

 

[KM-Tiger]

What happens when a member state (or several) does not agree with what has been accepted at arbitration by the negotiators?

Us and the 27 would need to agree to be bound by the arbitration of the "divorce bill".

Having done that, we can get on with the bit that really matters - the post Brexit trading arrangements.

Frankly the EU are quite simply being obstructive in not allowing parallel talks, and are probably in breach of the spirit of Article 50 if not the letter.

 

[Clinton]

I took the trouble to look up your Pound rises statement. Seems like it should really have been Dollar falls. The pound is still falling against the Euro. The pound is still falling against a basket of currencies.
You are worse than the Guardian.

At least you agree the Guardian is bad.

The pound is indeed falling against the EUR, and devaluation of GBP is great news for the economy (and govt debt), as I've always maintained. I am not happy that Cable ( GBPUSD) is on the rise and I've posted that rise as the 'bad news'.

So far today I've quoted the IFS, the gov's consolidation of independent forecasts, and the ONS. Shame that the Guardian isn't aware of those sources and are relying today on rehashing old news that the EU and UK are not agreed on the 'divorce bill'.

 

[Newchodge]

Frankly the EU are quite simply being obstructive in not allowing parallel talks, and are probably in breach of the spirit of Article 50 if not the letter.

They are more than complying with Article 50. They are actually in breach by agreeing to trade talks prior to the exit. You may not like the law, but it is the law.

 

[KM-Tiger]

They are more than complying with Article 50.

I don't agree.

... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

"taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union." That surely includes trade? Which they refuse to talk about at the moment.

 

[Newchodge]

No individual member of the EU may enter into trade negotiations with any other body. We are a member of the EU unitl we leave, hence no right to enter into trade negotiations with anybody, including the EU.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Well I think that just shows that Art 50 was not very well thought out. The EU have indicated that they are willing to talk about trade, but only after other matters are settled. So they will be in breach of their own law?

 

[Clinton]

Well I think that just shows that Art 50 was not very well thought out.

Of course it's not well thought out!

In their arrogance they never figured that a country would actually choose to leave ... so they didn't give much thought, consideration or copy to addressing that eventuality.

 

[Newchodge]

Well I think that just shows that Art 50 was not very well thought out. The EU have indicated that they are willing to talk about trade, but only after other matters are settled. So they will be in breach of their own law?

Yes they will be in breach of 'their own law', and so will we as it is our law too until we leave. But everyone is being pragmatic, which is what I thought you wanted?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

No individual member of the EU may enter into trade negotiations with any other body. We are a member of the EU unitl we leave, hence no right to enter into trade negotiations with anybody, including the EU.

This.

In fact, the EU is doing us a favour by even considering the idea of parallel talks at some point before the official withdrawal date.

Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to do. There are many points that need to be confirmed which will play important roles in any future trading arrangement. We could negotiate a huge amount of an FTA, and then have to re-write all of it depending on decisions in other areas.

It's not even something the UK can feasibly carry out on their end, either. How do we plan out tariffs, quotas, carnets and procedures when we have no customs infrastructure for the EU? How do we do that when we have absolutely no idea how the Irish border is going to turn out?

To be frank, the very idea of parallel talks from day one is ridiculous. There is so much that needs to be known first.

 

[Mr D]

Us and the 27 would need to agree to be bound by the arbitration of the "divorce bill".

Having done that, we can get on with the bit that really matters - the post Brexit trading arrangements.

Frankly the EU are quite simply being obstructive in not allowing parallel talks, and are probably in breach of the spirit of Article 50 if not the letter.

Can we get agreement to be bound by arbitration within the timescale?

That cliff is looking mighty close.

 

[Mr D]

Of course it's not well thought out!

In their arrogance they never figured that a country would actually choose to leave ... so they didn't give much thought, consideration or copy to addressing that eventuality.

Bit like the colonies making up America never considered secession? Or as it is usually known, rebellion? Look how that worked out.
Hopefully our secession will be a bit less bloody. We've already got the disagreement within families and within towns down pretty well.

 

[Clinton]

In fact, the EU is doing us a favour by even considering the idea of parallel talks at some point before the official withdrawal date.

They are not doing us a favour. They need a deal just as much as we do - they sell more to us than we sell to them, by about £60 billion a year.

We can talk about individual countries and recognise that we don't account for a large chunk of any individual country's exports. But the EU is negotiating on behalf of the bloc, not individual countries. And the bloc sells more to us than they buy from us, a lot more.

 

[simon field]

Does anyone seriously believe that no trade talks are going on behind closed doors, out of earshot of the nosey sorts at EU HQ?

Looking at the size of this mess, and the dithering idiots charged with sorting it out, I'm convinced that we shouldn't have voted to leave - but instead had total attrition. Ignore the bits we don't need or like...what would they do, send in the battleships?

Fine us? Ok then, don't pay the fine! What are they gonna do, send in the battleships?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Fine us? Ok then, don't pay the fine! What are they gonna do, send in the battleships?

We have a precedent for this. The EU punished Nigeria for not paying their bills. No battleships were needed, just sanctions and a very bad credit rating. Nigeria paid.

 

[Clinton]

We have a precedent for this. The EU punished Nigeria for not paying their bills.

Nothing to do with human rights violations then?

Gotta link?