Jump to content

UK Politics - summer edition


Maltaran

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Werthead said:

David Davis seems to be living in some kind of fantasy world where the UK is "making massive compromises", when it is doing nothing of the sort.

I'm also confused at this point why there is any discussion over the UK's budget payments. Thanks to the transition period we are now effectively members of the EU until the end of this current budgetary period anyway, so we just need to pay what we would have done anyway and it's all sorted, which is exactly what we could have agreed six months ago and been having those trade talks. Losing that time on the trade talks just for a bout of intransigence designed to appease the hardcore Eurosceptics is ridiculous.

I'm not sure the EU has conceded on anything yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I'm not sure the EU has conceded on anything yet.

Why should they?

We've chosen to leave the club and they've said, "Okay, you'll get treated like everyone else outside the club," which is apparently what we wanted. And now we're stamping our feet demanding special treatment and they've said, "Okay, you can stay in the club where you got ridiculously special treatment and that can continue." And we've stamped our feet saying we don't want that either. The EU I think has every right to look bemused at the situation which has come about entirely of the UK's making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Why should they?

We've chosen to leave the club and they've said, "Okay, you'll get treated like everyone else outside the club," which is apparently what we wanted. And now we're stamping our feet demanding special treatment and they've said, "Okay, you can stay in the club where you got ridiculously special treatment and that can continue." And we've stamped our feet saying we don't want that either. The EU I think has every right to look bemused at the situation which has come about entirely of the UK's making.

Well its in both parties interests for there to be good relations in the future. Negotiations are indeed about making compromises on both sides. You've just conceded that its Britain making most of them and the EU is hardly budging. 

I think its pretty clear the EU is looking for a no deal solution, in the hope that it punishes the UK enough to scare any other country into thinking twice about leaving. I think that might backfire on them unless they make major reforms at the same time.

The UK has been pretty clear on what it wants from a future relationship, the EU's position is basically you either stay in or you are completely out / no deal. I'm not sure the cherry picking that people talk about is really that true either, we've already said we want out of the single market, out of the customs union and out of any governance by the ECJ. There is some debate over how much money we are going to pay the EU, but legally we don't owe anything after Brexit, its just a moral issue as to whether we pay and an act of good faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

The UK has been pretty clear on what it wants from a future relationship, the EU's position is basically you either stay in or you are completely out / no deal. I'm not sure the cherry picking that people talk about is really that true either, we've already said we want out of the single market, out of the customs union and out of any governance by the ECJ. There is some debate over how much money we are going to pay the EU, but legally we don't owe anything after Brexit, its just a moral issue as to whether we pay and an act of good faith. 

Britain has said it basically wants to stay in the single market - a continuation of tariff-free trade with the rest of the EU bloc - but it is not prepared to pay for the privilege (i.e. the Norwegian model), so the EU has said that's a non-starter.

As for the bill, yes, Britain does legally owe the money it promised to pay several years ago during the last round of EU budget negotiations (the ones where Britain actually scored a major success in getting the budget reduced during a time of massive austerity for the member states rather than increased as the EU wanted), as the EU's payments and legal obligations going forwards to the end of the current period have been based with that in mind. There's not really a huge amount to negotiate here, we either pay what we agreed (which is about €60 billion) or we don't, and in the latter case our international standing in terms of honesty, reliability and trustworthiness will be diminished accordingly.

My guess is that, having put up €20 billion, May is angling for us to get away with leaving having paid about €40 billion, but I'm not sure if that is going to fly. We're going to be effectively staying in the bloc until the end of the budget period in 2020 anyway, so there's no logical or legal basis for us not to pay what we agreed in 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

The UK has been pretty clear on what it wants from a future relationship, the EU's position is basically you either stay in or you are completely out / no deal.

This... does not appear to bear any resemblance to reality. 

