the EU & the UK

[MyNameIsTerry]

The new EU president has said she will extend the date if something interesting could come off it. In other news both Tory hopefuls have said they won't accept the Backstop...but then they may just be kissing a lot of babies so best to wait until the contest is over.

[mezzaninedoor]

The new EU president has said she will extend the date if something interesting could come off it. In other news both Tory hopefuls have said they won't accept the Backstop...but then they may just be kissing a lot of babies so best to wait until the contest is over.

I can guarantee that they won't sort the backstop by 31st October so thats No Deal then as far as both are concerned.
I thought all polling showed that the nation doesn't want No Deal.

[mezzaninedoor]

M Then what? No one really knows, but the damage is likely to be extensive with wide-ranging fall-out… and we might still not get the Brexit we leavers desire.

You do talk as if Leavers are one entity that all want No Deal. Is this harking back to the ComRes survey in March 2019 that had 46% would favour a No Deal. I believe things have dialled back considerably since then.

[MyNameIsTerry]

I can guarantee that they won't sort the backstop by 31st October so thats No Deal then as far as both are concerned.
I thought all polling showed that the nation doesn't want No Deal.

The EU might talk again when it comes to the backstop as they have ROI worried as a member.

I don't believe in the backstop, it's only a way to divide up the UK and keep us in allowing the "we may as well rejoin" argument to resurface. There needs to be a suitable border solution but that one is very one way and I would prefer a CU to that AND it doesn't actually resolve the NI/ROI border anyway despite the popular narrative of the media. You can't be in the backstop without the other aspects of May's deal which tied standards to the SM.

The media has always played this border issue as a CU one. The CU achieves very little of anything, the majority of the issues are taken care of by the SM. You couldn't be in the full EUCU and solve that border, the borders issues is spread across the two entities; CU & SM. This is because WTO has no interest in the standards issue which is a SM construct.

The backstop may resolve things or it may push the all Ireland solution closer...with the EU calling most of the shots.

[mezzaninedoor]

Brexit Day + 110

Mez… Terry…. A quick recap on ‘No Deal’:

As all the ‘deals’ so far put forward from every quarter rely on compliance with the EU’s dictat – which is effectively a binding agreement solely in the EU’s favour – ‘No Deal’ is the actual Brexit which fulfils the spirit of the 2016 Referendum for the UK to leave the EU and all of its onerous obligations that we are subject to as a member state.

If we agree to the EU’s demands for their ‘deal’ (and the EU insists Mrs May did in fact do exactly that), we stay under the onerous obligations of the EU and therefore remain ‘in’ the EU (Bino - Brexit in name only). Failing forcing us to remain as a member, this was the EU’s fixed position and intent. What the UK did not do was to precisely define Brexit to the EU; probably because parliament was caught by surprise at the result and took an ambivalent position of indecision.

Unless the EU is genuinely prepared to fully renegotiate basic terms, then ‘No Deal’ is the only viable conclusion to this protracted mess.

I see what you are saying and I understand why you are saying it.
However I don't agree that you would have BINO.
I think the issue with a Deal maybe that Brexiteers will state 'oh its BINO' and Remainers will state 'its Brexit' and everyone will continually fall out over it all but I still feel that No Deal isn't in the UK's interest

I think leaving the political levers of the EU is Brexit and having a degree of market access is a sensible approach to take, still

[MyNameIsTerry]

The purest form of leaving is No Deal. However, there is no reason not to have a trading relationship that encourages us to sell/buy into each other's markets. Note I say each others, not simply the SM which the media often seem to describe as the only market. But the SM went too far, as did CU's, in that they aim to remove powers from countries in favour of centralisation i.e. one powerful board room with individuals from some or all of those countries deciding where it's members go.

Legislation didn't stick solely to trade. Whilst changes in working rights are beneficial I suspect they do more for other members than they do for such as ours (anyone who thinks this isn't achievable without the EU might want to see how France fight back!...when it's not on fire, that is ) to bring up minimum standards.

