How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)

[Piha]

Murph7355 said:

dai1983 said:

I'm originally from an area that had millions of pounds redistributed there from the EU. After years of "managed decline" by Westminster the EU decided to fund most of a new dual carriageway where I expect Westminster would have pissed against the wall elsewhere...

One man's "pissed up the wall elsewhere" is another man's "new dual carriageway"

I'd rather the man making those decisions was voted for by people in this country, a citizen of this country and wholly accountable to this country etc.

Should Wales, Scotland and NI leave the Union then?

[gooner1]

Piha said:

Murph7355 said:

Polite M135 driver said:

City_boy said:

‘En masse’ they wanted to leave the EU.

obviously, that's what we're talking about. Unfortunately 'en masse' the electorate is making the wrong choice for the country and most probably themselves as individuals too. Remember, the areas that receive highest levels of EU funding were also those that voted most strongly to leave.

"Wrong" because you think so? Or wrong because a proportion of 650 MPs think so? Remember that group includes Abbott, Rayner, McDonnell, Johnson etc. Or wrong because 600+ economists said so?

NOWHERE in the UK receives EU funding. Some areas get a proportion of what the UK gives to the EU back and are told what it must be spent on.

That seems to escape remain voters often (as we're talking about being wrong).

Personally I'd rather have politicians as close to the place the money is needed making those decisions. They can be better held to account that way, and better able to determine direction on the balance of needs.

If I allow you to use my top paddock for your horses but we agree it costs you £5.00 per year, thus you happily giving me that £5.00, then who does that £5.00 belong to? Me or you?

You, but if you later give me back the £5 on the premise I spend it on what ever suits you then
................?

[alfie2244]

ash73 said:

The shredder can only do so much at a time!

Joking aside, so far there's nothing new that wasn't explained in parliament and in the commentary. Storm in a teacup.

So what was all this " we can't release because of national security" or similar, about?

[Mothersruin]

ash73 said:

alfie2244 said:

saaby93 said:

Mothersruin said:

alfie2244 said:

Mothersruin said:

FYI - If you fancy a read of the legal advice declared this morning.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exiting...

The advice is only on the NI issue - not the full advice as requested by Parliament.

Was Bill Cash saying ithere is still legal advice not yet disclosed?

Yup.

Maybe it is the full advice

I could be entirely wrong but I believe only the advice about the NI backstop may have been released not the full advice relating to the legality of the entire WA.

The shredder can only do so much at a time!

Joking aside, so far there's nothing new that wasn't explained in parliament and in the commentary. Storm in a teacup.

Same ambiguous wording Yesterday - nothing to worry about, the EU are lovely and would never hold to that because it's a slight pain for them
Today's disclosure of same ambiguous wording - be very, very careful, the EU if they so wanted to hold us to this in perpetuity or we have to sell NI off down the river.

It's a bit like the Koran - two guys read a bit, one goes and blows up kids, the other starts making food for the homeless.

[Tuna]

I'll quote the conclusion again, because it appears some people want to interpret the legal advice in their own special way:

legal advice said:

In conclusion: the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19, does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement. This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political.

This is not 'ambiguous', and in the context of May pushing the agreement, it is a pretty serious allegation.

[Tuna]

Piha said:

If I allow you to use my top paddock for your horses but we agree it costs you £5.00 per year, thus you happily giving me that £5.00, then who does that £5.00 belong to? Me or you?

..and if you tell me that without your help I couldn't possibly own horses, I should believe you?

[Mothersruin]

Tuna said:

I'll quote the conclusion again, because it appears some people want to interpret the legal advice in their own special way:

legal advice said:

In conclusion: the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19, does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement. This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political.

This is not 'ambiguous', and in the context of May pushing the agreement, it is a pretty serious allegation.

I agree - it was painted as such though yesterday.

[saaby93]

alfie2244 said:

saaby93 said:

Mothersruin said:

alfie2244 said:

Mothersruin said:

FYI - If you fancy a read of the legal advice declared this morning.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exiting...

The advice is only on the NI issue - not the full advice as requested by Parliament.

Was Bill Cash saying ithere is still legal advice not yet disclosed?

Yup.

Maybe it is the full advice

I could be entirely wrong but I believe only the advice about the NI backstop may have been released not the full advice relating to the legality of the entire WA.

I refer my PH colleague to my previous reply

[olimain]

Tuna said:

I'll quote the conclusion again, because it appears some people want to interpret the legal advice in their own special way:

legal advice said:

In conclusion: the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19, does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement. This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political.

