Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 12:00:36 GMT
Of course there is effectively a 'plan' that would happen in the event of no deal - we would leave and become like every other non-EU country without a deal with the EU. (WTO rules on tariffs etc.) It doesn't mean we would like it or that it would be a good option (it would be a very bad option in my opinion), but it is no secret. That's not correct... or it is only correct in so far as it goes, yes we revert to WTO rules, and putting aside the economic disaster that would be, what isn't correct about that statement is all the stuff we do or have been doing with the EU that isn't covered in the least by WTO rules, WTO rules only cover trade, so co-operation on science, policing, common standards, EU citizens in the UK, UK citizens in the EU, reciprocal health care, fishing, civilian air control, visa requirements, continue co-operation on foreign embassies and so so so much more. Plus you have to imagine, that if talks fail to reach an agreement because we refuse to pay the demanded exit fee, the EU may think about imposing sanctions of some sort of some other means of punishing us, having no plan to deal with this stuff is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm wilfully pretty ignorant about this sort of thing, but does this mean the EU can pluck any figure out of the air and demand we pay it (the escalating billions that seem to be currently quoted, for example), or otherwise the UK loses all that you mention? Wouldn't the EU also lose out if we reached a no-deal? This is why, when we have so much at stake, the words of cretins like Boris are astounding in their delusion and arrogance. At the very least, he should show more repect toward the people he and the UK are dealing with. Is it arrogance, does he not have a sense of humility, or is he 'right' to show such brazen defiance to his negotiators?
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2017 12:13:42 GMT
Post by jasonward on Jul 12, 2017 12:13:42 GMT
I'm wilfully pretty ignorant about this sort of thing, but does this mean the EU can pluck any figure out of the air and demand we pay it (the escalating billions that seem to be currently quoted, for example), or otherwise the UK loses all that you mention? Wouldn't the EU also lose out if we reached a no-deal? Yes they can pick any figure they want, it doesn't mean we have to agree to it, or that some clever means can be used so that EU ministers can say UK pays X whilst UK ministers can say UK pays Y. As to what we loose, again that is all down the talks and agreement. And yes, Brexit is going to hurt the EU a lot too, with our without an agreement both the UK and the EU are going to hurt, it is in all parties interests to have some form of agreement,but getting an agreement is going to be incredibly difficult, and frankly failure has to considered as a somewhat likely outcome, not because anyone is being wilful (despite the wilful comments of Boris and others) but just because were already one 8th of our way through the 24 month timeline, and frankly negotiations appear to have not reached beyond hand waving and grandstanding.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2017 12:27:44 GMT
Post by jasonward on Jul 12, 2017 12:27:44 GMT
@paz, just had another thought about. Imagine a divorce between two people, now make this the most complicated divorce possible, with not only multiple homes and both parties having good but variable past incomes, children, loved pets, but also that they have multiple jointly owned businesses but each with varying %'s and many of those business's benefit directly from close trading ties with each other and access to privately held property.
Now imagine the divorce *MUST* be concluded in 24 months or all the assets get arbiterilly assigned and companies owned by one will have all contracts with companies held by the other severed, the kids and pets similarly treated and then imagine that the parties get no outside help, no judge to rule on what one side is entitled to, now imagine this marriage is not 2 people, but 27.
