INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#341 Post by animist » July 27th, 2016, 9:26 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Gottard wrote:
Yeah, I think so. However, the fact of saying that negotiations may last two or more years is void of meaning. 1) once art 50 is started the UK may decide that they have no interest in negotiating; 2) by the same token, the act of negotiating bears no-end in principle (EU have an endless negotiation with Turkey in the hope that they are fed-up and desist).
but surely the Turkish case is different since they are trying to get in, not out. Actually I thought two years was the MAXIMUM period for negotiation over future relations after Article 50 had been invoked. What might take longer would be the mechanics of separation? The Chatham House lecture which you posted does clearly distinguish between the two types of process

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#342 Post by Gottard » July 27th, 2016, 10:49 am

animist wrote:
Gottard wrote:
Yeah, I think so. However, the fact of saying that negotiations may last two or more years is void of meaning. 1) once art 50 is started the UK may decide that they have no interest in negotiating; 2) by the same token, the act of negotiating bears no-end in principle (EU have an endless negotiation with Turkey in the hope that they are fed-up and desist).
but surely the Turkish case is different since they are trying to get in, not out. Actually I thought two years was the MAXIMUM period for negotiation over future relations after Article 50 had been invoked. What might take longer would be the mechanics of separation? The Chatham House lecture which you posted does clearly distinguish between the two types of process
"What may take longer?" It is just a 'bureaucrats' wording'. After the official two years time lapse has expired nobody precludes a non-EU Country to tap at the door of the EU and say: we would be interested in discussing the possibility of a deal on this and that ..... .
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#343 Post by Alan H » July 27th, 2016, 11:36 am

Screenshot from 2016-07-27.png
Screenshot from 2016-07-27.png (368.11 KiB) Viewed 2119 times
As David Allen Green said on Twitter this morning:
In a room in Whitehall, on a desk, there is a sheet of paper headed "Brexit plan".

The sheet is otherwise blank.
It is placed with the sheets headed with the various Brexit sub-plans:

Ireland
Scotland
EU deal
Trade deals
Gibraltar

Those are blank too.
By the printer are print-offs of Wikipedia pages on "customs unions" and "trade agreements". So confusing: just what are the differences?
The minister reads aloud definition of "customs union".

Turns page over.

"A customs union is...is...."

But it is no good.

Tries again.
A civil service which is barely able to administer current policy, let alone the additional mammoth task of Brexit.
What a fucking Tory mess.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#344 Post by Dave B » July 27th, 2016, 12:54 pm

No sensible country is going to sign any deal whose future validity relies on a totally uncertain outcome of future talks.

Only idiots would exoect it.

Ah, I see the problem.

Later: in this case who the hell knows what shape America will be by the end of the year. Probably not even the Americans!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#345 Post by Alan H » July 28th, 2016, 10:09 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#346 Post by Nick » July 28th, 2016, 4:53 pm

"Known for our tabloid, muckraking style...."

Sheesh.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#347 Post by Alan H » July 28th, 2016, 5:45 pm

Six Brexit deals that Theresa May must strike
Britain’s exit from the EU will be far more complicated than most British politicians realise

Negotiations and more negotiations, year after year. That will be the main business of Theresa May’s government for the foreseeable future. Britain’s exit from the EU will require at least six interlocking sets of negotiations, and they will take much longer and be far more complicated than most British politicians realise. One negotiation will cover Britain’s exit from the EU, the second a free trade agreement (FTA) on future economic ties, the third interim cover for the British economy before the FTA enters into force, the fourth accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the fifth a set of deals to replace the 53 FTAs that bind the EU and other countries, and the sixth an agreement on co-operation in foreign, defence and security policies.

The first deal will tackle the UK’s separation from the EU, as prescribed by Article 50. This “divorce settlement” will divide up the properties, institutions and pension rights, deal with budget payments, and decide on the rights of UK citizens in the EU and vice versa. Article 50 sets out a two year period for this negotiation, extendable by unanimity. However, the other 27 want Britain out before the June 2019 European elections and the imminent cycle of EU budget talks so will not extend the deadline.

The second deal will cover future economic ties with the EU. Theresa May will reject the “Norwegian model,” although it would offer access to the single market, since the price—payments into the EU budget and free movement of labour—would be unacceptable. She will go for a free trade agreement, along the lines of the recent EU-Canada deal. The FTA may eliminate tariffs on manufactured goods but is unlikely to scrap many non-tariff barriers. Britain would gain only limited access to the single market for services. UK-based financial firms would lose the “passporting” that enables them to do business across the EU, while other service industries—such as shipping, airlines and the law— would also suffer.

The European Commission has taken a hard line by saying that work on the FTA should not start until the UK has left the EU. This would extend the period of uncertainty afflicting the UK economy. But Germany and several member-states suggest that the UK be allowed to work on the FTA concurrently with the divorce settlement. This softer line will probably prevail, but the FTA would still take many more years to negotiate and ratify than the Article 50 deal.

That gap requires a third negotiation for an interim deal to provide temporary cover to the British economy. Anand Menon and Damian Chalmers suggest that Britain should be able to repeal EU laws and shun European Court of Justice rulings, but face the prospect of countermeasures from the EU. They want to limit free movement only to those with job offers, excluding families of EU migrants unless the wage-earner’s income passes a certain level. Britain would stop paying into the EU budget but make direct payments to poorer member-states. However some of the 27 would find such an interim deal too soft—they don’t want the exit process to be seen as painless—and there will be much haggling over the details.

The fourth deal would be to attain full WTO membership, since Britain is currently only a member via the EU. The UK would have to deposit its own schedules of tariffs, quotas and subsidies with the WTO. First it must reach agreement with the other EU countries on the schedules, and then all 162 WTO members must agree. One country—say Russia or Argentina—could, if it wished, block the UK becoming a full member.

