Brexit negotiations thread

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...getting-stronger-political-deadlock-life-raft

Don't think a second referedum's very likely myself.But you never know I suppose.:smile:

 

[callan]

.....GEEK WARNING.....

Sadly, that is a trap a lot of people fell into. By leaving the EU, by definition you leave both the Single Market and Customs Union. That was explicitly said during the referendum "debate", (I was shouting it quite loudly) but was lost in the noise.

Therefore, willingly or otherwise, a "no" vote, was a vote to leave behind everything the EU brings us - not just bits of it. Be that funding, airways agreements, free movement, European Health Card, free data roaming, membership to the Customs Union and Single Market.

And it's a shame that some people are only finding this out now. When its too late. The fault of that lays squarely at the door of the Remain Campaign who thought it was a done deal and the likes of Farage and Gove who said things like "don't listen to experts".

The Norway situation is quite complex. It has access to the single market and pays for the privilidge. But as it is not a member of the EU it has no say over the rules that operate it. So it essentially pays money but gets no say. That by itself goes against the "taking control" aspect of the Leave Campaign. More importantly, to be in the single market you have to allow the free movement of people. And therein lays your problem. If you voted out because of immigration by default you voted to leave the single market as the two are not compatible. This wasn't made clear and frankly still isn't.

Turkey is not a member of THE customs union. It is has a customs union WITH the EU (Lazily labelling calls it "Turkish Preference"). It might seem pedantic, but its quite important. THE customs union allows for the free movement of goods and services between all member states. The Customs Union with Turkey allows for the free movement of SOME (but not all) goods between Turkey and the EU. It similarly doesn't cover services. It also has some quite complex legal niceties which mean that Turkey is obliged to use certain EU Regulations and debars it from negotiating its own trade agreements without clearance from the EU. The latter, quite importantly, was the very essence of the "taking control" argument.

Absolutely spot on LF.

The vote was to leave the EU and its constructs, this was clear....be interesting to know how YB concluded that it meant anything else.

 

[Lord Football]

Absolutely spot on LF.

The vote was to leave the EU and its constructs, this was clear....be interesting to know how YB concluded that it meant anything else.

Not quite. I remember some saying "oh, we will still be in the single market" and stuff like that. It was usually followed by me hurling at shoe at the telly.

You are now being told we can get trade deals in weeks. Even The Donald is telling you this. It's not true either. I am not seeing this being disputed. So when it does become apparent that it takes years and we've no one in the UK who knows how to negotiate them, most will be shocked and what they voted for.


A bit like YB is that he seemingly has voted to do something he didn't think was the case because the facts were lost in rhetoric.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Not quite. I remember some saying "oh, we will still be in the single market" and stuff like that. It was usually followed by me hurling at shoe at the telly.

You are now being told we can get trade deals in weeks. Even The Donald is telling you this. It's not true either. I am not seeing this being disputed. So when it does become apparent that it takes years and we've no one in the UK who knows how to negotiate them, most will be shocked and what they voted for.


A bit like YB is that he seemingly has voted to do something he didn't think was the case because the facts were lost in rhetoric.

Not completely correct. YB was the one who actually convinced me to vote remain. I think you will find he is a remainer as well.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

.....GEEK WARNING.....

Sadly, that is a trap a lot of people fell into. By leaving the EU, by definition you leave both the Single Market and Customs Union. That was explicitly said during the referendum "debate", (I was shouting it quite loudly) but was lost in the noise.

An awful lot was said during the "debate" by the leave side, including £350m to the NHS, and many things that were contradictory. That doesn't give it any legitimacy.

Even if it did
both Vote Leave and Farage on a number of times put staying in the single market as an option

It's not a trap I've fallen into. The fact is that there has been no mandate for leaving the single market. Membership of the EU (which is what the referendum question was about) is not the same as membership of the Single Market and even if leaving the EU meant we have to leave the Single Market (although this point is disputed), that still doesn't preclude the UK from then rejoining the Single Market as part of the exit negotiations.

The truth remains that this is a complete omnishambles and the government has no real idea of what it wants to get out of this cluster**** whilst the clock continues to tick.

 

[Lord Football]

An awful lot was said during the "debate" by the leave side, including £350m to the NHS, and many things that were contradictory. That doesn't give it any legitimacy.

Even if it did
both Vote Leave and Farage on a number of times put staying in the single market as an option

It's not a trap I've fallen into. The fact is that there has been no mandate for leaving the single market. Membership of the EU (which is what the referendum question was about) is not the same as membership of the Single Market and even if leaving the EU meant we have to leave the Single Market (although this point is disputed), that still doesn't preclude the UK from then rejoining the Single Market as part of the exit negotiations.

The truth remains that this is a complete omnishambles and the government has no real idea of what it wants to get out of this cluster**** whilst the clock continues to tick.

I read between the lines that you voted "out", apologise if that's not the case.

By voting to leave the EU what did people actually think we would be leaving? Just bits of it they didn't like? Just stopping freedom of movement? Just not having EU Laws imposed on us (which is another myth, but that's another story). Leaving the EU does mean leaving the Single Market. We were told what leaving the EU would entail, but as you've nicely pointed out, there were plenty of politicians telling you the opposite and suggesting you ignore the experts. I am not surprised that people are saying "I didn't vote for that". They may not have meant to, but they did. And I am not going to criticise anyone for falling into that trap.

Millions voted without knowing what they were voting for. That was always danger of dumbing down the most complex issue imaginable into a "yes / no" vote and the rather than attempting to explain any of it rationally to a population that didn't understand any of it both sides just decided to sling mud and tell lies.

Our only hope is that we somehow manage to negotiate something that allows us access or more likely turn the current process into a free trade agreement. I'd be quite surprised (but relieved) if we managed to do that.

Should also point out that the Dutch, French and Germans are investing serious money to prepare their customs processes for Brexit....... that might tell you all you need to know about the likelihood of being in a free market.

 

[callan]

Not quite. I remember some saying "oh, we will still be in the single market" and stuff like that. It was usually followed by me hurling at shoe at the telly.

You are now being told we can get trade deals in weeks. Even The Donald is telling you this. It's not true either. I am not seeing this being disputed. So when it does become apparent that it takes years and we've no one in the UK who knows how to negotiate them, most will be shocked and what they voted for.


A bit like YB is that he seemingly has voted to do something he didn't think was the case because the facts were lost in rhetoric.

As a leaver, I was always very clear that if the UK were to have the ability to form its own trade deals it could not do so while remaining part of the single market, this was made clear by both remain and leave sides....and is contrary to EU rules themselves as I'm sure you are aware.

Later in this thread YB has provided a link to the Huffington post, in which open Britain is used as a source for information where prominent Leave campaigners have been misquoted beyond belief...

Here Andrew Neill takes Open Britain to task over this and thoroughly discredits them;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA

As a former Trade negotiator, I could understand how quickly the UK could operate compared to the EU and it is certainly not as daunting as many would have you believe.

You are correct that the government did not initially have enough trade negotiators in place....and were woefully short, however my understanding is that this is being addressed.

As far as Trump is concerned I make a point of ignoring him.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-focus-transitional-deal-iod-urges-ministers

See even the IoD is worried about Brexit.

 

[Lord Football]

As a leaver, I was always very clear that if the UK were to have the ability to form its own trade deals it could not do so while remaining part of the single market, this was made clear by both remain and leave sides....and is contrary to EU rules themselves as I'm sure you are aware.

Later in this thread YB has provided a link to the Huffington post, in which open Britain is used as a source for information where prominent Leave campaigners have been misquoted beyond belief...

Here Andrew Neill takes Open Britain to task over this and thoroughly discredits them;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA

As a former Trade negotiator, I could understand how quickly the UK could operate compared to the EU and it is certainly not as daunting as many would have you believe.

You are correct that the government did not initially have enough trade negotiators in place....and were woefully short, however my understanding is that this is being addressed.

As far as Trump is concerned I make a point of ignoring him.

I am not a former trade negotiator. As many on here will know I do spend quite a bit of time in trade meetings in Brussels - specifically discussing trade agreements.

So I can say with a degree of absolute certainty that a trade deal is going to take years and not months. I could explain why, but it would be the longest post on SZ.....

And whilst I know there has been recruitment around Brexit in Government, I am not aware of any specifically around negotiatiors - as opposed to preparing for negotiations. But even that's debatable given we don't know what day one looks like.

