Brexit: Now What? Part III

[ceptimus]

Hilarious, the notion that the UK has any idea what its terms would be is not supported by the pronouncements of May, Davis, or Johnson.

It's been absolutely clear from the outset what the UK terms are - continue trading with the EU exactly as we do at the moment.

I know this is unacceptable to the EU. It's so unacceptable to them that they won't even negotiate about it - that's why the negotiations are currently stalled: the EU wants the UK to agree to EU demands for power and money before they'll talk about trade at all.

 

[ddt]

No. To trade you need agreement.

The UK is perfectly ready to trade on its terms. The EU is somewhat ready (and might be ready in time) to trade on its terms.

The UK terms are to trade exactly as at present - the EU should grant full trading access to its single market in return for the UK granting full trading access to the UK market to the EU.

The EU terms are that the UK should pay many tens of billions of Euros for continued access to their single market, and also be bound by most of the current EU rules concerning free movement of people, supremacy of EU courts and so on.

What you should be saying is that neither side is prepared to accept the other side's proposals - and if the situation remains like that then neither side will be ready to trade in a manner acceptable to the other side. There is already a mechanism in place if this remains the case: WTO rules.

Of course the EU demands that the UK pay tens of billions of Euros for continued access to the single market. So do Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. If the UK government really thinks that getting access to the EEA without paying a dime is a realistic negotiation standpoint, they should see a shrink.

 

[ceptimus]

Of course the EU demands that the UK pay tens of billions of Euros for continued access to the single market. So do Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. If the UK government really thinks that getting access to the EEA without paying a dime is a realistic negotiation standpoint, they should see a shrink.

The speculation is that May is going to put an offer of €20 billion on the table on Friday. The speculation is also that the EU will reject this as not being high enough.

 

[ddt]

The speculation is that May is going to put an offer of €20 billion on the table on Friday. The speculation is also that the EU will reject this as not being high enough.

What I heard on the radio is that those €20bn would be the divorce bill, not the yearly rate of access to the EEA. It doesn't make sense as the latter: now your EU membership is £350/week, before rebates, and that would add up to, ballpark, €20bn/year. But the rebates are about a third of it.

As a divorce bill, the €20bn is too low, IMHO, but at least it's a start, in acknowledging that something has to be paid.

 

[The Don]

Even worse, it seems the UK team is constantly bickering who gets to be captain.

tbh we don't know whether we want to play Rugby (Union) Football, Rugby (League) Football, Association Football or Beach Football.

We have told the Northern Irish members of the team that they can play Gaelic Football but it's been explained several times by the EU that that's incompatible with the other games we are considering

 

[3point14]

I understand how you feel, but I really don't think there's a desirable or even viable alternative to universal suffrage.

Me as benign dictator for life.

Other than that, I'm all out of ideas.

Although, that said, I rather like the idea of representative democracy where the populace vote for those who do understand the implications of their actions...

 

[Craig B]

Me as benign dictator for life.

Benevolent dictatorship is unquestionably the most agreeable kind of rule. But there's a snag. You can't create it intentionally. You can't choose or depose a dictator constitutionally, so if the incumbent goes nuts, you're stuck. That happens very often.

In addition there is the completely insoluble succession problem. Heredity is very chancy. A semi-sane Vespasian can beget a Domitian (can? ... did, I should say) and a benevolent Marcus Aurelius a fiend like Commodus.

So we are back with elections, and must return to our starting point, or be ruled by lunatics.

 

[3point14]

Benevolent dictatorship is unquestionably the most agreeable kind of rule. But there's a snag. You can't create it intentionally. You can't choose or depose a dictator constitutionally, so if the incumbent goes nuts, you're stuck. That happens very often.

In addition there is the completely insoluble succession problem. Heredity is very chancy. A semi-sane Vespasian can beget a Domitian (can? ... did, I should say) and a benevolent Marcus Aurelius a fiend like Commodus.

So we are back with elections, and must return to our starting point, or be ruled by lunatics.

Nonono, it's me! Of course I won't go power mad or just generally mental or anything like that (wibble).

 

[Garrison]

It's been absolutely clear from the outset what the UK terms are - continue trading with the EU exactly as we do at the moment.

Why do you keep making these false statements? The notion that we could keep the same terms was never on the cards, that was just another lie the Leave campaign told. It hasn't even been an aspiration since May entered Number 10, her and Davis have been zealously pushing towards a hard Brexit.

 

[Craig B]

Nonono, it's me! Of course I won't go power mad or just generally mental or anything like that (wibble).

