How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)

[amusingduck]

Helicopter123 said:

amusingduck said:

Helicopter123 said:

I cannot see any other way as Parliament clearly will not accept a no deal outcome.

They didn't know what they were voting for?

When the facts change, Parliament changes its mind. What do you do?

Parliament hasn't changed it's mind. They've had ample opportunity to vote for something else, and voted them all down.

You seem to place equal weighting on rhetoric and law.

[Elysium]

Johnson’s letter to Tusk makes specific reference to para 49 of the Joint Report on phase 1 negotiations, which is effectively the ‘heads of terms’ for the subsequent draft of the Withdrawal Agreement:

https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1163529321...

The joint report can be read here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

In effect Johnson is saying that he has no solution, but is not willing to commit to maintain single market and customs union alignment in NI. Not something that will surprise leavers.

What is interesting is that section 10 of the Withdrawal Act requires the Govt to have ‘due regard’ to the Joint Report when exercising their powers under the Act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/sectio...

Leaving with no deal would end this alignment and so would very clearly not have due regard to the report.

So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.

[Helicopter123]

Elysium said:

Johnson’s letter to Tusk makes specific reference to para 49 of the Joint Report on phase 1 negotiations, which is effectively the ‘heads of terms’ for the subsequent draft of the Withdrawal Agreement:

https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1163529321...

The joint report can be read here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

In effect Johnson is saying that he has no solution, but is not willing to commit to maintain single market and customs union alignment in NI. Not something that will surprise leavers.

What is interesting is that section 10 of the Withdrawal Act requires the Govt to have ‘due regard’ to the Joint Report when exercising their powers under the Act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/sectio...

Leaving with no deal would end this alignment and so would very clearly not have due regard to the report.

So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.

Interesting.

[DeepEnd]

Elysium said:

Johnson’s letter to Tusk makes specific reference to para 49 of the Joint Report on phase 1 negotiations, which is effectively the ‘heads of terms’ for the subsequent draft of the Withdrawal Agreement:

https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1163529321...

The joint report can be read here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

In effect Johnson is saying that he has no solution, but is not willing to commit to maintain single market and customs union alignment in NI. Not something that will surprise leavers.

What is interesting is that section 10 of the Withdrawal Act requires the Govt to have ‘due regard’ to the Joint Report when exercising their powers under the Act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/sectio...

Leaving with no deal would end this alignment and so would very clearly not have due regard to the report.

So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.

It even says:

Barclays act said:

2)Nothing in .... this Act authorises regulations which—

(a)diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or

(b)create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.

Whether any regulations are required is another question but the Act clearly states “don’t be aholes about the border”.

[amusingduck]

Elysium said:

So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.

Then leaving with No Deal is unlawful, no?

Where's the legal challenge?

[JNW1]

Brooking10 said:

....whereas wholesale Eurozone meltdown is apparently inevitable !

My view on the Eurozone - and therefore the EU - is more that it's just not the safe bet and safe haven many would have you believe. I don't see a meltdown as inevitable but some of the fundamentals in the Eurozone aren't great and if things start to get shaky much depends on Germany's willingness and ability to keep the thing afloat; the ECB have taken the ability to kick cans to a whole new level but eventually it may catch up with them in my view.

Obviously if an economic crisis hit the Eurozone we wouldn't be immune from the fallout regardless of the status of our membership of the EU; however, I suspect the effect would be less if we were out....

[Sway]

Brooking10 said:

Sway said:

I'm not sure that's the case.

If the excrement hits the fan, then it's all gloves off.

If that means slashing Corp tax and VAT, or dropping tariffs unilaterally to mitigate rising inflation - I'd rather our government had the ability to choose not to, than it be off the table.

The underlying point is that in such circumstances of predicted meltdown we would seek to do so anyway given that we would be so far into “special measures” territory.

Steady chap. Have you just suggested we'd look to breach an international treaty?

Mr T will be having an aneurysm.

[Garvin]

FiF said:

Thought this was an interesting point in letters to the editor. To support a general poke at Philip Hammond he criticises the scandalously bad settlement deal for the European Investment Bank.

Viscount Trenchard said:

“Britain owns 16.1 per cent of the EIB. The Withdrawal Agreement provides that Britain will be repaid its nominal capital of €3.5 billion, but will leave its rightful share of the retained earnings, €7.6 billion, for the remaining EU-27 members’ benefit. Worse, Britain only gets back the nominal capital over 12 years in equal instalments, the final one being in December 2030 – and no interest is to be paid during this period.

