Brexit: Now What? Part III

[GnaGnaMan]

The EU won't talk about future trading till we agree to pay,

Not correct. You can read the EU position here:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pub...-essential-principles-financial-settlement_en

and we would be stupid to agree to pay before we negotiate future trading.

How would this go over in ordinary life? You order some wares and then say you will only pay if the supplier agrees to continue sending you wares on good conditions.

That's not going to happen. If that supplier is even willing to continues to do business with you, it will be cash in advance.

 

[ceptimus]

It's always been cash in advance for the whole time we've been members.

 

[Garrison]

It's always been cash in advance for the whole time we've been members.

Yes you want access to a club you have to pay your dues, why do you continually find this so objectionable?

Oh and in Florence May has called for a 2 year transition period after exit in 2019, which of course assumes the May can get her act together to negotiate an exit. Also:

In a wide-ranging speech, Mrs May also said:

• A "period of implementation" - potentially of two years - should be agreed "as early as possible"
  
• That the UK was prepared to "honour commitments we have made" - a reference to financial commitments
  
• And that it would continue to make "an ongoing contribution" to projects it considers greatly to the EU and UK's advantage, such as science and security projects
  
• She wanted a "bold new security relationship" with the EU which would be "unprecedented in its depth"
  
• That the UK did not want to "stand in the way" of closer EU integration, as outlined by Jean-Claude Juncker.

Quote from this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41355642

So basically , no money saved, no end to free movement of people until 2021 at least by the sounds of this, by which time ,entirely coincidentally I'm sure, May will have stood down regardless. I don't know whether this is just a desperate attempt to dodge the consequences of Brexit or May just trying to palm off the hard part on to her successor.

 

[Garrison]

The EU won't talk about future trading till we agree to pay, and we would be stupid to agree to pay before we negotiate future trading. So it's an impasse.

So after the Florence speech you will have to concede May is rather stupid since she just offered to keep paying without any deal on post Brexit trade?

 

[ceptimus]

I've not read all the details, but my first thoughts were that she's only offered to keep up our existing EU contributions during the transition period.

It seems like the transition period will be exactly like being an EU member except that we won't have any MEPs or other political representation in the EU, but we will be allowed to negotiate future trade deals with other countries.

Of course, all the other countries will want to know what the final terms of our dealing with the EU will be after the transition period, so until a clear agreement can be reached on that it will remain difficult.

 

[ddt]

Yes you want access to a club you have to pay your dues, why do you continually find this so objectionable?

Because Brexiteers are so special flowers that they deserve membership without paying?

Oh and in Florence May has called for a 2 year transition period after exit in 2019, which of course assumes the May can get her act together to negotiate an exit. Also:


Quote from this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41355642

So basically , no money saved, no end to free movement of people until 2021 at least by the sounds of this, by which time ,entirely coincidentally I'm sure, May will have stood down regardless. I don't know whether this is just a desperate attempt to dodge the consequences of Brexit or May just trying to palm off the hard part on to her successor.

This whole "two years transition period" sounds very much like buying time. May has squandered nine months between the referendum and the Art 50 letter, and since then has squandered another six months of negotiation time, and now tries to buy time.

The proper answer from Barnier, IMHO, would be that this is a realistic option, but again, it cannot be discussed until there's significant progress on the divorce settlement.

 

[ceptimus]

Not correct. You can read the EU position here:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pub...-essential-principles-financial-settlement_en

Not correct. The EU position is exactly what I said. No discussion on trade till there is substantial progress towards agreeing the divorce bill.

You can dress it up in whatever flowery language you like, but the fact remains that the EU's position is, in a nutshell: "We won't talk until you first agree to pay."

 

[Garrison]

Not correct. The EU position is exactly what I said.

So given the actual EU position you still insists on your version? okay then...

 

[ddt]

Not correct. The EU position is exactly what I said. No discussion on trade till there is substantial progress towards agreeing the divorce bill.

You can dress it up in whatever flowery language you like, but the fact remains that the EU's position is, in a nutshell: "We won't talk until you first agree to pay."

You've been drinking at the bar all night (1) and you just ordered a round of drinks for everybody (2) and now the bartender hands you the bill. Why do you refuse to pay?

(2) the latest five year EU budget

(1) the pensions of EU civil servants. If the UK doesn't pony up, it's only fair to cut whole or in part the pensions of British EU civil servants to make up for the deficit.

 

[ddt]

So given the actual EU position you still insists on your version? okay then...

For once, I have to say ceptimus was not lying - probably an oversight on their part. Their first claim was "until the UK agrees to pay", and that's right insofar as that the UK thus far has stubbornly tried to deny there was anything to pay at all.

