stonemuse you call it right if you are saying that the only thing brexiters have to offer is faith and hope, because they can't offer any realistic practical ideas. The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
A few bits and pieces for those that are interested (was distressed to read the Brendan Simms piece linked by @stonemuse yesterday, but purely out of bitterness and spite, I used to meet him occasionally when we were both undergraduates, and he was back in Dublin).
"For a post-Brexit UK to charge no tariffs on imports from the EU would be a massive breach of the rules of the World Trade Organisation....This can be overridden if two or more members sign a formal bilateral or regional trade agreement among themselves. "
All the FT article does is to point out obstacles which are obstacles only if there is not the will to overcome them. What is a "massive breach" is in fact not really a massive breach if other steps are agreed, like a regional trade agreement. (Cue more problems with MFN rules)
The second article is the EU Parliament saying "the UK can't be in and out of the single market". What does this mean? Once goods have crossed the EU's external Customs Union they can move anywhere within the EU within the single market and no conditions of origin apply. What the EU seem to be saying, but correct me if not, is that they can't allow the EU rules that apply on imports from every other nation to apply to the UK, regardless. How would this be imposed without breaking international law? It is a statement of intent to be discriminatory in order to diminish the value of the financial gain from leaving the EU. Why is overt discrimination acceptable here yet applied in any other sphere of human activity would be demonised?
Most of the voxpops of dim Remainers I've seen giving vent to their disgust over Brexit because we are leaving the Single Market, think we can't trade with the EU - supported by the equally dim comments reported of the EU Parliament. All anti Brexit reporting reinforces the idea that you can't be out of the Single Market and export your goods into the Single Market. The Single Market only exists for EU members and simply avoids tariff barriers between member states. There's no reason whatsoever why we can't have tariff/tariff free access, just like any other trading nation, we just don't have the "benefits" of the four freedoms.
What "benefits" do we retain by trading with the EU tariff free outside the Customs Union, that the EU is so intent on preventing the UK enjoying for free? We will not enjoy any of the EU subsides or capital investments, or benefit from freedom of movement, can someone explain how we are in any way retaining the benefits of the Single Market when we are not in the EU simply by having a trade deal.
The third article is a mad Jock from the SNP which says the UK voted for Brexit to colonise the World again. What it's got to do with Brexit only @NornIrishAddick can tell us.
I'm frankly bored with repetitive excuses and arguments to prove a deal is not possible. The UK's suggestion for a bespoke solution can't be on the agenda in case it might work. If the will is there anything is possible, problem is you can't find the answer in a Google search, so obviously doesn't exist in the minds of the internet junkies.
I haven't read Clegg's book, not least because i am a Clegg fan (despite his appalling error on tuition fees) and I am trying hard to read more challenging stuff (to my worldview). Like Varoufakis - bloody hell...and btw I respect your ability to spend time reading stuff that might be uncomfortable. You are better than me at that, and you get through books quicker too :-).
In short though, Clegg - I believe - favours the idea of a multi-speed Europe, as you do. So do I, or at least the more flexible a la carte model proposed by the CER guys. I also think it is politically the most feasible approach. However where you differ from them, it seems, is that you seem to favour a "trade only" relationship for the UK. That is where we differ. I think you underestimate the extent to which EU citizens embrace the idea of the EU as a political project. The mistake you and many Brits make is to instinctively recoil from the very idea. Had we remained inside the EU, and behaved like reasonable members of a club, then as the third biggest member we would have been able to shape the political direction of that project. You don't buy that. That is where we differ.
I've sat in meetings in Brussels and Strasbourg, ironing out the understanding of policies, negotiating deals and finalising plans for new, EU-built technical solutions for one, specific, narrow area under the influence of the EU. (When I say it's an EU-built solution, I mean that it used - in part - EU funds, was designed here in the UK and in France and was coded and tested in Spain).
These meetings over a number of years demonstrated to me the depth to which the EU is committed to go to, in order to protect the rights and opportunities of EU citizens, wherever they are in the world. And often, these policies will be un-noticed by EU citizens; and, even more often, will seem to be an expensive irritant to businesses.
One, minuscule example of this is where an EU citizen wants to look up the timetables for various methods of travel. In simple terms, if you are an EU citizen, any system that shows transport times and fares must (MUST) show you all the options you ask for. Big deal, you might think. But the upshot of this is that whenever you log on to a system to see when the best train is, or you want to get a flight somewhere, you will be presented with all the options, not just the ones that the system-provider wants to show you.
What would happen if that rule were not in place? You might go to a website to get a flight and only be shown the flights that provider wants to - or gets paid to - show you. You're inadvertently being forced to pay a commission which you don't benefit from, can't control and don't get told about. With the rule in place, you know you're getting exactly what you are asking for. It's fair. And because it's fair, it's trusted. And, because it's trusted, it's widely used. And because it's widely used, the system providers that create it know they're going to make money from it. So the "pain" to which they have to go (in order to ensure the system is compliant) is worth it.
