Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[Information Analyst]

Why should we pay the EU to let us fly our own planes? The EU also want to fly their planes to the UK, and most of the routes from continental Europe to the USA pass through British airspace. I would expect any nominal payments for these activities would cancel out, resulting in roughly zero net payment in either direction to allow the present situation to continue after Brexit: if there are any payments to be made, for all I know the EU will end up making a net payment to us?

You might want to try looking at a map. There is a lot more EU territory for British aircraft to over-fly en route to various destinations, than there if of the UK for EU aircraft to fly over en route to the US (or Canada, for that matter).

 

[Mr Fied]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49368217

What was all that stuff about the nasty Turks all coming over here and stealing our jobs?

 

[ceptimus]

They can certainly have an expectation for payments towards the costs of the institutions that administer and oversee the aspects of the multilateral agreements made.

Nonsense. Do you think the EU should therefore contribute to our UK institutions that will also need to administer and oversee the same agreements?

 

[ceptimus]

You might want to try looking at a map. There is a lot more EU territory for British aircraft to over-fly en route to various destinations, than there if of the UK for EU aircraft to fly over en route to the US (or Canada, for that matter).

You might want to try looking at a map yourself - or better a globe as air routes on some map projections seem counter-intuitive. Lots of planes from both continental Europe and the UK fly to the USA.

Planes from the UK to the USA don't have to pass through EU airspace, but any planes bound to the USA from much of France, Germany, the Benelux countries and countries further east do pass through British airspace.

If the EU decided to play hardball, which I'm sure they won't, we could tell them to take more circuitous and slower routes when flying to America.

 

[Mr Fied]

Lots of planes from both continental Europe and the UK fly to the USA.

Planes from the UK to the USA don't have to pass through EU airspace, but any planes bound to the USA from much of France, Germany, the Benelux countries and countries further east do pass through British airspace.

And most UK planes that fly to Africa, Asia, Australasia, the Middle East and the Far East pass through EU airspace.

Probably a lot more than EU flights to the Americas.

 

[abaddon]

Why should we pay the EU to let us fly our own planes? The EU also want to fly their planes to the UK, and most of the routes from continental Europe to the USA pass through British airspace. I would expect any nominal payments for these activities would cancel out, resulting in roughly zero net payment in either direction to allow the present situation to continue after Brexit: if there are any payments to be made, for all I know the EU will end up making a net payment to us?

Same sort of principle applies to businesses trading - I realize that the EU may choose to impose tariffs, but I don't see why they would expect regular cash payments over and above that for a "free" trade deal - the clue is in the name.

What a simplistic view. That is not how any of that works. Actually, it is not what the problem is. It isn't about "nominal" payments to enter each others airspace. That is the least of your concerns.

 

[The Don]

Then again, a lot of UK flights go through Irish airspace on the way to the US east coast.

 

[abaddon]

Then again, a lot of UK flights go through Irish airspace on the way to the US east coast.

But Ireland is a vassal state of the UK right? Nothing to do with the EU, right?

 

[jimbob]

Then again, a lot of UK flights go through Irish airspace on the way to the US east coast.

It's almost as though an agreement, or "deal" if you wish, is a good idea.

It's not that these problems are insurmountable, it's that there isn't much time, and some of the critical ones won't be spotted and prioritised until too late.

 

[dudalb]

I think someone here just has a hard time accepting that the UK is part of Europe geographically and economically.
He also has a hard time accepting that the UK Is NOT the all powerful economic power it was in the 19th Century. Queen VIctoria died a long time ago....

 

[Garrison]

Remember all those dire warnings about the Turks pouring into the country? Well it seems they aren't welcome but their money is:

Turkish army pension fund to buy British Steel


And what does this have to do with Brexit? Well the EU was proposing to adopt higher tariffs to prevent the Chinese 'dumping' steel and undermining the steel makers of Europe, guess who led the charge to stop those tariff increases?

Ministers 'blocking higher Chinese steel tariffs'

So basically bankrupting a UK industry then selling it off cheap to foreign interests, the blueprint for our post Brexit economy under BoJo.

 

[Planigale]

Thing is, the UK actually GOT a good deal.

All negotiated and all that.

And then rejected it and wanted an even better deal, which they were told beforehand is unreasonable.

I think you are right the 'deal' was good. The problem that caused it to fail to get parliamentary support was the addendum in the form of the backstop. The EU was requiring the UK to sign up to an eternal commitment when the rest of the deal was a temporary deal. This is an extraordinary thing to require. To require the other party to sign up to a commitment to the outcome of future negotiations that could only be exited from with the agreement of the other party before the negotiations had begun. The backstop was unnecessary if the deal had been signed. If the EU had deferred the backstop to the next stage of negotiations then the May deal would probably have got through.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think you are right the 'deal' was good. The problem that caused it to fail to get parliamentary support was the addendum in the form of the backstop. The EU was requiring the UK to sign up to an eternal commitment when the rest of the deal was a temporary deal. This is an extraordinary thing to require. To require the other party to sign up to a commitment to the outcome of future negotiations that could only be exited from with the agreement of the other party before the negotiations had begun. The backstop was unnecessary if the deal had been signed. If the EU had deferred the backstop to the next stage of negotiations then the May deal would probably have got through.

