Brexit negotiations thread

[Tangled up in Blue]

EU officials have worked amicably alongside UK officials, civil servants and politicians for decades. The Single Market was a construct of Lord ****field FFS. The UK has played a leading role in the EU and is hugely respected for its technical input in a number of areas.

What isn't respected is Nigel Farage who was on the European Parliament Fishing Committee but grandstanded instead of actually attending meetings and offering constructive input. However Tusk has worked alongside enough UK ministers and officials to know that we aren't all like Farage and the handful of ministers (Boris Johnson, Davis, Raab etc) who told bare-faced lies in the election and then ran away before they could be held accountable for the current cluster****.

This also highlights the contradictory nature of Brexit: if the EU holds the UK in such contempt why would be trying to keep the UK in the customs union for eternity as someone claimed on here earlier? Brexit is a series of contradictions that have never been ironed out which is why we are in the mess we currently are.

It would of course cost the EU money to do that, since the other EU 27 countries (and the UK until we leave) have to pay to access the single market and be a part of the customs union,which is precisely why any backstop arrangement would be temporary rather than permanent.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Is Ireland not part of the EU then? Must have missed them leaving....

We're talking here about the directly elected leader of a sovereign EU country not an EU official.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Just a thought on this point Yorkie - there are lots of views or thoughts around this, but I don't think you can credibly stitch those two things together and call it a contradiction.

At the EU level (Brussels) there is a very clear and firm view that if a country leaves it will demonstrate to others that that is a possibility and could lead to a house of cards type scenario. We can take a view about the probability of that, but it is a reasonable fear from their perspective. It is for that reason that article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was designed in the way it was, specifically to make it technically as hard as they could to deliver (such as the refusal to talk seriously about a future relationship until a country has left - a political choice, not a practical necessity). It is also for this reason that ultimately Greece was kept in the Euro - as that project too would have crumbled at the peak of the Eurozone crisis if the markets had seriously believed that countries could leave or be kicked out. The weaker ones would have suffered capital flight and been pushed out one after the other (Greece first, then Ireland - at the time - then Italy, then Spain and Portugal). That was the much talked about 'contagion' that we heard so much about at the time.

The EU's strong commitment to the UK's staying is not a consequence of its love for or commitment to the UK, it is a consequence of its fear that we might actually be able to prove survival is possible and that would have far reaching consequences for the wider project.

Conjecture or opinion is not the same as fact.

The "much talked about contagion" that you mention has now been sorted.Ireland,Spain and Portugal are no longer in debt to the EU.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Just a thought on this point Yorkie - there are lots of views or thoughts around this, but I don't think you can credibly stitch those two things together and call it a contradiction.

At the EU level (Brussels) there is a very clear and firm view that if a country leaves it will demonstrate to others that that is a possibility and could lead to a house of cards type scenario. We can take a view about the probability of that, but it is a reasonable fear from their perspective. It is for that reason that article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was designed in the way it was, specifically to make it technically as hard as they could to deliver (such as the refusal to talk seriously about a future relationship until a country has left - a political choice, not a practical necessity). It is also for this reason that ultimately Greece was kept in the Euro - as that project too would have crumbled at the peak of the Eurozone crisis if the markets had seriously believed that countries could leave or be kicked out. The weaker ones would have suffered capital flight and been pushed out one after the other (Greece first, then Ireland - at the time - then Italy, then Spain and Portugal). That was the much talked about 'contagion' that we heard so much about at the time.

The EU's strong commitment to the UK's staying is not a consequence of its love for or commitment to the UK, it is a consequence of its fear that we might actually be able to prove survival is possible and that would have far reaching consequences for the wider project.

Again opinion is not the same as fact.Got any evidence for your claim here?

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

We're talking here about the directly elected leader of a sovereign EU country not an EU official.

Both were equally disparaging about the UK, in fact it's worse that the Irish PM thought it funny.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

It would of course cost the EU money to do that, since the other EU 27 countries (and the UK until we leave) have to pay to access the single market and be a part of the customs union,which is precisely why any backstop arrangement would be temporary rather than permanent.

The 27 don't pay to be part of the Single Market and Customs Union!