And now get that EU/UK relationship is several orders more complicated than that.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2017 12:55:45 GMT
Post by number13 on Jul 12, 2017 12:55:45 GMT
Of course there is effectively a 'plan' that would happen in the event of no deal - we would leave and become like every other non-EU country without a deal with the EU. (WTO rules on tariffs etc.) It doesn't mean we would like it or that it would be a good option (it would be a very bad option in my opinion), but it is no secret. That's not correct... or it is only correct in so far as it goes, yes we revert to WTO rules, and putting aside the economic disaster that would be, what isn't correct about that statement is all the stuff we do or have been doing with the EU that isn't covered in the least by WTO rules, WTO rules only cover trade, so co-operation on science, policing, common standards, EU citizens in the UK, UK citizens in the EU, reciprocal health care, fishing, civilian air control, visa requirements, continue co-operation on foreign embassies and so so so much more. Plus you have to imagine, that if talks fail to reach an agreement because we refuse to pay the demanded exit fee, the EU may think about imposing sanctions of some sort of some other means of punishing us, having no plan to deal with this stuff is a disaster waiting to happen. Very good point, you're right I was thinking about trade. I don't know about a plan but some of the other areas are being talked about (I've heard reciprocal health care & fishing recently) and of course EU citizens in the UK & UK citizens in the EU are supposed to be top of the main negotations - if they can't agree a deal on that then they might as well give up on the rest. I don't want to believe that the "EU may think about imposing sanctions of some sort of some other means of punishing us" - if that is true, those hard Brexiteers were right who called it a protection racket that you dare not leave. I think the EU (and the U.K.) are better than that, or at least I hope so. Optimism and don't admitting failure is a fine strategy for most negotiations. Thing is these are international negotiations which will potentially make or break the UK's economy for years to come, add to that the two year time limit (which sounds like a decent enough amount of time, but as 27 governments have to agree to this deal really isn't). They really need to conducted realistically not idealistically. I'd hope the government has at least a vague plan for if these negotiations fail, hopefully beyond 'we go to WTO rules and hope the economy doesn't buckle', to use a crude analogy if you're teetering on the edge of a cliff packing a parachute might just be a good idea. Fair enough and I don't underestimate the importance, but if we don't get a trade deal (maybe with a transition period) then I don't see what trade plan there can be except WTO rules? If two parties won't agree a trade deal, surely only the default option (however undesirable) is left? (Until they hopefully came to their senses and did a deal later, but that wouldn't prevent damage being done first.) ---- As a general comment, I voted Remain and the hideous complexity and cost (of many kinds) of getting the UK out of the EU after 40+ years of shared economic, social and legislative life was among the top reasons. I don't underestimate the difficulties. But I do think there is a tendency in the broadcast media to accept as absolutely true everything that comes out of Brussels on the subject - and to deride everything (significant or trivial) our government says or does. I was pro-Remain but I'm trying not to be one-sided now; we're leaving and I still think there will be a deal. But I don't expect much real action until after the German elections in the autumn; then the governments (as opposed to Brussels) will start serious efforts - industry and national politicians (on both sides) are the players who will really want a deal for their businesses and voters.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2017 13:08:52 GMT
Post by number13 on Jul 12, 2017 13:08:52 GMT
That's not correct... or it is only correct in so far as it goes, yes we revert to WTO rules, and putting aside the economic disaster that would be, what isn't correct about that statement is all the stuff we do or have been doing with the EU that isn't covered in the least by WTO rules, WTO rules only cover trade, so co-operation on science, policing, common standards, EU citizens in the UK, UK citizens in the EU, reciprocal health care, fishing, civilian air control, visa requirements, continue co-operation on foreign embassies and so so so much more. Plus you have to imagine, that if talks fail to reach an agreement because we refuse to pay the demanded exit fee, the EU may think about imposing sanctions of some sort of some other means of punishing us, having no plan to deal with this stuff is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm wilfully pretty ignorant about this sort of thing, but does this mean the EU can pluck any figure out of the air and demand we pay it (the escalating billions that seem to be currently quoted, for example), or otherwise the UK loses all that you mention? Wouldn't the EU also lose out if we reached a no-deal? This is why, when we have so much at stake, the words of cretins like Boris are astounding in their delusion and arrogance. At the very least, he should show more repect toward the people he and the UK are dealing with. Is it arrogance, does he not have a sense of humility, or is he 'right' to show such brazen defiance to his negotiators? I think there is a lot of political hot air on both sides which should not be taken too seriously or over-analysed. Boris' comments in the Commons are really not that unusual (for politicians in general, not just him.) Floating €50-100bn (as some in the EU have done) is provocative and disrespectful nonsense, receiving an equally provocative and disrespectful dismissal from our side. Democratic politicians 'play to the gallery'; it doesn't stop them from also getting the real work done, most of the time. The UK and EU have a long history of this. I remember the 80s and Thatcher's repeated 'handbagging' of the EU, according to the press. But she still helped negotiate and signed up to some of the most important EU treaties of all. Eurosceptic???