This EIB settlement is so obviously completely inequitable that it is surprising that it has not yet received much attention.

It’s not as though the EIB can’t afford to buy Britain out at fair value. It makes a profit of around €2 billion a year. It has already approved a pro-rata capitalisation of a small part of its extensive reserves to replace Britain’s paid-in capital.

Ignoring the significant value of deferred payment over 12 years, the £7 billion Britain proposes to give away to the EIB amounts to nearly a fifth of the £39 billion “divorce bill”.

I'm not a financial whizz kid, but it seems to me a fair point to criticise the terms of this deal and why it's not been made more public.

There are quite a number of things in the current WA, apart from the backstop, which are inequitable and seek to protect the EU and restrict UK after Brexit. There are a number of articles on t’internet that analyse the WA in detail. I am also surprised that these issues have not been ‘advertised’ more strongly but I put it down to the bias and lack of good journalism within the MSM who only look for the ‘headline’ which the backstop currently provides. I hope, probably in vain, that our MPs were fully briefed on such things and contributed to the WA being ‘kicked out’ on three occasions.

[psi310398]

DeepEnd said:

Mr Tusk said on Tuesday. “Those against the backstop and not proposing realistic alternatives in fact support reestablishing a border. Even if they do not admit it.”

He’s been reading PH.

Someone needs to tell him that there already is a border and it’s been there for almost a hundred years...

[hutchst]

Helicopter123 said:

Extra democracy of some description is clearly needed to resolve Brexit either way. A GE looking more likely at the moment, but this doesn’t mean we won’t have a further referendum in 2020.

I cannot see any other way as Parliament clearly will not accept a no deal outcome.

Agreed.

What we need is a referendum with one simple question, where the electorate can record their preference.

We should then refer to the Supreme Court for a judgement on how that referendum preference should be implemented in accordance with our Constitution.

Parliament should then follow precisely the decision of the Supreme Court judgement to enact any legislation that might be needed.

The government should then follow any steps resulting from that legislation.


Is that the kind of democracy you have in mind?

[Elysium]

amusingduck said:

Elysium said:

So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.

Then leaving with No Deal is unlawful, no?

Where's the legal challenge?

Leaving with no-deal in terms of the international treaties (ie article 50) is lawful.

Leaving in terms of UK law based on the Withdrawal Act is much less clear. I don’t think there will need to be a legal challenge, because I doubt it is going to happen.

What does fall down, absolutely, is the argument from leavers that Parliament permitted no-deal when they approved the withdrawal act. That is clearly incorrect.

[amusingduck]

Elysium said:

amusingduck said:

Elysium said:

So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.

Then leaving with No Deal is unlawful, no?

Where's the legal challenge?

Leaving with no-deal in terms of the international treaties (ie article 50) is lawful.

Leaving in terms of UK law based on the Withdrawal Act is much less clear. I don’t think there will need to be a legal challenge, because I doubt it is going to happen.

What does fall down, absolutely, is the argument from leavers that Parliament permitted no-deal when they approved the withdrawal act. That is clearly incorrect.

So clearly incorrect that the people throwing the kitchen sink at legal challenges didn't think it was a worthwhile avenue to pursue?

Righto. You're obviously the only one who can see the truth

[DeepEnd]

psi310398 said:

DeepEnd said:

Mr Tusk said on Tuesday. “Those against the backstop and not proposing realistic alternatives in fact support reestablishing a border. Even if they do not admit it.”

He’s been reading PH.

Someone needs to tell him that there already is a border and it’s been there for almost a hundred years...

QED

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

Brooking10 said:

....whereas wholesale Eurozone meltdown is apparently inevitable !

My view on the Eurozone - and therefore the EU - is more that it's just not the safe bet and safe haven many would have you believe. I don't see a meltdown as inevitable but some of the fundamentals in the Eurozone aren't great and if things start to get shaky much depends on Germany's willingness and ability to keep the thing afloat; the ECB have taken the ability to kick cans to a whole new level but eventually it may catch up with them in my view.

Obviously if an economic crisis hit the Eurozone we wouldn't be immune from the fallout regardless of the status of our membership of the EU; however, I suspect the effect would be less if we were out....

I agree with much of your assessment.

The last para is one where opinions are divided and something of an unknown.

In my mind it’s important to understand the difference between obligation and necessity.

A simple analogy is what happened with Ireland where the sum we ultimately paid out of necessity outweighed that of obligation through membership.

Happy to admit though that we are in realms of speculation and therefore as above it’s currently a matter of opinion over fact.

[Toaster]

psi310398 said:

Toaster said:

Agreed neither will we, the US, EU, China, Asia be immune to a global financial crisis that appears to be looming

Sure, but it would be sensible for the UK to be free to do what it can in economic and fiscal terms to consolidate its status as an attractive regional centre for the inevitable massive capital flight from parts of the Eurozone.

Just straws in the wind but many of my Italian neighbours are making, ahem, discreet but rather urgent enquiries about the potential purchase of assets and real property in the UK at the moment. There is a lot more property up for sale than usual, especially for a sluggish economy and commercial voids are much higher. And, interestingly, I’ve noticed many more Guardia di Finanza spot checks on cars near the Swiss border this year. Clearly some other than UK Brexiteers think something’s about to go bang.

indeed plus 'writing our own laws' means life will be simpler......Not.... https://www.gov.uk/eori and that is just one additional thing companies have to do.

Life will certainly be different out of the EU....Better for all probably not. BoJo is talking about welcoming GM crops, this means that seeds with GM that cross pollinate with our own will be owned by the US/Monsanto....

Edited by Toaster on Wednesday 21st August 09:33

[crankedup]

isaldiri said:

Sway said:

Separation as far as possible (and regaining full control of many excellent fiscal levers) is surely a good thing though in that event?

what additional financial levers are going to return to UK control that do not currently exist in the EU? And unless one means to cut off the EU as far as possible in all respects, seperation just isn't going to happen to a much greater extent.

This is one reason why I have always seen the E.U. as a system dragging around financial liabilities
with some members. The idea of raising the living standards of the less well off Members from handouts from the fortunate few has always seemed fanciful to me.

[crankedup]

Brooking10 said:

Sway said:

Full control of Corp Tax, VAT, inward tariff schedules.

All are subject to treaty agreements limiting our ability to move them.

We're talking about the outcome of a full scale apocalyptic eurozone collapse.

Another area with this is our membership contributions - remember the "top up" bill Cameron swore not to pay (before agreeing payment terms) - all because despite the majority of EU states criticising our response to 08, we recovered faster, so was then on the hook for a few extra billion.

All largely irrelevant if the meltdown of our geographically closest and significantly important trading bloc is as apocalyptic as the resident sages predict.

I am not saying you are doing this but many do - it seems for some that commentary on impending / potential Brexit related U.K. economic woes has to be filed under “nobody knows, how can you predict ?” whereas wholesale Eurozone meltdown is apparently inevitable !

Edited by Brooking10 on Wednesday 21st August 07:49

Most commentators refer to Germany propping up the eurozone and France hanging onto their coat tails.With our billions going west and the trillions in the European debt pile it doesn’t look good does it.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

Sorry I have to return to Greene King Brewery.

I overlooked the most important aspect of the takeover, the new owners MUST ensure the continued uninterrupted supply of their superb beers, DO NOT meddle with the recipe’s.

GK is definitely off topic, but I'd pause getting excited if I were you.

Once the transaction completes it'll be totally up to them what they do with it.

Yes indeed, like when the yanks took over Cadbury, they told us that production would stay in the U.K. and no major changes. That turned out to be bullocks.

[Murph7355]

DeepEnd said:

Mr Tusk said on Tuesday. “Those against the backstop and not proposing realistic alternatives in fact support reestablishing a border. Even if they do not admit it.”

He’s been reading PH.

The "those who disagree with me must be stupid" approach has failed for the last 25ytd evidently.

That Mr Tusk is incapable of grasping this speaks volumes about him.

They are digging in this way solely because the WA crafted between them and Robbins is massively beneficial to them. That is fair enough, but comes with huge risk. That risk was never going. To materialise with May at the helm. That might now have changed.

A sensible counterpart would be prepared to discuss things bilaterally. Unless of course, to use Tusk's logic, they are simply against a deal.

[banjowilly]

Murph7355 said:

The "those who disagree with me must be stupid" approach has failed for the last 25ytd evidently.

That Mr Tusk is incapable of grasping this speaks volumes about him.

They are digging in this way solely because the WA crafted between them and Robbins is massively beneficial to them. That is fair enough, but comes with huge risk. That risk was never going. To materialise with May at the helm. That might now have changed.

A sensible counterpart would be prepared to discuss things bilaterally. Unless of course, to use Tusk's logic, they are simply against a deal.

Huge risk for who though? The ongoing implied narrative on the UK's enormous economic clout bending Europe's will to our whims is contradicted every day at the highest levels. Elmer Brock said it on Newsnight last night & this morning, we have the chair of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee weighing in.