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

[McHrozni]

I think good faith should not be a requirement for negotiation, that is what the lawyers are for.

This might be a bit of a shock, but reality doesn't really care much about what you think.

McHrozni

 

[Arcade22]

A view from New Zealand:

The small island nation was forced to consider its own place in a world dominated by economic superpowers. Llewellyn said the UK's sense of importance could make the comedown even more painful.

"New Zealanders have no delusions of grandeur whatsoever," he said. The country "can't, it's too small."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12259677

It's also located in the middle of nowhere.

 

[catsmate]

I do believe I said a couple of weeks ago that smart Pommies would be hoarding essential supplies.

My advice now is to double the amount of supplies you're going to need.

Happy to act as export agent in NZ for anyone wanting a channel to buy toilet paper!

Interesting many senior staff in our clients in London are planning holidays around Halloween.

 

[Darat]

The back stop is an issue because it requires the UK to remain in a free travel area and free trade area with the EU and unable to enter into trade agreements with third countries and subject to EU regulations and the ECJ. I think that no matter ones views on the stupidity of Brexit, this is not in accordance with the intentions of those who voted for Brexit. Agreeing to the backstop would require parliament to ignore the referendum.

The UK would be bound to any future EU arrangements e.g. if the EU introduced an embargo on Israeli goods the UK would have to follow on. There is no article 50 for the backstop, leaving would only be possible if the EU consented. In theory any vote of parliament to leave could be ruled unconstitutional by the ECJ. Leaving a difficult constitutional issue.

Yes there are proposals that some sort of arbitration process could be set up, but the UK has to sign up to the backstop first before the arrangements are agreed.

If the UK signs up to the backstop then the EU defines the terms of the future relationship between the EU and the UK. There may be a little room for negotiation on the details but the UK is agreeing to a 'pig in a poke'. The UK has to agree to the EU terms before seeing them.

The May proposal is not our leaving the EU deal, it is a transitional agreement. If the UK is negotiating in good faith than the backstop will not be required.

 

[Darat]

They can, but most will only do so if it personally suits them, not out of some loyalty to a Govt that imposed a pay freeze on them for the last umpteen years.



As I said in my last post, they'll do it for as long as they fancy the extra cash and won't necessarily improve productivity over an initial boost.

Since the directive came into force all my contracts have me opting out if I want the job. Asking around friends etc. I haven't found anyone who hasn't opted out.!

 

[Darat]

As we have seen before these things can be short-circuited. I'm sure one of Priti Patel's chums will own a company that supplies retail scales to greengrocers who can be employed to build a weighbridge on a contract with no get out clauses for 3 times the market rate.

As long as they guarantee to only produce weighbridges that measure in pounds and ounces.

 

[GlennB]

Since the directive came into force all my contracts have me opting out if I want the job. Asking around friends etc. I haven't found anyone who hasn't opted out.!

Exactly. Choosing to stay opted in is, er, 'a hindrance to employment'.

 

[Information Analyst]

Unable to argue with those clear facts, the idiots here decided to quibble about the least important of those differences - the multiple presidents.

No, it's indicative of your petty objections to anything connected to the EU.

So I schooled them on their errors, posting a list of the current presidents, and they've been butt hurt and whinging ever since.

No, you've just persisted in the idiocy that having the word "president" in the titles of four different roles is somehow a "bad thing." You have not stated any facts of which anyone else was unaware, but you have repeatedly failed to explain exactly what the problem is.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Since the directive came into force all my contracts have me opting out if I want the job. Asking around friends etc. I haven't found anyone who hasn't opted out.!

That doesn't surprise me if you're an independent contractor. Doubt it's the same with a permanent civil servant or any unionised employee.

 

[a_unique_person]

Boris tells the EU that nothing will stop a breakthrough on October 31 so they had better hurry up and negotiate a deal. The EU tells him to **** off then.

 

[lomiller]

It goes beyond this. If you are in any customs union and have deals outside that you need internal borders where goods produced inside and outside the union can be distinguished and taxed.

Another thing that becomes an issue if you are not in a customs union is how to define country of origin.

If you import cheep parts and assemble them locally and you are part of a customs union with no side deals on trade it doesn’t really matter if the final product is “made in the EU” or not. It doesn’t matter if you are in Germany, Italy, France or the UK everyone is paying the same tariff on the imported parts.

If you have side deals and the UK can import those parts tariff free they can unfairly undercut business elsewhere in the EU. In a straight-up trade deal, like the EU is trying to finalize with Canada these situations need to be addressed. Mostly if you are just assembling something, it wouldn’t get the tariff free “made in…” designation. At the very least, you would need to pay tariffs on the sub-components.

It things like this that make custi9ms trade deals FAR harder to work out when there are side deals, Since there is no internal mechanism in the EU to handle these, it’s obvious they would not be agree to anything where the UK could make side deals in a reasonable time frame.

 

[GlennB]

That doesn't surprise me if you're an independent contractor. Doubt it's the same with a permanent civil servant or any unionised employee.

Only about 1 in 6 UK workers are union members, and a fair number of those are 'solo' union members. In about 2003 I fought a long battle with an employer just to get them to recognise that there was even such a thing as the working time directive, and they never did. If they had, and it was an item raised in a job interview, then suggesting you'd opt out would have killed any chance of employment in the first place or, if it was a choice made later, any advancement.

Theory and reality are very different.

 

[lomiller]

Which of those other groups have a common currency, a supreme court, several presidents, total free movement, and all the other EU nonsense?