The 27 pay into the overall EU budget as EU members. They get the '4 freedoms' for free with their membership subs. There are no specific charges for the SM and CU. It doesn't 'cost' the EU anything to allow membership of the Single Market and Customs Union to a country per se, but the EU policy has been to charge non-EU members who want to be members of the Single Market and Customs Union - not to cover costs in those areas but to go into the overall pot for spending on the EU's priorities. Hence non-EU members have to pay in but receive no benefits from that funding (another good reason for joining fully, so it says in the brochure)... And as such there is no 'cost' to the EU from keeping NI aligned in perpetuity - the cost came when the UK membership of the EU ceased and we stopped paying our subs. They get that 'cost' when we leave, regardless and the backstop doesnt prevent GB leaving, it just harms the UK, keeps I and NI tied together and protects the EU project. So perpetuity is exactly the aim and there isnt a cent of cost associated with that.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I don't think they had the border separating Eire and Northern Ireland in mind regarding immigration. Don't forget that the EU wants a backstop that would mean Northern Ireland remains in the customs union and parts of the single market. So they're still playing hardball and cherry picking as much as the UK.

On the contrary the EU agreed to a backstop at the request of the British government,which wanted it as the price for a transition arrangement,The EU has been remarkably consistent since the beginning of this sorry process.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Again opinion is not the same as fact.Got any evidence for your claim here?

Contagion as a concept in the EU and the Brussels view that the integrity and confidence in the EU as a whole and the common currency too are in large part affected by the view that membership is a one way street and irreversible? Sure! There is a wealth of serious discussion / reporting out there and direct quotes from the senior leadership of the EU and its' member states. I'll have a go at putting a list together later but I'm just off out. If you like, in the meantime you can Google 'EU contagion' and full your boots with all the info you will ever need.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Both were equally disparaging about the UK, in fact it's worse that the Irish PM thought it funny.

See post 5,005 for my answer to this point.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The 27 don't pay to be part of the Single Market and Customs Union!

The 27 pay into the overall EU budget as EU members. They get the '4 freedoms' for free with their membership subs. There are no specific charges for the SM and CU. It doesn't 'cost' the EU anything to allow membership of the Single Market and Customs Union to a country per se, but the EU policy has been to charge non-EU members who want to be members of the Single Market and Customs Union - not to cover costs in those areas but to go into the overall pot for spending on the EU's priorities. Hence non-EU members have to pay in but receive no benefits from that funding (another good reason for joining fully, so it says in the brochure)... And as such there is no 'cost' to the EU from keeping NI aligned in perpetuity - the cost came when the UK membership of the EU ceased and we stopped paying our subs. They get that 'cost' when we leave, regardless and the backstop doesnt prevent GB leaving, it just harms the UK, keeps I and NI tied together and protects the EU project. So perpetuity is exactly the aim and there isnt a cent of cost associated with that.

Why are we paying so much for a divorce settlement then?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

On the contrary the EU agreed to a backstop at the request of the British government,which wanted it as the price for a transition arrangement,The EU has been remarkably consistent since the beginning of this sorry process.

The British government demanded to pay a price for inclusion of a transition period? Are you sure? That sounds a bit odd to me.

The transition period is necessary because the EU designed article 50 specifically to require them to not talk about a future relationship until a country has already left (quite clearly mad and quite obviously unnecessary).

All the hyperbole we are hearing from Ireland and Brussels now is completely expected - and it will get louder - as they realise that the game might soon be up. We have found a way through this codswallop leaving process that was specifically designed to entrap countries into never leaving. Compromises have been made on both sides and an agreement has been reached about leaving..... but the EU has decided that a future relationship issue (yes, that bit that they refuse to talk about) needs to be tied to the leaving agreement because we havent talked about it yet so we dont have an agreed solution. No **** sherlock. So therefore you cant leave until there is a solution we (the EU) agree with, but we wont discuss that with you until you've left. Yes that's lovely and consistent and beautifully straightforward. And utter bollocks.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Why are we paying so much for a divorce settlement then?

Because the £39BN is the balance of the amount of money the UK agreed to pay as its' share of the overall EU budget when the last 7 year budget cycle was agreed in 2013 which goes through to 2020. Theresa May committed that now we are leaving no EU state would lose out financially as a result - hence we would honour the overall EU budget commitments we made. That is overall EU budget as I mentioned before, not subs for membership of the SM or CU.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Conjecture or opinion is not the same as fact.

The "much talked about contagion" that you mention has now been sorted.Ireland,Spain and Portugal are no longer in debt to the EU.

Google 'EU contagion' and then feel free to write 27 letters to the various PMs and Presidents of the EU member states, then another 27 for the EU Presidents in Brussels to explain to them that they should stop spouting their opinions and conjecture about contagion. They should have allowed Greece's 'temporary' five year exclusion from the Euro, which is what Germany wanted after Syriza came to power and encouraged the Greek population to vote against the EU bailout in a referendum (which the Greeks duly did). Everyone (i.e. each of the leaders) knew all too well and they have said as much time and time again, particularly Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Eurogroup head at the time, that if the Greeks crashed out for 5 years there was no way in hell that they would be coming back - and that that would lead to Italy going for a burton too. They kept Greece in, then Mario Draghi said (in London) that the ECB would do 'whatever it takes' to support the Euro. Those are the two decisions that maintained confidence and prevented contagion - not because contagion was an 'opinion' or 'conjecture'. Ten seconds of research can confirm all of the above and I recommend that task to you.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Just a thought on this point Yorkie - there are lots of views or thoughts around this, but I don't think you can credibly stitch those two things together and call it a contradiction.

