How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)
Discussion
The "peoples vote mob" are out again but not sure what the question or questions might be. In the event of another referendum who do we believe who has been totally honest during this debate.
Another Referendum will be close with Remain clearly thinking even a small victory will be enough to stop the blood letting when the opposite is very likely.
If both parties want the same outcome what is the problem other than Politicians and their EGO's
Another Referendum will be close with Remain clearly thinking even a small victory will be enough to stop the blood letting when the opposite is very likely.
If both parties want the same outcome what is the problem other than Politicians and their EGO's
Pan Pan Pan said:
The irony of all of this is that if the EU had given the UK just a little of what Camoron was asking for back in 2015, the UK might have returned a majority remain vote in the 2016 referendum.
But being so smug and arrogant, and ignoring the fact that the UK is the EU`s second greatest net contributor of funds into its coffers whilst receiving not a single net positive penny of funding from the EU for all the time it has been a member. As well as being its biggest single market, and one which buys up 95 billion pounds worth of goods and services a year more than is sold into the EU from the UK. The EU just said No. just like they have repeated in answer to Mays requests for something to take back to the UK parliament to help get the chequers deal through.
Ultimately it would seem, that what would be deemed to be a good deal for the EU, is an awful deal for the UK, whilst what would be a good deal for the UK would be regarded as an awful deal for the EU
proving that all along, being in the EU is not, and never was a good deal for the UK.
Who could forget Joseph Muscat, the Maltese Prime Minister, standing in front of the cameras, telling us that the UK needs to remember when negotiating the exit that it's just a small country when dealing with big people like us.But being so smug and arrogant, and ignoring the fact that the UK is the EU`s second greatest net contributor of funds into its coffers whilst receiving not a single net positive penny of funding from the EU for all the time it has been a member. As well as being its biggest single market, and one which buys up 95 billion pounds worth of goods and services a year more than is sold into the EU from the UK. The EU just said No. just like they have repeated in answer to Mays requests for something to take back to the UK parliament to help get the chequers deal through.
Ultimately it would seem, that what would be deemed to be a good deal for the EU, is an awful deal for the UK, whilst what would be a good deal for the UK would be regarded as an awful deal for the EU
proving that all along, being in the EU is not, and never was a good deal for the UK.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
The very least we had in terms of a position of strength was the ability to say that we are willing and able to walk away with no deal
Ah, the HERO or ZERO approach. And what do we do when the EU negotiators also "double down" and say "WALK" ?? This is the problem, it's really easy to play hardball when you're not the guy actually playing the match. desolate said:
Murph7355 said:
The consequences of ignoring the majority in a referendum like 2016's will be far worse than a few smashed windows. And that applies to us all.
Can you clarify what you mean, please?Faith and trust in politicians was already on its arse.
Do you think them ignoring the outcome of a referendum as was held will improve or worsen that situation?
We all need an electorate that is properly engaged in the way this country is governed. We need a political class that knows its electorate is fully engaged. And the two need to trust each other.
Revoking article 50 would smash that to pieces.
Some Remain advocates (the likes of mx5nut, helicopter123 etc) would be over the moon about it. They'd cause themselves a mischief desperately trying to tell everyone how right they were etc etc... But think about the consequences.
This isn't OK because some ignoring of the electorate actually went in your favour. Next time it won't, and it will be no good bleating about it as the precedent will have been set.
Sway said:
That would be the "court" that's currently unable to field a full roster?
We've had two years of negotiations - the outcome of which have a material impact on the needs regarding the goods border. So it's entirely understandable that we're in a position of needing to act quickly without a fully detailed plan.
Implementation periods are entirely normal for WTO, and the pace of the arbitration process is slow enough that it's entirely likely by the time of any judgement, the full solution would already be in place.
You may be "sure" - you also have limited experience of how international trade disputes are heard, and have spent two years misrepresenting normal WTO practice relating to border change and ignoring the rebuttals - waiting a few weeks to pop up again with exactly the same argument...
Just as you've completely ignored the responses pointing out you don't need the same level of "control" over every border, and every category of goods/CoO.
I have never used the word sure because I have limited knowledge of trade disputes, I suspect you are the same.We've had two years of negotiations - the outcome of which have a material impact on the needs regarding the goods border. So it's entirely understandable that we're in a position of needing to act quickly without a fully detailed plan.
Implementation periods are entirely normal for WTO, and the pace of the arbitration process is slow enough that it's entirely likely by the time of any judgement, the full solution would already be in place.