This is not 'ambiguous', and in the context of May pushing the agreement, it is a pretty serious allegation.

They keep saying "the backstop isn't ideal for the EU either, it's not the preferred outcome" but why? We would not be able to have an independent trade policy, therefore are not able to undercut/be competitive. We enforce protectionist tariffs for things we do not produce.

What is in it for the EU to do a trade deal?

[saaby93]

olimain said:

What is in it for the EU to do a trade deal?

Volume 6 and how many pages in?

[gooner1]

Piha said:

Should Wales, Scotland and NI leave the Union then?

That is a matter for them, perhaps they'll hold a Referendum.

[saaby93]

gooner1 said:

Piha said:

Should Wales, Scotland and NI leave the Union then?

That is a matter for them, perhaps they'll hold a Referendum.

Still reckon the best way through this impasse is for Eire to join the union
What benefits could they be offered?
United Ireland....

[olimain]

saaby93 said:

Volume 6 and how many pages in?

Apologies, if you're just catching up there's been a Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed since Volume 1. They contain detail of a backstop and it has been confirmed that we cannot unilaterally withdraw from it. Our wonderful MPs tell us the EU don't want the backstop to be triggered and for us to remain in it for eternity, I'm asking why as it seems very beneficial for them for exactly that to happen.

[saaby93]

olimain said:

saaby93 said:

Volume 6 and how many pages in?

Apologies, if you're just catching up there's been a Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed since Volume 1. They contain detail of a backstop and it has been confirmed that we cannot unilaterally withdraw from it. Our wonderful MPs tell us the EU don't want the backstop to be triggered and for us to remain in it for eternity, I'm asking why as it seems very beneficial for them for exactly that to happen.

They want to retain a decent trade deal with the UK?
and avoid some sort of border arrangement between NI and Eire

[olimain]

saaby93 said:

They want to retain a decent trade deal with the UK?
and avoid some sort of border arrangement between NI and Eire

Apologies if I'm not making myself clear. My question is what better deal could they have than us remaining in the customs union?

[TEKNOPUG]

olimain said:

saaby93 said:

Volume 6 and how many pages in?

Apologies, if you're just catching up there's been a Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed since Volume 1. They contain detail of a backstop and it has been confirmed that we cannot unilaterally withdraw from it. Our wonderful MPs tell us the EU don't want the backstop to be triggered and for us to remain in it for eternity, I'm asking why as it seems very beneficial for them for exactly that to happen.

Because we would retain access to the SM at a much reduced rate comared to say a Norway style agreement, indefinitely. But it's still hugely beneficial to the EU for us to be in that position, than to leave altogether.

[Mothersruin]

TEKNOPUG said:

olimain said:

saaby93 said:

Volume 6 and how many pages in?

Apologies, if you're just catching up there's been a Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed since Volume 1. They contain detail of a backstop and it has been confirmed that we cannot unilaterally withdraw from it. Our wonderful MPs tell us the EU don't want the backstop to be triggered and for us to remain in it for eternity, I'm asking why as it seems very beneficial for them for exactly that to happen.

Because we would retain access to the SM at a much reduced rate comared to say a Norway style agreement, indefinitely. But it's still hugely beneficial to the EU for us to be in that position, than to leave altogether.

Will we still be liable to pay them 'dues' while they're holding in the SM?

[olimain]

TEKNOPUG said:

Because we would retain access to the SM at a much reduced rate comared to say a Norway style agreement, indefinitely. But it's still hugely beneficial to the EU for us to be in that position, than to leave altogether.

I thought just NI would remain tied to some parts of the single market in the backstop, not the UK? The whole of the UK remains in the customs union though.

[saaby93]

olimain said:

saaby93 said:

They want to retain a decent trade deal with the UK?
and avoid some sort of border arrangement between NI and Eire

Apologies if I'm not making myself clear. My question is what better deal could they have than us remaining in the customs union?

There isnt one
Ideally we'd be remaining in the EU with free movement etc ( and a nice income)
Full Brexit is no good to them (nor us?)
The back stop deal is a reasonable compromise
ETA see teknopug

[olimain]

saaby93 said:

There isnt one
Ideally we'd be remaining in the EU with free movement etc ( and a nice income)
Full Brexit is no good to them (nor us)
The back stop deal is a reasonable compromise

Thank you, I can see how it's a great result for the EU but not for the UK - why would they have any desire to end the backstop?