The UK is anything but clear about what it wants from a future relationship. I certainly couldn't tell you. There's a wish-list of sometimes contradictory stuff like being able to control immigration but also not have a hard border with Ireland: even on migrant labour, we sometimes say we want it and sometimes say we don't- just like we say we want to be able to trade freely but also, we don't. It's a mess, largely caused by by the fact that Brexit was defined only as a vague idea until after we had voted for it. 

Meantime, the EU has been willing to say 'you can have a different relationship' but they won't accept a cherry-picked list of good stuff we want to keep without giving up anything in return. The idea that they're not interested in a deal is somewhat undermined by the fact that they're currently trying to negotiate one. If they wanted a no deal solution to frighten other countries, they could (and would) just say so. I'm sure there are individuals in EU governments who would not weep if that was the outcome, but the EU as an institution does not take that position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 5:05 PM, Werthead said:

Britain has said it basically wants to stay in the single market - a continuation of tariff-free trade with the rest of the EU bloc - but it is not prepared to pay for the privilege (i.e. the Norwegian model), so the EU has said that's a non-starter.

As for the bill, yes, Britain does legally owe the money it promised to pay several years ago during the last round of EU budget negotiations (the ones where Britain actually scored a major success in getting the budget reduced during a time of massive austerity for the member states rather than increased as the EU wanted), as the EU's payments and legal obligations going forwards to the end of the current period have been based with that in mind. There's not really a huge amount to negotiate here, we either pay what we agreed (which is about €60 billion) or we don't, and in the latter case our international standing in terms of honesty, reliability and trustworthiness will be diminished accordingly.

My guess is that, having put up €20 billion, May is angling for us to get away with leaving having paid about €40 billion, but I'm not sure if that is going to fly. We're going to be effectively staying in the bloc until the end of the budget period in 2020 anyway, so there's no logical or legal basis for us not to pay what we agreed in 2013.

I don't think the UK does wish to stay in the Single Market.

I'd suggest that the fairest way of calculating what the UK owes to the EU is to work out the difference between the EU's assets, and its liabilities, on the date of departure, and for the UK to pay a proportionate share.   As at 31st December 2016, the EU had assets of 162 bn Euros and liabilities of 234 bn Euros.  The UK currently generates about one sixth of EU GDP so its share of the net liabilities should be about 12bn Euros, as at 31.12.2016.

If May offers 20bn Euros to cover the transition period, plus our share of net liabilities on the date of departure, that should cover our legal obligation to the EU.  I can see that offering money over and above our legal obligations would be sensible as part of the process of horse-trading, but the UK should want to get something in return for such an offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EU and Irish government have proposed a solution to the Ireland issue: put customs controls on Northern Irish ports and airports. This is an interesting solution, similar to the one that the British government floated about putting the customs controls on Republic ports of entry. However, as Northern Ireland is far smaller than the Republic and as such it's far more likely someone in Northern Ireland may travel into the Republic (whilst vice versa was not the case), it's much more manageable and practical.

Unfortunately, for some reason, David Davis has said it's unacceptable to do that when it was perfectly fine when we said the Republic should do it. But this seems the best solution to the problem, especially since the Republic has also said they will now go all-in on supporting the British position in the rest of the negotiations, which is no small thing (and a major "concession" here by the UK would go a long way to establishing good will).

Quote

Hammond 'there are no unemployed people' what the fucking fuck is he talking about? And why did Marr let him off Scot free. Fucking ridiculous.

Remember, in Tory Land employment is in the best state it's been for over a decade (it isn't, it's by far the worst and getting worse), Britain is going to get all the benefits of remaining in the EU but with none of the cost, Boris Johnson is a suitable candidate to be Foreign Secretary, it's awful when Labour talks to terrorist organisations to try to bring them in from the cold but it's perfectly acceptable for the Tories to directly employ IRA terrorists and give millions to ex-nationalist killers, and we currently have a very strong and stable government. It's a situation that bears no resemblance to reality but they aren't getting challenged on it.

Quote

 

I don't think the UK does wish to stay in the Single Market.