You may be "sure" - you also have limited experience of how international trade disputes are heard, and have spent two years misrepresenting normal WTO practice relating to border change and ignoring the rebuttals - waiting a few weeks to pop up again with exactly the same argument...
Just as you've completely ignored the responses pointing out you don't need the same level of "control" over every border, and every category of goods/CoO.
It does seem odd the UK government thinks there is a problem the Irish government thinks there is a problem, the EU thinks there is a problem, all the experts on trade think it’s a problem.
Whereas a couple of posters on a car forum know better.
Murph7355 said:
Sure.
Faith and trust in politicians was already on its arse.
Do you think them ignoring the outcome of a referendum as was held will improve or worsen that situation?
We all need an electorate that is properly engaged in the way this country is governed. We need a political class that knows its electorate is fully engaged. And the two need to trust each other.
Revoking article 50 would smash that to pieces.
Some Remain advocates (the likes of mx5nut, helicopter123 etc) would be over the moon about it. They'd cause themselves a mischief desperately trying to tell everyone how right they were etc etc... But think about the consequences.
This isn't OK because some ignoring of the electorate actually went in your favour. Next time it won't, and it will be no good bleating about it as the precedent will have been set.
Understood. We are definitely very close to a tipping point, and we have already be beyond.Faith and trust in politicians was already on its arse.
Do you think them ignoring the outcome of a referendum as was held will improve or worsen that situation?
We all need an electorate that is properly engaged in the way this country is governed. We need a political class that knows its electorate is fully engaged. And the two need to trust each other.
Revoking article 50 would smash that to pieces.
Some Remain advocates (the likes of mx5nut, helicopter123 etc) would be over the moon about it. They'd cause themselves a mischief desperately trying to tell everyone how right they were etc etc... But think about the consequences.
This isn't OK because some ignoring of the electorate actually went in your favour. Next time it won't, and it will be no good bleating about it as the precedent will have been set.
I think it's been mentioned previously but, whatever the outcome, it appears that "Brexit" will become a sectarian matter for a fairly large proportion of the electorate (both remain and leave).
Coolbanana said:
Yes, Murph, please clarify 
I cannot see Britons en masse taking to the streets in riotous fashion over Brexit. Even those who decide to march peacefully will struggle to match the Remainer numbers.
Why? Simply because no Remainers will have any issue with it - so that's 48%. Abstainers won't, so that's the majority of the population and most Leavers won't, simply because most just won't be all that fussed enough to be activists when their lives are not going to be materially negatively affected enough to warrant it.
That leaves only a relatively small number of actual Brexit Activists - and even among those, many are just hot air and angry typists - and those can be managed no probs.
Not as big a deal as some anarchist Brexiters would like to believe.
Once you're finished with your morning bottle of cheap plonk, go and read the rest of the post desolate didn't quote. I cannot see Britons en masse taking to the streets in riotous fashion over Brexit. Even those who decide to march peacefully will struggle to match the Remainer numbers.
Why? Simply because no Remainers will have any issue with it - so that's 48%. Abstainers won't, so that's the majority of the population and most Leavers won't, simply because most just won't be all that fussed enough to be activists when their lives are not going to be materially negatively affected enough to warrant it.
That leaves only a relatively small number of actual Brexit Activists - and even among those, many are just hot air and angry typists - and those can be managed no probs.
Not as big a deal as some anarchist Brexiters would like to believe.
Government ignoring the electorate, going against votes and headline manifesto promises is not healthy for anyone.
Yes, governments passed have done some of these things previously. But this is a different scale.
Fortunately I think both major parties are aware of this which is why they are being cagey. Big Vince and Lucas can shout their mouths off all they like - no consequence for them as they will never have to face the music of being in power. But for the real players, they know (no matter how tempted they may be).
ash73 said:
Some interesting details here:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...
Thanks for the link.https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...
The article makes grim reading.
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
That would be the "court" that's currently unable to field a full roster?
We've had two years of negotiations - the outcome of which have a material impact on the needs regarding the goods border. So it's entirely understandable that we're in a position of needing to act quickly without a fully detailed plan.
Implementation periods are entirely normal for WTO, and the pace of the arbitration process is slow enough that it's entirely likely by the time of any judgement, the full solution would already be in place.
You may be "sure" - you also have limited experience of how international trade disputes are heard, and have spent two years misrepresenting normal WTO practice relating to border change and ignoring the rebuttals - waiting a few weeks to pop up again with exactly the same argument...
Just as you've completely ignored the responses pointing out you don't need the same level of "control" over every border, and every category of goods/CoO.
I have never used the word sure because I have limited knowledge of trade disputes, I suspect you are the same.We've had two years of negotiations - the outcome of which have a material impact on the needs regarding the goods border. So it's entirely understandable that we're in a position of needing to act quickly without a fully detailed plan.
Implementation periods are entirely normal for WTO, and the pace of the arbitration process is slow enough that it's entirely likely by the time of any judgement, the full solution would already be in place.
You may be "sure" - you also have limited experience of how international trade disputes are heard, and have spent two years misrepresenting normal WTO practice relating to border change and ignoring the rebuttals - waiting a few weeks to pop up again with exactly the same argument...
Just as you've completely ignored the responses pointing out you don't need the same level of "control" over every border, and every category of goods/CoO.
It does seem odd the UK government thinks there is a problem the Irish government thinks there is a problem, the EU thinks there is a problem, all the experts on trade think it’s a problem.
Whereas a couple of posters on a car forum know better.
Mrr T said:
So let’s see how this works.
Harwich goods entering from outside the EU. Have to have custom declaration. Which are matched to the goods and VAT and tariffs paid, the goods are then allowed to cross into the UK. Goods entering the UK from Ireland. No documentation, no controls no collection of VAT or tariffs. I am sure the WTO court will agree these are broadly similar.
We can certainly argue it’s a border change and change could not be implemented in time. Mind you we have 2 years and our only plans are a half page description of a technology solution. Again you might win but then again the court might think you are an idiot
I've highlighted in bold, then again your closing statement making it quite clear in your opinion anyone suggesting that a reasonable implementation period wouldn't be agreed and instead we'd be found in breach is an idiot. Harwich goods entering from outside the EU. Have to have custom declaration. Which are matched to the goods and VAT and tariffs paid, the goods are then allowed to cross into the UK. Goods entering the UK from Ireland. No documentation, no controls no collection of VAT or tariffs. I am sure the WTO court will agree these are broadly similar.
We can certainly argue it’s a border change and change could not be implemented in time. Mind you we have 2 years and our only plans are a half page description of a technology solution. Again you might win but then again the court might think you are an idiot
You seemed quite sure earlier today.
Amazingly, the Irish and British Governments aren't necessarily speaking with one mind.
Incomplete list of people suggesting there is no issue with a technology border:
Bertie Ahearn
David Davis
Jacob Rees Mogg
Michel Barnier
ERG
The nation of Norway
The nation of Sweden
WTO
Of course, I've not relied on argument by personality - I've presented why I don't believe there's any issue, and the processes that the WTO have to approach such a suggestion.
You resort to "but people are saying that doesn't work" - with no rationale for why.
We've done this loop several times - I'll just skip to your typical final statement, which is "yeah, but how much and how long" - which also shows you yourself know there's no issue legally...
Murph7355 said:
Once you're finished with your morning bottle of cheap plonk, go and read the rest of the post desolate didn't quote.
Government ignoring the electorate, going against votes and headline manifesto promises is not healthy for anyone.
Yes, governments passed have done some of these things previously. But this is a different scale.
Fortunately I think both major parties are aware of this which is why they are being cagey. Big Vince and Lucas can shout their mouths off all they like - no consequence for them as they will never have to face the music of being in power. But for the real players, they know (no matter how tempted they may be).
Putting aside one's own allegiances for a minute, would you really want to be any part of the government that has to deliver this?Government ignoring the electorate, going against votes and headline manifesto promises is not healthy for anyone.
Yes, governments passed have done some of these things previously. But this is a different scale.
Fortunately I think both major parties are aware of this which is why they are being cagey. Big Vince and Lucas can shout their mouths off all they like - no consequence for them as they will never have to face the music of being in power. But for the real players, they know (no matter how tempted they may be).
If they go back on the vote then they will be the party that ignored democracy.
If they go ahead and leave on WTO terms, and the worse-case scenarios come to pass, they will be the party that plunged us into the worst recession in living memory.
I know that Leavers will deny that scenario, but it's one hell of a gamble to take when the electorate is fickle, unlikely to take responsibility and nearly half of it doesn't want to leave at all.
p1stonhead said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
So when we go to no deal the EU will have to protect their Border between the Republic and N.I lets see how their red line no hard border will work
Exactly why no deal wont happen and we will concede big time on something before April.Every major party in this mix has said they will not implement a hard border under ANY circumstances.
The BBC's Brexit site has a bit on this...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46546295
(Just noticed I'll have to spend 7Euro PER FAMILY MEMBER to go to 'rife next!! CALL IT OFF. BREXIT HAS ALL BEEN A BAD DREAM. I NOW KNOW WHAT THE DOOM mongerS WERE TALKING ABOUT.)
Piha said:
ash73 said:
Some interesting details here:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...
Thanks for the link.https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...
The article makes grim reading.
TTwiggy said:
Murph7355 said:
Once you're finished with your morning bottle of cheap plonk, go and read the rest of the post desolate didn't quote.
Government ignoring the electorate, going against votes and headline manifesto promises is not healthy for anyone.
Yes, governments passed have done some of these things previously. But this is a different scale.
Fortunately I think both major parties are aware of this which is why they are being cagey. Big Vince and Lucas can shout their mouths off all they like - no consequence for them as they will never have to face the music of being in power. But for the real players, they know (no matter how tempted they may be).
Putting aside one's own allegiances for a minute, would you really want to be any part of the government that has to deliver this?Government ignoring the electorate, going against votes and headline manifesto promises is not healthy for anyone.
Yes, governments passed have done some of these things previously. But this is a different scale.
Fortunately I think both major parties are aware of this which is why they are being cagey. Big Vince and Lucas can shout their mouths off all they like - no consequence for them as they will never have to face the music of being in power. But for the real players, they know (no matter how tempted they may be).
If they go back on the vote then they will be the party that ignored democracy.
If they go ahead and leave on WTO terms, and the worse-case scenarios come to pass, they will be the party that plunged us into the worst recession in living memory. The worst case predictions for a WTO exit are not showing recession...
I know that Leavers will deny that scenario, but it's one hell of a gamble to take when the electorate is fickle, unlikely to take responsibility and nearly half of it doesn't want to leave at all.
TTwiggy said:
Murph7355 said:
Once you're finished with your morning bottle of cheap plonk, go and read the rest of the post desolate didn't quote.
Government ignoring the electorate, going against votes and headline manifesto promises is not healthy for anyone.
Yes, governments passed have done some of these things previously. But this is a different scale.
Fortunately I think both major parties are aware of this which is why they are being cagey. Big Vince and Lucas can shout their mouths off all they like - no consequence for them as they will never have to face the music of being in power. But for the real players, they know (no matter how tempted they may be).
Putting aside one's own allegiances for a minute, would you really want to be any part of the government that has to deliver this?Government ignoring the electorate, going against votes and headline manifesto promises is not healthy for anyone.
Yes, governments passed have done some of these things previously. But this is a different scale.
Fortunately I think both major parties are aware of this which is why they are being cagey. Big Vince and Lucas can shout their mouths off all they like - no consequence for them as they will never have to face the music of being in power. But for the real players, they know (no matter how tempted they may be).
If they go back on the vote then they will be the party that ignored democracy.
If they go ahead and leave on WTO terms, and the worse-case scenarios come to pass, they will be the party that plunged us into the worst recession in living memory.
I know that Leavers will deny that scenario, but it's one hell of a gamble to take when the electorate is fickle, unlikely to take responsibility and nearly half of it doesn't want to leave at all.
Renege on Brexit and they will be punished at the polls but worse, the electorate will become even more disillusioned. I'd guess that in general the left are the more active/shouty types that would go to the polls to protest and any perceived injustice from Brexit. The right just wouldn't bother voting.
Elysium said:
MX5Biologist said:
A question for some with knowledge of International Law.
The proposed Withdrawal Agreement is critiqued because it doesn't have a formal mechanism, short of a negotiated trade agreement, to stop a backstop if that comes into play. Both parties have said there is no intention to trigger the backstop, and the EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
Parliamentary Supremacy is defined as
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If, by some unlikely miracle, a fixed term would apply to the Backstop, then in practice, this suggests a cliff edge threat; both parties caught in a contentious round of negotiation (hence the backstop), with the sword of Damocles threat of a looming deadline. That might focus minds,but in reality, might just harden positions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
What would stop a future Parliament just unilaterally tearing up the agreement? The WA is a Treaty, a Treaty designed to lapse upon conclusion of future trade talks. I imagine the likely scenario would be an intransigent EU, refusing to budge on some issue. If international arbitration is sought, then we could point to statements made in 2018. Is there any sanction that could be taken against the UK if that happened. I know people would say "no one would trust the UK ever again", but that won't be true, as nations quite often act unilaterally to end treaties. We could claim the right to end the agreement, through "a material breach by another party, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change of circumstances", under the Vienna Convention of Treaties. a breach could be a claim that the EU is not conducting any meaningful negotiation, or "impossibility of performance" being because, as opponents would claim, the backstop imposing stresses of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I would imagine, if the country was in this position, of a clearly intransigent EU blocking trade negotiations, Parliament would be fairly united.