If you want to sell into someone's country you have to abide by their standards. So, we build businesses around our markets. That doesn't mean we can't sell into any other market/country either, but it might mean firms look towards one tooling set/procedures that mean they don't have to spend money on different processes. If the EU has the highest set of standards, the firms may keep inline with them so as to be able to sell anywhere else as the minimum standards have been met there also. Where one country has a specific standard, you adhere to it or don't sell there.

One example is livestock. We hear about the EU not allowing US beef in due to a ban on growth hormones. That's not strictly true as the EU allow certain substances that the FDA don't. If you want to sell those products into the US you have to abide by those FDA additional rules.

If you took the NI/ROI border out of all of this you still face the need to meet standards. This doesn't mean a CU, it means meeting the compliance standards for the SM. It's the reason Ethiopia or anyone else can sell into the SM without any trading agreements. So, does Ethiopia have a problem setting tooling/processing to meet those standards? Do Ethiopians care much about this? Do they view as the EU calling the shots?

So, in agreeing to stay in alignment in a loose way, with the ability to change direction at any point, how are we different to any other country?

The EU can alter it's standards whenever it wants and as long as any trade agreement allows you to simply not stay in line if you choose not too, that's fine. There perhaps needs to be some clauses about fair change and notification so as not to punish other nations in doing this. This will be the case for every trade deal the EU has done with everyone else. Either party can choose to end it under certain conditions. The question is whether they want to.

The same applies to CU's. Turkey are trying to get the EU to make changes beneficial to them. If the EU ignore this Turkey will have to decide whether to end it or put up with the current agreement. But they can leave it. Until the referendum, we couldn't. Our governments have enmeshed us into something far more complicated that removes, or at least relaxes, certain areas that should come under government control.

Leave. Have a trade deal that tells firms to comply to xyz to sell into the SM. That's it. Anything that works on customs is additional to this. Create something to reduce import/export barriers where you are an equal partner to the EU as this is about each other selling.

But what of the missing component? What about the EU meeting our minimum standards? Well, they will have to do this for the same reasons China have to. It makes you wonder why any of this really needs formalising in agreements considering it's how import/export has always worked when you have legalisation to ensure compliance to a set of industry standards.

Citizens rights, ensuring those pre tearing up of anything, is a separate issue and needs a bespoke agreement both adhere to. There is no connection to trade in this.

Why complain you can't have a say in EU policy? We don't have a say in Ethiopian policy, do we? It's the price if leaving, for better or worse. The EU won't have a say in our policy. This is where things like the backstop cause us problems as they force us to comply to the will of someone else. Admittedly the EU honours the backstop on their side too, however this backstop is forced onto you where you fail to come up with a solution of your own. But it's not your own, it has to be agreed with them too. Is there a clause that covers unreasonable refusals to solutions? If not, that backstop seems like a weapon you can wield.

An agreement to adhere to standards speeds things up. The other side can rely on you to export goods of an agreed standard. This allows removal of some/all checks. But does this mean we will never seek to improve our standards beyond that of the EU? We already have higher workers rights standards than much of the EU. We have greater social care standards than many (thinking of the NHS). Why limit yourself? As long as we aren't forced to wait until they decide to improve standards, we still have the same rights as any other independent nation.

The NI/ROI border becomes the sticking point because a) there are logistical problems with people who work over the border, and some properties even straddle it, and b) republican ideology.

But b) has a certain nonsense to it when you consider the GFA allows the people of NI & ROI to call a border poll, vote to unite and NI leave the UK. Why? Because it doesn't require 100% of citizens to agree. Some will always want to stay as is. Some in NI want to be with the UK, some in ROI don't want the problems NI will bring them. We are told the UK leaving the EU can cause a border therefore reignite terrorism. Well, why can't a reunification of NI/ROI? Stick a border up and the republicans may take up arms. A reunification may cause the unionists to take it up arms. Why is one unthinkable and the other a matter if patriotism that we should all favour?