At the EU level (Brussels) there is a very clear and firm view that if a country leaves it will demonstrate to others that that is a possibility and could lead to a house of cards type scenario. We can take a view about the probability of that, but it is a reasonable fear from their perspective. It is for that reason that article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was designed in the way it was, specifically to make it technically as hard as they could to deliver (such as the refusal to talk seriously about a future relationship until a country has left - a political choice, not a practical necessity). It is also for this reason that ultimately Greece was kept in the Euro - as that project too would have crumbled at the peak of the Eurozone crisis if the markets had seriously believed that countries could leave or be kicked out. The weaker ones would have suffered capital flight and been pushed out one after the other (Greece first, then Ireland - at the time - then Italy, then Spain and Portugal). That was the much talked about 'contagion' that we heard so much about at the time.

The EU's strong commitment to the UK's staying is not a consequence of its love for or commitment to the UK, it is a consequence of its fear that we might actually be able to prove survival is possible and that would have far reaching consequences for the wider project.

Absolutely spot on.

From the moment the Bretton Woods monetary system collapsed in the late 60's and Nixon through Europes financial markets, and the Deutsche Mark in particular, under a bus in 71 the one sole aim has always been the creation of a European financial and political superstate.

The UK leaving and making it work in any way shape or form throws the whole undemocratic process into the river where it belongs. Years and years of political and financial corruption by countless individuals from all political persuasions is teetering on a cliff, and they know it.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Just a thought on this point Yorkie - there are lots of views or thoughts around this, but I don't think you can credibly stitch those two things together and call it a contradiction.

At the EU level (Brussels) there is a very clear and firm view that if a country leaves it will demonstrate to others that that is a possibility and could lead to a house of cards type scenario. We can take a view about the probability of that, but it is a reasonable fear from their perspective. It is for that reason that article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was designed in the way it was, specifically to make it technically as hard as they could to deliver (such as the refusal to talk seriously about a future relationship until a country has left - a political choice, not a practical necessity). It is also for this reason that ultimately Greece was kept in the Euro - as that project too would have crumbled at the peak of the Eurozone crisis if the markets had seriously believed that countries could leave or be kicked out. The weaker ones would have suffered capital flight and been pushed out one after the other (Greece first, then Ireland - at the time - then Italy, then Spain and Portugal). That was the much talked about 'contagion' that we heard so much about at the time.

The EU's strong commitment to the UK's staying is not a consequence of its love for or commitment to the UK, it is a consequence of its fear that we might actually be able to prove survival is possible and that would have far reaching consequences for the wider project.

Of course wanting a county both in and out is a contradiction, no matter how you try and dress it up otherwise.

And the baseline shouldn't be whether the UK can survive (although I note the watering down of the previously promised sunlit uplands) but whether it can prosper more than we have as a member.

In addition to the above, Ireland has specific reasons for tying itself to the mast of this specifc framing of backstop (rather than any other type of backstop).

This particular backstop - as I have explained previously - firmly places all the cards in the EU's hand in the future relationship negotiations. We can't leave until they agree with the deal we offer them - hence they will make all sorts of requests which they know quite well contradict specific wishes of groups of leave voters in the UK, like fishing rights. We either give in on those things and anger those who voted to leave, or the EU doesn't agree the deal and part of the UK (Northern Ireland) remains tied to the single market and customs union beyond the transition period ending. This would gradually split NI away from GB as EU rules and regs diverge from those of the UK, while keeping them aligned with Ireland. Trebles all round for Sinn Fein. Who are the major political threat to the government in Ireland? Sinn Fein.

So, the EU like the backstop in its' current form as it keeps control over their objectives in their hands. Ireland like the backstop in its' current form as it advances the nationalist cause in Ireland.

Not massively difficult to understand why they are both so wedded to it now is it?

Of course, the task therefore is for us to demonstrate that an open border can be legally maintained without this backstop NI-EU tie in, at least long enough for the future relationship to be concluded.

So you're saying that the UK has been massively outplayed in the negotiations in failing to have proposed a viable alternative?

I mean it's not as if Remainers hadn't pointed out during the referendum campaign that NI was going to cause these very issues and that the EU was a more experienced negotiator and had a stronger bargaining position.