The Good Friday Agreement wouldn't, I think, put a legal block on that, but there is obvious fears that the gains would be lost (but there is by no means certainty in that; Northern Ireland has changed a lot in 20 years). Though that is essentially a problem between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to manage. I used to live in Northern Ireland, before and after the watchtowers being taken down. I recall that it as notable that the Republic maintained a mothballed customs post on the road to Newry. Also, when the FMV outbreak occurred, the Irish Government very quickly deployed uniformed troops to man impromptu check points, without any obvious rancour.
Just curious given that one Parliament cannot be beholden to another.
I found this artcle to be interesting:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
This has always been my issue with the concept that Brexit is required to restore the sovereignty of our Parliament. The proposed Withdrawal Agreement is critiqued because it doesn't have a formal mechanism, short of a negotiated trade agreement, to stop a backstop if that comes into play. Both parties have said there is no intention to trigger the backstop, and the EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
Parliamentary Supremacy is defined as
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If, by some unlikely miracle, a fixed term would apply to the Backstop, then in practice, this suggests a cliff edge threat; both parties caught in a contentious round of negotiation (hence the backstop), with the sword of Damocles threat of a looming deadline. That might focus minds,but in reality, might just harden positions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
What would stop a future Parliament just unilaterally tearing up the agreement? The WA is a Treaty, a Treaty designed to lapse upon conclusion of future trade talks. I imagine the likely scenario would be an intransigent EU, refusing to budge on some issue. If international arbitration is sought, then we could point to statements made in 2018. Is there any sanction that could be taken against the UK if that happened. I know people would say "no one would trust the UK ever again", but that won't be true, as nations quite often act unilaterally to end treaties. We could claim the right to end the agreement, through "a material breach by another party, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change of circumstances", under the Vienna Convention of Treaties. a breach could be a claim that the EU is not conducting any meaningful negotiation, or "impossibility of performance" being because, as opponents would claim, the backstop imposing stresses of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I would imagine, if the country was in this position, of a clearly intransigent EU blocking trade negotiations, Parliament would be fairly united.
The Good Friday Agreement wouldn't, I think, put a legal block on that, but there is obvious fears that the gains would be lost (but there is by no means certainty in that; Northern Ireland has changed a lot in 20 years). Though that is essentially a problem between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to manage. I used to live in Northern Ireland, before and after the watchtowers being taken down. I recall that it as notable that the Republic maintained a mothballed customs post on the road to Newry. Also, when the FMV outbreak occurred, the Irish Government very quickly deployed uniformed troops to man impromptu check points, without any obvious rancour.
Just curious given that one Parliament cannot be beholden to another.
I found this artcle to be interesting:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
It has always been Sovereign, it is simply that it has agreed to cede some of that sovereignty to the EU through the European Communities Act.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cms...
We would be repealing that act under May's deal and replacing it with something new. Parliament can later decide to rip that up, which would be in breach of EU law, but not UK law.
The idea that Mays deal binds us to the EU in perpetuity makes no sense.
It's also stated very clearly here:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereign...
In theory, we did not need to follow article 50. We are just being polite.
But our credibility as a counterparty that honours its commitments, particularly its legal commitments, would be immeasurably and very publicly damaged if we 'ripped up' an agreement that was entered into in good faith.
Why would anybody enter into any other agreement with us in the future, whether a trading agreement or anything else if we have form for backing out of commitments when it later suits us to do so?
I remember being slightly perplexed as to why the UK honoured its commitment to hand back Hong Kong when its lease expired, when it was clearly against our immediate economic benefit to do so. I guess that the risk of seriously pissing off China was one very good reason, but actually it would have been unthinkable (and politically and economically suicidal) for the UK to brand itself as untrustworthy by doing anything other than honouring the agreement.
I believe the same principle applies here - albeit the specifics are very different.
Edited by Fullook on Friday 14th December 15:16
pgh said:
Murph7355 said:
(Just noticed I'll have to spend 7Euro PER FAMILY MEMBER to go to 'rife next!! CALL IT OFF. BREXIT HAS ALL BEEN A BAD DREAM. I NOW KNOW WHAT THE DOOM mongerS WERE TALKING ABOUT.)
I make that a saving of about £135 per person, per year https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsec...More if you count those who don't travel to the EU
I assume we won't be part of the current health service exchange system.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff