Brexit: Now What? Part IV

[Strawberry]

It needs unanimity (not consensus) from all EU nations. So it's hard, but possible. Same hurdle as (for example) the EU admitting a new member, which it has obviously done several times.

At this stage the more talked about version seems to be not that, and not extending the transition period, but some kind of post-transition transition.

I doubt the EU would accept that. Personally I think the EU should turn the screws good and proper now while the British are in need of a transition period to avoid melt downs at Dover and Folkestone.

Either sign up to the backstop solution for NI, or no transtion period and no further negotiations.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think the EU has much interest in precipitating a hard Brexit. Well if they did it doesn't explain why they have been as accommodating as they have needed to be to keep the soft version (just) on the rails.

 

[Strawberry]

I don't think the EU has much interest in precipitating a hard Brexit. Well if they did it doesn't explain why they have been as accommodating as they have needed to be to keep the soft version (just) on the rails.

Britain is in no position to opt to for a hard Brexit, that's why they should turn the screws now.

Oh, and the Labour party has just announced a policy change...

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status...aking-major-shift-in-labour-s-brexit-position

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think the EU has much interest in precipitating a hard Brexit. Well if they did it doesn't explain why they have been as accommodating as they have needed to be to keep the soft version (just) on the rails.

Maybe but it doesn't require unanimity and gets the whole thing over with. People actually wanting it isn't really a requirement. It isn't like there is a possible deal that could get close to passing after all.

So I could see an effective ultimatum at the end of withdraw article 50 or be out. It isn't like they are seriously closer to an agreement than they were last year after all.

 

[Planigale]

I disagree that the EU wants to punish the UK - OTOH the UK cannot have all the benefits of EU membership that it wants without having to do any of the other things that it doesn't. What's the point of having a club, with rules and a subscription, if another party can get all the benefits without having to be a member ?

As I understand it, the EU would be receptive to the idea of the UK having a barrier free border, so long as the UK agrees to have the same kind of conditions that other non-EU countries have - adherence to EU law, free movement of people and so forth.

The UK government doesn't want to agree to those conditions - the equivalent of wanting to continue to be able to use the Golf Club bar without paying the annual subscription or adhering to the dress code. The situation is complicated by the fact that the majority of Brexiteers voted Leave precisely because they didn't want to pay the sub and didn't want to adhere to the dress code and that from their perspective, nominally leaving the club whilst still keeping to the rules makes no sense.

All good points. I did not use the term punish, but the EU do have a policy that the UK must be left worse off after leaving the EU. I am sure this is 'pour encourager les autres' or rather discourage any others from leaving. The UK has to be made an example of, any punishment is just an 'unintended' consequence.

I would disagree over the club metaphor; any analogy is always limited. In this case the members of the club will make the rules; an affiliate will have to follow the rules when in the club, but can be a member of other clubs. The argument that the UK cannot have a bespoke deal is nonsense all deals are bespoke; between the EU and Norway, the EU and Canada; the EU and Switzerland etc.

 

[Planigale]

Look at it from the EU's point of view: there's hardly a country in it which doesn't have its own contingent of backwards looking isolationists who are watching the current farce with interest. If Britain does end up better off, or even no worse off, they will start pushing for their own referendums and the EU will disintegrate.

The members of a club must have a better deal than non members, otherwise what's the point of the club?

I suspect the greatest contribution Britain will ever make to the success of the EU will be to demonstrate, by leaving it, what a bloody stupid thing that is to do.

I agree with most of this, but it does not contradict the case I made that the EU preconditions on having a barrier free land border between the UK and the EU, and barriers at non-land borders is an unfortunate precondition that will I think result in a hard Brexit.

 

[Planigale]

Terminally idiotic nonsense. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Deal with it.

Remember the MA; address the argument not the arguer.

 

[Strawberry]

I agree with most of this, but it does not contradict the case I made that the EU preconditions on having a barrier free land border between the UK and the EU, and barriers at non-land borders is an unfortunate precondition that will I think result in a hard Brexit.

An unfortunate precondition indeed. You make me laugh, I'm not going to say any more than that in case it falls foul of forum rules.