If we leave the EU, our Government could decide - with the encouragement of system providers - to relax the rules. And who amongst us will put up an objection? After all, hardly anyone knows the rule is there in the first place. We can end up paying more for flights, trains and buses than we need to, and end up with transport options that are less useful.
It's a tiny example. It affects all of us who ever look online or via a travel agent for any travel booking. And, if (or when) we lose this protection, very little fuss will be made. But we will all lose out.
I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of examples like this, which we will lose either rapidly or gradually, and for which we will never receive a compensatory benefit.
A few bits and pieces for those that are interested (was distressed to read the Brendan Simms piece linked by @stonemuse yesterday, but purely out of bitterness and spite, I used to meet him occasionally when we were both undergraduates, and he was back in Dublin).
Just spoke to a pal of mine (a big remainer) and asked for his solution ideas for the NI/ROI question.
He said, "Ireland is an Island, it's time we stopped trying to cling on to the past and let it go" I asked, "what about NI's previous contribution to UK taxes/infrastructure/military etc?" He said " Nth. Ire. costs the UK a chunk, and it's time to let it go"
I didn't really have a response to that. Any thoughts?
It makes logical sense, but is also madness - I'm sure that someone into these things would point out that it's probably the kind of solution that a psycopathic mind (in managerial terms) would recommend.
It's about as likely that there could be a clean break from Northern Ireland as there could be a "Clean Brexit" that retains all the UK's current trading advantages.
The problem for the UK is that it cannot simply wash its hands of Northern Ireland and walk away. If that was possible, it would have done it long ago.
The formation of Northern Ireland was the direct result of a fairly obvious threat on the part of a significant element of Irish Unionism (as it then was) to spark civil war.
Just as with the Dissident Republicans, the overall numbers of those Loyalists willing, at the moment, to engage in violence are probably fairly limited, but these sort of things have a habit of spiralling out of control fairly quickly.
Loyalists have a very conditional loyalty to the state, and I would not wish to take for granted any outcome, but would be surprised if they would accept such a proposal.
It may be worth pointing out that at least one poster (@cafcfan?) made very clear in advance of the Brexit referendum that Northern Ireland costs the UK an awful lot more than EU membership, without any of the financial benefits that are provided by EU membership - so that, on purely economic terms it makes far more sense for the UK to depart the island of Ireland than it does the EU.
I very much doubt that there is any way to avoid chaos in exiting Ireland, particularly if the UK Government determined that it wanted to break up the UK to meet any current Brexit timescales.
And, for what it's worth, I'm assuming that the decision-making and negotiations would not be being conducted by the current Brain's Trust (I certainly trust that they only have the one brain between them).
That sounds like it might have been me. I expect my tongue was somewhere in my cheek at the time.
But, nonetheless Ireland - whether that's North or South - costs us money. In, out or the current status of shake it all about, that will still be the situation.
stonemuse you call it right if you are saying that the only thing brexiters have to offer is faith and hope, because they can't offer any realistic practical ideas. The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
I don’t think the ‘remain politicians’ are any better ... they also have no idea.
stonemuse you call it right if you are saying that the only thing brexiters have to offer is faith and hope, because they can't offer any realistic practical ideas. The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
I don’t think the ‘remain politicians’ are any better ... they also have no idea.
Well apart from the obvious fact that they would not have embarked on this lunacy in the first place. Coming up with ideas that make things equal to or better than being a member state are like rocking horse shit.
stonemuse you call it right if you are saying that the only thing brexiters have to offer is faith and hope, because they can't offer any realistic practical ideas. The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
I don’t think the ‘remain politicians’ are any better ... they also have no idea.
Well apart from the obvious fact that they would not have embarked on this lunacy in the first place. Coming up with ideas that make things equal to or better than being a member state are like rocking horse shit.
I haven't read Clegg's book, not least because i am a Clegg fan (despite his appalling error on tuition fees) and I am trying hard to read more challenging stuff (to my worldview). Like Varoufakis - bloody hell...and btw I respect your ability to spend time reading stuff that might be uncomfortable. You are better than me at that, and you get through books quicker too :-).
In short though, Clegg - I believe - favours the idea of a multi-speed Europe, as you do. So do I, or at least the more flexible a la carte model proposed by the CER guys. I also think it is politically the most feasible approach. However where you differ from them, it seems, is that you seem to favour a "trade only" relationship for the UK. That is where we differ. I think you underestimate the extent to which EU citizens embrace the idea of the EU as a political project. The mistake you and many Brits make is to instinctively recoil from the very idea. Had we remained inside the EU, and behaved like reasonable members of a club, then as the third biggest member we would have been able to shape the political direction of that project. You don't buy that. That is where we differ.
I actually don’t think we can influence the EU from the inside, basically because they first need to decide what they need to do next and how to do it. And I am not convinced that they can.
Macron wants closer union, others don’t, Merkel has her own problems, and, despite what some say, I am far from believing that the problems are over for Greece and Italy.
The EU story has a very bumpy road in front of it, with or without Brexit.
I haven't read Clegg's book, not least because i am a Clegg fan (despite his appalling error on tuition fees) and I am trying hard to read more challenging stuff (to my worldview). Like Varoufakis - bloody hell...and btw I respect your ability to spend time reading stuff that might be uncomfortable. You are better than me at that, and you get through books quicker too :-).
