E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Politicians from all sides are just trying to delay the car crash they know is coming, Farage and Cameron jumped out of the car the moment they realized they were going to crash and left everyone else to squabble among themselves over who should be in the driving seat when they crash and machinating over who they can blame when they do.

The Maybot can't fire Boris despite him behaving in a way that would've seen other MP's fired on the spot, being one of the most prominent Brexiteers who decided to hang around she can't throw him out of the car as when we crash Boris would claim it wouldn't have happen if he was there and then he'd step up and claim he could sort it all out.

Corbyn is coming along for the ride to see whose going to be the next member of the blue team to jump or be pushed out of the car while trying to remain silent so he, like everyone will, claim that he's a white knight who can save the day.

 

It's beginning to look like it is the UK that wants a deal and the EU will push for a hard Brexit. There doesn't seem to be a negotiation going on. Just the UK presenting ideas and the EU saying "not enough".

The question of the Irish border arrangements can't conceivably be sorted until there is some idea of the future trade relationship which they are refusing to talk about until the border arrangement is sorted.

The citizens rights argument seems to come down to their insistence that the EU citizens' rights in the UK are overseen by the European Court of Justice. But what country ever agrees to that? Are US Citizens' rights here government by the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution? Are UK citizens in Europe going to be protected by English law? I can't see how this can be sold to the UK Public and I can't see that any UK politician would attempt to.

Most critically the "Divorce bill" dispute seems to be driven solely by the need to get enough from the UK so as to put off a painful discussion about how the next EU budget will look and who will be making up the shortfall. The UK was the second largest net contributor after Germany

There aren't that many net contributors and increasing contributions is politically toxic in Germany and several other contributing nations. Again no UK politician will be able to see payments for EU expenditures after whatever time the UK is excluded from that spending. Likewise asking the UK to pay upfront the value of load guarantees is nonsense, if the loans don't fail then that money isn't used so they;re trying it on to get hold of that cash to plug the forthcoming budget hole.

All I can hope for is that there is a realisation that no one is winning with this approach and instead of trying to force unpleasant compromises we can work together and agree the easy stuff to create more certainty and more narrowly define the problem areas.

 

Ideas are fine and all but the problem is the UK isn't putting most of what it says in writing, that's a bit like telling you're bank how you want or intend to pay off your mortgage but when they ask you to draft a legally binding contract you refuse to do so and instead tell them they should be creative and have some imagination.

I can't see why, we don't need some idea of the future trade relationship with China or America before knowing what our borders arrangement is going to be with them do we?

Every country signs up to international treaties that provide protection to other countries citizens, the US has signed so many that they have a 500 page book covering them all.

I've not looked to deeply into why the UK want's UK courts instead of the ECJ protecting EU citizens but i would imagine the EU just wants similar protection for its citizens as most other countries do when they sign up to international treaties that deal with the protection of their citizens when abroad.

That charts 5 years out of date, a more recent one puts us as third largest contributor.

 

Why would they bother compromising when all they have to do is wait, the closer we are to the deadline the stronger the EUs hand is.

 

There isn't a divorce bill dispute any more, in the Florence speech May said that the UK will pay into the EU budget until 2020 (when the current EU budget ends), so there won't be any negotiations about how much of what we signed up for we will pay, its 100%.

 

What the EU wants first and foremost is an orderly separation. That's all.

It is the UK that keeps publishing vague wish-lists of some magical quantum state of all the benefits but none of the obligations, that keeps arguing with itself about whether it wants to be in the EEA and/or Customs Union or not, whether it wants a CETA-style deal or go WTO. When the UK stops (failing in) negotiating with itself, perhaps it could focus on an orderly separation process, which is kind of essential no matter what happens next, right? So ask yourself why it doesn't; why it is still fighting with itself, never mind the EU.

That is nonsense. As Corky42 says: you don't need to know what the future trade relationship with any other nation is to know what the border arrangements need to be. The UK so far has failed to propose any viable solution to preventing a hard border. And since the UK created the problem, it behoves the UK to come up with a solution. Ask yourself why it still hasn't.

Again, the UK created the problem. Now it could have unilaterally guaranteed the rights of EU citizens already living here. Not only would that avoid a shitload of problems (I mean, what is the UK going to do? Round all 3 million of us up in cattle trains and kick us out? How do you even deal with this situation?), it would take the moral high ground right away and demonstrate goodwill at the start of these negotiations. Even UKIP supported this approach. Most of the Conservatives did, Labour did, the Lib Dems did. There was absolutely no reason not to do this.