 

We still want all the benefits of remaining in the single market without any of the responsibilities or reciprocation of that.

Quote

 

I'd suggest that the fairest way of calculating what the UK owes to the EU is to work out the difference between the EU's assets, and its liabilities, on the date of departure, and for the UK to pay a proportionate share.

 

Or we could just agree to pay what we agreed in 2013, which would make a lot more sense. If we were leaving significantly before the expiration of the budget period, then an alternate arrangement as you suggest would make more sense. But since we're not, it should not be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The EU and Irish government have proposed a solution to the Ireland issue: put customs controls on Northern Irish ports and airports. This is an interesting solution, similar to the one that the British government floated about putting the customs controls on Republic ports of entry. However, as Northern Ireland is far smaller than the Republic and as such it's far more likely someone in Northern Ireland may travel into the Republic (whilst vice versa was not the case), it's much more manageable and practical.

Unfortunately, for some reason, David Davis has said it's unacceptable to do that when it was perfectly fine when we said the Republic should do it. But this seems the best solution to the problem, especially since the Republic has also said they will now go all-in on supporting the British position in the rest of the negotiations, which is no small thing (and a major "concession" here by the UK would go a long way to establishing good will).

Remember, in Tory Land employment is in the best state it's been for over a decade (it isn't, it's by far the worst and getting worse), Britain is going to get all the benefits of remaining in the EU but with none of the cost, Boris Johnson is a suitable candidate to be Foreign Secretary, it's awful when Labour talks to terrorist organisations to try to bring them in from the cold but it's perfectly acceptable for the Tories to directly employ IRA terrorists and give millions to ex-nationalist killers, and we currently have a very strong and stable government. It's a situation that bears no resemblance to reality but they aren't getting challenged on it.

We still want all the benefits of remaining in the single market without any of the responsibilities or reciprocation of that.

Or we could just agree to pay what we agreed in 2013, which would make a lot more sense. If we were leaving significantly before the expiration of the budget period, then an alternate arrangement as you suggest would make more sense. But since we're not, it should not be an issue.

I imagine that there would be considerable hostility within Northern Ireland to the introduction of customs checks with the rest of the UK. 

In determining what one pays, it is fair to offset one's share of the assets against one's share of the liabilities, in order to come up with a net figure.  One doesn't just pay the gross figure.  If we undertook to pay 60bn euros in 2013, then it is reasonable that our share of EU assets be offset against that payment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I imagine that there would be considerable hostility within Northern Ireland to the introduction of customs checks with the rest of the UK. 

So what is the alternative? A hard border (which would violate the Good Friday Agreement) and spot checks on trains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Werthead said:

So what is the alternative? A hard border (which would violate the Good Friday Agreement) and spot checks on trains?

It's hard to determine what should be done with customs checks at the Irish border until the shape of a future trade deal with the EU is clear.

My personal preference would be for the fairly light border checks that exist between Switzerland and its neighbours, between Norway and Sweden, or between the US and Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article from the Irish perspective is interesting and goes into the problems in great detail. In short, the UK and Republic of Ireland are able to avoid a hard border because both are EU members and standards are harmonised across the border. If any of those standards start drifting apart from one another, the imposition of a hard border becomes unavoidable and that imperils the Good Friday Agreement. The argument presented is that an internal UK border which means that Northern Ireland remains within the boundaries of EU is the only workable solution that gives both the UK and the EU what it wants.

The UK fear is that this could be the start of a slippery slope leading to Irish reunification, in which case the question arises is "losing" Northern Ireland (which could happen democratically in a generation or two anyway) a price worth paying for Brexit?

Quote

 

My personal preference would be for the fairly light border checks that exist between Switzerland and its neighbours, between Norway and Sweden, or between the US and Canada.

 

That's not really on the table, at all. Light or desultory checks would be open to widespread abuse: people could fly into Dublin, travel by train over the border and then cross from Northern Ireland to the mainland UK by ferry or internal flight and escape exterior border checks. With immigration supposedly being a major factor in these discussions, that is not going to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I don't think the UK does wish to stay in the Single Market.

