Politics, politics, politics

[milo]

This is a good read and correctly points out some of the errors and inaccuracies in May's speech.

https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/brexit-prime-minister-sets-wrong-course.html

 

[Gutter Boy]

We cannot agree any trade deals with other countries until we leave the customs union and it is unlikely that we will be able to agree good deals with other countries until we have a trade deal with the EU agreed.

David Davis said explicitly yesterday that there would be a lot of things to sign on 1 April 2019

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...Commons-statement-free-trade-deals-April-2019

 

[Gutter Boy]

Cameron is the reason we are getting Brexit, if he had stood up to the EU when he went across to see them with bells and trumpets saying he was going to get changes made and then came back with his tail between his legs. As i said earlier i am no Tory and never rated May in the slightest but as you say she has got the balls to stand up to all the doom mongers and carry on.

The EU is unreformable. We've been trying for 25 years since it went off course at Maastricht. Breaking it by leaving and building something new in its place that is fit for purpose in the 21st century is the only way. Hopefully the shock of Brexit and other countries heading the same way will facilitate that.

 

[SpurMeUp]

The EU is unreformable. We've been trying for 25 years since it went off course at Maastricht. Breaking it by leaving and building something new in its place that is fit for purpose in the 21st century is the only way. Hopefully the shock of Brexit and other countries heading the same way will facilitate that.

Out of genuine interest, what exactly do you feel is broken and why?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Gutter Boy]

We have changed the EU from within. The single market was a British (Conservative) initiative, EU eastern European expansion was a British initiative. We had agreed opt outs on all of the main parts of the EU that there was not support for in the UK and a veto on further changes.

They were all attempts to thwart federalisation. Keep it a free trade area rather than a superstate. The Eastern expansion was supposed to make sure the EU became 'wide but shallow' rather than 'narrow and deep'. No one thought the priesthood would be dogmatic enough to actually go for 'wide and deep'.

 

[scaramanga]

May seems to be accepting that we will need to stay in the customs union, at least in the short term. The member states are unlikely to agree to that if we are breaking EU trade rules. Besides, we are not going to be able to agree a decent deal with other countries until our position with the EU is settled and we have a trade agreement with them in place. And we don't have any experienced trade negotiators, so we are not in a position to do it, even if we wanted to.

The UK cutting trade with the EU is not desirable for them either - especially not to those who hold the power.

The reality is that we will negotiate our major trade deals whilst claiming not to be negotiating trade deals and will then sign them as soon as the two years is up. It's the only sensible thing to do.

The process that we are about to enter is very one sides and it is not us who is in control of it. To end up with a good deal will take good will on both sides. Any trade deal or treaty change will require ratification from each member state. tinkling off other countries is just going to make that more difficult.

It's two sided and nobody is in control of it - that's why it's a negotiation and not another EU diktat.

The only person I've heard being a dingdong about interim negotiations is Juncker - I can't imagine it will bother or affect any serious politician from any serious country.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Out of genuine interest, what exactly do you feel is broken and why?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

It's authoritarian, dogmatic, undemocratic, unaccountable and economically inert. It's a power-hungry empire that thwarts the ambitions and diversity of its constituent nations.

There was an Italian guy on Newsnight last night saying - "you want a free trade area, scientific and security co-operation, all the good bits. If the UK gets that then everyone else will want that." Then why on earth persist with all the bad stuff? The transfer of political and legal powers, and the trafficking of unskilled labour etc. The stuff that counters sovereignty and damages communities, and serves no one other than proliferating the existence of the EU institutions themselves.

 

[r-u-s-x]

It's authoritarian, dogmatic, undemocratic, unaccountable and economically inert. It's a power-hungry empire that thwarts the ambitions and diversity of its constituent nations.

There was an Italian guy on Newsnight last night saying - "you want a free trade area, scientific and security co-operation, all the good bits. If the UK gets that then everyone else will want that." Then why on earth persist with all the bad stuff? The transfer of political and legal powers, and the trafficking of unskilled labour etc. The stuff that counters sovereignty and damages communities, and serves no one other than proliferating the existence of the EU institutions themselves.

you think that's the bad stuff - most of Europe seem happy and want this "bad stuff" - I think we are guilty of only looking at what the UK wants out of the Union, as with all its compromise if we want something we have to give up something that other want.

I want to get paid my wages but I don't want to do the bad stuff like go to work.