In short though, Clegg - I believe - favours the idea of a multi-speed Europe, as you do. So do I, or at least the more flexible a la carte model proposed by the CER guys. I also think it is politically the most feasible approach. However where you differ from them, it seems, is that you seem to favour a "trade only" relationship for the UK. That is where we differ. I think you underestimate the extent to which EU citizens embrace the idea of the EU as a political project. The mistake you and many Brits make is to instinctively recoil from the very idea. Had we remained inside the EU, and behaved like reasonable members of a club, then as the third biggest member we would have been able to shape the political direction of that project. You don't buy that. That is where we differ.
I actually don’t think we can influence the EU from the inside, basically because they first need to decide what they need to do next and how to do it. And I am not convinced that they can.
Macron wants closer union, others don’t, Merkel has her own problems, and, despite what some say, I am far from believing that the problems are over for Greece and Italy.
The EU story has a very bumpy road in front of it, with or without Brexit.
It will look like the yellow brick road compared to the potholed nightmare in front of us.
stonemuse you call it right if you are saying that the only thing brexiters have to offer is faith and hope, because they can't offer any realistic practical ideas. The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
I don’t think the ‘remain politicians’ are any better ... they also have no idea.
Well apart from the obvious fact that they would not have embarked on this lunacy in the first place. Coming up with ideas that make things equal to or better than being a member state are like rocking horse shit.
Or there's this lot from when she wasn't feeling well.
I haven't read Clegg's book, not least because i am a Clegg fan (despite his appalling error on tuition fees) and I am trying hard to read more challenging stuff (to my worldview). Like Varoufakis - bloody hell...and btw I respect your ability to spend time reading stuff that might be uncomfortable. You are better than me at that, and you get through books quicker too :-).
In short though, Clegg - I believe - favours the idea of a multi-speed Europe, as you do. So do I, or at least the more flexible a la carte model proposed by the CER guys. I also think it is politically the most feasible approach. However where you differ from them, it seems, is that you seem to favour a "trade only" relationship for the UK. That is where we differ. I think you underestimate the extent to which EU citizens embrace the idea of the EU as a political project. The mistake you and many Brits make is to instinctively recoil from the very idea. Had we remained inside the EU, and behaved like reasonable members of a club, then as the third biggest member we would have been able to shape the political direction of that project. You don't buy that. That is where we differ.
I actually don’t think we can influence the EU from the inside, basically because they first need to decide what they need to do next and how to do it. And I am not convinced that they can.
Macron wants closer union, others don’t, Merkel has her own problems, and, despite what some say, I am far from believing that the problems are over for Greece and Italy.
The EU story has a very bumpy road in front of it, with or without Brexit.
It will look like the yellow brick road compared to the potholed nightmare in front of us.
stonemuse you call it right if you are saying that the only thing brexiters have to offer is faith and hope, because they can't offer any realistic practical ideas. The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
I don’t think the ‘remain politicians’ are any better ... they also have no idea.
Well apart from the obvious fact that they would not have embarked on this lunacy in the first place. Coming up with ideas that make things equal to or better than being a member state are like rocking horse shit.
Or there's this lot from when she wasn't feeling well.
I’m seriously tempted to say that you are full of shit but of course wouldn’t ;0)
stonemuse you call it right if you are saying that the only thing brexiters have to offer is faith and hope, because they can't offer any realistic practical ideas. The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
I don’t think the ‘remain politicians’ are any better ... they also have no idea.
Well apart from the obvious fact that they would not have embarked on this lunacy in the first place. Coming up with ideas that make things equal to or better than being a member state are like rocking horse shit.
Or there's this lot from when she wasn't feeling well.
I’m seriously tempted to say that you are full of shit but of course wouldn’t ;0)
If my shit came out like that I could safely say that my arse was feeling chipper.
stonemuse you call it right if you are saying that the only thing brexiters have to offer is faith and hope, because they can't offer any realistic practical ideas. The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
I don’t think the ‘remain politicians’ are any better ... they also have no idea.
They don't need any ideas though do they, they lost? I am heartened to see that you at least seem to agree that the brexiters have no realistic practical ideas.
"For a post-Brexit UK to charge no tariffs on imports from the EU would be a massive breach of the rules of the World Trade Organisation....This can be overridden if two or more members sign a formal bilateral or regional trade agreement among themselves. "
All the FT article does is to point out obstacles which are obstacles only if there is not the will to overcome them. What is a "massive breach" is in fact not really a massive breach if other steps are agreed, like a regional trade agreement. (Cue more problems with MFN rules)
The second article is the EU Parliament saying "the UK can't be in and out of the single market". What does this mean? Once goods have crossed the EU's external Customs Union they can move anywhere within the EU within the single market and no conditions of origin apply. What the EU seem to be saying, but correct me if not, is that they can't allow the EU rules that apply on imports from every other nation to apply to the UK, regardless. How would this be imposed without breaking international law? It is a statement of intent to be discriminatory in order to diminish the value of the financial gain from leaving the EU. Why is overt discrimination acceptable here yet applied in any other sphere of human activity would be demonised?