Do we plan on allowing all who want to come to England, Scotland and Wales? That might be unpopular over here. I wonder how Scotland, considering it's continued sectarianism, thinks of those from both sides of the religious argument? Or do we just tell them "tough, some other people in your country voted for you to leave...oh, and some people outside of your country too". Does that sound a lot like the arguments of Scotland and some in NI with "we didn't vote to leave and are being dragged out"? Why is one acceptable and the other a disgrace?

The other issue is the one I see the most is needed to deal with, because of EU membership and prior to this as a CTA, we have a lot of people who need more free border access than is normal in much of the rest of the world. But the Swiss handle this with ease as do Lichtenstein. Something bespoke is needed here to speed it up beyond a standard international border and as Pain has said before this is about political will. This is nothing to do with trade passing over the border, that's a separate issue, it is to do with citizens travelling to work. And some unique low level legal stuff to cover the status of people with land to straddle the border, which is not unique to them as it happens in other countries too.

There is an issue with trade in terms of it clogging up but this isn't too much different to our border issue with France. It might be to smaller businesses who trade across the border or provide services e.g. a firm might do your central heating but now no longer can operate over there. But for big business it's more about compliance to standards, duties and speed. These can be separated from the stuff that really hit the citizens, the smaller businesses, etc.

Political will. There is nothing stopping dodgy businesses moving over borders selling dodgy diesel now. Some things come down to industry compliance monitoring and expectations on business to adhere and check. The rest if for law enforcement.

But a divided result, and a Parliament mostly in favour of Remain, is always going to be the biggest struggle as the will simply isn't there. But I guarantee you a border poll in NI/ROI that comes back 53/48 in favour of reunification will be heralded as a patriotic moment in history as would be a Scottish independence vote. Even if they set it as a minimum 60/40, 70/30, etc it will be the same. And that sameness will bring a load of disgruntled people who feel they are "being dragged out". Such us life, welcome to politics, it's how every vote goes...

Falling back on WTO isn't smart. It's a way to leave but it should be a springboard to trade agreements. Staying at WTO makes little sense when all countries are looking to boost trade and make money. But there should be no Remain either. You have to be on the outside. All choices to walk away from agreements must be within your power. The EU have to have that right as well. But the EU have a habit of wanting the ECJ to sit over that which May avoided by bringing in equality plus a third party to act as deciding vote.

[Carnation]

In my opinion, for what it's worth.
We need to come out of the EU with a 'no deal', then trading can be 'dealt with' on terms that suit the UK and not necessarily with just, (sorry that word again Pain) the European countries anyway.
You need to wipe the slate clean and start afresh as with anything you do if you are not happy.
Although personally, I would like to see more UK produce, but understandably, that's not going to happen overnight.
It's the headlock and vulnerability of being in the EU which needs to be eliminated, let alone the obligatory rules concerning other matters.
And I do have to say watching Pain clocking up the Brexit+ days, I'm still annoyed that the original voting result was not carried out by Parliament and wonder if this will affect any future referendums because as it stands, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
Mezz, none of my brexit colleagues have changed their minds. Why would they? It's not a decision taken out of the blue. Feelings and opinions build up over a period of time and you won't change your views because something hasn't been carried out and say, "oh go on then, we'll stay".
As far as I know personally, all the remainers still want to stay and the brexiteers still want out!

[MyNameIsTerry]

I didn't think the EU wanted to negotiate further? New broom? https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampp...rom%20%251%24s

[MyNameIsTerry]

I found it interesting this "senior EU diplomat" said it will be sold as a No Deal prep time, something they said no chance to anyway when Leadsom recommended it, but the reality is it will be further talks about a deal and renegotiation, both of which they have stood firm on never happening again. Some see this as forcing Boris to plead for the extension rather than be seen as the bad guy (and preventing the EU being sold at the bad guy who forced No Deal) but it looks more like they are blinking first to me

[MyNameIsTerry]

Red Dwarf also gave us "it shouldn't be beware Greeks bearing gifts, it should be beware Trojans they're complete smegheads"