Brexit negotiations

[Gecko001]

I see Brexit as a continuous process of "working the problem". The problem being how to do, what would normally take maybe 50 years, in just a few years. I do not think that is an exaggeration of the task.

Perhaps one way of looking at the problem is as follows. Our negotiations to join the Common Market started in the 1960's I believe. That is in fact more than 50 years, but if we take 50 years for the sake of argument. Over that 50 years it might be safe to say that if we had not joined the Common Market and its successors, we would have made various bilateral trade deals with countries around the world. Those deals would have involved movement of people , fishing rights and flying zones aspects as well as issues involving tariff rates and quotas of various categories of goods and services. The deals would almost certainly have involved border issues such as at the NI/RoI border and the Spain/Gibraltar border as well.

In fact I would argue that it is more than just 50 years worth of trade treaties that we have to do in just a few years, but also, the not inconsiderable task, of disentangling ourselves from our complex trading relationship with our present trading bloc. And do not forget the the EU is not just a trading bloc. We have certain political ties with the EU as well. These will need to be dealt with.

 

[Mr D]

You could well be right Gecko001

 

[Cobby]

I voted to remain - my post is simply helping those who like to pigeonhole leave voters to see that just as people who *like* the EU had various reasons for voting the way they did, so then do people who *dislike* the EU.

Apologies, I misinterpreted your own position. However, your post reads quite straightforwardly like you're saying all Leave voters were agreed in what "Leave" meant. Which is obviously nonsense.

Even though Theresa May pushed the same BS in PMQ's.

Are you suggesting that they're addicted to coffee?

Simply pointing out that people choose to spend money on lots of things that exist all over the cultural spectrum (although it only takes a week or so to become caffeine dependent )

 

[Newchodge]

Wonderful. The Leavers have got what many claimed they wanted - to return power to our own parliament. And those Conservative MPs who went against their party by voting for that democratic position are branded traitors, sacked from office in the party and abused by the mainstream media.

Another scenario that you could not make up.

 

[Gecko001]

Simply pointing out that people choose to spend money on lots of things that exist all over the cultural spectrum (although it only takes a week or so to become caffeine dependent )

Spending £4 on a cup in my view narrows down the spectrum to actually a small minority. First of all it does not include people who cannot afford to frequent establishments which sell coffee at such prices. Some greasy spoon cafes will sell a full breakfast for the same price. It does not include pensioners or people on Tax Credits and benefits who cannot afford to eat out or get carryouts at all. It does not include people who maybe can afford ta £4 cup of coffee but have better things to do with their money than pay extortionate prices for something they can make at home for a few pence. It does not include many people who are trying to save for a mortgage deposit, or trying to grow their business where expenditure has to be spent on necessities and everything is down to value-for-money.

 

[Cobby]

Wonderful. The Leavers have got what many claimed they wanted - to return power to our own parliament. And those Conservative MPs who went against their party by voting for that democratic position are branded traitors, sacked from office in the party and abused by the mainstream media.

Another scenario that you could not make up.

So Amendment 7 (the 'taking back control' bit for Parliament) has passed, despite the government's best efforts.

It's fascinating to watch the right-wing media (Mail, et al) and twittersphere explode with frothy-mouthed shouts of "betrayal!" and "treason!" despite the fact that this is a good thing that helps us get taken more seriously.

Davis - as usual, shooting himself in the foot - came back from his "breakthrough" talks and immediately did a media circuit crowing about how the deal wasn't "legally binding", as if nobody outside the UK would hear or see him say it. The EU27 then began tightening up the wording in that deal to make it legally binding.

Brexiteers who spent months wailing about how Parliament should be sovereign, are wailing that we want Parliament to have some say in things (hint: it wasn't really about sovereignty). Up until now the EU27 have been dealing with an uncoordinated, incoherent and woefully unprepared group of ideologues; they watch our news and understand that May et al are performing for domestic media while trying very hard to hold onto power.

Now however, May & Davis must be reasonable and adult as they need to being back something Parliament will approve; something good for the country that its elected representatives can examine. No longer can they simply do what they please and leave the country to suffer.

The EU will see it as a good step forward for the same reason: it'll restore some of the trust that Davis and May have lost over the past 18 months; now when we say something in negotiations, there's a much higher chance that we'll be held to it. After all the EU has 27 countries to negotiate for, many of whom have coalition governments, so they're used to having a party require approval for any negotiating movement.

 

[Cobby]

Spending £4 on a cup in my view narrows down the spectrum to actually a small minority. First of all it does not include people who cannot afford to frequent establishments which sell coffee at such prices. Some greasy spoon cafes will sell a full breakfast for the same price. It does not include pensioners or people on Tax Credits and benefits who cannot afford to eat out or get carryouts at all. It does not include people who maybe can afford ta £4 cup of coffee but have better things to do with their money than pay extortionate prices for something they can make at home for a few pence. It does not include many people who are trying to save for a mortgage deposit, or trying to grow their business where expenditure has to be spent on necessities and everything is down to value-for-money.

I'm not sure what your actual point is though?

You original post seemed to follow @Mr D 's:

Government decisions have a bit more impact than most people's. Just ask users of food banks.

...or all the people who can afford to buy coffee at £4 a go!

Could you elaborate?

 

[Cobby]

The EU will see it as a good step forward for the same reason: it'll restore some of the trust that Davis and May have lost over the past 18 months; now when we say something in negotiations, there's a much higher chance that we'll be held to it. After all the EU has 27 countries to negotiate for, many of whom have coalition governments, so they're used to having a party require approval for any negotiating movement.

Incidentally, this is also a good thing because it puts the option of withdrawing Article 50 back on the table.

I'm not sure May, Davis, Johnson, Gove, etc would really care how much damage the UK would suffer if they found the media forcing them into a game of Brexit chicken; they have already made it quite clear that party is more important than country. But should they, at the last minute, decide to try and call off Brexit, even temporarily, the EU27 are now more likely to view it favourably.

Previously they were a group of ideologues, and unconstrained by our "sovereignty" they have frittered away trust and political capital in the last 18 months; wanting to halt or delay proceedings would simply be a failing of their own arrogance. Now however, it would more likely be seen as a product of democratic process.

Brexit is still unlikely to actually be stopped, but it doesn't hurt to keep one's fingers crossed.

 

[Mr D]

Wonderful. The Leavers have got what many claimed they wanted - to return power to our own parliament. And those Conservative MPs who went against their party by voting for that democratic position are branded traitors, sacked from office in the party and abused by the mainstream media.

Another scenario that you could not make up.

Its normal for a party to treat those voting against the party line as though they are betraying the party.
Not limited to just one party.

Media cater to their customers, calling people traitors is usual overblown reaction.
I dread to think what they would call someone selling state secrets to a hostile state these days.

 

[Mr D]

Spending £4 on a cup in my view narrows down the spectrum to actually a small minority. First of all it does not include people who cannot afford to frequent establishments which sell coffee at such prices. Some greasy spoon cafes will sell a full breakfast for the same price. It does not include pensioners or people on Tax Credits and benefits who cannot afford to eat out or get carryouts at all. It does not include people who maybe can afford ta £4 cup of coffee but have better things to do with their money than pay extortionate prices for something they can make at home for a few pence. It does not include many people who are trying to save for a mortgage deposit, or trying to grow their business where expenditure has to be spent on necessities and everything is down to value-for-money.

Sorry, why can we not afford to eat a £4 breakfast out? Nice café I go to in town centre by the bus station does a nice cooked breakfast for that price.
Is our money not good enough? Are we banned from getting carryouts? Haven't had one since Friday, should I not have any more?

 

[Gecko001]

I'm not sure what your actual point is though?

You original post seemed to follow @Mr D 's:

Could you elaborate?

My comments were only on what you said. That is why I quoted it. .

 

[The Byre]

I dread to think what they would call someone selling state secrets to a hostile state these days.

Mr. President.

 

[Mr D]

Mr. President.

I thought she got beat for that job?

 

[Cobby]

My comments were only on what you said. That is why I quoted it. .

Your point still isn't clear.

 

[Gecko001]

Your point still isn't clear.

I see what you mean.

I read the sentence as . "I was Simply pointing out...." I thought you were just leaving out the "I was " as in "Simply pointing old chap.."
I will now have my afternoon nap!!!

 

[Cobby]

I see what you mean.

I read the sentence as . "I was Simply pointing out...." I thought you were just leaving out the "I was " as in "Simply pointing old chap.."
I will now have my afternoon nap!!!

I was? Now I'm confused, too. Let's pretend nothing happened.

 

[Alexander Sadlier]

People seem to have very strong opinions on Brexit while they have relatively few facts (myself included!).

Try not to get so worked up about it all

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The UK will continue to take part in the Erasmus student exchange programme until at least the end of 2020, the prime minister has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42360849

Erasmus is part of the EU, and we voted to leave the EU. And we've been told with that vote, the single market, the customs union, and anything & everything associated with the EU. When did anyone make an exception on the ballot paper for Erasmus?

Did parliament get a decision on this?


Why is this not a betrayal of the vote to leave the EU?


Karl Limpert

 

[Mr D]

Karl, is this part of the 'nothing is decided until everything is decided' that requires the 28 countries to vote on accepting?

 

[Gecko001]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42360849

Erasmus is part of the EU, and we voted to leave the EU. And we've been told with that vote, the single market, the customs union, and anything & everything associated with the EU. When did anyone make an exception on the ballot paper for Erasmus?

Did parliament get a decision on this?


Why is this not a betrayal of the vote to leave the EU?


Karl Limpert

I think there will be dozens, if not hundreds, of such issues to be addressed over the next few years of Brexit. I am not sure of the exact details of Erasmus, but I assume that EU students will not be completely barred from coming to the UK and vice versa after Brexit. Many of these issues will depend on the UK setting up something to replace what the EU is doing for us now. It will create jobs in the UK both in the administration and possibly in the building of new buildings to accommodate the admin staff.

However it will all take time. Also I think it will be a more gradual process than the press and media are reporting at the minute

 

[Gecko001]

Karl, is this part of the 'nothing is decided until everything is decided' that requires the 28 countries to vote on accepting?

I think that that slogan of "nothing is decided until everything is decided" is just a slogan. Brexit will be more gradual than that I think. I cannot see there being a giant single deal covering all aspects of Brexit which will be signed by the two sides. More like a series of agreements spread out over maybe a decade.

 

[Mr D]

I think that that slogan of "nothing is decided until everything is decided" is just a slogan. Brexit will be more gradual than that I think. I cannot see there being a giant single deal covering all aspects of Brexit which will be signed by the two sides. More like a series of agreements spread out over maybe a decade.

There will be something debated and voted on within governments before March 2019?

 

[Mr D]

I think there will be dozens, if not hundreds, of such issues to be addressed over the next few years of Brexit. I am not sure of the exact details of Erasmus, but I assume that EU students will not be completely barred from coming to the UK and vice versa after Brexit. Many of these issues will depend on the UK setting up something to replace what the EU is doing for us now. It will create jobs in the UK both in the administration and possibly in the building of new buildings to accommodate the admin staff.

However it will all take time. Also I think it will be a more gradual process than the press and media are reporting at the minute

May create jobs. But will need to be paid for.
Jobs are a cost not a benefit overall.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Erasmus is part of the EU

It's an EU agency rather than institution, and already has non-EU members, eg Iceland, Norway, Turkey.

So I would have thought we would continue to participate in that, and indeed in other EU/European agencies.

I think it would help if our govt set out which agencies it expects to continue to participate in post Brexit. Not in the EU but in Europe is important to many.

 

[Gecko001]

There will be something debated and voted on within governments before March 2019?

Yes, it will as it stands at the minute unless Westminster reverse their decision on Wednesday. However, I think that "something" is likely to be a plan as to how Brexit will continue after March 2019 rather than a signed and agreed deal covering all aspects of Brexit.

 

[Gecko001]

It's an EU agency rather than institution, and already has non-EU members, eg Iceland, Norway, Turkey.

So I would have thought we would continue to participate in that, and indeed in other EU/European agencies.

I think it would help if our govt set out which agencies it expects to continue to participate in post Brexit. Not in the EU but in Europe is important to many.

It looks like this can only be done by cross-party committee. I cannot see Parliament voting on what to do with each organisation one at a time.

 

[Gecko001]

May create jobs. But will need to be paid for.
Jobs are a cost not a benefit overall.

Yes Brexit is costly.

 

[Gecko001]

People seem to have very strong opinions on Brexit while they have relatively few facts (myself included!).

Try not to get so worked up about it all

There are moderators on this forum. I suggest if you have any further complaints about behaviour of members you such simply report them. See "report this post" in the footer of any post to do this.

 

[Mr D]

It looks like this can only be done by cross-party committee. I cannot see Parliament voting on what to do with each organisation one at a time.

Though that's what some appear to want.

 

[Cobby]

A reminder that "stage 2" of talks isn't going to be on trade, it's going to be on transition period. Now that Davis has done his little performance and the EU are subsequently tightening their requirements for "legally binding", it'll mean adherence to the Common Commercial Policy - i.e. no non-EU trade talks until after we actually Brexit.

You can also quite easily tell that Stage 2 is definitely not going to be about trade talks because our government have no position on EU trade talks. Were the EU to magically agree to trade talks and said, "righto, what are your thoughts?" they'd be met with stuttering and excuses.

It's all going swimmingly.

 

[Cobby]

Today in Brexit Negotiation Land:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42385002
"Theresa May and her senior ministers have formally discussed for the first time what the UK's long-term relationship with the EU should be.": A story we should all have been reading shortly after the referendum result and about 3 years before triggering article 50.


Meanwhile, Leave campaigners' dishonesty continues to abound:

Nigel "A 52/48 result won't be the end of it" Farage, a privately educated, ex-city trader, currently on a £90,000 salary for a job he rarely actually attends, and for which he will claim a £73,000 pension once we leave the EU has been claiming financial hardship. Y'know, because he's "just an ordinary bloke like us".