The fifth set of negotiations that Britain must undertake is with the 53 countries that have FTAs with the EU. On the day that Britain leaves the EU, it loses the benefits of these deals. The UK will need to hurry to cut its own bilateral trade agreements with these countries, before it exits the EU.

Conservative ministers talk of striking trade deals with dozens of states that don’t currently have them with the EU, such as the US, China, India and Australia. But while the UK is an EU member it cannot legally complete an FTA with another country. It can talk about talks. But there is also the practical problem that these countries will not want to negotiate an FTA with the UK until they know what the EU-UK relationship looks like. Nor will they want to enter into talks with Britain until it has sorted out its WTO membership.

The sixth deal will cover UK-EU ties in foreign and defence policy, police and judicial co-operation and counter-terrorism. The UK has more bargaining power in these areas than on trade, since its diplomatic, intelligence and military assets are useful to its partners. The UK may succeed in gaining mechanisms that allow it to feed its expertise into EU deliberations—though it will have less influence on EU policy-making than it has today.

In order to reach outcomes that suit British interests, Theresa May’s government needs to earn the goodwill of its 27 EU partners and the EU institutions—including the European Parliament, which will vote on both the Article 50 divorce settlement and the British FTA. But it also needs to charm other governments across the world, so that the WTO talks and the FTA negotiations with non-EU countries run smoothly. The longer British ministers take to complete these negotiations, the worse the uncertainty for the British economy. That reality will encourage them to seek compromises.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#348 Post by Nick » July 28th, 2016, 10:57 pm

And the common theme in all this? That the EU are hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for us. Because they realise that it would be better for some, (many, most?) countries, to have a completely different model. One which doesn't cripple half the continent. And you want to continue to be subjugated by such "friends"?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#349 Post by Dave B » July 29th, 2016, 1:29 am

Nick wrote:And the common theme in all this? That the EU are hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for us. Because they realise that it would be better for some, (many, most?) countries, to have a completely different model. One which doesn't cripple half the continent. And you want to continue to be subjugated by such "friends"?
Can't see any reason they should be accomodating. Until we make up our mind what to do why should they put themselves out?

I use "we" rhetorically here, the Brexiteers do not speak for me. The EU was a pile if crap but, perhaps, survivable crap. So far looks like the world is happy to see us sink into the sea of offshore crap.

"Great" Britain once maybe, just another little player in the global game now. If we do not get swimming with the same stroke as everyone else we will sink.

We are no longer the emperors of anything outside our own shores. And barely the masters of that inside at times.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#350 Post by animist » July 29th, 2016, 10:40 am

Nick wrote:And the common theme in all this? That the EU are hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for us. Because they realise that it would be better for some, (many, most?) countries, to have a completely different model. One which doesn't cripple half the continent. And you want to continue to be subjugated by such "friends"?
it's not about "friendship" but about mutual interests, and how about some evidence of all this perverse bloody-mindedness which you seem to see in the EU? Negotiations have not even started yet! It is Britain which has got itself into this mess, not the EU, though the latter will be wasting huge amounts of its time in settling these issues. A better analogy than friendship or neighbourliness would be a club. Britain was keen to join the EU club, but has continually demanded concessions in order to stay a member; now it apparently wants to leave anyway, so as Dave says, why should it expect the other members to take this lightly? I am personally still hoping that our elected MPs will at some stage be willing and able to call a halt to this madness

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#351 Post by Alan H » July 29th, 2016, 11:39 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#352 Post by Nick » July 29th, 2016, 12:50 pm

See what I mean? :rolleyes:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#353 Post by Alan H » July 29th, 2016, 1:03 pm

Nick wrote:See what I mean? :rolleyes:
:hilarity: To my mind, that is typical Little Englander, whatever-happened-to-the-Raj?-type attitude, expecting Johnny Foreigner to speak the Queen's English rather than their native tongue. However, I'm sure that won't be a problem in Boris' case as he (apparently) is fluent in French.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#354 Post by Alan H » July 30th, 2016, 1:09 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#355 Post by Alan H » July 31st, 2016, 3:11 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#356 Post by Alan H » July 31st, 2016, 7:17 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#357 Post by animist » July 31st, 2016, 9:42 pm

I am still pondering why the hell we are (or pretend to be) in thrall to the idiotic referendum vote of June 23. Well OK, Cameron did pledge that "the government" would "honour" a vote to leave, and so I suppose that he should have immediately triggered that strange thing, Article 50. But the point is that instead he immediately resigned. So "the government" no longer exists, coz that phrase refers to the Cameron government. We now have Terri May's government, which, despite the noises it makes at present, should feel under no obligation to "honour" the vote. Let's hope (and I suppose this does mean that I am hoping for adverse economic news this autumn) that people start to get back to reality and that Brexit exits before it's too late

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#358 Post by animist » July 31st, 2016, 9:44 pm

ugh, so we force the poor countries to subsidise our stupidity

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#359 Post by Gottard » August 1st, 2016, 3:31 pm

May I kindly recall everyone that, generally speaking, papers need to fill their columns anyway in the Summer. Sometimes this entails longer articles packed with "imagination" about what may or may not happen. Let's wait for September (month end).
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#360 Post by Alan H » August 1st, 2016, 6:25 pm

Gottard wrote:
May I kindly recall everyone that, generally speaking, papers need to fill their columns anyway in the Summer. Sometimes this entails longer articles packed with "imagination" about what may or may not happen. Let's wait for September (month end).
That isn't from a newspaper, of course, but the Institute for Government.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#361 Post by Alan H » August 2nd, 2016, 11:03 am

Screenshot from 2016-08-02.png
Screenshot from 2016-08-02.png (403.2 KiB) Viewed 3362 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply