Off Topic UK / EU Future

[Leo]

The whole question of a future relationship with the EU seems muddled to me. Labour have now come down clearly in favour of A customs union - not THE customs union. They believe that will solve the Irish question as it will prevent there being a need for a customs border. I do not see that myself. Unless there is not only a customs union but also free trade then how can there be no border? Also if we are in A customs union does that allow us to do trade deals independently with non EU countries? All this begs the question as to whether the EU would want such a deal.
I am coming to believe that there is no middle ground in reality.
You are in the EU fully - have all its benefit and allits restrictions and obligations - or you are back to being a country on your own.
In that world you can conduct whatever trade deals you can achieve. Nobody can prevent you doing a deal with a third party - but equally nobody is obliged to do a deal that is especially favourable. We would be akin to Japan or Australia - a nation that simply trades in the world.
Personally I know which of the two scenarios I prefer but what I cannot understand is any of the fudge models in between. Does any politician really believe there is a middle ground or are they just afraid to tell us the truth?

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

The whole question of a future relationship with the EU seems muddled to me. Labour have now come down clearly in favour of A customs union - not THE customs union. They believe that will solve the Irish question as it will prevent there being a need for a customs border. I do not see that myself. Unless there is not only a customs union but also free trade then how can there be no border? Also if we are in A customs union does that allow us to do trade deals independently with non EU countries? All this begs the question as to whether the EU would want such a deal.
I am coming to believe that there is no middle ground in reality.
You are in the EU fully - have all its benefit and allits restrictions and obligations - or you are back to being a country on your own.
In that world you can conduct whatever trade deals you can achieve. Nobody can prevent you doing a deal with a third party - but equally nobody is obliged to do a deal that is especially favourable. We would be akin to Japan or Australia - a nation that simply trades in the world.
Personally I know which of the two scenarios I prefer but what I cannot understand is any of the fudge models in between. Does any politician really believe there is a middle ground or are they just afraid to tell us the truth?

Japan is currently in talks with the EU about a trade deal that could have serious repercussions for the car manufacturers in the UK. Australia have said they would like a deal with the UK, but they are also in talks with the EU, and there are problems over quoters. If only the UK had worked out what it wanted and was achievable before triggering article 50 it would not be in the current chaos. Numbers in the Commons are not going to help the government, so what will happen if the plans are turned down is impossible to say. I said the other day that the outlook would change but it is happening far quicker than I thought.

 

[Leo]

Japan is currently in talks with the EU about a trade deal that could have serious repercussions for the car manufacturers in the UK. Australia have said they would like a deal with the UK, but they are also in talks with the EU, and there are problems over quoters. If only the UK had worked out what it wanted and was achievable before triggering article 50 it would not be in the current chaos. Numbers in the Commons are not going to help the government, so what will happen if the plans are turned down is impossible to say. I said the other day that the outlook would change but it is happening far quicker than I thought.

I don't think triggering article 50 was the issue. The referendum result is the issue. I cannot see any post referendum result that works for the
UK

 

[Leo]

Was Theresa May's speech yesterday helpful?
She seemed a little more conciliatory but I am not confident the EU will accept many of the things she proposes.
In particular the EU's suggestion that the UK could have a border down the Irish Sea seems totally out of bounds.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

Was Theresa May's speech yesterday helpful?
She seemed a little more conciliatory but I am not confident the EU will accept many of the things she proposes.
In particular the EU's suggestion that the UK could have a border down the Irish Sea seems totally out of bounds.

It was helpful in the sense that she has admitted that it is not simple as some of her Ministers had portrayed it. It did show up the folly of the whole exercise. Drive the EMA out of the country with a huge loss of income, then say we will pay to have some sort of membership. A double cost that could have been avoided This speech was designed to hold the warring factions of the Tory party together, not to provide any further detail on how to deal with the Irish border problem. She has agreed that if there is not a solution to that problem, the fall back position is the one that the EU put forward. Remember the DUP voted against the GFA, and would love to see it scrapped. Because it was written into International law it cannot be, so she is caught between allowing the customs union and single market to continue in the whole of Ireland, or giving in to the DUP and saying if that is is the case it will have to operate throughout the whole UK. We should not forget that it is the UK leaving through choice and has to come up with solutions, although at one point I did think she was asking for ideas on how to get out of this current situation.

 

[Leo]

I disagree with your "fall back was agreed" statement. In December it was specifically stated that no border in the Irish Sea can be acceptable. The EU have simply got that wrong. That would not only split NI from the rest of the UK but would almost certainly lead Scotland to Independence. As she said Wednesday NO British PM would ever agree to that.
International Law - like all laws can be changed. A replacement for the Good Friday Agreement may become necessary if no other solution than a border between the two Irelands can be found.
I do wish we could have debates without Party politics. It is not just the DUP (although they are a very convenient scapegoat for everything unpleasant). NI has not shown any desire to become independent from the UK - that is a majority position of the 1.8m N Irish. A border in the Irish Sea and letting the two Irelands be in the customs union and single market with the rest of the UK outside it effectively abandons NI to the wishes of their minority. It wont happen. If NI wants to be independent or join with Ireland they will make that known and no doubt call for their own referendum. I have seen no such calls. That has nothing to do with the DUP.
The UK did choose to leave - and will suffer the consequences but to pretend that the UK is solely responsible for solutions is nonsense. It takes two to find a compromise. So far the EU has shown no willingness to compromise on anything. Fair enough - they are playing hardball as is their right. However that could lead to a deal which is worse for all.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

Can you tell me what she did agree to in December over the border issue?

 

[Leo]

Can you tell me what she did agree to in December over the border issue?

Not in three words but you can look it up. Do you not remember an agreement was expected but it was delayed 24 hours because of the Irish Sea issue?

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

This what both sides agreed to in December. So the first part in bold puts the ball firmly into the UK 's hands, and the second part in bold is the outcome after the DUP objections. Since this was produced both sides could convert it into legal text. The EU have and the UK haven't.

 

[Leo]

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

This what both sides agreed to in December. So the first part in bold puts the ball firmly into the UK 's hands, and the second part in bold is the outcome after the DUP objections. Since this was produced both sides could convert it into legal text. The EU have and the UK haven't.

Exactly. So the debate is on what full alignment means. The case where the UK and Northern Ireland could be separated was not allowed. It was a deliberate fudge as we all know but it was done to prevent precisely what the EU are now trying.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

The UK government took note of the DUPs objections to there being a different arrangement for NI and the rest of the UK. What was agreed was that if there were no agreement on how to solve the problem of the border, then the UK as a whole would maintain its association with the customs union and internal market. A day or two after this had been agreed, and the extreme Brexiteers realised what had been signed up to, David Davis attempted to say that that this was an agreement that could be broken or a statement of intent. It was clear to the likes of JRM and his friends exactly what was thought acceptable by those in the discussions was leading them to a place that changed little. It is not a usage of words that is the problem, but the failure of the UK government to come up with something that the country as a whole can get behind, although I suspect that is impossible. It is a problem for both of the main parties as the leadership in both do not really want to go down the road they have been pushed onto.
The speech that May made was a clear attempt to move the expectations of some while at the same time trying to keep her party together. How long do you expect the truce to last? My expectation is not very long.

 

[Leo]

The internal squabbles of the Tories and the ineptitude of Labour are clear but not really relevant.
As TM said the other day no British PM is going to agree to split the UK down the Irish Sea and if the EU think it is going to happen they will prove wrong. The trouble is nobody is willing to compromise to find a solution.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

The internal squabbles of the Tories and the ineptitude of Labour are clear but not really relevant.
As TM said the other day no British PM is going to agree to split the UK down the Irish Sea and if the EU think it is going to happen they will prove wrong. The trouble is nobody is willing to compromise to find a solution.

I cannot agree that the internal squabbles of both parties are not relevant. If either of them made a clear commitment to staying in the customs union and internal market, then the Irish problem would disappear, providing they were in power. The Labour party are moving in that direction with their change of policy, but they are not in power. The Tories have moved quite a step towards it by saying they wish to replicate all of the rules, but to try and keep the extremists on board will not finally commit to it in plain language. At the end of the day it will come down to the moderates of the Tory party to swallow hard and support the government, or stick to their long held views and vote for what they believe is best for the country.

 

[Deleted.......]

The internal squabbles of the Tories and the ineptitude of Labour are clear but not really relevant.
As TM said the other day no British PM is going to agree to split the UK down the Irish Sea and if the EU think it is going to happen they will prove wrong. The trouble is nobody is willing to compromise to find a solution.

I think the Tory party squabbles are relevant and the reason we got into this whole bloomin' shambles to start with. She is trying desperately to focus on Damage limitation and struggling to get everyone in board. Unfortunately the Conservative Party's future appears to matter more than the future of the UK. I have no doubt it would be exactly the same under a disunited Labour Party.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

I think the Tory party squabbles are relevant and the reason we got into this whole bloomin' shambles to start with. She is trying desperately to focus on Damage limitation and struggling to get everyone in board. Unfortunately the Conservative Party's future appears to matter more than the future of the UK. I have no doubt it would be exactly the same under a disunited Labour Party.

I agree 100% with this. It seems a great shame that both parties are putting their own fortunes ahead of the welfare of the country. I cannot trust either of them to do what is the right thing.

 

[Deleted.......]

.

 

[Leo]

How we got into this mess is now ancient history - how can that be relevant today?
I also think it is naive to think that trying to create a united party to achieve what you want is putting party above country - but hey, that is a common expression these days so let's use it.
The real issue is that nobody knows how to achieve a brexit - partly because neither Labour nor the Tories wanted it.
Labour have no idea but have switched from anti customs union to pro customs union - but without a clue how to achieve it as some of their policies are red lined by the EU and there is a cat in hell's chance they will get their half baked idea.
The Tories are just as bad - but recognise that we cannot be in the customs union or single market - but have to try to persuade the EU to create a bespoke deal.
The EU though are totally inflexible and say there is no bespoke deal and their four pillars are sacrosanct.
If they stick to that then there can be no deal. No deal means an Irish border so that will have to be dealt with.

Instead of criticising what the parties are failing to do - which is easy but sterile, I would like to see someone on here outline what they believe is both achievable with the EU and with the British voter. I am coming to the reluctant opinion that there are only two options - crawl back into the EU or leave it totally. I cannot see either the EU or UK compromising on enough to create a viable half way house. So come on somebody and tell us what they think can be achieved.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

I don't really understand how you can try to divorce the situation from what is happening in Westminster. The whole mess is in the hands of one political party and it is up to them to try and extricate the country from the rules and regulations that they say they don't like. Having said that they have to provide answers that they can persuade their own MPs as well as the opposition to accept. Do the voters actually know what they want? The polls suggest that they do not. There is only one way of finding out, to present them with a choice at a referendum or general election, but how could you then ensure that the message is not clouded by spin as the last referendum was. The last general election showed that there is no conviction that our politicians deserve the trust of the public at large, and the message I get is that it is a plague on both your houses. Yet the country is being taken on a route that will change it for a generation, not one that can be reversed after five years.
Why should the EU alter something that they believe in? It is an organization that has built it's rule book around cooperation between sovereign countries. There could well be some minor bolt on regulations, but to ask for big changes to suit a country that has said it doesn't want to abide by those rules makes no sense whatsoever. Far to often I read that the EU is being held to blame for not accommodating all of the wishes of the UK, but large organizations change a little bit at a time, they don't go in for massive upheavals.
So where does it go from here. The red lines have boxed us in. They were not very sensible to start with, but now we see from recent speeches that they are being down graded. Maybe leave various branches, but then pay to keep access seems to be a new idea. Some parts we will not have use of, but how badly that would effect us remains to be seen. A Canada type trade deal seems likely without all the pluses, but that could be five years down the line to set up. NI is still a major hurdle to clear, made even more difficult without an assembly in place. I have no idea how to solve that, but to say that the GFA agreement can be renegotiated would be the ultimate failure of political will. We are heading towards a fudge of something that looks like a withdrawal, but in truth will be something similar to staying in large part. The softest of soft Brexits, although the whole thing could come crashing down in Westminster.

 

[Leo]

I don't really understand how you can try to divorce the situation from what is happening in Westminster. The whole mess is in the hands of one political party and it is up to them to try and extricate the country from the rules and regulations that they say they don't like. Having said that they have to provide answers that they can persuade their own MPs as well as the opposition to accept. Do the voters actually know what they want? The polls suggest that they do not. There is only one way of finding out, to present them with a choice at a referendum or general election, but how could you then ensure that the message is not clouded by spin as the last referendum was. The last general election showed that there is no conviction that our politicians deserve the trust of the public at large, and the message I get is that it is a plague on both your houses. Yet the country is being taken on a route that will change it for a generation, not one that can be reversed after five years.
Why should the EU alter something that they believe in? It is an organization that has built it's rule book around cooperation between sovereign countries. There could well be some minor bolt on regulations, but to ask for big changes to suit a country that has said it doesn't want to abide by those rules makes no sense whatsoever. Far to often I read that the EU is being held to blame for not accommodating all of the wishes of the UK, but large organizations change a little bit at a time, they don't go in for massive upheavals.
So where does it go from here. The red lines have boxed us in. They were not very sensible to start with, but now we see from recent speeches that they are being down graded. Maybe leave various branches, but then pay to keep access seems to be a new idea. Some parts we will not have use of, but how badly that would effect us remains to be seen. A Canada type trade deal seems likely without all the pluses, but that could be five years down the line to set up. NI is still a major hurdle to clear, made even more difficult without an assembly in place. I have no idea how to solve that, but to say that the GFA agreement can be renegotiated would be the ultimate failure of political will. We are heading towards a fudge of something that looks like a withdrawal, but in truth will be something similar to staying in large part. The softest of soft Brexits, although the whole thing could come crashing down in Westminster.

The trouble is we do not know what is happening in Westminster. We never will. So all I am saying is that on a board like this I do not see what relevance their thinking is - because we only know what leaks and the like reveal.
No referendum or election can now be held in time to change anything. In any event how do you extract multifaceted detail out of this whole mess and put it in a reasonable form to the electorate. They have shown they cannot even deal with a simple binary choice.
As a result I - personally - am not interested in what the government or opposition think. They will lie. If they even know. In the absence of that I would be interested to know what people who post here think.
Given that the dice is cast and we are leaving it is interesting to see whether people now think we should go for a Norway style solution (adjusted for us of course) or whether they feel that both sides are not capable of compromising and thus a hard brexit ensues.
I begin to lean towards a totally hard brexit.

 

[Flittonhorn]

I personally think that both sides need their heads banging together. Europe is already a unit of divisions and will never all agree on any deal for the UK in whatever form it takes. The talks between Cameron and Europe were a waste of time, Europe never thought we would vote to leave and Cameron did not want to leave so neither side tried to correct things for the consensus of the British people.
The deficit in the EU budget will make many bitter on our withdrawl further diminishing the prospect of an "amicable" deal and when you look ahead at the Countries lined up to enter the EU it is patently obvious the attraction for them is financial.
Both sides lose out over this and although you can not please the majority of the people most of the time the blame for this lies squarely at the feet of the elected people who have put both Europe and the Uk into this situation.
Am I anti European no, but I do resent the amount of my tax payers money that Europe wastes daily on needless bureaucracy that could improve the lives of all Europeans. I also resent that some countries are net recievers of finance of the EU. All should be contributing to a system they signed up for, where is their motivation to change a system that benefits them so much yet burdens other members.
The majority of Uk citizens ( just) voted to leave the EU, so perhaps they should also shoulder some of the blame for this mess as much as the politicians who lets face it, are now on a no win situation no matter what they can and can not negotiate regardless of their political leaning.