That's what they all say!

 

[ceptimus]

Why do you keep making these false statements? The notion that we could keep the same terms was never on the cards, that was just another lie the Leave campaign told. It hasn't even been an aspiration since May entered Number 10, her and Davis have been zealously pushing towards a hard Brexit.

I've not consistently made false statements - that is just your bias showing.

You misunderstand the situation. Most every UK politician, May and Davis included, have consistently said that they want 'continued access to the Single Market'.

The only disagreement is over what other terms we have to accept to get that access, and whether or not it's worth agreeing to them.

It's the EU side that are insisting that continued access to the Single Market is impossible. So be it - it will hurt the EU as well as the UK, but if that's what the EU insists on, that's what the EU will get.

 

[ceptimus]

It should be easy enough for economists to work out how much continued access to the Single Market is worth each year to the UK (A) and the EU (B). Subtract B from A and that is clearly the maximum amount the UK should consider paying as a yearly bribe (substitute some other word for bribe if the word 'bribe' offends you).

My suspicion is that B >= A so the amount we should consider paying yearly is zero. YMMV.

 

[ddt]

I've not consistently made false statements - that is just your bias showing.

You misunderstand the situation. Most every UK politician, May and Davis included, have consistently said that they want 'continued access to the Single Market'.

The only disagreement is over what other terms we have to accept to get that access, and whether or not it's worth agreeing to them.

It's the EU side that are insisting that continued access to the Single Market is impossible. So be it - it will hurt the EU as well as the UK, but if that's what the EU insists on, that's what the EU will get.

No, the EU haven't said that. They've only said that access to the Single Market also entails free movement of people. It would help if you wouldn't make stuff up.

 

[ddt]

It should be easy enough for economists to work out how much continued access to the Single Market is worth each year to the UK (A) and the EU (B). Subtract B from A and that is clearly the maximum amount the UK should consider paying as a yearly bribe (substitute some other word for bribe if the word 'bribe' offends you).

My suspicion is that B >= A so the amount we should consider paying yearly is zero. YMMV.

That suspicion, frankly, sounds delusional.

 

[ceptimus]

No, the EU haven't said that. They've only said that access to the Single Market also entails free movement of people. It would help if you wouldn't make stuff up.

I'm not making stuff up. You should withdraw that slur.

The EU have demanded that the UK agree to pay a huge divorce bill (without actually specifying the amount - they just want us to say, 'yes, we'll pay whatever you ask'). Until the UK has agreed to this demand the EU refuses even to discuss trade.

The amount they're reported to want exceeds about six years worth of continued UK to EU contributions. It's a mind-boggling demand.

 

[jimbob]

Even worse, it seems the UK team is constantly bickering who gets to be captain.

I thought it was deciding what they were actually going to be playing - except silly buggers

 

[ceptimus]

That suspicion, frankly, sounds delusional.

To whom? To the ardent remainers that dominate this this thread, perhaps it does. To the majority of the UK electorate it seems perfectly reasonable.

I don't expect the EU to respect the democratically expressed view of one of its (soon-to-be ex) member countries. They never have before.

 

[Information Analyst]

I've not consistently made false statements - that is just your bias showing.

You misunderstand the situation. Most every UK politician, May and Davis included, have consistently said that they want 'continued access to the Single Market'.

The only disagreement is over what other terms we have to accept to get that access, and whether or not it's worth agreeing to them.

It's the EU side that are insisting that continued access to the Single Market is impossible. So be it - it will hurt the EU as well as the UK, but if that's what the EU insists on, that's what the EU will get.

You mean you think the UK should have access to the single market on terms that no other non-EU country gets?

 

[Information Analyst]

To whom? To the ardent remainers that dominate this this thread, perhaps it does. To the majority of the UK electorate it seems perfectly reasonable.

I don't expect the EU to respect the democratically expressed view of one of its (soon-to-be ex) member countries. They never have before.

Why should they? You don't respect the views of the almost equal number of people who voted Remain.

 

[Darat]

I'm not making stuff up. You should withdraw that slur.

The EU have demanded that the UK agree to pay a huge divorce bill (without actually specifying the amount - they just want us to say, 'yes, we'll pay whatever you ask'). Until the UK has agreed to this demand the EU refuses even to discuss trade.

The amount they're reported to want exceeds about six years worth of continued UK to EU contributions. It's a mind-boggling demand.

That's not true. The EU has consistently stated that the terms of the divorce need to be agreed first of all and then once the UK has left we can enter into trade talks.