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

[Baron von Teuchter]

IF (i know, i know), we leave the EU with the current deal that has been negotiated, what is to stop us in the future of pulling out in a few years time once we have done the necessary donkey work on 27 individual deals?

[youngsyr]

ash73 said:

youngsyr said:

Murph7355 said:

The above is not only possible but the key players have stated it as a potential outcome.

The Irish government has stated categorically they will not put a hard border there under ANY circumstances including No Deal. The UK government the same. The EU obviously hasn't been quite so strident, but then that would utterly undermine the biggest card they have invented.

There is no issue. It's manufactured bks. It is a political card and we have allowed ourselves to be played by it.

BBC not exactly known to be pro-Leave : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46546295

Haven't heard anyone mention it despite trying to keep up to date with the discussion - who has mentioned it, would like to hear what they think about it.

Seems to me that this is where we're going to end up - it can only end in a game of brinksmanship and seeing who blinks first, only the UK can't concede, because there is no consensus on what we want. Any concession is unacceptable to the majority.

That leaves only hard brexit with no deal or a very appealing deal for the UK on the table. Nothing else is acceptable to the UK, not just in the political sense, but in the legal sense. Anything else simply won't get passed into law.

As bad as no deal would be for the UK (and I've no doubt it will be terrible), it will also be very bad for the EU, so they will want to avoid it.

Norway already has a virtual land border with the EU (Sweden)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

Norway also has freedom of movement though too, doesn't it? Something that we have said we won't accept and the EU has said they require for us to be on the same trading terms as members.

As I understand it, Norway is essentially part of the EU without having any say in the laws that the EU passes, so not a viable option for us.

[Oakey]

mattmurdock said:

Surely everyone understands that telling someone you are leaving them, and then trying to negotiate with them, is going to have a marked difference from staying in the relationship and trying to make it work better.

Neither may be successful depending on the parties involved, but one surely is more likely to achieve success, no?

Which one do you think is more likely to achieve success?

[SpeckledJim]

Baron von Teuchter said:

IF (i know, i know), we leave the EU with the current deal that has been negotiated, what is to stop us in the future of pulling out in a few years time once we have done the necessary donkey work on 27 individual deals?

There's no opportunity for us (or anyone) to do 27 deals. The 27 have ceded the power to the EU to do their deals for them, which are then applied equally to all 27.

That's why the EU's so bloody useless at getting deals done. They bring 27 competing motivations and jealousies to one side of the table.

[youngsyr]

Dr Jekyll said:

youngsyr said:

Maybe you could help clarify things for me then, after all this is a discussion forum, isn't it?

Can we start with how you have controls 25 miles from the border that somehow can select those who are going to pass the controls and cross the border but ignore those who are going to pass the controls but not cross the border?

What happens if you pass the controls, say you're not going to cross the border and so are waived through with tariffed/banned goods, but then go and cross the border?

Either you'll be detected crossing the border, or nothing will happen at all. At present, nothing happens at all whatever goods you have so this is hardly a disaster. What kind of dangerous substance is going to come across after we've left the EU that doesn't come across now, and won't if NI stays in the EU?

The first thing that comes to mind is people.

How can you control immigration from the EU if you have an open border with no checks for anyone coming from the EU to the UK?

The Metropolitan police are currently trialing face recognition technology in London to identify dangerous people and their trials reportedly have a success rate of 0% to 3%. Additionally there isn't a single examople of a working technological "invisible border" anywhere in the world as far as I'm aware.

Now consider the US and Canada, two developed, rich countries who have been on friendly terms forever and have a lot of trade and people routinely crossing their borders. They don't have an invisible border and still have stop checks. My suspicion is that if an invisible border were possible, it would already be in place there.

To be clear, I voted remain and am in favour of freedom of movement, but we voted to leave and take control of immigration. An open border simply doesn't allow that to happen and I seriously doubt that a technological solution is possible.

[youngsyr]

SpeckledJim said:

Baron von Teuchter said:

IF (i know, i know), we leave the EU with the current deal that has been negotiated, what is to stop us in the future of pulling out in a few years time once we have done the necessary donkey work on 27 individual deals?

There's no opportunity for us (or anyone) to do 27 deals. The 27 have ceded the power to the EU to do their deals for them, which are then applied equally to all 27.

That's why the EU's so bloody useless at getting deals done. They bring 27 competing motivations and jealousies to one side of the table.