Most of the voxpops of dim Remainers I've seen giving vent to their disgust over Brexit because we are leaving the Single Market, think we can't trade with the EU - supported by the equally dim comments reported of the EU Parliament. All anti Brexit reporting reinforces the idea that you can't be out of the Single Market and export your goods into the Single Market. The Single Market only exists for EU members and simply avoids tariff barriers between member states. There's no reason whatsoever why we can't have tariff/tariff free access, just like any other trading nation, we just don't have the "benefits" of the four freedoms.
What "benefits" do we retain by trading with the EU tariff free outside the Customs Union, that the EU is so intent on preventing the UK enjoying for free? We will not enjoy any of the EU subsides or capital investments, or benefit from freedom of movement, can someone explain how we are in any way retaining the benefits of the Single Market when we are not in the EU simply by having a trade deal.
The third article is a mad Jock from the SNP which says the UK voted for Brexit to colonise the World again. What it's got to do with Brexit only @NornIrishAddick can tell us.
I'm frankly bored with repetitive excuses and arguments to prove a deal is not possible. The UK's suggestion for a bespoke solution can't be on the agenda in case it might work. If the will is there anything is possible, problem is you can't find the answer in a Google search, so obviously doesn't exist in the minds of the internet junkies.
No, what the FT argument is is that the line, currently peddled by some, that the UK can, by unilaterally deciding not to have tariff and/or regulatory control controls on the Irish border, continue the present cross-border relations is not logically sustainable. The simple reason being that a) it would be unacceptable to the other party (Ireland and the EU) and b) everyone else in the WTO will be entitled to the same access.
Even with a Free Trade Agreement, if the UK is outside the Customs Union and Single Market, there will have to be regulatory controls (which will be stipulated by any trade deal). I believe that anyone who believes that such an agreement will be signed, ratified and implemented by 2021 is being entirely too optimistic.
As for the second article, I am, as you have asked willing and happy to correct you. I fear you have completely misinterpreted the point being made.
What is being stated is precisely that the same rules will apply to UK as to any other third country when it comes to exporting to the EU. If there are tariffs, it will mean tariffs must be paid, but also all the irritating paperwork that UK businesses currently don't have to fill out, all the regulatory hoops that they dont have to jump through and, more importantly, all the associated delays, will be required.
A Free Trade Agreement will not address many of the non-tariff barriers that exist in international trade, I'm surprised that you think an FTA can replicate the benefits of the Single Market, because the Single Market is about much more than simply removing tariff barriers.
I know of no-one who has suggested that being outside the Single Market would mean that the UK could no longer trade with the EU, but I am aware of significant numbers of "dim Remainers", strangely enough often very successful in business, who have stated that being outside the Single Market and Customs Union would make that trade more difficult. On the other hand, I've heard intelligent Leavers claim that leaving the EU will allow trade with the rest of the World, as if the EU stops such trade (really, somebody should warn the Germans, et al, before it's too late).
I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a word or two missing from the paragraph I've highlighted (either that, or my English comprehension is not what it used to be). The UK will not achieve the same benefits in terms of non-tariff barriers, regulatory equivalence or influence as membership of the EU, Single Market, or Customs Union, if it it relies on a Free Trade Agreement.
I'm actually quite disappointed @Dippenhall with your response to the article about Peter Grant's views. Then again, however, perhaps the language used by leading lights on the Leave side, such as the Sun Owen Paterson, who talked about Ireland, in things like abandoning parity with Sterling and adopting the Euro, as setting up a border "with the rest of the UK", might be heard differently in Ireland or Scotland. The thrust of the article was that there are significant voices in the media and politics who seem incapable of recognising that Ireland is an independent state, with its own interests, that will make decisions on how best, in it's mind, to protect these interests. Just like the talk of Commonwealth economic solidarity, this view ignores the fact that these countries, no matter how well they may get on with the UK in other regards, are not ruled by London and will make decisions (as should we all) on the basis of their own, hopefully enlightened, self-interest.
I personally think that, with the current mood music, and the passage of time, that it is increasingly unlikely that a deal will be agreed, including transitional, even for the UK's exit from the EU. Nor am I certain that the UK Government either a) understands or b) is capable of effectively managing the current talks process. The more it attempts to tie the leaving process to later negotiations on the future (the basic principles that will underpin any future arrangement are tied up with the "sufficient progress"), the worse the prognosis gets.
The EU is a legalistic, rules based, organisation, failure to work within such rules will not get the UK far.
But I have no doubt that a deal is possible, given time and goodwill.
I haven't read Clegg's book, not least because i am a Clegg fan (despite his appalling error on tuition fees) and I am trying hard to read more challenging stuff (to my worldview). Like Varoufakis - bloody hell...and btw I respect your ability to spend time reading stuff that might be uncomfortable. You are better than me at that, and you get through books quicker too :-).
In short though, Clegg - I believe - favours the idea of a multi-speed Europe, as you do. So do I, or at least the more flexible a la carte model proposed by the CER guys. I also think it is politically the most feasible approach. However where you differ from them, it seems, is that you seem to favour a "trade only" relationship for the UK. That is where we differ. I think you underestimate the extent to which EU citizens embrace the idea of the EU as a political project. The mistake you and many Brits make is to instinctively recoil from the very idea. Had we remained inside the EU, and behaved like reasonable members of a club, then as the third biggest member we would have been able to shape the political direction of that project. You don't buy that. That is where we differ.
I mentioned in one of my previous posts that in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas, i.e. based on “coalitions of the willing” in specific policy areas such as defense, internal security, taxation or social matters, etc. I said at the time that this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’, particularly with regard to Trade.
As has been published elsewhere, the paper starts with a somber tone, acknowledging the existential struggle the EU is facing due to crises over Brexit, migration and the eurozone. “Europe’s challenges show no sign of abating,” the paper says. It also notes the difficult balancing act facing the EU, as “many Europeans consider the Union as either too distant or too interfering.”
One of the stated scenarios is very unpalatable for me: “While generally neutral in its language, the Commission at times makes its preferred option clear. For example, on eurozone governance, the Commission aligns itself with the most federal option by saying it will issue a paper based on the 2015 Five Presidents’ Report, which called for a eurozone finance minister and stricter controls over the budgets of the 19 countries that use the single currency. Under this scenario the EU would also assume powers to speak for all of Europe on trade and foreign policy, and would assume global leadership for fighting climate change and on humanitarian issues. There would be “far greater and quicker decision-making” in Brussels, but the Commission acknowledges “there is the risk of alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy.”
I haven't read Clegg's book, not least because i am a Clegg fan (despite his appalling error on tuition fees) and I am trying hard to read more challenging stuff (to my worldview). Like Varoufakis - bloody hell...and btw I respect your ability to spend time reading stuff that might be uncomfortable. You are better than me at that, and you get through books quicker too :-).
In short though, Clegg - I believe - favours the idea of a multi-speed Europe, as you do. So do I, or at least the more flexible a la carte model proposed by the CER guys. I also think it is politically the most feasible approach. However where you differ from them, it seems, is that you seem to favour a "trade only" relationship for the UK. That is where we differ. I think you underestimate the extent to which EU citizens embrace the idea of the EU as a political project. The mistake you and many Brits make is to instinctively recoil from the very idea. Had we remained inside the EU, and behaved like reasonable members of a club, then as the third biggest member we would have been able to shape the political direction of that project. You don't buy that. That is where we differ.
I mentioned in one of my previous posts that in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas, i.e. based on “coalitions of the willing” in specific policy areas such as defense, internal security, taxation or social matters, etc. I said at the time that this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’, particularly with regard to Trade.
As has been published elsewhere, the paper starts with a somber tone, acknowledging the existential struggle the EU is facing due to crises over Brexit, migration and the eurozone. “Europe’s challenges show no sign of abating,” the paper says. It also notes the difficult balancing act facing the EU, as “many Europeans consider the Union as either too distant or too interfering.”
One of the stated scenarios is very unpalatable for me: “While generally neutral in its language, the Commission at times makes its preferred option clear. For example, on eurozone governance, the Commission aligns itself with the most federal option by saying it will issue a paper based on the 2015 Five Presidents’ Report, which called for a eurozone finance minister and stricter controls over the budgets of the 19 countries that use the single currency. Under this scenario the EU would also assume powers to speak for all of Europe on trade and foreign policy, and would assume global leadership for fighting climate change and on humanitarian issues. There would be “far greater and quicker decision-making” in Brussels, but the Commission acknowledges “there is the risk of alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy.”
Whatever outcome the Commission would prefer, this was a position paper (like those drawn up by UK civil servants).
The thing to remember is that it was published, so we can debate it's merits.
But also, the decision on where the EU ends up rests with the member states, so what they agree is what will happen.
A few bits and pieces for those that are interested (was distressed to read the Brendan Simms piece linked by @stonemuse yesterday, but purely out of bitterness and spite, I used to meet him occasionally when we were both undergraduates, and he was back in Dublin).
Just spoke to a pal of mine (a big remainer) and asked for his solution ideas for the NI/ROI question.
He said, "Ireland is an Island, it's time we stopped trying to cling on to the past and let it go" I asked, "what about NI's previous contribution to UK taxes/infrastructure/military etc?" He said " Nth. Ire. costs the UK a chunk, and it's time to let it go"
I didn't really have a response to that. Any thoughts?
So because we can't come up with a solution to the border situation we should just start giving parts of our country away ? Should we hand Gibraltar over to the Spanish too ?
For the record, I am pro-UK and would not like to see the dismantling of the union, nor the loss of Gib. A strange paradox really, because I want the UK to remain intact, but not part of the EU (in any form).
I haven't read Clegg's book, not least because i am a Clegg fan (despite his appalling error on tuition fees) and I am trying hard to read more challenging stuff (to my worldview). Like Varoufakis - bloody hell...and btw I respect your ability to spend time reading stuff that might be uncomfortable. You are better than me at that, and you get through books quicker too :-).