The United States of America? The United Kingdom?

The six separately governed Australian states did something similar in 1901.


Norm

Canada starting in 1867 (though 1949 when Newfoundland joined)

 

[Garrison]

Boris tells the EU that nothing will stop a breakthrough on October 31 so they had better hurry up and negotiate a deal. The EU tells him to **** off then.

This is what it has come to, no serious effort to negotiate by Johnson, just a desperate attempt to pin the blame for the catastrophe to come on the EU. The point is that even if you accepted the argument that the EU is being obstructive and punitive that does not absolve the government of responsibility for pressing ahead with Brexit even when it has become clear that they can deliver on none of the promises made during the referendum. The most sensible plans are revoke Article 50 or hold a second referendum to bow out gracefully from the Brexit process. Pressing ahead at this point is just bloodymindedness or the product of a Europhobia so deeply rooted it is willing to sacrifice everyone else's future(because of course the most ardent Brexiteers tend to be those who are immune to the consequences) to see the back of the EU.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Yep the people voted for a hard irish border and they will get that hard irish border no matter what the UK has to do to get it.

 

[GlennB]

It looks like the report about Patel's plan to immediately halt fredom of movement on Nov 1st might have been mistaken in some way. From a #10 briefing today:

Commenting on a report claiming that Priti Patel, the home secretary, wants to end free movement for EU nationals immediately after 31 October, instead of withdrawing the right gradually as Theresa May’s government intended, the Downing Street spokeswoman said “freedom of movement as it currently stands will end on October 31 when the UK leaves the EU.” The spokeswoman went on:

So for example we will introduce, immediately, much tougher criminality rules for people entering the UK.

Details of other changes immediately on October 31 for a new immigration system are currently being developed.

 

[lomiller]

The back stop is an issue because it requires the UK to remain in a free travel area and free trade area with the EU and unable to enter into trade agreements with third countries and subject to EU regulations and the ECJ.

If you want to travel without borders, which the UK does you need to be in a free travel area. This should be an easy concept. Likewise, if you want free trade without having put in the decade or so worth of negotiations a new trade deal entails you can keep the current terms, which means no side deals in effect.

I think that no matter ones views on the stupidity of Brexit, this is not in accordance with the intentions of those who voted for Brexit. Agreeing to the backstop would require parliament to ignore the referendum.

The same applies to a no deal Briexit. This is not what Brexit voters were promised so it can’t be what they were voting for. The fact is that the “intent” of Brixit voters included things that were either impossible or mutually exclusive with other reasons they voted for Brexit.

There is no version of Brexit that isn’t completely different from what Brexit voters wanted, hence the need for a new referendum on the final Brexit deal.

If the UK signs up to the backstop then the EU defines the terms of the future relationship between the EU and the UK. There may be a little room for negotiation on the details but the UK is agreeing to a 'pig in a poke'. The UK has to agree to the EU terms before seeing them.

The ability for the UK to influence EU rules ends at Brexit and the UK was always going to be the junior partner afterwards. The EU will make rules; the UK will either follow them or accept the consequences of having its own.

There may be a little room for negotiation on the details but the UK is agreeing to a 'pig in a poke'. The UK has to agree to the EU terms before seeing them.

This was a future of Brexit from the outset. The UK was always going to get a new set of terms when dealing with the EU. There was never any way to know exactly what they were until negotiations were complete.

The UK has to agree to the EU terms before seeing them.

Brexit has always meant that it is irrelevant whether the UK agrees with EU rules is or not.

 

[catsmate]

I read this yesterday on an expat forum but couldn't find another source. I also couldn't believe it -

"Home Secretary Priti Patel is determined for border restrictions to be imposed immediately on October 31, even without a replacement system, says The Independent.

Your surprise is puzzling, given the prejudices, bigotry, ignorance of reality and sheer incompetence of the current UKGov.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said: ‘It is completely detached from reality and is next chapter in the never-ending saga of the utter mess they are making of Brexit. What would this mean for EU citizens who have made their home in the UK who have travelled abroad when they try to return?

Problems... Especially given the process for regularising their situation doesn't exist, and won't until well after BoJo's deadline.

Are the government seriously suggesting an NHS nurse who is an EU national may not be allowed to return to the country if they happen to have been on holiday?

Yes.

It is absurd.

Yes.

I still can't believe Patel might do this.

I can. She has to establish her hardline credentials to further her career. Having a name like "Patel" is a handicap when dealing with CP members.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Only about 1 in 6 UK workers are union members, and a fair number of those are 'solo' union members. In about 2003 I fought a long battle with an employer just to get them to recognise that there was even such a thing as the working time directive, and they never did. If they had, and it was an item raised in a job interview, then suggesting you'd opt out would have killed any chance of employment in the first place or, if it was a choice made later, any advancement.

Theory and reality are very different.

Happy to accept that it varies - was only going on my experience where our HR department actually raised it with us as a problem that we were working too many hours and so were in breach, even though individuals said they were happy, there was a concern that if they were then sick there'd be a potential claim. Anyway, bit of a derail so I'm happy to concede the point.

 

[catsmate]

As I understand it the May deal as is would not result in a 'hard' border with Ireland. Therefore the Backstop is not currently required if the May deal is approved. The May deal did not get through parliament because of the backstop being part of the package.

If the EU agreed to defer the decision on the backstop to the next stage of the negotiations then the May agreement would probably pass in parliament there would be no hard Brexit and no hard border.

No.