Daniel "Nobody's talking about leaving the single market" Hannan, has been continuing to fuel the nonsense argument about an EU army and what it means for the UK and its troops.

Boris continues to paint the imaginary picture that we can have the benefits of single market membership without any of the costs or responsibilities.

Interesting times indeed.

 

[The Byre]

OK folks! Let's do some basic arithmetic.

• £350m a week was what the leave campaign claimed was leaving our shores for Brussels.
• £160m a week was the real figure.
• £170m a week is what we have agreed to pay as part of the divorce settlement.
• £128m a week is what continued membership of all the various Europe-wide bodies, such as Europol, European Medicines Agency, Euro-Control, etc., etc. will cost, if (as expected, we have a soft Brexit).

So staying in the EU cost us £160m a week, leaving cuts that figure right down to just £298m a week.

 

[Mr D]

Divorce settlement has presumably an end figure / end date after which we won't be paying that sum.
So £160m down to £128m a week based on those figures?

Question - next round of EU budget (2020 onwards) what are the chances that the £160m figure you have would increased if we had stayed in?

 

[MBE2017]

OK folks! Let's do some basic arithmetic.

• £350m a week was what the leave campaign claimed was leaving our shores for Brussels.
• £160m a week was the real figure.
• £170m a week is what we have agreed to pay as part of the divorce settlement.
• £128m a week is what continued membership of all the various Europe-wide bodies, such as Europol, European Medicines Agency, Euro-Control, etc., etc. will cost, if (as expected, we have a soft Brexit).

So staying in the EU cost us £160m a week, leaving cuts that figure right down to just £298m a week.

No-one either knows or wishes to admit the real cost of membership, some have calculated it as high as £7-800m per week, but the referendum was not just about money.

Anyway, keep banging the drum if you wish. Any case can be made with figures, both for leaving and remaining. The EU has never got its accounts signed off in two decades, ever wonder why?

 

[simon field]

The EU has never got its accounts signed off in two decades, ever wonder why?

I've never seen any explanation of this point - it's almost as if they wish to be immune from scrutiny.

Shurely not?

 

[Mr D]

I've never seen any explanation of this point - it's almost as if they wish to be immune from scrutiny.

Shurely not?

Years ago it was said that the problem was proving how some of the money had been spent. The fact it was spent was a given, don't ask me how - but proof it was spent in the right way? Or at the right time? To the right people?
Probably all changed now.

One thing I do expect is that people with the ability to put their hands in the till will have the opportunity to take money many times.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I've never seen any explanation of this point - it's almost as if they wish to be immune from scrutiny.

Shurely not?

As I understand it, it's a tiny percentage of total EU expenditure for which the auditors are not satisfied, and thus won't fully sign off the accounts.

 

[Cobby]

Divorce settlement has presumably an end figure / end date after which we won't be paying that sum.

...or receiving the financial and social benefits of being in the EU, which are much harder to quantify but which the government have already investigated and concluded outweigh the cost of membership.

Question - next round of EU budget (2020 onwards) what are the chances that the £160m figure you have would increased if we had stayed in?

How? As a percentage function of our GDP? As an absolute figure in terms of exchange rate? As an indicator of fewer returning reimbursements? It's incredibly disingenuous to keep focusing on the only effective weapon the Leave campaign had when it's so clearly a red herring. Come on, be sensible.

 

[Cobby]

No-one either knows or wishes to admit the real cost of membership, some have calculated it as high as £7-800m per week, but the referendum was not just about money.

I'd love to see reasonable accounting that puts the figure anywhere near the figure you claim. Bonus points if it's not from a right or far-right source. And of course you're right, the referendum wasn't JUST about money. It was *mostly* about money, as can be seen by the prevalence of that absurd red bus and its defenders, but it wasn't just money. Once it was clear that the Leave arguments based on money and finance were debunked, it stopped being about money (for the Leave voters anyway).

Any case can be made with figures, both for leaving and remaining. The EU has never got its accounts signed off in two decades, ever wonder why?

"Any case can be made with figures" is a remarkably anti-intellectual stance. "Any case" made with bad figures (such as almost every argument Leave made, or the most ridiculously extreme of the Remain forecasts) can be easily debunked. You can make your case but don't expect it to actually stand up.
As for the accounts thing, that's yet another piece of disingenuous Leave propaganda that has been debunked and contextualised, and anyone still actively arguing this topic should have come to terms with that already.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Those not-impact-assessments-impact-assessments are clearly comprehensive; can't believe such detail as was revealed wasn't redacted too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rexit-studies-reveal-that-airbus-makes-planes


We're in safe hands....



Karl Limpert