That's a bit rich counsidering that the reality is that EU has organised 27 countries to agree to a deal and yet we can't even get our own government to agree to a deal negotiated by its leader!

[mattmurdock]

Oakey said:

Which one do you think is more likely to achieve success?

Clearly not deliberately annoying the other party before trying to get them to agree to something, or am I missing something obvious?

[MrNoisy]

mattmurdock said:

Surely everyone understands that telling someone you are leaving them, and then trying to negotiate with them, is going to have a marked difference from staying in the relationship and trying to make it work better.

Neither may be successful depending on the parties involved, but one surely is more likely to achieve success, no?

In a divorce it quickly becomes apparent if there is little chance of success due to parties involved.

So the courts divvy up the assets and try for as clean a break as possible with as little future ties as possible.

With a bit of luck this means going forward both parties can get on with relative freedom without anybody feeling too aggrieved.

Imagine the courts dictating that the divorce would end in a new realtionship, one where the prospect of divorce was now removed by the previous controlling partner?

[amusingduck]

youngsyr said:

How can you control immigration from the EU if you have an open border with no checks for anyone coming from the EU to the UK?

What you are saying is effectively "How can you control immigration if you allow tourists?"

Why fly to ROI and walk into the UK when they can just fly straight here?

Whichever way they arrive, once they're in the UK their circumstances are identical.

Edited by amusingduck on Tuesday 18th December 12:09

[youngsyr]

Tuna said:

There is a bit of a contradiction between:

"Those idiot Brexiteers thought the EU would do what we want! Of course they wouldn't!"

and

"We can reform from within, we have a veto!"

Rather like "We'll win the Eurovision this year!"...

You obviously can't be a member of a club and simply disregard all of its rules.

However, holding a position within the club does give you significant influence. Ever noticed that we don't have the Euro and aren't members of the Schengen area?

The EU isn't the British Empire, we don't get to dictate the rules. We do get significant benefits and a significant say in what rules are passed and apply to us though by being members and compromising with other members.

[Dr Jekyll]

mattmurdock said:

Surely everyone understands that telling someone you are leaving them, and then trying to negotiate with them, is going to have a marked difference from staying in the relationship and trying to make it work better.

Neither may be successful depending on the parties involved, but one surely is more likely to achieve success, no?

We've tried to change the EU from within for over 40 years and simply been regarded as troublemakers.

The big things that are wrong with the EU, the protectionism and contempt for democracy, are the whole purpose of the project, so not amenable to 'reform'.

[youngsyr]

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

How can you control immigration from the EU if you have an open border with no checks for anyone coming from the EU to the UK?

What you are saying is effectively "How can you control immigration if you allow tourists?"

Why fly to ROI and walk into the UK when they can just fly straight here?

Once they're in the UK their circumstances are identical.

Your analogy is completely false.

Tourists (and UK citizens) are currently subject to immigration control at the point of entry to the UK if arriving from outside the EU, including passport checks and having your photographs taken in many cases.

You obviously cannot do that with an open border.

It is absolutely possible to allow tourists and control immigration just as we do now.

[mattmurdock]

MrNoisy said:

In a divorce it quickly becomes apparent if there is little chance of success due to parties involved.

So the courts divvy up the assets and try for as clean a break as possible with as little future ties as possible.

With a bit of luck this means going forward both parties can get on with relative freedom without anybody feeling too aggrieved.

Imagine the courts dictating that the divorce would end in a new realtionship, one where the prospect of divorce was now removed by the previous controlling partner?

Ah, but the analogy only goes so far, because we decided that we would not compromise a single bit on the negotiations - joint and equal custody was a non-negotiable, to continue the divorce analogy, but we did not want to have to pay anything towards the child. Quite rightly the courts are saying you have to contribute until you work out an actual arrangement with your partner, otherwise that is not fair on the child.

The backstop is the alimony we are legally obliged to accept if we don't look after the Irish border like we insisted we wanted. It exists ONLY because of a red-line we set, and isn't really anything to do with the EU (although Ireland have done a good job of influencing the EU negotiation from within to make sure the EU also think it is important).

[Helicopter123]

youngsyr said:

You obviously can't be a member of a club and simply disregard all of its rules.

However, holding a position within the club does give you significant influence. Ever noticed that we don't have the Euro and aren't members of the Schengen area?

The EU isn't the British Empire, we don't get to dictate the rules. We do get significant benefits and a significant say in what rules are passed and apply to us though by being members and compromising with other members.