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2017 13:29:54 GMT
Post by jasonward on Jul 12, 2017 13:29:54 GMT
I don't want to believe that the "EU may think about imposing sanctions of some sort of some other means of punishing us" - if that is true, those hard Brexiteers were right who called it a protection racket that you dare not leave. I think the EU (and the U.K.) are better than that, or at least I hope so. The reason I think they EU may consider sanctions of some type, is not because of some protectionist racket, but because the UK leaving the EU is a huge problem for the EU, the hole in the EU budget is large, and the EU need a settlement with the UK partly to ease their pain as they move into a new smaller budget EU and to actually see if the UK will continue to contribute to certain budgets in a quid pro quo that allows the UK to continue to benefit from those areas. The EU or certain members at least, may want to impose sanctions in order to force the UK into paying and reducing the EU's own pain. Of course this is highly speculative and is something I hope no one wants to see happen, but your going to stand in parliament and grand stand about what is or is not going to be in the deal, you have to be at least aware that your stand may prevent a deal happening and if it does do that, you need a plan to deal with that. If the UK was a listed company, it's annul report would have to contain a future risk section and lay out some broad approaches to those risks, and if that section read "We are going to get a good deal and as such have no plans for if we cannot reach a deal" the shareholders and indeed quite probably a regulator too, would be asking some very stern questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 13:32:39 GMT
I'm wilfully pretty ignorant about this sort of thing, but does this mean the EU can pluck any figure out of the air and demand we pay it (the escalating billions that seem to be currently quoted, for example), or otherwise the UK loses all that you mention? Wouldn't the EU also lose out if we reached a no-deal? This is why, when we have so much at stake, the words of cretins like Boris are astounding in their delusion and arrogance. At the very least, he should show more repect toward the people he and the UK are dealing with. Is it arrogance, does he not have a sense of humility, or is he 'right' to show such brazen defiance to his negotiators? I think there is a lot of political hot air on both sides which should not be taken too seriously or over-analysed. Boris' comments in the Commons are really not that unusual (for politicians in general, not just him.) Floating €50-100bn (as some in the EU have done) is provocative and disrespectful nonsense, receiving an equally provocative and disrespectful dismissal from our side. Democratic politicians 'play to the gallery'; it doesn't stop them from also getting the real work done, most of the time. The UK and EU have a long history of this. I remember the 80s and Thatcher's repeated 'handbagging' of the EU, according to the press. But she still helped negotiate and signed up to some of the most important EU treaties of all. Eurosceptic??? Now this is also very true. I am appalled at Boris' latest antics, and was pretty incredulous when Mr Farage told ministers at an EU conference shortly after Brexit was announced that 'none of them had done a day's work in their lives'. This may provoke cheers from certain quarters, but made me squirm a bit, baring in mind we have to negotiate with these same people. But you're right, it isn't as if the EU haven't shown disrespect to the UK themselves. I suppose it comes down to human beings acting like human beings. My ignorance in these matters come from naively just wanting people simply get along. When they fail to do so on such a grand scale, it bothers me. And there's not a b*gger I can do about it.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2017 16:16:55 GMT
Post by number13 on Jul 12, 2017 16:16:55 GMT
I think there is a lot of political hot air on both sides which should not be taken too seriously or over-analysed. Boris' comments in the Commons are really not that unusual (for politicians in general, not just him.) Floating €50-100bn (as some in the EU have done) is provocative and disrespectful nonsense, receiving an equally provocative and disrespectful dismissal from our side. Democratic politicians 'play to the gallery'; it doesn't stop them from also getting the real work done, most of the time. The UK and EU have a long history of this. I remember the 80s and Thatcher's repeated 'handbagging' of the EU, according to the press. But she still helped negotiate and signed up to some of the most important EU treaties of all. Eurosceptic??? Now this is also very true. I am appalled at Boris' latest antics, and was pretty incredulous when Mr Farage told ministers at an EU conference shortly after Brexit was announced that 'none of them had done a day's work in their lives'. This may provoke cheers from certain quarters, but made me squirm a bit, baring in mind we have to negotiate with these same people. But you're right, it isn't as if the EU haven't shown disrespect to the UK themselves. I suppose it comes down to human beings acting like human beings. My ignorance in these matters come from naively just wanting people simply get along. When they fail to do so on such a grand scale, it bothers me. And there's not a b*gger I can do about it. I remember that speech vividly! It was in the EU Parliament and I couldn't understand how he got away with such rudeness. The debates get heated in Westminster, but any MP who insulted other MPs or the House would instantly have the Speaker telling them to apologise - and sit down. And he was factually wrong - apart from all the work MEPs do for their constituents, I'm sure most of them also had another job before being an MEP. Mind you, we recently saw the President of the European Commission being rude to his own Parliament - and he did get told off! It seems that manners are better in Westminster, amazingly enough. The divisions bother me too; the EU was founded so people in Europe would finally get along after centuries of war. And gradually established the free movement of goods, services and (very importantly) people, with common standards and rights. It is a very great achievement between cooperating nations. For me the problems began when they then started trying to form a single state, as implied by the single currency, which is a different proposition. Although I still thought it was better to Remain and keep trying for reform.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jul 12, 2017 16:38:48 GMT
Now this is also very true. I am appalled at Boris' latest antics, and was pretty incredulous when Mr Farage told ministers at an EU conference shortly after Brexit was announced that 'none of them had done a day's work in their lives'. This may provoke cheers from certain quarters, but made me squirm a bit, baring in mind we have to negotiate with these same people. But you're right, it isn't as if the EU haven't shown disrespect to the UK themselves. I suppose it comes down to human beings acting like human beings. My ignorance in these matters come from naively just wanting people simply get along. When they fail to do so on such a grand scale, it bothers me. And there's not a b*gger I can do about it. I remember that speech vividly! It was in the EU Parliament and I couldn't understand how he got away with such rudeness. The debates get heated in Westminster, but any MP who insulted other MPs or the House would instantly have the Speaker telling them to apologise - and sit down. And he was factually wrong - apart from all the work MEPs do for their constituents, I'm sure most of them also had another job before being an MEP. Mind you, we recently saw the President of the European Commission being rude to his own Parliament - and he did get told off! It seems that manners are better in Westminster, amazingly enough. During Farage's speech an MEP was pictured with his head in his hands. Turns out that MEP was formerly a heart surgeon, which I think I'm right in saying counts as a 'proper job'. And tbf to him, the President was rude as he was attending an event at the Parliament which barely any MEPs decided to show up to. There's been insults in both sides but it's ridiculous the attitude some politicians are having. Farage literally spent the leave campaign preaching that everyone would be reasonable and get a good deal due to the necessity of it, then he goes an insults them pretty much destroying his own argument,
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Jul 12, 2017 18:09:10 GMT
I never liked Margaret Thatcher, but I'd rather have her standing where Bojo is now, because her "handbagging" was backed by tactics and a willingness to play hardball, and that means PLAY hardball, not just rant about stuff and effectively do nothing. Hardball doesn't mean sulking and refusing to play. Those who seek to emulate Mrs T are following all her worst points and none of the good, it seems to this voter at least. I voted Remain because I believe, and still do, that leaving was frankly dense. You fix things from the inside. But the vote went the way it did and now we have to get on with it, and positing kak like "No deal is better than a bad deal" is rubbish. Go and negotiate! Get Ken Clarke! Davis is so out of his depth its laughable, and someone shut Bojo up, he IS big but he's not clever. Whatever possible reasons for leaving there were/are he didn't believe in any of them, he just wanted it to springboard his chance to be PM, and that failed. Thanks to Gove the knife.
Rant over for a bit.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2017 18:22:21 GMT
Post by number13 on Jul 12, 2017 18:22:21 GMT
I never liked Margaret Thatcher, but I'd rather have her standing where Bojo is now, because her "handbagging" was backed by tactics and a willingness to play hardball, and that means PLAY hardball, not just rant about stuff and effectively do nothing. Hardball doesn't mean sulking and refusing to play. Those who seek to emulate Mrs T are following all her worst points and none of the good, it seems to this voter at least. I voted Remain because I believe, and still do, that leaving was frankly dense. You fix things from the inside. But the vote went the way it did and now we have to get on with it, and positing kak like "No deal is better than a bad deal" is rubbish. Go and negotiate! Get Ken Clarke! Davis is so out of his depth its laughable, and someone shut Bojo up, he IS big but he's not clever. Whatever possible reasons for leaving there were/are he didn't believe in any of them, he just wanted it to springboard his chance to be PM, and that failed. Thanks to Gove the knife. Rant over for a bit. Great post, by my count you hit the nail on the head at least five times there. Ken Clarke - best (Conservative) PM we never had.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 27, 2017 14:33:57 GMT
Post by jasonward on Jul 27, 2017 14:33:57 GMT
Brexit: UK-EU freedom of movement 'to end in March 2019'www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-407345041) A new immigration system will be in place by March 2019 when the free movement of people between the EU and the UK ends 2) Immigration Minister Brandon Lewis was speaking as the government commissioned a "detailed assessment" of the costs and benefits of EU migrants. That report is expected in September 2018, six months before Brexit. 3) the government's final EU migration policy would be drawn up after the committee has produced its report. In the meantime, she said, there would be an "implementation phase" which would involve new EU workers registering their details when they come to the UK. 4) Mr Lewis would not confirm details of how the government plans to manage migration after Brexit, saying these would be revealed in a white paper later this year, and that the immigration bill would go through Parliament in 2018. Anyone else think that these dates and deadlines are all confused or contradictory? How can you have an implementation phase for a policy that will not be decided until after implementation starts? How can you have a white paper giving your plans in 2017 when you will not actually have any plans till after September 2018?
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 27, 2017 14:44:08 GMT
Post by jasonward on Jul 27, 2017 14:44:08 GMT
More over, how do you get a report in September that will make recommendations you may or may not agree with, give people opportunity to reply to and consult on the recommendations, form policy, issue a new white paper, debate the white paper and then pass primary legislation by March (6 months later) the following year, all whilst handing all the other myriad of stuff also needed by Brexit?
In truth I had started to imagine that the 2 to 3 years post Brexit would look very much like the 2 to 3 years before, and only then would real changes come as parliament got time and government got it's head around the true scope of the changes.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jul 27, 2017 15:05:57 GMT
Brexit: UK-EU freedom of movement 'to end in March 2019'www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-407345041) A new immigration system will be in place by March 2019 when the free movement of people between the EU and the UK ends 2) Immigration Minister Brandon Lewis was speaking as the government commissioned a "detailed assessment" of the costs and benefits of EU migrants. That report is expected in September 2018, six months before Brexit. 3) the government's final EU migration policy would be drawn up after the committee has produced its report. In the meantime, she said, there would be an "implementation phase" which would involve new EU workers registering their details when they come to the UK. 4) Mr Lewis would not confirm details of how the government plans to manage migration after Brexit, saying these would be revealed in a white paper later this year, and that the immigration bill would go through Parliament in 2018. Anyone else think that these dates and deadlines are all confused or contradictory? How can you have an implementation phase for a policy that will not be decided until after implementation starts? How can you have a white paper giving your plans in 2017 when you will not actually have any plans till after September 2018? It's basically an attempt to say they are ending freedom of movement (pro-Brexit newspapers have not been happy about reports it might continue as part of the 'implementation phase' post-Brexit) and simultaneously reassuring people that they have a plan for post-Brexit. It really doesn't hold up time-wise at all. I wouldn't be surprised if these plans change. Certainty and Brexit do not seem able to co-exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Jul 28, 2017 23:13:58 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 23:13:58 GMT
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 28, 2017 23:55:35 GMT
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jul 28, 2017 23:55:35 GMT
I take articles like these with a few grains of salt: lest we forget, there were also suspcious numbers of student votes that went missing, as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Jul 28, 2017 23:57:58 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 23:57:58 GMT
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 29, 2017 0:15:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by sherlock on Jul 29, 2017 0:15:01 GMT
Yet to see any article about this cite any evidence besides 'some said they had'. I'm a student, I haven't heard of anyone I know doing this. So we'll just have to wait and see if the Commission actually finds anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Jul 29, 2017 0:16:20 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 0:16:20 GMT
Yet to see any article about this cite any evidence besides 'some said they had'. I'm a student, I haven't heard of anyone I know doing this. So we'll just have to wait and see if the Commission actually finds anything. Yeah. To be honest, I was just throwing it out there to see the thoughts of the people.
|
|