Yes, why ever would the EU want an agreement to prevent massive smuggling from occurring on the open land border between the UK and the EU? Odd.

Of course this could have been prevented, like you say, if the Brexit camp had kept it's campaign promise of negotiating a deal before triggering article 50. But that, like everything else associated with the campaign, turned out to be a lie.

 

[Planigale]

Remember all those dire warnings about the Turks pouring into the country? Well it seems they aren't welcome but their money is:

Turkish army pension fund to buy British Steel


And what does this have to do with Brexit? Well the EU was proposing to adopt higher tariffs to prevent the Chinese 'dumping' steel and undermining the steel makers of Europe, guess who led the charge to stop those tariff increases?

Ministers 'blocking higher Chinese steel tariffs'

So basically bankrupting a UK industry then selling it off cheap to foreign interests, the blueprint for our post Brexit economy under BoJo.

Isn't it a French man who owns British Steel Ltd. having brought it from an Indian? I think the industry had gone bankrupt long ago.

The country as a whole may be be better for having access to cheap steel rather than adopting the Trumpian approach you seem to advocate by introducing tariffs on foreign products until your 'own' industry can compete with foreign competitors.

 

[Planigale]

Yes, why ever would the EU want an agreement to prevent massive smuggling from occurring on the open land border between the UK and the EU? Odd.

Of course this could have been prevented, like you say, if the Brexit camp had kept it's campaign promise of negotiating a deal before triggering article 50. But that, like everything else associated with the campaign, turned out to be a lie.

The problem is the EU wanted the UK to agree to the outcome of the negotiations before the negotiations had begun. essentially the back stop says the UK needs to remain functionally part of the EU, part of the common travel and trade area, subject to the ECJ, subject to EU legislation. What those who had voted for Brexit had voted against. Effectively the UK would be in an identical position as prior to leaving the EU, but with no democratic participation in the EU. Effectively a colony of the EU. Unlike being part of the EU when article 50 allows a member to leave the EU, the backstop says the UK could only leave the association with the EU with the EU's permission. This would be a potential political disaster; what would have happened if the UK had signed up to the backstop and a future government held a referendum on exiting the current arrangements and it got e.g a 60% majority and the EU said we will ignore this the UK cannot leave. The UK would have fewer rights than current EU members, Denmark which is part of the Schengen free travel area has id checks on the border for people coming across the border from Germany. The UK could not make the same decision that EU members can do. Remember all the GFA says about the border is that it should be demilitarised. The GFA does not say there should be no border checks. The EU does not say there should be no border checks.

 

[Planigale]

Yes, why ever would the EU want an agreement to prevent massive smuggling from occurring on the open land border between the UK and the EU? Odd.

Of course this could have been prevented, like you say, if the Brexit camp had kept it's campaign promise of negotiating a deal before triggering article 50. But that, like everything else associated with the campaign, turned out to be a lie.

I think you are under the delusion smuggling does not happen now. Insisting on an open border is what permits smuggling.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think you are under the delusion smuggling does not happen now. Insisting on an open border is what permits smuggling.

No, I do not believe smuggling does not happen, but once the UK gets it's 'great trade deal' from the US the incentive will increase significantly. To prevent that significant border checks are needed.

The other countries with a land border with the EU either do these checks in their (airports), like the scandinavians and the swiss or there are guarded border checks, like with the eastern/southern borders.

And as has been mentioned before, even with a backstop the UK could always take the same no-deal step they are taking now.

You are advocating the same having your cake and eating it too that the brexit camp keeps using. Either keep up with the standards that indeed you have no control over (like norway) and have an open border while a further deal is negotiated, or no deal and a closed border in which case the UK can import whatever non-regulated crap the US and China want to dump.

It's not the EU's fault that the mythical 'easy deal, we hold all the cards' failed to materialize and that a significant part of the UK still believes britannia rules the waves, rather than being the junior partner in this deal.

 

[Information Analyst]

You might want to try looking at a map yourself - or better a globe as air routes on some map projections seem counter-intuitive. Lots of planes from both continental Europe and the UK fly to the USA.

Planes from the UK to the USA don't have to pass through EU airspace, but any planes bound to the USA from much of France, Germany, the Benelux countries and countries further east do pass through British airspace.

Did you actually bother reading the entirety of what I wrote?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Isn't it a French man who owns British Steel Ltd. having brought it from an Indian? I think the industry had gone bankrupt long ago.

The country as a whole may be be better for having access to cheap steel rather than adopting the Trumpian approach you seem to advocate by introducing tariffs on foreign products until your 'own' industry can compete with foreign competitors.

Steel is a strategic industry.
If it goes bust what happens when we want to build another carrier and foreign governments won't let their industries sell us steel to build it?

 

[Planigale]

Steel is a strategic industry.
If it goes bust what happens when we want to build another carrier and foreign governments won't let their industries sell us steel to build it?

What Trump said? Not sure I'll take economic advice from your mentor.