Whichever way you want to square it, we are going to lose free trade with Europe AND with all the other nations globally we currently have free trade with as part of EU trade deals (and there around 50 deals). They are going to take decades to replace. And you are absolutely correct, all this was in the public domain ahead of the vote. It should not be coming as a surprise to people.

The fact that it is, poses some difficult questions on democracy.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...o-varadkar-brexit-challenge-of-our-generation

How the new Irish PM sees Brexit:-"the challenge of our generation."

 

[callan]

I am not a former trade negotiator. As many on here will know I do spend quite a bit of time in trade meetings in Brussels - specifically discussing trade agreements.

So I can say with a degree of absolute certainty that a trade deal is going to take years and not months. I could explain why, but it would be the longest post on SZ.....

And whilst I know there has been recruitment around Brexit in Government, I am not aware of any specifically around negotiatiors - as opposed to preparing for negotiations. But even that's debatable given we don't know what day one looks like.

Whichever way you want to square it, we are going to lose free trade with Europe AND with all the other nations globally we currently have free trade with as part of EU trade deals (and there around 50 deals). They are going to take decades to replace. And you are absolutely correct, all this was in the public domain ahead of the vote. It should not be coming as a surprise to people.

The fact that it is, poses some difficult questions on democracy.

I have been to Brussels many times myself, representing various Non EU governments and can see why anyone who has experience of how they (the EU) work and organize their Trade deals would believe that it could take 'decades' to accomplish anything.

This is not an advert however for wanting to stay in, and dependent on what Trade is being discussed (and regulation surrounding it), outside of the EU then I would say 2 years is an average Framework (can be quicker on country to country deals vs Country to Bloc).

In simple terms as far as the EU is concerned the main issues will not be regulatory as we are fully up to speed at the point of leaving, and I can see no reason why we can't assimilate deals that we have as part of the EU with non EU countries....so the blue prints are actually already in place for 50 deals...no idea why you believe these would take decades to replace.

Where deals are not in place via the EU then we can proceed at our own pace in forming them....this will be dependant on amount of negotiators in place and I would suspect we would need around 800 plus....this can be done by luring back people such as myself in combination with training new ones up.

That only leaves an FTA with the internal market, and if there is a political will for it I see no reason again why that shouldn't happen.

 

[londonblue]

I have been to Brussels many times myself, representing various Non EU governments and can see why anyone who has experience of how they (the EU) work and organize their Trade deals would believe that it could take 'decades' to accomplish anything.

This is not an advert however for wanting to stay in, and dependent on what Trade is being discussed (and regulation surrounding it), outside of the EU then I would say 2 years is an average Framework (can be quicker on country to country deals vs Country to Bloc).

In simple terms as far as the EU is concerned the main issues will not be regulatory as we are fully up to speed at the point of leaving, and I can see no reason why we can't assimilate deals that we have as part of the EU with non EU countries....so the blue prints are actually already in place for 50 deals...no idea why you believe these would take decades to replace.

Where deals are not in place via the EU then we can proceed at our own pace in forming them....this will be dependant on amount of negotiators in place and I would suspect we would need around 800 plus....this can be done by luring back people such as myself in combination with training new ones up.

That only leaves an FTA with the internal market, and if there is a political will for it I see no reason again why that shouldn't happen.

I think the truth will lie somewhere between what you're saying here and what Lord Football is saying. Negotiating deals may well be quicker than LF believes when you only have two governments to worry about, but it probably won't be as straight forward as you believe either. It's very possible that the 50 or so agreements already in place won't be a like for like replacement since either us or the other side may not like certain parts of the current deal, and will use this as an opportunity to re-negotiate.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

In simple terms as far as the EU is concerned the main issues will not be regulatory as we are fully up to speed at the point of leaving, and I can see no reason why we can't assimilate deals that we have as part of the EU with non EU countries....so the blue prints are actually already in place for 50 deals...no idea why you believe these would take decades to replace.

Whilst we may be fully up to speed at the point of leaving, don't the parties need to ensure they don't diverge too much in the future?