 

[Gutter Boy]

you think that's the bad stuff - most of Europe seem happy and want this "bad stuff" - I think we are guilty of only looking at what the UK wants out of the Union, as with all its compromise if we want something we have to give up something that other want.

I want to get paid my wages but I don't want to do the bad stuff like go to work.

Germany has war guilt, France and Benelux war fear, southern Europe has memories of their not-to-distant dictatorships and Eastern Europe has a fear of Russia. That's what psychologically binds them to the EU and gives them more tolerance to it than the UK.

None of the free trade areas in the Americas or Asia bundles in taking away sovereignty or insisting on low-skill trafficking. It's just a self-preservation quirk of the EU.

 

[the dza]

This is a good read and correctly points out some of the errors and inaccuracies in May's speech.

https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/brexit-prime-minister-sets-wrong-course.html

From the article you linked (bold is my emphasis):

So what are her reasons? One is control of immigration – and free movement of persons is a non-negotiable condition of the EU for participation in the single market. Here she fails to consider that the European Economic Area (EEA) treaty includes a safeguard on free movement which could be invoked in order to control it. May’s description of free movement includes overstated claims about its effect on public services, ignoring the impact of limited government funding of health and education in recent years – while she cannot bring herself to mention the overall economic benefit derived from EU migrants.



Another is budget contributions. She rules out any budget contributions except for participation in individual programmes. There is no consideration of whether the EEA option – giving money directly to poorer EU countries, with more control over the spending by the contributor – would be desirable in return for increased market access.



Next, there is the role of the ECJ. May states that single market membership ‘would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.’ Let’s not mince words: this is not true. The EEA states are not subject to the ECJ at all, but to the separate EFTA Court. That court has less jurisdiction than the ECJ, and a large number of its rulings are not binding at all. It is only obliged to follow ECJ rulings delivered before 1991.


More broadly, May states that this ‘would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all.’ Again, this is not really true. EEA members are not subject to EU rules on agriculture, foreign policy, fisheries, justice and home affairs (except via separate treaties, in part) or trade with non-EU countries – the very issue which May devotes a large part of her speech to.

_____________

So, is the middle ground that makes everyone (sort of) happy just being in the EEA but not in the EU? I think more detail is needed on the options for immigration control i.e. what exactly those safeguards on free movement are. Because that is the main issue that divides people and if there is a good compromise possible there, maybe there is a deal that keeps everybody but the zealots (on both the leave and remain sides) happy.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Germany has war guilt, France and Benelux war fear, southern Europe has memories of their not-to-distant dictatorships and Eastern Europe has a fear of Russia. That's what psychologically binds them to the EU and gives them more tolerance to it than the UK.
.

France and Benelux war fear - maybe true at the outset but not now. You seem to be sure of these facts but I would be more inclined to the view that they can see a big upside in pooling resources including sovereignty to give them a lot more power than individually. The British Isle are an Island in more ways than one.

None of the free trade areas in the Americas or Asia bundles in taking away sovereignty or insisting on low-skill trafficking. It's just a self-preservation quirk of the EU.

You are correct, so the EU have gone another way and it has proven to be very successful over the past 50 years in most metrics, whether it is in the right form for the future is open to debate. The majority of Europe currently believe it is the correct, perhaps the tide will turn. In the past we had to approach the Common Market with our tail between our legs as the "sick man of Europe", hope we wont have to do this again.

 

[parklane1]

He should have stood up to his back benchers first. Secondly, he should never have pulled the Tories out of the European People's Party in the European Parliament, this distanced him from key allies. Thirdly, he should have started talking about the benefits that the EU brought to the UK earlier than four months before he referendum, years of blaming the EU for domestic political failings left him with a mountain to climb and one that he could not deal with credibly. Finally, he should have set a realistic timetable for the negotiations and not tried to push them through when other European countries had more pressing issues to deal with.

So like i said he fudged up, far to full of his own importance.

 

[parklane1]

The UK cutting trade with the EU is not desirable for them either - especially not to those who hold the power.

The reality is that we will negotiate our major trade deals whilst claiming not to be negotiating trade deals and will then sign them as soon as the two years is up. It's the only sensible thing to do.


.