Instead we get Liam Fox referring to us as "bargaining cards". Ask yourself why.

Given how the UK has thus far showed itself to be insincere and not a little incompetent when it comes to respecting the rights of EU citizens, I can understand the anxiety. The EU was the first to publish detailed papers proposing comprehensive and generous protection of UK citizens in the EU and vice-versa (around April 2017; nobody here took much notice because they were distracted by the GE). The UK rejected these proposals and belatedly released its own papers (pretending that it was the first to do so) much curtailing EU citizens' rights and being quite prepared to throw UK citizens in the EU under a bus in the process. Ironically, even in case of hard Brexit, under EU law UK citizens will continue to enjoy more rights than EU citizens will enjoy here.

As Corky42 points out: the US has signed up to 500 pages worth of international treaties on immigrant rights.

There is no "divorce bill". There are financial commitments until 2020 that the UK signed up to of its own free will. There are additional commitments it signed up to beyond this period. This is totally independent of any future trade agreement, but again the UK persists in making it conditional to that, which is, frankly, a ham-fisted attempt at blackmail (ask yourself why). The EU simply isn't playing. The UK can either meet its obligations, or it can walk away from these and deal with the consequences for its reputation. Those are its options.

The EU already accepts that both sides will lose whatever the outcome, and that these negotiations are just about damage limitation. Just as the UK prioritises sovereignty and control of its borders over economical considerations, so does the EU prioritise the coherence of its union over economical considerations. Politics trump economics on both sides.

What you should be worried about is the rest of the world. One of the things that the UK and EU managed to resolve quite quickly and amicably was the split of their WTO tariff allowances. But it is the US, South America and --interestingly-- a number of Commonwealth countries that are now challenging this division, which will scupper the UK's ability to trade under the WTO.

Now tl;dr:
- Why is the UK not focusing on an orderly separation process?
- Why is the UK still squabbling with itself about what Brexit actually means?
- Why does it not provide a viable solution to the border issue in N.I.?
- Why does it choose to use EU citizens as bargaining cards?
- Why does it try to use its financial obligations as a bargaining card?
- Why does the UK keep denying the economic lose-lose reality of Brexit?

It seems obvious to me that (with the exception of a few loons) the UK government is in fact terrified of the economic and N.I. border consequences of leaving the EU, and desperately seeks some magic "out but still in" trade deal and a magic invisible border solution which doesn't exist. And to do that it is prepared to use EU (and consequently, UK) citizens and financial obligations as blackmail material. And the EU knows that, because it's negotiators are really rather good at what they do and it isn't playing.

 

A vanishingly small part of me still hopes this is a cynical ploy to drum up support for staying in the EU by sabotaging the negotiation process, however it is more likely the politicians in charge are stupid and clueless.

 

Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by sheer incompetence.

Most MPs do not want to leave. They just feel obligated to enact the will of the electorate because Cameron promised to and May feels obligated to honour his promise to keep the Tory party together and in power (ironically it will destroy them). But they are all terrified. And the Brexiteers? They live in a little bubble universe of exceptionalism and have no clue whatsoever.

If a GE that was called with the explicit purpose to obtain a public mandate for Brexit does not actually mention Brexit, or a post-Brexit vision of Britain even once, then you know there is no vision. If all that an allegedly intelligent man like Boris Johnson can come up with for a post-Brexit vision is that "it will be a great success" and "be positive" and "let the lion roar", then you know that there is no vision. If the government is still fighting amongst itself about what kind of Brexit it should pursue (a self-referential one, a hard, soft, clean or red, white and blue one) then you know there is no vision.

 

They publish papers, the EU says it isn't enough and reiterates its position.

Actually the problem of how the land border works is largely about what customs arrangements are in place for goods heading out, in, or passing through. It's impossible to say if the EU won't take about what trading relationship we will have as that drives what is needed by way of customs. The latest is that the EU wants them to be checking that UK food product meet EU standards before passing south. This issue is driven by the trade arrangement that they won't talk about yet.

But would you be happy for the US Supreme court to have the final say on US Citizens rights over here?