 

[Lord Football]

I think the truth will lie somewhere between what you're saying here and what Lord Football is saying. Negotiating deals may well be quicker than LF believes when you only have two governments to worry about, but it probably won't be as straight forward as you believe either. It's very possible that the 50 or so agreements already in place won't be a like for like replacement since either us or the other side may not like certain parts of the current deal, and will use this as an opportunity to re-negotiate.

I am hoping you are right, really I do. But seeing this first hand, I have my doubts.

The Canadian agreement has taken 14 years (I think). The EU end is all sorted, the delays in implementation are in Canada, and specifically their cheese sector. Cheese. Cheese is holding up a massive free trade agreement worth billions.

Also, as the UK, we only have so much to deal with. One of our problems are going to be "rules of origin". Just because something is made in the UK, it doesn't mean it originates here. Take a car built in Dagenham. Tyres come from Sweden, engine comes from Germany, brakes come France, chassis made from Polish metal. All of a sudden you've something that is assembled in the UK, but the origin is actually from the EU. It is about the most complex thing you can imagine. So, we would only able to trade on goods of British origin. At the moment, it doesn't matter. It will come 2019.

And then you have our trading partners. There will be some countries who want to deal on day one because it massively benefits them. There will be some who will want to drastically change the deal because they were more interested in goods coming from other member states and then you'll have those who want to start again because their legal system wont accept the UK as being part of the EU.

This has all got very technical, and very specific. At the beginning I said regardless of what we think of Brexit, we now need to get on with it and explain to the people exactly what it means and what the risks actually are. That's what I've tried to do here. Callan, seemingly has some expertise of his own, and has a different view - and the debate has been interesting and not based on scaremongering or shouting.

I am not going to play a game of one-upmanship on here comparing what we know and how we know it. But hopefully people read this and may start thinking about these kinda things.

I'm going to have to bail out because I am right on the border of what I can share on social media, and what I can't.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-40819687

What Ireland wants.Makes sense to me.Perhaps I shouls apply for Irish citizenship when my current passport expires next year?

Hang on.I was born in Rochford.

 

[callan]

Whilst we may be fully up to speed at the point of leaving, don't the parties need to ensure they don't diverge too much in the future?

I expect the answer to that question lies in the origins of EU itself and how it has managed to grow, where it presently has primacy in law and regulates large portions of what and how we do things.

From a legal point of view I would think there is much case law that can be reviewed keeping what is necessary and good and dispensing what is not.

For the sake of trade a body mate up of equivalencies could be set up to adjudicate where necessary upon dispute.

I am not talking about a power grab over night here, and where it makes sense to follow the EU so we should.

The thrust of much discussion on here centres around 'but this and that are awfully difficult things to do'....and I wont pretend that certain parts of our withdrawal is not intricate and complicated...Lord Footballs puts forward rules of origin as a point in hand and the cumulative nature of certain finished goods and products that will need to be exported.

I would also agree with LF that are risks, equally there will be opportunities...because something is difficult we should not shy away from doing it....as Southend supporters this should be easy to understand.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I expect the answer to that question lies in the origins of EU itself and how it has managed to grow, where it presently has primacy in law and regulates large portions of what and how we do things.

From a legal point of view I would think there is much case law that can be reviewed keeping what is necessary and good and dispensing what is not.

For the sake of trade a body mate up of equivalencies could be set up to adjudicate where necessary upon dispute.

I am not talking about a power grab over night here, and where it makes sense to follow the EU so we should.

The thrust of much discussion on here centres around 'but this and that are awfully difficult things to do'....and I wont pretend that certain parts of our withdrawal is not intricate and complicated...Lord Footballs puts forward rules of origin as a point in hand and the cumulative nature of certain finished goods and products that will need to be exported.

I would also agree with LF that are risks, equally there will be opportunities...because something is difficult we should not shy away from doing it....as Southend supporters this should be easy to understand.

This is not Dunkirk (the movie) we're talking about,you know.:winking:

 

[Swiss Tony]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-40819687

What Ireland wants.Makes sense to me.Perhaps I shouls apply for Irish citizenship when my current passport expires next year?

Hang on.I was born in Rochford.

Bet the local Rochford folk turned up at the station to wave you bye bye.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Bet the local Rochford folk turned up at the station to wave you bye bye.

Ha! I was born at Rochford Hospital but grew up in Westcliff.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40836488

Mervyn King joins the calls for a Brexit fallback position.