Of course we will, anyone who thinks we will be sitting on our arse for two years doing nothing is fooling themselves at best.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Of course we will, anyone who thinks we will be sitting on our arse for two years doing nothing is fooling themselves at best.

of course we will - my concern is we will be negotiating from a point of weakness, all others will know we are desperate for a deal at the end of the 2 years. we will see

 

[parklane1]

of course we will - my concern is we will be negotiating from a point of weakness, all others will know we are desperate for a deal at the end of the 2 years. we will see

I would imagine they will be several countries who would love to have a trading deal with us, i really do not think it will weaken us at all. But as you say we will see.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I would imagine they will be several countries who would love to have a trading deal with us, i really do not think it will weaken us at all. But as you say we will see.

I can imagine that there will be a lot of countries that are desperate to have trading with us, but I would imagine they would be low wage countries which I would not want to compete with.

 

[milo]

David Davis said explicitly yesterday that there would be a lot of things to sign on 1 April 2019

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...Commons-statement-free-trade-deals-April-2019

He's said previously that negotiations with other countries would start the day after the referendum. We'll find out in two years but I think that he's trumping.

 

[milo]

From the article you linked (bold is my emphasis):

So what are her reasons? One is control of immigration – and free movement of persons is a non-negotiable condition of the EU for participation in the single market. Here she fails to consider that the European Economic Area (EEA) treaty includes a safeguard on free movement which could be invoked in order to control it. May’s description of free movement includes overstated claims about its effect on public services, ignoring the impact of limited government funding of health and education in recent years – while she cannot bring herself to mention the overall economic benefit derived from EU migrants.



Another is budget contributions. She rules out any budget contributions except for participation in individual programmes. There is no consideration of whether the EEA option – giving money directly to poorer EU countries, with more control over the spending by the contributor – would be desirable in return for increased market access.



Next, there is the role of the ECJ. May states that single market membership ‘would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.’ Let’s not mince words: this is not true. The EEA states are not subject to the ECJ at all, but to the separate EFTA Court. That court has less jurisdiction than the ECJ, and a large number of its rulings are not binding at all. It is only obliged to follow ECJ rulings delivered before 1991.


More broadly, May states that this ‘would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all.’ Again, this is not really true. EEA members are not subject to EU rules on agriculture, foreign policy, fisheries, justice and home affairs (except via separate treaties, in part) or trade with non-EU countries – the very issue which May devotes a large part of her speech to.

_____________

So, is the middle ground that makes everyone (sort of) happy just being in the EEA but not in the EU? I think more detail is needed on the options for immigration control i.e. what exactly those safeguards on free movement are. Because that is the main issue that divides people and if there is a good compromise possible there, maybe there is a deal that keeps everybody but the zealots (on both the leave and remain sides) happy.

Norway has an emergency break on immigration (which has never been used) if numbers become excessive.

I think that EEA membership is a sensible compromise. It was said repeatedly by members of the leave campaign that they were not proposing that we leave the EEA during the campaign. Crucially, it is also more likely to be achieved within the timescales. It could also be used as a staging post to a full exit if it could be demonstrated that it was in the countries interest to do so.

 

[milo]

The UK cutting trade with the EU is not desirable for them either - especially not to those who hold the power.

The reality is that we will negotiate our major trade deals whilst claiming not to be negotiating trade deals and will then sign them as soon as the two years is up. It's the only sensible thing to do.

It's two sided and nobody is in control of it - that's why it's a negotiation and not another EU diktat.

The only person I've heard being a ding dong about interim negotiations is Juncker - I can't imagine it will bother or affect any serious politician from any serious country.

I think that we probably will hold informal discussions with other countries whilst we are negotiating our exit from the EU but I do not think that we have the resources to carry out serious negotiations on multiple fronts. We are also unlikely to agree good deals until our position with the EU is settled.

The EU is in control of the process. They control the timetable and any deal to leave needs to be agreed by the European Parliament. Any extension to the timetable for negotiations needs the unanimous approval of each country. Any trade deal needs the unanimous approval of each country. Any treaty needs the unanimous approval of each country. We need to agree how we exit from the EU's trade deals before we can join the WTO. A bullish attitude to negotiations and comments like Johnson's today are unlikely to make this any easier.

This article in today's FT is good on some of the difficulties

https://www.ft.com/content/65322fbc-dd34-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce

 

[milo]

I would imagine they will be several countries who would love to have a trading deal with us, i really do not think it will weaken us at all. But as you say we will see.

There's no problem getting a trade deal. Getting one that suits us will be more difficult. I would imagine that Trump would love to have a deal with us that opens up the NHS to US health providers but is that what we want?