Where are all your German car manufacturers or Italian prosecco producers who need us more than we need them now? This was going to be the easy deal in history remember!

It's almost as if we shouldn't have served Article 50 until we were prepared but those of us who warned about the very difficulties you've now encountered were branded traitors and remoaners.

So instead the government is busy positioning itself to blame the EU for the UK's government's failings because making a big row about this covers up the fact that what's proposed is a substantially worse deal than what we currently have and it's only saving grace is that it's not as disastrous as no deal.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Google 'EU contagion' and then feel free to write 27 letters to the various PMs and Presidents of the EU member states, then another 27 for the EU Presidents in Brussels to explain to them that they should stop spouting their opinions and conjecture about contagion. They should have allowed Greece's 'temporary' five year exclusion from the Euro, which is what Germany wanted after Syriza came to power and encouraged the Greek population to vote against the EU bailout in a referendum (which the Greeks duly did). Everyone (i.e. each of the leaders) knew all too well and they have said as much time and time again, particularly Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Eurogroup head at the time, that if the Greeks crashed out for 5 years there was no way in hell that they would be coming back - and that that would lead to Italy going for a burton too. They kept Greece in, then Mario Draghi said (in London) that the ECB would do 'whatever it takes' to support the Euro. Those are the two decisions that maintained confidence and prevented contagion - not because contagion was an 'opinion' or 'conjecture'. Ten seconds of research can confirm all of the above and I recommend that task to you.

At last, someone that either knew it before hand or did a little recent historical research.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

[QUOTE="Spaceman Spiff, post: 2113481, member: 1342"]The British government demanded to pay a price for inclusion of a transition period? Are you sure? That sounds a bit odd to me.

The transition period is necessary because the EU designed article 50 specifically to require them to not talk about a future relationship until a country has already left (quite clearly mad and quite obviously unnecessary).

All the hyperbole we are hearing from Ireland and Brussels now is completely expected - and it will get louder - as they realise that the game might soon be up. We have found a way through this codswallop leaving process that was specifically designed to entrap countries into never leaving. Compromises have been made on both sides and an agreement has been reached about leaving..... but the EU has decided that a future relationship issue (yes, that bit that they refuse to talk about) needs to be tied to the leaving agreement because we havent talked about it yet so we dont have an agreed solution. No **** sherlock. So therefore you cant leave until there is a solution we (the EU) agree with, but we wont discuss that with you until you've left. Yes that's lovely and consistent and beautifully straightforward. And utter bollocks.[/QUOTE]

HMG wanted a transition period.The backstop was the price for that.HMG agreed to this last November.QED.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Because the £39BN is the balance of the amount of money the UK agreed to pay as its' share of the overall EU budget when the last 7 year budget cycle was agreed in 2013 which goes through to 2020. Theresa May committed that now we are leaving no EU state would lose out financially as a result - hence we would honour the overall EU budget commitments we made. That is overall EU budget as I mentioned before, not subs for membership of the SM or CU.

Yes.And being members of the customs union and having access to the single market is reflected in what the UK has agreed to pay "as its share of the overall EU budget."

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I don't think they had the border separating Eire and Northern Ireland in mind regarding immigration. Don't forget that the EU wants a backstop that would mean Northern Ireland remains in the customs union and parts of the single market. So they're still playing hardball and cherry picking as much as the UK.

Problem is that is where one of our borders is. The word 'borders' is stated by May every time she is asked a question about Brexit. 'Our borders, but not that one' waters down the message somewhat.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Google 'EU contagion' and then feel free to write 27 letters to the various PMs and Presidents of the EU member states, then another 27 for the EU Presidents in Brussels to explain to them that they should stop spouting their opinions and conjecture about contagion. They should have allowed Greece's 'temporary' five year exclusion from the Euro, which is what Germany wanted after Syriza came to power and encouraged the Greek population to vote against the EU bailout in a referendum (which the Greeks duly did). Everyone (i.e. each of the leaders) knew all too well and they have said as much time and time again, particularly Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Eurogroup head at the time, that if the Greeks crashed out for 5 years there was no way in hell that they would be coming back - and that that would lead to Italy going for a burton too. They kept Greece in, then Mario Draghi said (in London) that the ECB would do 'whatever it takes' to support the Euro. Those are the two decisions that maintained confidence and prevented contagion - not because contagion was an 'opinion' or 'conjecture'. Ten seconds of research can confirm all of the above and I recommend that task to you.

The two decisions that you outline were both mentioned in the excellent hour long BBC2 Programme:"Inside Europe,Ten Years of Turmoil:Saving the Euro" which was broadcast on Monday night.

The point is that the contagion has been contained (so far), albeit in the case of Greece, at an extremely high price.