In short though, Clegg - I believe - favours the idea of a multi-speed Europe, as you do. So do I, or at least the more flexible a la carte model proposed by the CER guys. I also think it is politically the most feasible approach. However where you differ from them, it seems, is that you seem to favour a "trade only" relationship for the UK. That is where we differ. I think you underestimate the extent to which EU citizens embrace the idea of the EU as a political project. The mistake you and many Brits make is to instinctively recoil from the very idea. Had we remained inside the EU, and behaved like reasonable members of a club, then as the third biggest member we would have been able to shape the political direction of that project. You don't buy that. That is where we differ.
I mentioned in one of my previous posts that in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas, i.e. based on “coalitions of the willing” in specific policy areas such as defense, internal security, taxation or social matters, etc. I said at the time that this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’, particularly with regard to Trade.
As has been published elsewhere, the paper starts with a somber tone, acknowledging the existential struggle the EU is facing due to crises over Brexit, migration and the eurozone. “Europe’s challenges show no sign of abating,” the paper says. It also notes the difficult balancing act facing the EU, as “many Europeans consider the Union as either too distant or too interfering.”
One of the stated scenarios is very unpalatable for me: “While generally neutral in its language, the Commission at times makes its preferred option clear. For example, on eurozone governance, the Commission aligns itself with the most federal option by saying it will issue a paper based on the 2015 Five Presidents’ Report, which called for a eurozone finance minister and stricter controls over the budgets of the 19 countries that use the single currency. Under this scenario the EU would also assume powers to speak for all of Europe on trade and foreign policy, and would assume global leadership for fighting climate change and on humanitarian issues. There would be “far greater and quicker decision-making” in Brussels, but the Commission acknowledges “there is the risk of alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy.”
Whatever outcome the Commission would prefer, this was a position paper (like those drawn up by UK civil servants).
The thing to remember is that it was published, so we can debate it's merits.
But also, the decision on where the EU ends up rests with the member states, so what they agree is what will happen.
Absolutely, it does indeed. I am just not convinced that there is a general willingness to overcome the existing problems that the EU faces ... and is still to face.
I think Macron is right ... the only way the EU can work properly is fiscal union and federality (a scenario I do not want the UK to be part of).
But his proposal will never be generally accepted in Europe so I do not see how the EU can be effective in its current guise. (Nor does the European Commission as the position paper points out).
A few bits and pieces for those that are interested (was distressed to read the Brendan Simms piece linked by @stonemuse yesterday, but purely out of bitterness and spite, I used to meet him occasionally when we were both undergraduates, and he was back in Dublin).
Just spoke to a pal of mine (a big remainer) and asked for his solution ideas for the NI/ROI question.
He said, "Ireland is an Island, it's time we stopped trying to cling on to the past and let it go" I asked, "what about NI's previous contribution to UK taxes/infrastructure/military etc?" He said " Nth. Ire. costs the UK a chunk, and it's time to let it go"
I didn't really have a response to that. Any thoughts?
"It's an island". "Time we stopped clinging on to the past". "Let it go". "It costs the UK a chunk, and it's time to let it go".
Pretty compelling set of reasons there. But, if you ask me, I think we'll miss the Falklands.
No surprise that he used the Falklands as a comparison in the same discussion - i.e "why are we holding on to them, they cost a fortune too"
Self determination is the key to anachronisms like Gibraltar and The Falklands. You can argue the rights and wrongs of history and imperialism but they are what they are. I believe that if the people of both those places wish to remain “British” then we have a responsibility not to cut them adrift because circumstances suit. By the same token should the people wish to leave then we should give them all the help they require in order to make that a success.
Not to worry though, the Brexiteers are "liberated by the Brexit decision and more confident that we can solve the UK's problems ". Just as well really, because there's now a heap more problems to solve. Thanks Brexit.
Cos everyone who voted Brexit is the same.......
Quite right, Stu, that's a fair point. But if you don't feel liberated or more confident, just what are we doing this for?
A few bits and pieces for those that are interested (was distressed to read the Brendan Simms piece linked by @stonemuse yesterday, but purely out of bitterness and spite, I used to meet him occasionally when we were both undergraduates, and he was back in Dublin).
Just spoke to a pal of mine (a big remainer) and asked for his solution ideas for the NI/ROI question.
He said, "Ireland is an Island, it's time we stopped trying to cling on to the past and let it go" I asked, "what about NI's previous contribution to UK taxes/infrastructure/military etc?" He said " Nth. Ire. costs the UK a chunk, and it's time to let it go"
I didn't really have a response to that. Any thoughts?
"It's an island". "Time we stopped clinging on to the past". "Let it go". "It costs the UK a chunk, and it's time to let it go".
Pretty compelling set of reasons there. But, if you ask me, I think we'll miss the Falklands.
No surprise that he used the Falklands as a comparison in the same discussion - i.e "why are we holding on to them, they cost a fortune too"
I thought he was just highlighting that you seemed prepared to throw NI and Gib under the bus in your pursuit of brexit
Comments
The 48% simply have to wait around to see if the 52% can make it happen, and so far it's not looking good.