May's Florence speech doesn't alter that dramatically. She said the UK would "honour its commitments", but until we know what she sees as those commitments, that's an empty phrase.

 

[GlennB]

Marina Hyde, in The Guardian:

(Incidentally, my favourite story of the week suggested that civil servants in David Davis’s department are so concerned about the lack of preparation for a no-deal scenario that they have begun writing emails stating the perils, to cover their backs in preparation for the inevitable Chilcot-style inquiry when it all goes tits up.)

 

[ceptimus]

You've been drinking at the bar all night (1) and you just ordered a round of drinks for everybody (2) and now the bartender hands you the bill. Why do you refuse to pay?

(2) the latest five year EU budget

(1) the pensions of EU civil servants. If the UK doesn't pony up, it's only fair to cut whole or in part the pensions of British EU civil servants to make up for the deficit.

We'll pay what's legally due. What you are overlooking in your analogy is that I'm a part-owner of the bar having paid towards its construction and upkeep for the last forty years. When I stop drinking there, my share of the bar will be donated to the remaining drinkers. Isn't that worth anything? Of course, the other drinkers don't want to talk about that.

 

[Garrison]

We'll pay what's legally due. What you are overlooking in your analogy is that I'm a part-owner of the bar having paid towards its construction and upkeep for the last forty years. When I stop drinking there, my share of the bar will be donated to the remaining drinkers. Isn't that worth anything? Of course, the other drinkers don't want to talk about that.

No the others are prepared to talk about that value, just as soon as you pay up the share of the bills you already agreed to.

 

[Degeneve]

This two year transition looks pretty much as an early attempt to extent the two years deadline provided by Article 50 of the Treaty...

 

[ceptimus]

No the others are prepared to talk about that value, just as soon as you pay up the share of the bills you already agreed to.

A ludicrous and indefensible position for them to assert. When both sides have liabilities and assets, the normal procedure is to figure the balance and which side owes it. It would be absurd for one side to demand that the other pays over all its liabilities before the liabilities of the other side are even discussed.

 

[ceptimus]

May fudged the issue of whether the UK will still be ruled by the European court, and whether or not the UK will be allowed to register people entering the UK from the EU during the transition period.

I'm sure the EU, assuming it agrees to the transition period, will insist that the EU court will remain supreme and that EU nationals won't be registered. That is unlikely to be acceptable to some members of May's cabinet.

 

[ddt]

We'll pay what's legally due. What you are overlooking in your analogy is that I'm a part-owner of the bar having paid towards its construction and upkeep for the last forty years. When I stop drinking there, my share of the bar will be donated to the remaining drinkers. Isn't that worth anything? Of course, the other drinkers don't want to talk about that.

That analogy doesn't hold. When you're part-owner of a company, you can sell your stock to someone else. It's more like the UK is member of a cooperative and decides to quit their membership. There's nothing to refund when you decide to walk away.

ETA:
And really? Consistency is not your style, it seems. What has been built up in those decades is a European Parliament and Commission and Council you have post-in, post-out denied the legitimacy of. What has been built up is a corpus of law that you want done away with. There's nothing of value there you can complain of.

Besides that, what has the UK contributed to the construction and the keep-up of the bar? Whenever the rest argued that the bar should sell a fine assortment of single malts, the UK has every time said the bar should brew its own moonshine.

 

[ddt]

May's speech was so inspiring and confidence boosting that Moody's decided to downgrade the UK's credit rating from Aa1 to Aa2. (source).

ETA: and the Pound lost 0.5 cents to the Euro.

 

[Garrison]

A ludicrous and indefensible position for them to assert. When both sides have liabilities and assets, the normal procedure is to figure the balance and which side owes it. It would be absurd for one side to demand that the other pays over all its liabilities before the liabilities of the other side are even discussed.

Not when there are no liabilities from the EU to the UK, unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

 

[Garrison]

That analogy doesn't hold. When you're part-owner of a company, you can sell your stock to someone else. It's more like the UK is member of a cooperative and decides to quit their membership. There's nothing to refund when you decide to walk away.

ETA:
And really? Consistency is not your style, it seems. What has been built up in those decades is a European Parliament and Commission and Council you have post-in, post-out denied the legitimacy of. What has been built up is a corpus of law that you want done away with. There's nothing of value there you can complain of.

Besides that, what has the UK contributed to the construction and the keep-up of the bar? Whenever the rest argued that the bar should sell a fine assortment of single malts, the UK has every time said the bar should brew its own moonshine.

I think its more the UK bought a share in a wine bar and has demanded ever since it be turned into a kebab shop.