I think we do. 

Although it depends on what you mean by 'the UK'. Do you mean, most people in the UK? Or do you mean, the shrill and strident Europhobes who are trying to dominate conversation on Brexit? 

Opinion polling suggests voters are in favour of retaining single market membership. 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-finds-majority-want-uk-to-stay-inside-the-single-market-2017-8

But this is now considered a 'red line' and utterly unthinkable - purely because of internal Tory party divisions. 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I'd suggest that the fairest way of calculating what the UK owes to the EU is to work out the difference between the EU's assets, and its liabilities, on the date of departure, and for the UK to pay a proportionate share.   As at 31st December 2016, the EU had assets of 162 bn Euros and liabilities of 234 bn Euros.  The UK currently generates about one sixth of EU GDP so its share of the net liabilities should be about 12bn Euros, as at 31.12.2016.

If May offers 20bn Euros to cover the transition period, plus our share of net liabilities on the date of departure, that should cover our legal obligation to the EU. 

For what definition of 'legal obligation' is this true? Because it seems to be a calculation you've just made up, and with respect, however fair you consider it to be, that is not particularly relevant to whether it fulfills a legal obligation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

purely because of internal Tory party divisions

Internal Tory party divisions have plunged this country into the most prolonged constitutional crisis it has faced in a century and opened the most divisive social cracks we've seen in generations. It is quite stunningly remarkable and future historians will be likely completely baffled about why they have done this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think we do. 

Although it depends on what you mean by 'the UK'. Do you mean, most people in the UK? Or do you mean, the shrill and strident Europhobes who are trying to dominate conversation on Brexit? 

Opinion polling suggests voters are in favour of retaining single market membership. 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-finds-majority-want-uk-to-stay-inside-the-single-market-2017-8

But this is now considered a 'red line' and utterly unthinkable - purely because of internal Tory party divisions. 

For what definition of 'legal obligation' is this true? Because it seems to be a calculation you've just made up, and with respect, however fair you consider it to be, that is not particularly relevant to whether it fulfills a legal obligation. 

Unfortunately, the Treaty of Lisbon does not specify a mechanism whereby the exit bill is to be determined.

But, there's a useful summary here, from Alex Barker of the FT here http://www.cer.eu/sites/default/files/pb_barker_brexit_bill_3feb17.pdf.  It's not in dispute that the Divorce Bill is the net figure, after offsetting the UK's share of EU assets, against the UK's share of EU liabilities.  The Bill could be as little as 25 bn euros, or as much as 73 bn euros.  The reason for this wide range is that a lot of the figures for assets and liablities are provisional (eg does the UK pay a lump sum to the EU on leaving, to cover the cost of guaranteeing loans to Ukraine, on the understanding that this sum is repaid to the UK in the future, or does it give a guarantee to the EU to pay up, should the Ukraine default?).  A net figure of 60bn euros is on the high side of what the UK could expect to pay.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pebble said:

If they broke the rules and with the Russian involved, does that mean we can have another vote on this?

 

maybe?

 

 

Ok I know the answer,   but I can pretend to have hope right?

 

It’s all such a pointless distraction and assumes that the only way people could vote for Brexit was if they were tricked into it by foul play. What if Brexit voters had genuine concerns that weren’t being listened to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

It's hard to determine what should be done with customs checks at the Irish border until the shape of a future trade deal with the EU is clear.

My personal preference would be for the fairly light border checks that exist between Switzerland and its neighbours, between Norway and Sweden, or between the US and Canada.

Switzerland is in Schengen, so we're not going to have that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Eggegg said:

It’s all such a pointless distraction and assumes that the only way people could vote for Brexit was if they were tricked into it by foul play. What if Brexit voters had genuine concerns that weren’t being listened to?

Not all Brexit voters, but it was such a close result that there's probably enough of them to raise reasonable doubt on the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...