"For a post-Brexit UK to charge no tariffs on imports from the EU would be a massive breach of the rules of the World Trade Organisation....This can be overridden if two or more members sign a formal bilateral or regional trade agreement among themselves. "
All the FT article does is to point out obstacles which are obstacles only if there is not the will to overcome them. What is a "massive breach" is in fact not really a massive breach if other steps are agreed, like a regional trade agreement. (Cue more problems with MFN rules)
The second article is the EU Parliament saying "the UK can't be in and out of the single market". What does this mean? Once goods have crossed the EU's external Customs Union they can move anywhere within the EU within the single market and no conditions of origin apply. What the EU seem to be saying, but correct me if not, is that they can't allow the EU rules that apply on imports from every other nation to apply to the UK, regardless. How would this be imposed without breaking international law? It is a statement of intent to be discriminatory in order to diminish the value of the financial gain from leaving the EU. Why is overt discrimination acceptable here yet applied in any other sphere of human activity would be demonised?
Most of the voxpops of dim Remainers I've seen giving vent to their disgust over Brexit because we are leaving the Single Market, think we can't trade with the EU - supported by the equally dim comments reported of the EU Parliament. All anti Brexit reporting reinforces the idea that you can't be out of the Single Market and export your goods into the Single Market. The Single Market only exists for EU members and simply avoids tariff barriers between member states. There's no reason whatsoever why we can't have tariff/tariff free access, just like any other trading nation, we just don't have the "benefits" of the four freedoms.
What "benefits" do we retain by trading with the EU tariff free outside the Customs Union, that the EU is so intent on preventing the UK enjoying for free? We will not enjoy any of the EU subsides or capital investments, or benefit from freedom of movement, can someone explain how we are in any way retaining the benefits of the Single Market when we are not in the EU simply by having a trade deal.
The third article is a mad Jock from the SNP which says the UK voted for Brexit to colonise the World again. What it's got to do with Brexit only @NornIrishAddick can tell us.
I'm frankly bored with repetitive excuses and arguments to prove a deal is not possible. The UK's suggestion for a bespoke solution can't be on the agenda in case it might work. If the will is there anything is possible, problem is you can't find the answer in a Google search, so obviously doesn't exist in the minds of the internet junkies.
I haven't read Clegg's book, not least because i am a Clegg fan (despite his appalling error on tuition fees) and I am trying hard to read more challenging stuff (to my worldview). Like Varoufakis - bloody hell...and btw I respect your ability to spend time reading stuff that might be uncomfortable. You are better than me at that, and you get through books quicker too :-).
In short though, Clegg - I believe - favours the idea of a multi-speed Europe, as you do. So do I, or at least the more flexible a la carte model proposed by the CER guys. I also think it is politically the most feasible approach. However where you differ from them, it seems, is that you seem to favour a "trade only" relationship for the UK. That is where we differ. I think you underestimate the extent to which EU citizens embrace the idea of the EU as a political project. The mistake you and many Brits make is to instinctively recoil from the very idea. Had we remained inside the EU, and behaved like reasonable members of a club, then as the third biggest member we would have been able to shape the political direction of that project. You don't buy that. That is where we differ.
These meetings over a number of years demonstrated to me the depth to which the EU is committed to go to, in order to protect the rights and opportunities of EU citizens, wherever they are in the world. And often, these policies will be un-noticed by EU citizens; and, even more often, will seem to be an expensive irritant to businesses.
One, minuscule example of this is where an EU citizen wants to look up the timetables for various methods of travel. In simple terms, if you are an EU citizen, any system that shows transport times and fares must (MUST) show you all the options you ask for. Big deal, you might think. But the upshot of this is that whenever you log on to a system to see when the best train is, or you want to get a flight somewhere, you will be presented with all the options, not just the ones that the system-provider wants to show you.
What would happen if that rule were not in place? You might go to a website to get a flight and only be shown the flights that provider wants to - or gets paid to - show you. You're inadvertently being forced to pay a commission which you don't benefit from, can't control and don't get told about. With the rule in place, you know you're getting exactly what you are asking for. It's fair. And because it's fair, it's trusted. And, because it's trusted, it's widely used. And because it's widely used, the system providers that create it know they're going to make money from it. So the "pain" to which they have to go (in order to ensure the system is compliant) is worth it.
If we leave the EU, our Government could decide - with the encouragement of system providers - to relax the rules. And who amongst us will put up an objection? After all, hardly anyone knows the rule is there in the first place. We can end up paying more for flights, trains and buses than we need to, and end up with transport options that are less useful.
It's a tiny example. It affects all of us who ever look online or via a travel agent for any travel booking. And, if (or when) we lose this protection, very little fuss will be made. But we will all lose out.
I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of examples like this, which we will lose either rapidly or gradually, and for which we will never receive a compensatory benefit.
But, nonetheless Ireland - whether that's North or South - costs us money. In, out or the current status of shake it all about, that will still be the situation.
Yours for a score!?
Macron wants closer union, others don’t, Merkel has her own problems, and, despite what some say, I am far from believing that the problems are over for Greece and Italy.