 

[Planigale]

Maybe but it doesn't require unanimity and gets the whole thing over with. People actually wanting it isn't really a requirement. It isn't like there is a possible deal that could get close to passing after all.

So I could see an effective ultimatum at the end of withdraw article 50 or be out. It isn't like they are seriously closer to an agreement than they were last year after all.

I agree. Legally I believe the UK could change its mind and not leave. Once left there could be an prolonged transition, like a thirty year old offspring who has never left the nest. Or there could be a hard Brexit, and I am increasingly pessimistic that this is the most likely outcome. As wars demonstrate politicians are infinitely able to work themselves into corners with no good outcome.

Any decision to e.g. remain with free movement of people and goods and subject to the ECJ would result in a campaign for a further referendum on leaving properly (Brexit 2); I am not sure that if the EU deal is bad for the UK this would not result in a vote to completely severe ties with the EU.

 

[Planigale]

An unfortunate precondition indeed. You make me laugh, I'm not going to say any more than that in case it falls foul of forum rules.

Of course you do need to remember that my observations do not need to reflect my personal beliefs or preferences. I can happily argue black is white*.

*White reflects all colours equally so does black; therefore black is a special case of white.

 

[Planigale]

An unfortunate precondition indeed. You make me laugh, I'm not going to say any more than that in case it falls foul of forum rules.

In general I think publicly stated pre-conditions to negotiations are unfortunate. This is why most successful negotiations e.g. the Good Friday agreement are made out of public view, despite such publicly stated pre-conditions as 'We do not negotiate with terrorists'.

 

[Amazer]

I agree with most of this, but it does not contradict the case I made that the EU preconditions on having a barrier free land border between the UK and the EU, and barriers at non-land borders is an unfortunate precondition that will I think result in a hard Brexit.

I think you're confusing a couple of issues. It's not that the EU wants barriers at the non-land borders... that's a direct result of the UK decision to leave the customs union and the single market. Then there is the Irish land border and the GFA... for the GFA to work there needs to be an (near) invisible border. The EU wants to uphold the GFA and has provided a solution. The U.K. has indicated (and backtracked) to accept this solution till a more acceptable arrangement can be found. If the backstop is no longer acceptable then it's on the UK to come up with something that can actually be implemented in time and which is acceptable to all parties.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[Francesca R]

Britain is in no position to opt to for a hard Brexit, that's why they should turn the screws now.

You apparently have some hopelessly romantic idea that it is in the European Union's net best interest to stick it to the UK. Except that does not characterise the way the EU has behaved in two years of negotiations very much

Oh, and the Labour party has just announced a policy change...

Very good that increases the likelihood of soft exit some more. Of course Starmer got the customs union policy on Labour's docket back in Feb.

 

[Planigale]

I think you're confusing a couple of issues. It's not that the EU wants barriers at the non-land borders... that's a direct result of the UK decision to leave the customs union and the single market. Then there is the Irish land border and the GFA... for the GFA to work there needs to be an (near) invisible border. The EU wants to uphold the GFA and has provided a solution. The U.K. has indicated (and backtracked) to accept this solution till a more acceptable arrangement can be found. If the backstop is no longer acceptable then it's on the UK to come up with something that can actually be implemented in time and which is acceptable to all parties.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

Thank you. Yes there are two issues. The GFA, and Brexit. The EU insisted on the linkage. I do not think that the EU has provided a solution; except in saying that the UK has to remain part of the common travel / trade area and subject to the ECJ. Essentially the EU is saying that the UK can check out of the EU but it can never leave.

The Good Friday agreement is between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the EU is not party to the agreement. Ireland as part of the EU is entitled to participate in the negotiations between the UK and the EU, but the EU should not be party to negotiations between RoI and the UK. I would argue that at most the EU should have said that the RoI like all other members of the EU ultimately would have a veto on any agreement. The RoI could then have said that they would veto any agreement if no agreement over the GFA could be reached. It is not up to the EU to say whether any arrangements on the border between RoI and the UK meet the GFA that is a decision that the RoI and the UK need to come to.