WEll my point still stands. The elephant in the room is that the 5bn EUR above will have to go and that means either the EU spending 5bn less or other countries contribution 5bn more. Getting a fat settlement out of the UK kicks that tin down the road.

 

The belatedly published UK papers are vague, self-contradictory, ask for the impossible and do not address the issues at hand.

The UK should propose a default border solution that can accommodate a no-deal, hard Brexit. Ask yourself why it doesn't.

Given how the UK is prepared to ride roughshod over its own constitution, and not so long ago had its tabloids proclaim the UK Supreme Court as "Enemies of the People" (to which there was a very muted reply by the Justice Secretary), I can understand why the EU does not put its trust in the UK Supreme Court. After all it can only enforce the law that the UK government decides to draw up. And currently there is no reason to believe that future UK governments won't renege on an agreement and change that law as it suits. After all, look at the 'strong and stable' government here: the House of Lords? "Crush the saboteurs!". The Treasury? Has been co-opted by the EU! How does this make the UK look to the EU, but like a state that has lost all sense of stability?

Lastly: the settlement is simply the UK honouring its obligations that it signed up to. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with any subsequent trade deals, or with the EU27 just wanting the UK's money (which constitutes 3% of the EU budget and 0.04% of the EU27's GDP, so I think it will manage to cover it somehow). The UK can honour its obligations, or it can walk away with all the consequences that entails.

 

I'm curious if you've read any of the papers they've published? If you have you'll know there full of fluffy words that amount to nothing tangible, the "papers" do nothing more than set out their position and/or vision, they basically amount to me saying how I'd like to be millionaire this time next year but not coming up with any concrete way of how I'm going to achieve my vision.

I largely agree, however i fail to see why you need to know what custom arrangements are going to be in place or goods heading out, in, or passing through to actually know how a land border is going to work.

I mean you don't need to know how much you're going to charge people or the dress code before you hire a doorman or setup a ticket office, basically i don't see why you need to know what needs checking or the costs levied to know that checks have to be carried out.

Like i said IDK exactly how that sort of things works but isn't that the case already?

Very true however having more or less money to go around doesn't really effect things as like our government is fond of telling everyone they'll just have to live within their means, cut their cloth to suit, etc, etc.

In the end it will just mean they'll have around 10% less money to spend on creating jobs, growth, reducing economic gaps between member states, agriculture, fisheries, rural development and environmental issues such as climate change, spread that out among 27 nations and they'll probably not even notice.

 

So the UK needs to propose a range of solutions before the EU lets on which one it will be needed............right, that's not obstructive at all.

Um,

• Where is the UK behaving unconstitutionally?
• Did you know the Tabloids aren't a wing of the UK government? The Daily mail says a lot of stuff no doubt, can't say I read it, not sure why you do uless you are looking for things to disagree with.
• Are you implying there is a problem with the Independence of the judiciary, because I don't see it. In fact you pointed at an example where they ruled in a way that was inconvenient for the Government. I think you''l find that the independence of the UK Judiciary has been pretty well established for a few hundred years uninterrupted. That certainly doesn't apply so well to some of the other larger members of the EU.
• And yes of course the UK can amend its laws, but so can the EU and unless the proposal is that the rights of UK citizens in the EU are to be governed by the UK supreme Court over and above the ECJ then this proposal looks rather implausible.

And honour commitments we should, reciprocally. If we are to still benefit from the budget, we should contribute. If we have guaranteed loans, then we will honour those guarantees as needed. But no we're not a piggybank to use to avoid thinking about how much more some Northern EU members are going to have to stump up to keep the current budget size.

 

The pointis that we're both supposed to be trying not to have a hard border. So not knowing what demands the EU will have for goods movements is sorta big.

No.

The EU aren't very good at cutting the EU budget. It went up even when all ther EU states were having to make cuts at home. The European parliament is involved and they are always in favour of "more Europe". The probelm is that you have to convince the German electorate that they need to send more money to parts south and with the aFD sticking their boot it, that will be a hard sell.

 

Since the UK created the problem, it behoves it to propose at least one realistic set of objectives and solutions, not vague objectives that are contradictory and impossible, leaving it to the EU to work out the solutions.

The EU referendum was advisory. It was explicitly stated in the EU Referendum bill. Cameron promised to carry out the outcome nonetheless, treating it as a binding referendum. Then he ignored the 75% turnout and 60% deciding vote criteria necessary for a binding referendum. Then the government tried to trigger Article 50 without going through parliament. Now it tries to push through Henry VIIIth powers, bypassing parliament. In countries with a written constitution, these manoeuvres would simply not be possible.

The muted response of the Justice Secretary was telling. By European standards, this is pretty extreme behaviour even for the press, and the government not challenging it in the strongest terms is worrisome. I think you do not realise just how highly respected around the world the UK judiciary is, and to see its own government not treat it with the same respect is disturbing.

The judiciary can only uphold the law; it cannot dictate it. If the UK government now or in future decides to change the legal status of EU citizens, the judiciary cannot challenge that.

The EU cannot simply change the rights of UK citizens in quite the same way because it would violate EU laws which are part of member states' constitutional law. The UK however has demonstrated that it can just change its constitutional law pretty much on the fly.

Nobody but Britain is trying to paint it that way. Even the figures being thrown about are the UK's invention. All the EU wants is for Britain to honour its commitments (these are reciprocal; for instance the Falklands is due to receive EU money up to 2020, one year after Brexit, because that is what the EU signed up to). All the UK has to do is to say that it will honour its commitments, and talk about the settlement figure. But the UK keeps tying it to trade agreements, which is simply not how things work. Those obligations exist irrespective of what trade agreement exists in the future. They are part of the separation, not of future trade.

 

The EU has already specified those demands in February (pay attention, 007!). It is the UK that wishes to ignore them. Can't we just, like, Brexit, but carry on exactly as before?

Just like it is leaving the current arrangement but wants a transition arrangement that is exactly the same --but at the same time opts out of free movement, EU rules and allows for striking its own trade deals. All of the current benefits, but none of the obligations. Like that is going to happen.

The problem with the UK government is that it is not honest with itself, nor with the electorate. Leave means: none of the obligations of being an EU member, but also none of the benefits. It means being a third country. Anything else involves compromise. And the Brexiteers don't do compromise because they fundamentally believe in British exceptionalism. The EU meanwhile feels it has given the UK enough opt-outs already and will not compromise the union further. So this is a lose-lose situation, there will be an economic penalty, there will be more red tape, there will be a hard border with Ireland. And the sooner the UK government accepts that and comes clean about that with the electorate, the better.

 

I don't think we're both supposed to be trying not to have a hard border, AFAIK the EU couldn't give two monkeys what sort of border there is between the UK and Europe after Brexit, the only thing they seem to care about is that we honor previous agreements like the good Friday one, something the UK seems not to have put much thought into.

The EU budget isn't set by anyone other than the rules everyone agrees to, those being...

1. Gross National Income (GNI)-based revenue, which is a 0.7% levy of each member state’s GNI;
2. VAT-based revenue, which comprises a percentage (usually 0.3%) of each member state’s standardised value added tax rate; and
3. Traditional owned resources (TOR), such as customs duties on imports from outside the EU and sugar levies.

The ceiling for expenditure is likewise agreed upon by everyone so they can't overspend and it's reviewed each year along with each nations commitments, if a member states GNI goes down, for example, and the EU budget for that year is lower than expected then so would the amount the EU commits to projects.

There's no cutting of budgets in the way i guess people traditional think of cuts as they only spend what they take in, the reason their budget has gone up is because the EU as a whole, despite some member states governments making cuts, have seen increases in growth and across the whole of the EU governments have been increasing spending.

Linky

 

Looks like the UK government has carefully prepared its latest papers. Seriously, don't they have some work experience assistant who can just read through the document and check for mistakes?

 

Who d'you think wrote it in the first place?

 

Basically: the EU is the antidote to globalism. Most of the world's wealth, commodities and resources are owned and controlled by global corporations. They have individual countries over a barrel --"if you don't let us do as we please, we take our business, our jobs and our money somewhere else"-- but large trading blocks acting as one can lay down the law and protect themselves: their workers, their consumers and their environment.

What's more, despite all this, global business loves investing in rich, stable trading blocks more so than countries with an uncertain economic and political future. That GBP dropped for a reason.

Then there is all the cooperation on science, environmental protection, health care, security; richer countries pulling the poorer ones up which in time will start contributing to the common pool. Everybody wins.

It is argued that NATO preserves the peace in Europe, but the EU promotes it.

In short: the EU has all the cake.