The EU story has a very bumpy road in front of it, with or without Brexit.
Or there's this lot from when she wasn't feeling well.
I am heartened to see that you at least seem to agree that the brexiters have no realistic practical ideas.
Even with a Free Trade Agreement, if the UK is outside the Customs Union and Single Market, there will have to be regulatory controls (which will be stipulated by any trade deal). I believe that anyone who believes that such an agreement will be signed, ratified and implemented by 2021 is being entirely too optimistic.
As for the second article, I am, as you have asked willing and happy to correct you. I fear you have completely misinterpreted the point being made.
What is being stated is precisely that the same rules will apply to UK as to any other third country when it comes to exporting to the EU. If there are tariffs, it will mean tariffs must be paid, but also all the irritating paperwork that UK businesses currently don't have to fill out, all the regulatory hoops that they dont have to jump through and, more importantly, all the associated delays, will be required.
A Free Trade Agreement will not address many of the non-tariff barriers that exist in international trade, I'm surprised that you think an FTA can replicate the benefits of the Single Market, because the Single Market is about much more than simply removing tariff barriers.
I know of no-one who has suggested that being outside the Single Market would mean that the UK could no longer trade with the EU, but I am aware of significant numbers of "dim Remainers", strangely enough often very successful in business, who have stated that being outside the Single Market and Customs Union would make that trade more difficult. On the other hand, I've heard intelligent Leavers claim that leaving the EU will allow trade with the rest of the World, as if the EU stops such trade (really, somebody should warn the Germans, et al, before it's too late).
I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a word or two missing from the paragraph I've highlighted (either that, or my English comprehension is not what it used to be). The UK will not achieve the same benefits in terms of non-tariff barriers, regulatory equivalence or influence as membership of the EU, Single Market, or Customs Union, if it it relies on a Free Trade Agreement.
I'm actually quite disappointed @Dippenhall with your response to the article about Peter Grant's views. Then again, however, perhaps the language used by leading lights on the Leave side, such as the Sun Owen Paterson, who talked about Ireland, in things like abandoning parity with Sterling and adopting the Euro, as setting up a border "with the rest of the UK", might be heard differently in Ireland or Scotland. The thrust of the article was that there are significant voices in the media and politics who seem incapable of recognising that Ireland is an independent state, with its own interests, that will make decisions on how best, in it's mind, to protect these interests. Just like the talk of Commonwealth economic solidarity, this view ignores the fact that these countries, no matter how well they may get on with the UK in other regards, are not ruled by London and will make decisions (as should we all) on the basis of their own, hopefully enlightened, self-interest.
I personally think that, with the current mood music, and the passage of time, that it is increasingly unlikely that a deal will be agreed, including transitional, even for the UK's exit from the EU. Nor am I certain that the UK Government either a) understands or b) is capable of effectively managing the current talks process. The more it attempts to tie the leaving process to later negotiations on the future (the basic principles that will underpin any future arrangement are tied up with the "sufficient progress"), the worse the prognosis gets.
The EU is a legalistic, rules based, organisation, failure to work within such rules will not get the UK far.
But I have no doubt that a deal is possible, given time and goodwill.
I mentioned in one of my previous posts that in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas, i.e. based on “coalitions of the willing” in specific policy areas such as defense, internal security, taxation or social matters, etc. I said at the time that this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’, particularly with regard to Trade.
As has been published elsewhere, the paper starts with a somber tone, acknowledging the existential struggle the EU is facing due to crises over Brexit, migration and the eurozone. “Europe’s challenges show no sign of abating,” the paper says. It also notes the difficult balancing act facing the EU, as “many Europeans consider the Union as either too distant or too interfering.”
One of the stated scenarios is very unpalatable for me: “While generally neutral in its language, the Commission at times makes its preferred option clear. For example, on eurozone governance, the Commission aligns itself with the most federal option by saying it will issue a paper based on the 2015 Five Presidents’ Report, which called for a eurozone finance minister and stricter controls over the budgets of the 19 countries that use the single currency. Under this scenario the EU would also assume powers to speak for all of Europe on trade and foreign policy, and would assume global leadership for fighting climate change and on humanitarian issues. There would be “far greater and quicker decision-making” in Brussels, but the Commission acknowledges “there is the risk of alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy.”
The thing to remember is that it was published, so we can debate it's merits.
But also, the decision on where the EU ends up rests with the member states, so what they agree is what will happen.
A strange paradox really, because I want the UK to remain intact, but not part of the EU (in any form).
I think Macron is right ... the only way the EU can work properly is fiscal union and federality (a scenario I do not want the UK to be part of).
But his proposal will never be generally accepted in Europe so I do not see how the EU can be effective in its current guise. (Nor does the European Commission as the position paper points out).
I wonder how many jobs that would cost. Honda said similar recently as well.
Never mind though, at least we'll have blue passports in a couple of years.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1DS2G4
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPwHcbsX4AEDuua?format=jpg&name=medium
Is there really anyone left with a brain in their head who thinks hard Brexit, in this way, is the right thing to do ?