 

[Strawberry]

European businesses are being advised not to use British components in any goods destined for export...

https://news.sky.com/story/european...-using-british-parts-ahead-of-brexit-11395908

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thank you. Yes there are two issues. The GFA, and Brexit. The EU insisted on the linkage. I do not think that the EU has provided a solution; except in saying that the UK has to remain part of the common travel / trade area and subject to the ECJ. Essentially the EU is saying that the UK can check out of the EU but it can never leave.

Sure it can, it just needs to give up the GFA.

The Good Friday agreement is between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the EU is not party to the agreement. Ireland as part of the EU is entitled to participate in the negotiations between the UK and the EU, but the EU should not be party to negotiations between RoI and the UK. I would argue that at most the EU should have said that the RoI like all other members of the EU ultimately would have a veto on any agreement. The RoI could then have said that they would veto any agreement if no agreement over the GFA could be reached. It is not up to the EU to say whether any arrangements on the border between RoI and the UK meet the GFA that is a decision that the RoI and the UK need to come to.

But of course as ireland EU nation the EU has a say on the whole boarder issues. That is the fundamental thing that seems to confuse brexiters, you can't separate the EU from Ireland.

 

[Planigale]

Sure it can, it just needs to give up the GFA.


But of course as ireland EU nation the EU has a say on the whole boarder issues. That is the fundamental thing that seems to confuse brexiters, you can't separate the EU from Ireland.

Yes, the EU has a say on the border; but not on whether the arrangements meet with GFA; yet the EU does comment on the GFA. They are linked issues, but only through the fact that RoI is a party to the GFA and a member of the EU. For the present RoI is an independent sovereign nation it is not merely a component of the EU.

 

[ceptimus]

I don't think the EU has much interest in precipitating a hard Brexit. Well if they did it doesn't explain why they have been as accommodating as they have needed to be to keep the soft version (just) on the rails.

They want (and need) our money. Their plan is too get us to sign up to a binding international treaty that guarantees our payments before finalizing negotiations on trade. Then they will reject all compromise positions on trade ensuring a no deal Brexit but with us still having to pay.

 

[jimbob]

Thank you. Yes there are two issues. The GFA, and Brexit. The EU insisted on the linkage. I do not think that the EU has provided a solution; except in saying that the UK has to remain part of the common travel / trade area and subject to the ECJ. Essentially the EU is saying that the UK can check out of the EU but it can never leave.

The Good Friday agreement is between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the EU is not party to the agreement. Ireland as part of the EU is entitled to participate in the negotiations between the UK and the EU, but the EU should not be party to negotiations between RoI and the UK. I would argue that at most the EU should have said that the RoI like all other members of the EU ultimately would have a veto on any agreement. The RoI could then have said that they would veto any agreement if no agreement over the GFA could be reached. It is not up to the EU to say whether any arrangements on the border between RoI and the UK meet the GFA that is a decision that the RoI and the UK need to come to.

??? I thought that was exactly what the EU was saying. It was explicitly also stating that the EU country most affected by Brexit, being the only one with a land border has a key role in the negotiations. The EU is not saying that it will take a position on the Good Friday Agreement beyond what Ireland wants. To me that seems perfectly reasonable.

The fact is that the Good Friday Agreement got far easier due to both sides being in the EU as it meant certain issues could be fudged without either side losing face.

 

[jimbob]

They want (and need) our money. Their plan is too get us to sign up to a binding international treaty that guarantees our payments before finalizing negotiations on trade. Then they will reject all compromise positions on trade ensuring a no deal Brexit but with us still having to pay.

The EU doesn't need our money. They want the best trade deal for the EU, which is actually the UK following Norway or possibly Switzerland, which is also a not too bad deal for the UK either.

This was what several Brexit campaigners said was what they wanted in the leave campaign, but that seems to have been forgotten.


Meanwhile we also know that the Civil Service have come up with three scenarios for the situation immediately after Brexit. Option 1 is muddle along. Option 2 is food and fuel shortages and the government having to arrange emergency flights to deliver medicines. Option 3 is apparently "Armageddon" but they think that they can probably avoid option 3.

It doesn't seem worth it for some blue passports made in France, when some EU member states also have blue passports