Good post.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Helicopter123 said:

Good post.

You should try making one (even if you cannot recognise this one as completely flawed)

[alfie2244]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Helicopter123 said:

Good post.

You should try making one (even if you cannot recognise this one as completely flawed)

Good post.

[otis criblecoblis]

mattmurdock said:

Surely everyone understands that telling someone you are leaving them, and then trying to negotiate with them, is going to have a marked difference from staying in the relationship and trying to make it work better.

Neither may be successful depending on the parties involved, but one surely is more likely to achieve success, no?

Much time was spent with the softly softly approach, and it didn't achieve enough to convince the voting public. Next up was Cameron under a more severe threat when a referendum was already in place . Both failed , the public voted.

[youngsyr]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Helicopter123 said:

Good post.

You should try making one (even if you cannot recognise this one as completely flawed)

If it's completely flawed, then why don't you respond to it and point them all out?

Seems a bit rich to dismiss it without even replying to it?

I'm simply posting in a genuine attempt to understand the situation amongst all the spin and lies being touted by all sides, as it seems to me that there's a huge amount of distraction going on whilst the real crux of the issue (the ROI/NI border vs the Good Friday Agreement) is being ignored by all parties, because it is, essentially, unsolveable.

[amusingduck]

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

How can you control immigration from the EU if you have an open border with no checks for anyone coming from the EU to the UK?

What you are saying is effectively "How can you control immigration if you allow tourists?"

Why fly to ROI and walk into the UK when they can just fly straight here?

Once they're in the UK their circumstances are identical.

Your analogy is completely false.

Tourists (and UK citizens) are currently subject to immigration control at the point of entry to the UK if arriving from outside the EU, including passport checks and having your photographs taken in many cases.

You obviously cannot do that with an open border.

It is absolutely possible to allow tourists and control immigration just as we do now.

This has been done to death. It's even got it's own thread.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

jsf said:

sgtBerbatov said:

So what's to stop Mr.Frenchman flying in to Dublin, driving up to Belfast, getting the boat to Scotland and living in England? The UK don't want free movement of people from the EU, and the only real physical frontier to the EU is the Irish border. So Britain doesn't want free movement from the EU, but don't want a hard border, so how are you meant to stop those from the EU just walking across the border and having a pint in Fermanagh?

It isn't up to Ireland to stop people leaving it's country to another country. It's up to the other country to police the border and stop people entering it. So it very much is Britain's problem if they don't want a free movement of people. You can't think about it any other way, as there is no other way.

And so far as the UK legal position is on anything they have seen fit to repeal any act which stops them doing something. So, like I said, take a huge bag of salt with you when considering what they say.

I read posts like this and then wonder if people like you have ever travelled the world.

You don't control illegal working at the border on any major scale (you get the stories of Calais migrant camps etc, but that's a tiny scale of people that is directly targeted because those people will work in the illegal economy if they get through the border, they are not the people most systems are there to manage), you control it via the systems of local and national government, you do it by requiring people to register for tax and have a national insurance number, you do it by requiring any rent checks include a check on right to work and live. We already have this system in place as we have people from outside the EU visiting us already. Brexit doesn't change this.

Your Frenchman can just jump in his car and cross the channel, passing through the French and UK border control points. That wont change post Brexit. Why would you think it would? We have visa free travel arrangements with large parts of the world, the EU will just become another one of the current blocks, assuming we manage a deal with the EU. If we don't manage a deal with the EU as a block, we will just do it on an individual country basis, as we do with the rest of the world.

I could jump on a plane today and fly to the USA and stay there for 6 months legally, i cant take a job, if i tried the employer would find i am not entitled and so couldn't take me on. The only way i could work there would be to do it illegally, i might get away with it for a while but i wouldn't be building any social security rights and could at any moment be thrown out, as happens daily with the Mexican influx.

This is not rocket science. It's almost like being a member of the EU has fried some peoples brains and they have forgotten how the world works outside EU membership.

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

[Dr Jekyll]

mattmurdock said:

Surely everyone understands that telling someone you are leaving them, and then trying to negotiate with them, is going to have a marked difference from staying in the relationship and trying to make it work better.

Neither may be successful depending on the parties involved, but one surely is more likely to achieve success, no?

We've tried to change the EU from within for over 40 years and simply been regarded as troublemakers.

The big things that are wrong with the EU, the protectionism and contempt for democracy, are the whole purpose of the project, so not amenable to 'reform'.